California's Wealth Tax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wealth tax is on individuals, not companies.

Individuals who avoid taxes by holding money in stocks, then take out loans to live on. Bill Ackerman describes the loop hole.

It's not a loophole. Stock equity loans are not income. It's debt and not taxed. And there is nothing stopping you from doing this as well. Anyone can buy stocks, let them appreciate over time (if you know what you're doing), and then take out an equity loan on that stock. You don't need millions. Call your broker and inquire.

Ackerman has also endorsed the notion that loan proceeds in excess of basis of stock serving as collateral should be taxed as income.

But what about those of us that have "anger equity"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Switzerland has Cantonal-level wealth taxes that bite quite low (around 50K-200K taxable net worth after deductions). This translates to about 50% of the population paying wealth taxes each year.

https://thepoorswiss.com/wealth-tax/

No one is arguing that Switzerland is bad for business.

Switzerland also keeps out nearly all immigrants, and had a total population that is not much more than the population of Los Angeles. They also don’t have a startup culture and new groundshaking companies almost never come out of Switzerland.

Ludicrous comparison, made by someone with no understanding of economics.

40% of the Swiss population is foreign born (vs. 16% in the US). Switzerland is highly reliant on immigrant labor, both skilled and unskilled.

I agree that Switzerland needs foreign labor (just look at any hospital, full of doctors and nurses from the EU). That being said, a good junk of "foreign born" people are actually children born there since Switzerland doesn't have jus sanguinis.

But the Swiss wealth tax works because their overall taxes are pretty low (on federal / cantonal levels, not just the wealth tax) and tax revenue is responsibly managed. California doesn't have either of that.

Also, whatever they propose isn't going to pass anyway, given how Prop 15 didn't pass 5 years ago. California isn't that progressive.

Nevertheless, the Google guys have cut their ties.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/09/technology/google-founders-california-wealth-tax.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. It is idiotic. Among other profound issues, it will destroy the startup ecosystem that is making and has made the US into a global technology powerhouse because it doesn’t differentiate between realized and unrealized gains. So, a young person who has no hard assets whatsoever but who founds a company that gets paper-valued at (say) 5 billion to justify a $500m cash investment will suddenly have a completely unpayable tax bill the day after closing a successful funding round. This would have killed every single transformative technology of the last 30 years in the cradle.

As far as I can tell, the people supporting this want just want to cede every single successful market segment the US has created to Chinese dominance. It is short-sighted and utterly stupid. I mean, it’s stupid to the point where the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if the CCP is funneling money into social media to drive up support for it, so the US startup market will be killed off. I don’t really think that, but it has crossed my mind.

No, no it won't. Only greedy broligarchs like Larry Page will flee. I don't see Hollywood celebrities complaining.

It really is something to spend more to leave a state to avoid paying taxes, then paying the damn taxes. He has more money than he can ever spend. He deserves to live in Florida.

Let them eat cake!

[Anonymous]

If you have hundreds of millions to spend on buying elected officials, you can pay some more in taxes. At least as much as your assistant pays.

The billionaires really have to read the room here. Trump is already taking stock in these companies - it would not be that far a stretch to just take it all. Nine times out of 10 the founders are just hype men and fundraisers and don’t actually do anything. You could find a reasonably paid, reasonably intelligent chimp to manage the people who do the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you have hundreds of millions to spend on buying elected officials, you can pay some more in taxes. At least as much as your assistant pays.

The billionaires really have to read the room here. Trump is already taking stock in these companies - it would not be that far a stretch to just take it all. Nine times out of 10 the founders are just hype men and fundraisers and don’t actually do anything. You could find a reasonably paid, reasonably intelligent chimp to manage the people who do the work.

Exactly. They've made so much off insider trading and government contracts off this administration this year they can pay the piper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think there should be so many billionaires but this seems so ludicrous.

1. People can vote to say we are taking 5% of your all your wealth in 2025? Is there a limit, can voters get enough signatures to vote for taking 10% more in 2030 of every billionaire's wealth?

2. How do you even value all of someone's assets over a billion? They are all mandated to inform the government of every last penny they have? Many billionaires have assets like art which is hard to value or non-liquid assets.

These problems disappear of billionaires don't exist. "Too rich to tax" is an insane philosophy.

+1. These people owe their wealth to living in this country. They shouldn’t be able to hoard it for themselves. Or else they can just move to another country that will let them keep it all, I’m sure there are some lovely places.

+2 Millionaires are gluttons.

We're talking about billionaires and decabillionaires and hectabillionaires

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Socialism works until you run out of other people's money. And then the socialists will come after yours.

Capitalism works until you run out of other people's money. Then the proletariat will come for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why it's a big deal. It's a onetime tax and it's likely not even half of their portfolio appreciation for one year. Assuming the supposed 10% increase year on year.

So if it successful then maybe they should tax everyone who has over a million in assets a one time tax of 5%. This is a slippery slope if it is legal to be able to get enough signatures to have a proposition appear on the ballot and then and have vote that arbitrarily a certain percentage of your money should be taken away.

That's a risk I'm willing to take.

The people of California already voted decades to exempt wealthy landowners from property tax, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. It is idiotic. Among other profound issues, it will destroy the startup ecosystem that is making and has made the US into a global technology powerhouse because it doesn’t differentiate between realized and unrealized gains. So, a young person who has no hard assets whatsoever but who founds a company that gets paper-valued at (say) 5 billion to justify a $500m cash investment will suddenly have a completely unpayable tax bill the day after closing a successful funding round. This would have killed every single transformative technology of the last 30 years in the cradle.

As far as I can tell, the people supporting this want just want to cede every single successful market segment the US has created to Chinese dominance. It is short-sighted and utterly stupid. I mean, it’s stupid to the point where the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if the CCP is funneling money into social media to drive up support for it, so the US startup market will be killed off. I don’t really think that, but it has crossed my mind.

Why would you value a company at $5B if it wasn't actually worth that much?

And the problem is completely avoidable, of, get this, the $5B ownership stake is spread across 5 or more people!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember Margaret Thatcher's line: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money".

Taxes drive behavior, and that behavior will be to avoid the tax one way or another, not to happily pay for endlessly expanding social welfare programs. To the extent that wealthy people become tax exiles from CA, the state will experience a net loss of income rather than any gains at all.

You would do well to recall that everyone who isn't already a billionaire or a billionaire simp knows that Margaret Thatcher is evil and dead.

[Anonymous]

How much in taxes do these guys actually pay in California? We know their federal taxes are down to single digit percentages because of how their income is structured and reduced by huge phantom deductions like depreciation. Beneficial Trusts own their big expenses like yachts, homes, art. They can time their distributions of capital.

[Anonymous]

All this "illiquid" blah blah is trivially solved by amending the law to allow payments in the form of stock or liens against future liquidation events.

Anyone arguing against the law based on illiquidity, instead of arguing for that amendment, is just being dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Switzerland has Cantonal-level wealth taxes that bite quite low (around 50K-200K taxable net worth after deductions). This translates to about 50% of the population paying wealth taxes each year.

https://thepoorswiss.com/wealth-tax/

No one is arguing that Switzerland is bad for business.

Switzerland also keeps out nearly all immigrants, and had a total population that is not much more than the population of Los Angeles. They also don’t have a startup culture and new groundshaking companies almost never come out of Switzerland.

Ludicrous comparison, made by someone with no understanding of economics.

40% of the Swiss population is foreign born (vs. 16% in the US). Switzerland is highly reliant on immigrant labor, both skilled and unskilled.

I agree that Switzerland needs foreign labor (just look at any hospital, full of doctors and nurses from the EU). That being said, a good junk of "foreign born" people are actually children born there since Switzerland doesn't have jus sanguinis.

But the Swiss wealth tax works because their overall taxes are pretty low (on federal / cantonal levels, not just the wealth tax) and tax revenue is responsibly managed. California doesn't have either of that.

Also, whatever they propose isn't going to pass anyway, given how Prop 15 didn't pass 5 years ago. California isn't that progressive.

Nevertheless, the Google guys have cut their ties.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/09/technology/google-founders-california-wealth-tax.html

Top tax brackets in Switzerland are very similar to the U.S. - 37% in Zurich, 39% in Basel, 43% in Geneva. And that’s before the wealth tax and mandatory pension contribution of 5% of income by the individual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Switzerland has Cantonal-level wealth taxes that bite quite low (around 50K-200K taxable net worth after deductions). This translates to about 50% of the population paying wealth taxes each year.

https://thepoorswiss.com/wealth-tax/

No one is arguing that Switzerland is bad for business.

Switzerland also keeps out nearly all immigrants, and had a total population that is not much more than the population of Los Angeles. They also don’t have a startup culture and new groundshaking companies almost never come out of Switzerland.

Ludicrous comparison, made by someone with no understanding of economics.

40% of the Swiss population is foreign born (vs. 16% in the US). Switzerland is highly reliant on immigrant labor, both skilled and unskilled.

I agree that Switzerland needs foreign labor (just look at any hospital, full of doctors and nurses from the EU). That being said, a good junk of "foreign born" people are actually children born there since Switzerland doesn't have jus sanguinis.

But the Swiss wealth tax works because their overall taxes are pretty low (on federal / cantonal levels, not just the wealth tax) and tax revenue is responsibly managed. California doesn't have either of that.

Also, whatever they propose isn't going to pass anyway, given how Prop 15 didn't pass 5 years ago. California isn't that progressive.

Nevertheless, the Google guys have cut their ties.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/09/technology/google-founders-california-wealth-tax.html

Top tax brackets in Switzerland are very similar to the U.S. - 37% in Zurich, 39% in Basel, 43% in Geneva. And that’s before the wealth tax and mandatory pension contribution of 5% of income by the individual.

Switzerland has no capital gains tax. The wealth tax is a kind of substitute for that.

[Anonymous]

Why does someone with $900 million not pay this tax?