For those that aren't as keen with some of the nuances of what is going on here, Kylan Scanlon made a really handy short explaining it here: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6gA0OROwlgk
Is the opposition to the wealth tax about the money or the control of the company? If Zuck sells shares to pay the tax, what percentage does his controlling shares drop. I wonder if these special shares are specifically non voting rather than to save him money?
Heh, skimmed a little too fast, but it's interesting that the progressive/Bernie Sanders crowd skip over the control issue when pushing the wealth tax. I think it was Sergey Brin that mentioned control as well when he moved to the Nevada side of Tahoe.
Why is it an issue? Is it really so socially mandatory that founders get to maintain absolute control over public companies? The super-shares approach that Sergey took was clearly abusive anyway.
The solution to this is to not take your company 'Public'. Actions/choices have consequences/tradeoffs for most people.
That these people thought they found a loophole around the consequences of public markets with their special voting shares is worthy of zero consideration.
the reason bay area is so powerful is the network of all the smart people there, capital is a part of it but i think the concentration of smart people is much more important so this notion of capital flight because of taxes doesn't really convince me much. Zuckerberg wants to be near meta AI researchers / engineers in the bay area not live in austin and i'm sure he'll pay taxes in order to do that (unless he finds loopholes).
"Meta strikes deal with Zuckerberg to help him foot billionaire tax bill" is actual title. Zuckerberg is staying, and like all the billionaires he doesn't have that wealth sitting around in a big stack of $100 bills.
> Under the deal, Zuckerberg will receive new shares that could be sold to potentially foot a multibillion-dollar tax bill in the event that California passes a one-off billionaire tax.
Sounds like California gets what it wants either way? It's Meta that's getting used as Zuck's wallet.
> This will allow Zuckerberg to sell some of this new class C shares to pay a potential tax bill, without diluting his control of the company.
Yes while the article is a bit click-bait, "protect him from California wealth tax" sounds like he found some loop hole for not paying, it clearly says that it is about keeping control in the company and not avoiding to pay ...
> California is the big loser here (as expected).
Sad to see such a superficial and full of confirmation bias comment on HN. I am not taking position, I am not American and I don't think HN is the place for that anyway ... But please read the article before commenting
This is some of the most embarrassing shit ever. Man with more money than God is too selfish to pay some taxes. Needs giant corporation to give him even more money to keep him from throwing a fit and moving away from where his job is that made him unimaginably rich. The entitlement of these billionaires is boundless. Take all their fucking money. They don't deserve it.
I'm actually fine with this? He owns a good chunk of that corporation so he's paying the tax either way. And other shareholders can decide whether it's worth it to them to help him pay the tax.
> And other shareholders can decide whether it's worth it to them to help him pay the tax.
Not in Meta's case. Facebook voting rights are set up so that Zuck always controls a majority of the votes (even if he doesn't control a majority of the shares). Some stocks are more equal than others.
So it’s fine for the general public to decide that he doesn’t deserve to keep shares of his company, but it’s a bad thing that he offered portions of the company to the general public for purchase with conditions to ensure to the companies grows based on his priorities?
Nobody had to buy shares in Facebook.
In fact, Californians have to hope that there are enough people out there willing to buy the ~8-10 billion worth of shares he needs to sell to cover the wealth tax, if it gets imposed on him.
> Californians will vote early next month on Proposition 40, a one-off 5% tax on the roughly 250 billionaires who live in the state.
If you have $1 billion and you're going to get taxed $50 million in California, why not spend $1 million to buy a house in some other state and move there on paper before the tax goes into effect?
I listened to an Ezra Klein podcast episode where he talked about this.
I’m paraphrasing heavily but it went something like, “a friend complained that he had to live in Florida 50% of the year to avoid paying New York taxes and he hates Florida. I thought that the point of having all of that money was living the lifestyle you wanted. It seemed like the tax avoidance had become more important than personal happiness.”
I don’t hate taxes per se but I hate that the government will take tax dollars earmarked for one purpose, which is how they got the tax approved by the voters in the first place, and move it to the general fund where they can spend it on their pet project.
For those that aren't as keen with some of the nuances of what is going on here, Kylan Scanlon made a really handy short explaining it here: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6gA0OROwlgk
Is the opposition to the wealth tax about the money or the control of the company? If Zuck sells shares to pay the tax, what percentage does his controlling shares drop. I wonder if these special shares are specifically non voting rather than to save him money?
He wouldn't have to sell shares to pay the tax. He can easily borrow the money if he needs to.
The article is about this. 7th sentence.
Heh, skimmed a little too fast, but it's interesting that the progressive/Bernie Sanders crowd skip over the control issue when pushing the wealth tax. I think it was Sergey Brin that mentioned control as well when he moved to the Nevada side of Tahoe.
Why is it an issue? Is it really so socially mandatory that founders get to maintain absolute control over public companies? The super-shares approach that Sergey took was clearly abusive anyway.
The solution to this is to not take your company 'Public'. Actions/choices have consequences/tradeoffs for most people.
That these people thought they found a loophole around the consequences of public markets with their special voting shares is worthy of zero consideration.
Feel free to give it "zero consideration", whatever that means. They will continue to sell shares without voting rights to people willing to buy them.
the reason bay area is so powerful is the network of all the smart people there, capital is a part of it but i think the concentration of smart people is much more important so this notion of capital flight because of taxes doesn't really convince me much. Zuckerberg wants to be near meta AI researchers / engineers in the bay area not live in austin and i'm sure he'll pay taxes in order to do that (unless he finds loopholes).
"Meta strikes deal with Zuckerberg to help him foot billionaire tax bill" is actual title. Zuckerberg is staying, and like all the billionaires he doesn't have that wealth sitting around in a big stack of $100 bills.
California is the big loser here (as expected).
> Under the deal, Zuckerberg will receive new shares that could be sold to potentially foot a multibillion-dollar tax bill in the event that California passes a one-off billionaire tax.
Sounds like California gets what it wants either way? It's Meta that's getting used as Zuck's wallet.
> This will allow Zuckerberg to sell some of this new class C shares to pay a potential tax bill, without diluting his control of the company.
Yes while the article is a bit click-bait, "protect him from California wealth tax" sounds like he found some loop hole for not paying, it clearly says that it is about keeping control in the company and not avoiding to pay ...
> California is the big loser here (as expected).
Sad to see such a superficial and full of confirmation bias comment on HN. I am not taking position, I am not American and I don't think HN is the place for that anyway ... But please read the article before commenting
I’m not British, but The Guardian loves putting a certain spin of vilification on just about everything Right-coded.
he will be selling his stock to pay. literally nobody in this thread bothered to read the ` minute article
This is some of the most embarrassing shit ever. Man with more money than God is too selfish to pay some taxes. Needs giant corporation to give him even more money to keep him from throwing a fit and moving away from where his job is that made him unimaginably rich. The entitlement of these billionaires is boundless. Take all their fucking money. They don't deserve it.
I'm actually fine with this? He owns a good chunk of that corporation so he's paying the tax either way. And other shareholders can decide whether it's worth it to them to help him pay the tax.
> And other shareholders can decide whether it's worth it to them to help him pay the tax.
Not in Meta's case. Facebook voting rights are set up so that Zuck always controls a majority of the votes (even if he doesn't control a majority of the shares). Some stocks are more equal than others.
So it’s fine for the general public to decide that he doesn’t deserve to keep shares of his company, but it’s a bad thing that he offered portions of the company to the general public for purchase with conditions to ensure to the companies grows based on his priorities?
Nobody had to buy shares in Facebook.
In fact, Californians have to hope that there are enough people out there willing to buy the ~8-10 billion worth of shares he needs to sell to cover the wealth tax, if it gets imposed on him.
They can decide by selling their shares. This will hurt Zuck's net worth.
“The entitlement of these billionaires…”
“Take all their fucking money”…
There’s a population that seems disproportionately entitled, and Zuck (as much as I can’t stand him or his businesses) isn’t among them.
> Californians will vote early next month on Proposition 40, a one-off 5% tax on the roughly 250 billionaires who live in the state.
If you have $1 billion and you're going to get taxed $50 million in California, why not spend $1 million to buy a house in some other state and move there on paper before the tax goes into effect?
I listened to an Ezra Klein podcast episode where he talked about this.
I’m paraphrasing heavily but it went something like, “a friend complained that he had to live in Florida 50% of the year to avoid paying New York taxes and he hates Florida. I thought that the point of having all of that money was living the lifestyle you wanted. It seemed like the tax avoidance had become more important than personal happiness.”
I never understood the hate for taxes. As if people like Zuckerberg could thrive in a warzone.
I don’t hate taxes per se but I hate that the government will take tax dollars earmarked for one purpose, which is how they got the tax approved by the voters in the first place, and move it to the general fund where they can spend it on their pet project.
This is no different than any other broken campaign promise, and is indeed a largely unsolved problem in the US at least.
Some people think they have payed plenty of taxes and dont think additional taxes will be put to good use
And while they certainly have a right to think this, doing so has no effect on their tax liability.
People also have the right to move and that does affect tax liability
sure it does. People vote to approve taxes and elect their government.
The tax applies retroactively to the 2026 tax year, even if you moved out sometime this year.
Because it's selfish and entitled?
Indeed. Why not commit tax fraud?