That these people thought they found a loophole around the consequences of public markets with their special voting shares is worthy of zero consideration.
Sounds like California gets what it wants either way? It's Meta that's getting used as Zuck's wallet.
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
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’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.”
“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.
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.
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.