As I read this headline today, “Google co-founder Larry Page cuts business ties with California as state’s new billionaires’ tax looms,” I felt revulsion as many others should. What is wrong with these people, I thought.
For decades, California has been the most productive wealth-creation engine in modern history. Its universities, public infrastructure, legal system, workforce, and culture built the foundation that allowed tech moguls to amass fortunes measured not in millions, but in tens and hundreds of billions. And yet, when the state dares to ask for a little more in return, some of these same figures suddenly wrap themselves in the language of victimhood—and threaten to flee.
That isn’t smart business. It’s ingratitude. And it’s profoundly unpatriotic. Real patriotism isn’t about shopping for the lowest tax rate once you’ve amassed billions. It’s about reinvesting in the place that gave you the chance to make your fortune.
Silicon Valley didn’t emerge from a vacuum. It was built on taxpayer-funded research, publicly educated engineers, immigration policies that attracted global talent, venture financing, and an environment that tolerated risk and failure. California took the gamble. The entrepreneurs took the upside. Walking away once the state asks for a tiny portion of the success is immoral.
Their argument is often framed as “punishing success.” But no one is asking billionaires to give up their success. They’re being asked to contribute a tiny fraction of it to the society that enabled it. When someone worth $50 billion complains about taxes, it’s fair to ask: how much more do you actually need?
There’s another irony here. These same tech leaders often speak passionately about innovation, progress, and improving the world. They invest in moonshots, climate tech, health products, and futuristic cities. But when faced with very real existing problems—housing shortages, homelessness, underfunded schools, crumbling infrastructure—they balk. Apparently, fixing society is only appealing when it comes with naming rights.
Leaving California over taxes isn’t just a financial decision; it’s a values statement. It says that personal accumulation matters more than civic responsibility. That by benefiting from a system doesn’t obligate you to sustain it.
I’m not suggesting tech moguls owe everything they have to California. But they owe enough to help the less fortunate and enough to strengthen the system that worked so well for them. Enough to stay and fix what’s broken instead of abandoning it.
What kind of a legacy do they leave? How will they be remebered by future generations, by their chidren, by leaving instead of staying and contributing? Apparently they value their money over legacy and that makes them sad failures in many of our eyes.