We'll lose their income (and other tax revenue) forever. You can argue that Zuck can/should pay higher taxes, but California's budget is already disproportionately dependent on a relatively small # of people. In practice, scaring them off for a one-off boon feels like a huge own goal (especially the way prop 40 punishes founders with voting shares). And we're losing that permanent revenue that used to go to the general fund for prop 40, which is designed to funnel money to a single industry
As much as I support LVT, how does it have to do with billionaire startup founders? They don't have zero real estate, but they're not exactly real estate moguls either. It's also unclear how tech startups derive their value from land, given that it's presumably all tied up in IP and network effects. Even "datacenters" seem dubious given that the land they sit on is probably dirt cheap, it's the GPUs that's worth money.
California’s budget and residential cost problems are both caused by its ridiculous property taxes scheme.
It’s an ultra-high productivity region which naturally drives up land rents, and California has simply opted out of collecting those rents, which then perversely amplifies the land values even further.
The “this” that LVT solves is not “billionaires exist,” it’s “a state can be the most productive place in the world and end up with spiraling COL and revenues ultra-concentrated in just a few individuals.”
