Steven Spielberg to escape California ahead of proposed wealth tax

Always in His Presence · Friday at 3:09 PM

rambot said:
What I made is an "analogy" that compares two different things: my wealth and spending ratio to another person's wealth spending ratio.

right - and I was bringing reality - would you purchase a slurpee (or I will add anything) if it would cost you 5% of your wealth that you worked for and already pay taxes on?

Especially since you could get one for just the cost of the item.

Yes or no?

Always in His Presence · Friday at 3:10 PM

rambot said:
Not directed at a poster but in the political world, there are also a LOT of people who are totally unaware that their behaviour is an embarrassing.

That is true - also not directed at a poster - like claiming the glass is being filled, when it is leaking more water than what is being place into it.

Always in His Presence · Friday at 3:11 PM

GoldenBoy89 said:
If you’d just cut back on the snark a bit you might spare yourself some of this constant embarrassment.

I'm addressing facts - I am not the one making things personal

again

rambot · Friday at 3:13 PM

Always in His Presence said:
right - and I was bringing reality - would you purchase a slurpee (or I will add anything) if it would cost you 5% of your wealth that you worked for and already pay taxes on?

Especially since you could get one for just the cost of the item.

Yes or no?

What exactly does this have, really at all, to do with my previous point?

And to make sure I'm understanding you: 5% of my wealth is about 18Gs...to keep it simple.

You are asking if I would buy a slurpee for that much money?

Always in His Presence · Friday at 3:16 PM

rambot said:
What exactly does this have, really at all, to do with my previous point?

And to make sure I'm understanding you: 5% of my wealth is about 18Gs...to keep it simple.

You are asking if I would buy a slurpee for that much money?

I am asking if you would buy the item (slurpee or otherwise) if it cost you an additional 18Gs. Especially when you can purchase the same item without the additional costs.

BTW - your 18gs would only be 13,154.81 American dollars.

rambot · Friday at 3:22 PM

Always in His Presence said:
That is true - also not directed at a poster - like claiming the glass is being filled, when it is leaking more water than what is being place into it.

I'll be the first to admit that went completely over my head.

rambot · Friday at 3:24 PM

Always in His Presence said:
I am asking if you would buy the item (slurpee or otherwise) if it cost you an additional 18Gs. Especially when you can purchase the same item without the additional costs.

Ok. And what does THAT question have to do with my original point that you attempted to address? Because nothing seems to be the answer

probinson · Friday at 4:03 PM

rambot said:
Sos law.

Huh? You've officially confused both me and my AI chatbots, none of which have any idea what "Sos law" is or means.

rambot said:
My point is that I'm not convinced it IS a consideration for billionaires outside of performative complaining.

Why would you think that? No one wants to spend any more money than they have to on something no matter how much money they have. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

rambot said:
But more to the point, if it is a consideration for them, it would be FAAAAAAAAR down the list and that they actually don't NEED to consider it.

Depends on the impact of the tax. The proposed wealth tax in California would require 5% of one's net worth. If you have exactly one billion dollars in net worth, that would be 5 million dollars. Now I know your response is going to be, "Oh no! Now they only have $995,000,000 to survive on!", but why on earth would anyone want to pay a $5,000,000 tax if they didn't have to, regardless of their ability to absorb it?

The reasons Spielberg is moving according to the article is to be close to family. So sure, a billionaire may be willing to absorb the 5% wealth tax if they want to live close to their family in California. But what if they have no roots in California? Why is it so hard for you to believe that a billionaire would in fact be cornered about paying millions of dollars in taxes that they would not have to pay elsewhere?

rambot said:
If they WANT a house, what would stop them from buying it?

Nothing. We've already established that they can buy whatever they want. But if it comes down to choice A or B with equal benefits but choice A will cost them 5 million dollars more, it might just make choice B look a little more appealing.

rambot said:
1) A lot of people make decisions on more than just the cost of things.

To that, I say, "Duh." Of course people make financial decisions based on more than just the cost of things. Quality, personal desire or preference, and perceived status are just a few of the countless reasons why people choose to buy things. But this really has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a billionaire might consider moving if forced to pay 5% of their net worth.

rambot said:
2) Me buying a slurpee could ALSO Be considered "Bad financial stewardship"...depending on how reasonable one is.

Good financial stewardship requires one to consider ALL factors that impact their finances. Sure, someone may want to live in California for a plethora of reasons that cause them to pay the 5% wealth tax. But equally, those other considerations may not be enough, and the 5% wealth tax could very well act as a deterrent. I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding that.

rambot said:
Keeping in mind that me buying a slurpee is the same "cost:wealth" ($2.50 : 350,000) ratio as a billionaire with 150,000,000,000 buying a million dollar home.

Yes, relative numbers can be vastly different and still have the same ratio. Isn't math cool?!

Fantine · Friday at 4:38 PM

Always in His Presence said:
Steven Spielberg to escape California ahead of proposed wealth tax

Hollywood legend Steven Spielberg is the latest billionaire to escape California ahead of a hefty proposed wealth tax. The director recently purchased a home in the iconic San Remo co-op in New York City overlooking Central Park. The move comes as other high-net worth individuals such as Meta's Mark Zuckerberg and Google co-founder Sergey Brin also fled the Golden State. The proposed Billionaire Tax Act has been floated as a possible motivation for the recent exodus. The much maligned proposal would see residents with a net worth of more than $1 billion pay a one-time tax worth five percent of their assets

It is a one-time tax based on 2025 wealth, so moving in 2026 does no California billionaires any good.

And if Steven Spielberg is looking for a tax haven, why is he moving to New York City, where Mamdani is considering similar policies.

Billionaires like Spielberg can afford to live where they want, and those involved in the creative arts often want to live in lively progressive areas where they are surrounded by new ideas.

Always in His Presence · Friday at 4:52 PM

Fantine said:
It is a one-time tax based on 2025 wealth, so moving in 2026 does no California billionaires any good.

And if Steven Spielberg is looking for a tax haven, why is he moving to New York City, where Mamdani is considering similar policies.

Billionaires like Spielberg can afford to live where they want, and those involved in the creative arts often want to live in lively progressive areas where they are surrounded by new ideas.

You would have to ask him -

Steven Spielberg leaves California for New York as wealth tax push spurs political battle

One of the most acclaimed and successful American filmmakers in history has left California for New York.

comana · Friday at 5:28 PM

Always in His Presence said:
You would have to ask him -

Steven Spielberg leaves California for New York as wealth tax push spurs political battle

One of the most acclaimed and successful American filmmakers in history has left California for New York.

“Steven’s move to the East Coast is both long-planned and driven purely by his and Kate Capshaw’s desire to be closer to their New York-based children and grandchildren," spokesperson Terry Press told the Los Angeles Times.”

Bradskii · Friday at 6:06 PM

Always in His Presence said:
You would have to ask him -

The Daily Mail should have asked him. And The Mail? Really? You're setting yourself up to fail if you use anything they write.

Pommer · Friday at 11:55 PM

Fantine said:
It is a one-time tax based on 2025 wealth, so moving in 2026 does no California billionaires any good.

And if Steven Spielberg is looking for a tax haven, why is he moving to New York City, where Mamdani is considering similar policies.

Billionaires like Spielberg can afford to live where they want, and those involved in the creative arts often want to live in lively progressive areas where they are surrounded by new ideas.

Rich people will always strive to STAY rich people, but a good chunk of Americans would be just fine if they only had half, but they fear being poor…like drive domestic cars, only one vacation/yr.
”I got mine!” must be a great feeling that many don’t want to share.
Why might that be?

Bradskii · 2026-02-21T00:24:56-0600

Always in His Presence said:
One of the most acclaimed and successful American filmmakers in history has left California for New York.

This might be a problem for you to understand, but people live where they want to live, assuming that they can afford to live there. I don't know what Spielberg is worth but my bet is that he can live absolutely anywhere he likes. And if it costs him x amount of dollars to stay in California or to move to NY then he ain't gonna worry about it.

I live in one of the most expensive suburbs in Sydney. Which means one of the most expensive in Australia. It costs us more living here than almost anywhere else in Oz. But if we moved, it would have nothing at all to do with the finances. It's irrelevant even for me. I'm absolutely certain that someone with Spielberg's money isn't at all concerned with money. You pass a certain point and it becomes more than you need, which means using him as an example of a gazillionaire moving from somewhere he wants to live because he's worried about his bank balance is...risible.

And you used the Daily Mail as the source of this 'argument'?

Pommer · 2026-02-21T00:31:12-0600

Bradskii said:
This might be a problem for you to understand, but people live where they want to live, assuming that they can afford to live there. I don't know what Spielberg is worth but my bet is that he can live absolutely anywhere he likes. And if it costs him x amount of dollars to stay in California or to move to NY then he ain't gonna worry about it.

I live in one of the most expensive suburbs in Sydney. Which means one of the most expensive in Australia. It costs us more living here than almost anywhere else in Oz. But if we moved, it would have nothing at all to do with the finances. It's irrelevant even for me. I'm absolutely certain that someone with Spielberg's money isn't at all concerned with money. You pass a certain point and it becomes more than you need, which means using him as an example of a gazillionaire moving from somewhere he wants to live because he's worried about his bank balance is...risible.

And you used the Daily Mail as the source of this 'argument'?

“Wealth” is when you don’t know how much you owe.

Nithavela · 2026-02-21T03:49:08-0600

probinson said:
Huh? You've officially confused both me and my AI chatbots, none of which have any idea what "Sos law" is or means.

What is So's Law -

There is a poster that brings it up - I googled it, can't find anything on it. Is it real, or a convenient made up term?

www.christianforums.com

It's basically a christian forum "meme" that, in contrast to Poe's law, never really made it off the site.

Aryeh Jay · 2026-02-21T05:05:42-0600

GoldenBoy89 said:
What could be scarier than a socialist Muslim?!

/s

A gay socialist Muslim.

Always in His Presence · 2026-02-21T09:48:56-0600

Bradskii said:
The Daily Mail should have asked him. And The Mail? Really? You're setting yourself up to fail if you use anything they write.

Bradskii said:
And you used the Daily Mail as the source of this 'argument'?

Perhaps you could open a thread and grace us with a list of acceptable sources. that way - you won't have continue to complain about just about everything and every source you don't like. It is getting quite tiresome. Saying it once stresses a point - repeating it within three posts is just pedantic.

essentialsaltes · 2026-02-21T09:53:24-0600

"a possible motivation"

Let us know when Spielberg confirms this hypothesis.

Always in His Presence · 2026-02-21T10:28:10-0600

Bradskii said:
This might be a problem for you to understand,

and then again - it might not - it might be that I see something you don't.

Bradskii said:
but people live where they want to live, assuming that they can afford to live there.

That is deep - I've never thought of that

Bradskii said:
I don't know what Spielberg is worth but my bet is that he can live absolutely anywhere he likes.

Steven Spielberg’s $7.1 billion empire: Inside his massive fortune

Bradskii said:
And if it costs him x amount of dollars to stay in California or to move to NY then he ain't gonna worry about it.

Really? You do not think handing the government 355,000,000 for the privilege of living in the home you already bought and pay taxes on is something he wouldn't worry about? How do you know that or are you just setting up a scenario to fit your POV?

Bradskii said:
I'm absolutely certain that someone with Spielberg's money isn't at all concerned with money.

What makes you absolutely certain? Do you know him well enough to know the operation of his thoughts, or are you just setting up a scenario to fit your POV?

Bradskii said:
You pass a certain point and it becomes more than you need, which means using him as an example of a gazillionaire moving from somewhere he wants to live because he's worried about his bank balance is...risible.

Well, the the man who is worth 850,000,000,000.00 (is that a gazillionaire?), Has done exactly that - in fact moved his company.

Combine that with:

Larry Page – Google co-founder — has reportedly moved many business entities (family office, LLCs) out of California to states like Delaware, Florida, and Nevada ahead of a potential wealth tax and is linked with buying homes in Miami.
Peter Thiel – Co-founder of Palantir — opened operations in Florida and is widely cited as relocating his base out of California.
David Sacks – Venture capitalist and co-founder of Yammer — said to have relocated to Texas and opened new offices there.
Larry Ellison – Oracle co-founder — has taken steps suggesting a pullback from California (including real estate, previous sales, and asset moves).
Mark Zuckerberg – Meta CEO — widely reported to be considering or in the process of buying an estate in Florida and establishing residency outside California amid tax debates (though not formally confirmed as a complete permanent relocation).

Not sure what the culture is like in your country - but most people here look for value. If they can get comparable things at a lower cost - and have the freedom to live where they please - they will typically take the position of not having to pay 355,000,000 for the privilege of living in a specific place.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Steven Spielberg to escape California ahead of proposed wealth tax

Jesus is the only Way

Jesus is the only Way

Jesus is the only Way

Senior Member

Jesus is the only Way

Senior Member

Senior Member

Legend

Dona Quixote