By Matt Underwood “I will miss them”: Khanna mocks tech billionaires threatening to leave California for wealth tax – the sentiment is one of amused defiance, a clear-eyed understanding that the threats are likely bluster, and a willingness to call the bluff. It’s a sentiment that resonates with many, a frustration at the perceived arrogance of those who wield immense wealth and leverage it for their own benefit, often at the expense of the society that allows them to thrive.
The common thread throughout the discussion centers on the fact that these threats to leave are a familiar refrain. Reminiscent of the “they were supposed to leave New York 15 years ago” anecdote, the consensus is that the departure of these tech titans is highly improbable. Many suspect this is a negotiating tactic, a way to pressure lawmakers into concessions, rather than a genuine intention to uproot their lives and businesses. California’s immense economic power and cultural significance make it a difficult place to abandon, especially considering the investments already in place.
Furthermore, a significant portion of the commentary highlights the irony of the situation. The very individuals threatening to depart are often the ones actively avoiding their tax obligations. The humor lies in the fact that, if they *were* to leave, it would be a symbolic act, a refusal to contribute to the society that has fostered their success. The sentiment is “good riddance,” a desire for them to leave and be gone, as expressed many times throughout the discussion.
The allure of other locales, such as Texas, is also examined. These states often present themselves as tax havens, offering the promise of lower costs for businesses and a more favorable environment for the wealthy. The truth of the matter is that in some states, like Texas, property tax rates are some of the highest in the nation. It’s a key point that adds a layer of sarcasm and irony to the threats. The suggestion that they would run to another state with low taxes is misleading, and the idea of them moving to Texas is often stated.
The potential impact of their departure is another facet of the conversation. Some argue that their absence could be a boon, freeing up resources and allowing other tech workers to flourish. Others suggest that their departure could cripple the state, leading to a loss of jobs, innovation, and economic prosperity. The comments lean heavily toward the former, seeing this as a situation that benefits all, and that the tech workers will be able to fill the void.
The discussion also delves into the political motivations behind these threats. Many see them as a way to maintain the status quo, to protect their wealth, and to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. The rhetoric of “economic royalists” and bullying behavior is echoed, reflecting a broader sentiment of disdain for the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. The people who are making these claims, in reality, are not doing anything to help or benefit from society.
The importance of the infrastructure and public services in California are also mentioned. The tech billionaires need these to live their lives, and therefore they will not leave. The infrastructure works and the public services get money, and the schools are good, and the weather is great. These things make California a special place.
The overall tone is one of cynicism and skepticism. The prevailing opinion is that the billionaires are unlikely to follow through on their threats. Some find the response of Ro Khanna “based” for mocking the situation. They will continue to enjoy the benefits of living in California while simultaneously attempting to shirk their societal responsibilities. The discussion ultimately reflects a deeper frustration with the inequities of wealth and power in contemporary society, with the implicit hope that, perhaps, their absence wouldn’t be so detrimental after all.