Texas — In the rough and tumble world of modern politics, it seems nearly everything has become a partisan battlefield. Yet amid the endless political shouting, one alliance continues to produce tangible results for working Texans: the economic partnership between the United States and Israel.

While national headlines often focus on military cooperation or foreign policy disputes, a quieter story has been unfolding across Texas. Israeli companies have invested billions of dollars in the Lone Star State, bringing manufacturing, technology, defense innovation, and thousands of jobs along with them.

According to data reported by state and industry sources, Israeli businesses have invested approximately $3.2 billion in Texas over the past decade, supporting more than 4,200 jobs. Those investments stretch from Fort Worth’s defense sector to Austin’s growing energy technology industry. For many Texans, the U.S., Israel relationship is not an abstract diplomatic concept. It is a paycheck, a career opportunity, or a growing local economy.

One of the most visible examples is Elbit Systems of America, the U.S. subsidiary of Israeli defense technology giant Elbit Systems. Headquartered in Fort Worth, the company develops advanced defense, aviation, homeland security, and electronic systems used by American military forces and government agencies. Luke Savoie is President and CEO-elect. The company reports more than 3,300 employees nationwide and maintains its corporate headquarters in Texas.

The Fort Worth operation has become a significant contributor to the local economy. Company officials have previously reported employing hundreds of Texans at multiple facilities in the region while supporting a broader network of suppliers and contractors throughout the state.

The company’s work also illustrates how the relationship functions in practice. Israeli research and development capabilities are combined with American manufacturing, engineering, and workforce talent. The result is technology that supports U.S. military readiness while generating jobs and investment at home.

That model has expanded beyond defense. Another Israeli company, SolarEdge Technologies, has established a major manufacturing presence in Austin through its partnership with Flex. In June 2025, the company announced that its Austin facility had produced its 250,000th solar inverter, a milestone that drew recognition from Governor Greg Abbott. The company stated that the operation has created more than 1,000 high quality jobs in Texas.

Solar inverters are a critical component of renewable energy systems, converting electricity generated by solar panels into usable power. SolarEdge officials say the Austin facility supports domestic manufacturing while helping strengthen American energy infrastructure. The company has also expanded exports of products manufactured in the United States to international markets.

SolarEdge Chief Executive Officer Shuki Nir recently emphasized the importance of American manufacturing, stating that exporting U.S. manufactured products demonstrates the company’s commitment to meeting demand for American made quality, reliability, and innovation around the world.

These investments have received support from Texas leaders across the political spectrum. Governor Abbott has repeatedly promoted economic ties with Israel, highlighting the state’s growing role as a destination for Israeli technology, energy, and defense companies. The governor’s office formally recognized SolarEdge’s Austin manufacturing milestone in 2025, citing its contributions to job creation and domestic production.

The economic relationship reflects a broader pattern. Texas has long attracted foreign investment because of its business friendly climate, skilled workforce, and strategic location. Israeli firms, known globally for innovation in defense, cybersecurity, energy, and technology sectors, have increasingly viewed Texas as a natural partner. The combination has proven profitable for both sides. Israeli companies gain access to American markets and talent, while Texas communities receive investment, jobs, and expanded industrial capacity.

Disclosure: Pipkins Reports is not affiliated with Elbit Systems of America or SolarEdge Technologies. No compensation or other consideration was received from either company for the writing or publication of this article.

Google Co-Founder Heads to Florida

Sacramento, CA. – A seismic shift in California’s economic landscape is quietly underway as lawmakers and union backers push a controversial billionaire wealth tax. What was pitched as a modest 5 percent levy on the ultra-wealthy has exposed more serious threats to innovation and property rights — and it has already driven one of the state’s most famous founders out of California. Google co-founder Larry Page has relocated to Florida, driven in part by provisions in the tax that could assess billions of dollars on unrealized gains tied to super-voting Class B stock.

The proposal — officially titled the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act — would impose a one-time 5 percent charge on the net worth of individuals whose worldwide assets exceed $1 billion as of January 1, 2026. Supporters frame it as a targeted revenue source for healthcare, food assistance, and education, critics warn the tax’s mechanics could reshape American capital formation.

What the Proposal Actually Does

Under the initiative, wealth is defined as total global net worth, including publicly traded stocks, private business interests, intellectual property, and other assets — excluding most real estate and certain retirement accounts. Rather than taxing only realized income, the tax includes unrealized gains in asset value. That means founders may owe tax on increases in stock value they have never sold.

The language of the proposal goes a step further: it treats voting power as though it were equivalent to economic ownership for founders with dual-class stock structures. In Silicon Valley, it is common for founders to hold Class B super-voting shares that confer control with far less economic interest than voting interest. Under the initiative’s valuation rules, a founder with 3 percent of a company’s economic shares but 30 percent voting control could be treated, for tax purposes, as owning 30 percent of the company — multiplying their taxable wealth many times over.

Economists have pointed out that this “voting power equals ownership” assumption effectively taxes phantom wealth — value that exists on paper but is not proportionate to actual economic ownership. The result: tax bills far greater than a simple 5 percent of net worth might suggest, particularly for founders of tech companies structured around dual-class stock.

Exodus of Billionaires Begins

The reaction among California’s wealthy has been dramatic. Larry Page, whose super-voting Class B shares give him outsized control at Alphabet, has purchased multiple high-value properties in Florida and moved many business entities out of California. His relocation comes amid widespread concerns that the wealth tax could penalize founders disproportionately based on voting shares rather than actual economic stake.

Venture capitalist Peter Thiel has also publicly mobilized against the tax, donating millions to efforts to defeat it and shifting aspects of his business operations to Miami. Other tech leaders and investors are reconsidering their California footprint, with some establishing offices or residences in states like Texas or Florida.

Economic and Legal Concerns

Economists and legal scholars caution that enforcing a tax on unrealized gains is inherently complex. Valuing privately held assets and dual-class stock structures invites disputes and litigation. The retroactive assessment based on residency at a fixed date could expose residents to significant tax bills even if they had intended to leave the state before the tax was implemented.

Critics also argue that using voting power as a proxy for economic value could violate constitutional protections against uncompensated takings, as it effectively treats control rights — not purely economic interest — as taxable property. Legal challenges are almost certain if the measure qualifies for the ballot and is approved by voters.

Political Clash

Supporters, including union leaders and some progressive advocates, say the tax would help fill budget gaps in healthcare and social services created by federal spending cuts. They maintain that the ultra-wealthy have benefited disproportionately from California’s economy and should contribute more.

Governor Gavin Newsom (D), has distanced himself from the proposal, warning that it threatens investment and could accelerate capital flight. Business groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Business Roundtable have echoed those warnings, describing the tax as a “dangerous wealth tax” that could harm the state’s competitiveness.

Broader Implications

California’s billionaire tax debate has quickly transcended local politics to become a national test case. If approved by voters in November 2026, it could encourage similar initiatives elsewhere, particularly in high-tax states. At the same time, the backlash has highlighted the risks of taxing unrealized gains — a feature that economists and tax policy experts say is untested and could disrupt capital formation.

For states like Texas and Florida, which champion low taxes and economic freedom, California’s experiment presents both a contrast and an opportunity. As capital and executives reassess their domiciles, the business climate and economic growth of states without such wealth taxes may benefit.

Larry Page’s move to Florida is not just a personal choice. It is a symbolic indicator of where capital flows in response to policy. Once talent and wealth leave, they seldom return. California’s experiment in wealth taxation should give pause not only to its voters but to every state considering similar schemes.

Sources:
Tax Foundation, “The Proposed California Wealth Tax Is Far Higher than 5 Percent,” January 2026.
California Attorney General Initiative Text, “2026 Billionaire Tax Act.”
Business Insider, “Larry Page Continues His California Exile with Florida Property Purchases,” January 2026.
Yahoo Finance, “Peter Thiel’s $3 Million Donation to Defeat California Wealth Tax,” January 2026.
WebProNews, “Dual-Class Voting Share Valuation Sparks Silicon Valley Outrage,” January 2026.

Analysis / Opinion – In a scene that echoes the comical greed of Richard Pryor’s character in Superman III, American retailers are quietly positioning themselves to benefit from the rounding of your change. Not by stealing half-cents into a secret bank account, but by tweaking prices so that, when the cash register closes, the rounding always favors them. With the penny officially retired, their little profits are set to add up fast.

Yes, the coin that has jingled in your couch cushions for generations is gone. On November 12, 2025, the United States Mint struck the final circulating penny, ending a 232-year run. The move, ordered by the Brandon Beach-led Treasury, was justified by rising production costs. It costs 3.69 cents to mint a one-cent coin that is worth only a cent, and has dwindling practical use.

That penny may be gone, but rounding rules remain. Pennies are still legal tender, but with no more being minted, their circulation will shrink. Many economists and officials expect cash transactions to be rounded to the nearest nickel when pennies disappear from everyday use.

For retailers, that isn’t a bug. It’s an opportunity.

How Pricing Will Tilt the Rounding to Retailers’ Favor

With pennies gone, the rounding of cash totals becomes inevitable. But the outcome, whether customers lose change or not, depends on how retailers price items. And with modern tools, they can tilt it heavily in their favor.

Using local tax rates (for example, a hypothetical 8.25 %) and simple rounding rules, pricing strategists, now aided by artificial intelligence, can adjust individual item prices down to the cent so that, after tax and rounding, the final cash-register total ends in .03 or .08 (or at worst .04 or .09). Under standard rounding to the nearest nickel, those endings give retailers a gain of one or two cents. Over thousands or millions of transactions, those cents become real money.

For instance:

• A product at $1.92 before tax ends up as $2.08 total — rounding up to $2.10, giving the retailer 2 extra cents while the customer sees a lower sticker price.
• A $9.96 item produces a post-tax total that rounds up, unlike $9.99, which might round down.
• A clean $20 price tag may shift to $19.98 — a small tweak that creates a favorable rounding outcome.

Retailers who price each item carefully — rather than basing price on “market norms” like .99 or .95 — can systematically harvest these rounding gains. It’s the arithmetic equivalent of payroll for pennies, just like how Gus Gorman was shocked to discover his fortune in Superman III.

Who Gains — And Who Loses

This pricing strategy is most lucrative in contexts with frequent low-item cash purchases: convenience stores, gas stations, coffee shops, small retail outlets. In those environments, the rounding on each sale matters. Large grocery carts or mixed baskets tend to average out, though retailers still benefit overall from any skew.

Digital payments — credit cards, mobile wallets, and contactless transactions are unaffected. Totals still settle to the exact cent. So the benefit accrues only when the customer pays with cash. But given how many transactions in the U.S. still involve cash, especially among lower- and middle-income shoppers, the strategy still has broad potential.

Legally, there’s nothing wrong with the approach. The government stopped making pennies because it cost more to produce them than their face value. They left the rounding rules to states and businesses. Still, some retailers and industry groups worry about the fairness of the shift. As reported, many businesses were caught off guard when penny shipments abruptly stopped, with no central guidance on rounding policies.

That means even well-meaning merchants might adopt rounding-up strategies by default, simply because that’s what the pricing tools they buy suggest.

The Penny’s End — And the Subtle Rise of the Rounding Dividend

Yes, the penny is gone. Production stopped. The smallest unit of U.S. currency no longer emerges from Mint presses. The rounding rules may seem harmless, perhaps even trivial. But with the precision of modern pricing analytics and the institutional muscle of retail chains, that triviality becomes systematic.

What the consumer loses is too small to notice. A penny here, two cents there. But over time, it accumulates. Much like the fictional windfall of Gus Gorman, the rounding profits will build quietly until they become significant, collected not by thieves in a basement, but by retailers behind bright fluorescent lights and bar-code scanners.

The penny’s death may be an act of fiscal efficiency. But the rounding dividend is the beginning of a price-structure redesign that advantages those who control the register.