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.

Washington, DC – President Trump shocked many of his own supporters this month when he doubled down on his defense of the H-1b visa program, insisting that American companies “need access to the best talent in the world.” For Texans, who’ve watched this program undercut the wages of their neighbors for decades, the remarks landed with a thud. Even more frustrating is that the loudest longtime champion of the H-1b system isn’t a Democrat at all, but Texas Senator John Cornyn—Congress’s most reliable ally to the outsourcing lobby and a consistent advocate for expanding H-1b allotments and giving good-paying American jobs to foreign workers.

The FY 2024 Labor Condition Application data, the mandatory filings companies submit before importing H-1b workers, tells a story very different from what the political class sells.

For years, the public has been told these visas fill “critical shortages.” The numbers show the opposite. According to federal LCA filings for FY 2024, employers sought more than 223,000 foreign workers in the Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services sector alone. That sector, known by its NAICS code 54, accounts for more than half of all H-1B activity in the United States. And when you drill down, it becomes clear that these are not exotic, rarefied roles requiring knowledge unavailable in the American labor pool. They are overwhelmingly standard computer jobs that tens of thousands of Americans are already trained to perform.

The data reveals that more than 90 percent of all H-1b roles in NAICS 54 are computer-related: software engineers, developers, data analysts, and project managers. The top job title, Software Engineer, accounted for 27,875 cases. Software Developer followed with over 20,000. Senior engineers, architects, data scientists, and business analysts rounded out the list.

These are not obscure specialties. They are the backbone of the modern American workforce. For decades, U.S. universities have produced more graduates in these fields than the market will absorb, leaving many Americans struggling to compete against corporations that prefer cheaper, visa-dependent workers.

Outside the tech sector, the top industries importing H-1b labor also contradict the “skills shortage” narrative. After Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, the next-largest sectors were Information; Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing; Finance and Insurance; Educational Services; Retail; Health Care and Social Assistance; and Materials Manufacturing.

These industries requested tens of thousands of foreign workers. The average salaries attached to these filings—ranging from $118,000 to well over $160,000 in many categories—show the financial motive at play. These are not low-wage jobs Americans refuse to do. They are well-paid jobs that companies would rather fill with workers who cannot negotiate, unionize, or threaten to leave without risking deportation.

In the number-one sector alone, the breakdown of job titles shatters any illusion that Americans “can’t” do this work. Corporations filed for 5,777 Senior Software Engineers, 3,323 Data Engineers, 3,093 mid-level Software Development Engineers, and more than a 1,000 DevOps professionals. Many of these positions mirror exactly the roles American workers have been laid off from in recent years, only to watch their own jobs filled by imported labor. Some have even been forced to train their replacements before being shown the door. Yet corporate lobbyists continue insisting that the domestic talent pool is insufficient.

The federal data paints a clear picture: the H-1B program is not filling shortages—it is creating them. And policymakers like Senator Cornyn have helped build this reality. Cornyn has spent years pushing expansions of the visa program, arguing that American competitiveness depends on foreign labor pipelines. His advocacy has aligned closely with the interests of multinational consulting firms and outsourcing giants, many of which are among the top H-1b filers each year. The H-1b program has become a subsidy for companies that want highly skilled labor without paying highly skilled wages.

That context makes the President’s recent remarks even more uncomfortable for voters who believed he would stand with American workers. Trump’s instinct has always been to support U.S. industry, but on this particular issue, industry has misled him. Corporations insist they need imported talent because they cannot find qualified Americans, but never mention that federal data contradicts them. They don’t mention that wages in many of these fields have stagnated even as demand supposedly soars. They don’t mention that the program legally allows companies to pay foreign workers below the median market wage.

The “why” is simple: companies want leverage. H-1b workers are tied to their employers. They cannot easily switch jobs, demand raises, or push back against exploitative conditions. American workers can—and do. The H-1b program shifts bargaining power away from citizens and toward multinational firms, and Congress has allowed this system to grow because corporate donors prefer it that way.

If President Trump truly wants to put American workers first, and Make America Great Again, this is the moment to look past the talking points and confront what the data reveals. And if John Cornyn wants to defend the Texas workforce he claims to represent, he could start by acknowledging that the H-1b program he championed is now a mechanism for replacing Americans, not empowering them. The numbers are in. The shortage isn’t talent. The shortage is honesty.