Well, why didn't Texas/Alabama/Florida/Tennessee didn't get those companies created in their states? Why aren't these Free-Market-Maxxing states just good at getting them decades after their creation - attracting them via tax dumping - and don't create them?

Do you know the history of why California became a tech mecca?

You could flip it around. These companies wouldn't exist without California. The state had the conditions where these companies could germinate and thrive. Elsewhere they might, they might not.

In an alternate reality Mr Brin could still be a billionaire owner of a company not based in CA and he would still have to face this issue or he may not.

But we are here and question is why they don't think it is ok to pay these taxes. It is interesting to see their actions. There is some double think here - they want to cut ties and move out, yet want to influence the state. A sibling comment rightly said - they could be heroes by spending money that would be just a drop in the bucket for them, but instead choose to do this - still spend that money. The old adage seems true, you didn't become rich by doing that.

Now I understand one may not be happy the way the state allocates the funds - but that is a different discussion.

I find it funny how bad faith commenters immediately reach for the "COMMUNISM" bugle the microsecond any tax increase for the ultra-wealthy is proposed.

Taxes on the highest income bracket during Dwight D. Eisenhower's presidency where 90%.

90%.

Ya know, during the 1950s. The so called "Golden Years" of the USA. Fiercely anti-communist, Cold War going on.

And here we were taxing the richest at 90%.

That's how I know your comment is in bad faith.