Look at Andy’s words from the transcript [01:49:01]: “You did not have to go to the movie premiere of a movie that already another oligarch paid $40 million to acquire because it was going to be such a great boon for his streaming service. Did Tim like actually get into a bidding war with Jeff Bezos— with Amazon, excuse me, with Amazon over it?”
Were you listening closely? Andy is using the bizarre label “oligarch” to paint both Jeff Bezos and Tim Cook. Andy is slurring both the CEO of Apple and the former CEO of Amazon. He attacked both CEOs and their companies. If I were a business considering advertising on the TWiT network, I would pay attention to such anti-business rhetoric uttered by a host. I’d wonder: would Andy unleash similar true feelings to any advertisements I purchased on the network. Such behavior would definitely make me think twice before purchasing ads.
Leo would have never used the o-word to label either of these CEOs. Jason would have never done that. I don’t him nearly as well, but I trust that Dan wouldn’t have said that. I’m fondly hoping that Leo requested Andy show some restraint in any future shows. Wouldn’t you? Or do you think it’s fine to use such inflammatory argumentative language on the show?
Did you read this section from my comments? As the Tax Foundation notes:
The 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, a California ballot initiative, would ostensibly impose a one-time tax of 5 percent on the net worth of the state’s billionaires. Due, however, to aggressive design choices and possible drafting errors, the actual rate on taxpayers’ net worth could be dramatically higher. […] The poorly drafted initiative creates many scenarios in which tax liability would be VASTLY MORE than 5 percent of net worth.
The proposed legislation is proposing to tax Class B shares differently than other stock. The tax would be closer to 50 percent on the wealth of those individuals with Class B shares. The SEIU-drafted legislation is both irrational and mean-spirited. Many Californians believe that 5% is reasonable; I don’t know a single person anywhere thinking that California should be entitled 50% of their wealth. Do you agree with the SEIU?
In any case, the question has become largely moot. California loses a mind-boggling $1 trillion in wealth in past month alone over fears of ‘Billionaire Tax’: wealth guru. California won’t collect 50% of those individuals’ wealth. California won’t collect 5%. California collects nothing. The mere threat of the Class-B stock multiplier on assets caused many of those billionaires to already exit the state. California loses the yearly tax revenues from those billionaires and the hundreds of staffers they took with them. That is a colossal loss for California. Californian Joni Mitchell got it right many years ago:
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you got 'til it’s gone?
Apparently, you’re someone who thinks that the State of California is entitled to confiscate half of the assets of Page and Brin. Because… it’s California! What other reason do you need? SMH.
It’s no longer a choice, because they have departed. Over half the assets have already flown the coop. 5% might have been reasonable, but 50% was never reasonable. Newsom failed to predict that the billionaires would simply depart on the threat of the ballot initiative. Leo and Jeff failed to explain the dreadful multiplier of the proposed initiative. It was never 5%. That was the point of my message, and you completely missed it.
Are you a California citizen?