Palmer Luckey Refuses to Leave California Despite Controversy Over Proposed Wealth Tax

Palmer Luckey, founder of the defense technology company Anduril and a well-known billionaire in the tech sector, has affirmed that he does not intend to leave the state of California despite his fierce opposition to the proposed wealth tax bill targeting the state's wealthy. This stance comes at a time when some of his billionaire peers are lobbying for a collective stance of departure in protest against tax policies.

Why Luckey Refuses to Leave

Luckey explained during a press conference that his decision to stay stems from his belief in the necessity of "fighting for California" rather than fleeing, noting that the departure of tech leaders will create additional problems for the state and the companies he deals with. He emphasized that this tax dispute has become a point of friction between him and his billionaire friends who view his staying as undermining lobbying efforts against tax policies.

Technical and Legal Concerns

Luckey's objections go beyond merely paying taxes, as he believes the tax proposal carries serious structural flaws, including:

• Tax on Control: Luckey believes the law treats founders who hold super-voting shares as if they own a larger share of the company, which could lead to exorbitant taxes not covered by the actual value of the shares.
• Valuation of Illiquid Assets: Luckey criticizes the taxation of unrealized assets and assets that are difficult to convert into cash, describing it as resembling "the confiscation of future wealth."
• Connection Between Control and Geographic Location: Luckey pointed out that his voting rights in his company are tied to being a US citizen residing in the United States, making leaving the country or state a direct threat to his control over his defense company.

Luckey estimates that his tax bill, based on his company Anduril's latest valuation of $61 billion, could reach around $3 billion. Luckey hopes that if the law is passed, it will be challenged in court, considering that taxing voting rights in private companies is an unprecedented precedent in tax policy.