AOC's claim that "you can't earn a billion dollars" just got fact-checked by Y Combinator's Paul Graham, who spent two decades professionally evaluating the founders who become billionaires — and his data says she's wrong. The exchange cuts to the heart of California's tax debate: whether wealth taxes targeting tech founders are a matter of fairness or a misdiagnosis of how Silicon Valley actually creates value. With Sanders and Khanna pushing a 5% annual wealth tax on unrealized gains, and California already running structural deficits of $20–30 billion a year, the stakes for getting this question right couldn't be higher.
AOC says you can't earn a billion dollars. Paul Graham, who spent 20 years predicting which founders become billionaires, has the data to prove her wrong.
The state's own nonpartisan analyst says spending outpaced revenue by 10 points. More taxation won't solve the problem.
Sanders and Khanna want to tax money that doesn't exist on assets you can't sell. The only proportionate response was a one-act play.
Asked point-blank why the US dominates tech while Europe stagnates, the Senator pivoted to healthcare and homelessness. The honest answer would destroy his worldview.
California bleeds $20-35 billion a year. Steyer wants to raise taxes. Mahan wants to stop lighting money on fire.
Washington State legislators are building a tax regime so hostile that NBA investors are spooked and founders are planning their exits.
Harvard and MIT trained 21 of the top 50 AI founders. Every one of them flew west to build in SF.
SEIU-UHW's asset seizure tax has already cost the state $16.4 billion per year in lost revenue—and it hasn't even passed yet.
A billionaire spending $27 million attacks a mayor for having tech support. The irony writes itself.
Even Gavin Newsom admits taxing billionaires will backfire. Europe already proved it. Why won't Sacramento listen?