THE BILLIONAIRE REJECTION LETTER
HOW THE ULTRA-RICH ARE WRITING "RETURN TO SENDER" ON THE PUBLIC GOOD
In which America's wealthiest citizens decide that "profits over people" isn't just a slogan—it's a constitutional right
There's a moment in every doomed relationship when one party stops pretending. The flowers stop arriving. The calls go unreturned. The joint bank account gets quietly drained at 2 a.m. on a Tuesday.
Welcome to 2026, where America's billionaire class has officially stopped pretending they're interested in the public good—and they're not even sending a breakup text.
The latest symptom of this divorce? The symbolic gutting of The Washington Post by Jeff Bezos, who apparently decided that funding a newspaper that holds power accountable was getting in the way of his other hobbies (like, say, securing government contracts for his space company). It's the perfect metaphor for our moment: a man worth a quarter-trillion dollars can't be bothered to keep the lights on at one of democracy's most important institutions because, well, it's not profitable enough.
And that, dear reader, is the new motto of the oligarch class: Profits Over People. It's not whispered in boardrooms anymore—it's being screamed from the rooftops of their climate-controlled, tax-exempt penthouses.
The Great Wealth Rewrite: When Private Money Overwrites Public Systems
The argument that billionaires have begun to "reject" the public good isn't some socialist fever dream—it's a mathematical reality playing out in real time.
Consider the numbers: As of early 2026, the top 10 U.S. billionaires have a combined net worth exceeding $2.6 trillion. That's more than the GDP of France. Their wealth has surged by over 30% in the last year alone, adding nearly $1 trillion to their collective dragon hoards.
Meanwhile, their actual charitable giving? Roughly 1.1% of their total wealth annually. That's $75 billion, which sounds impressive until you realize it's the equivalent of someone worth $100,000 donating $1,100 a year—and then demanding a stadium be named after them.
But here's where it gets truly dystopian: These same billionaires spent an estimated $1.5 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions in the 2024-2026 election cycle. Why? To secure tax breaks worth over $1.2 trillion over the next decade through the federal "One Big Beautiful Bill Act."
Let's do the math: For every $1 spent on political influence, they're saving $60-$80 in taxes. That's not philanthropy—that's venture capital for democracy destruction.
The Philanthropy Pageant: Ranking the Best and Worst Billionaire "Givers"
Not all billionaires are created equal when it comes to the public good. Some are genuinely trying to make the world better. Others are cosplaying as philanthropists while their lawyers work overtime to dismantle the social safety net.
The Heroes (or at Least the "Less Terrible")
🏆 Warren Buffett – The Gold Standard
The Oracle of Omaha remains the only billionaire in the top 10 with a "Philanthropy Score" of 5/5. He's donated over $65 billion to date—more than 30% of his lifetime wealth—primarily through the Gates Foundation. His philosophy? "Society helped me make this money; society should get it back." Radical concept, Warren.
🥈 MacKenzie Scott – The Anti-Billionaire
Though not in the top 10 by wealth, Scott has given away over $19 billion in five years—with no strings attached, no buildings named after her, and no PR tours. She's given away more liquid cash than almost anyone in the top 10, despite having a fraction of their wealth. She's basically the Keanu Reeves of billionaires.
🥉 Steve Ballmer – The Data Nerd
The former Microsoft CEO has a unique approach: He funds USAFacts, a non-partisan initiative to make government data accessible. His version of the public good is an informed electorate. It's not sexy, but it's useful. Philanthropy Score: 3.7/5.
The Villains (or "Philanthropic Underperformers")
🥇 Elon Musk – The "Innovation Excuses Everything" King
Net worth: $775 billion. Lifetime giving: Less than 1%. Musk's argument is that SpaceX and Tesla are his philanthropy because they're "saving humanity." Cool story, Elon, but last time I checked, a flamethrower and a Cybertruck don't fund Medi-Cal. He recently spent $291 million on political campaigns (mostly to deregulate his businesses) while his foundation gave out roughly $160 million. So he's spending more on lobbying than charity. That's not philanthropy—that's a hostile takeover.
🥈 Larry Ellison – The Ghost
Oracle's founder is worth $211 billion and has given away less than 1% of his wealth. He's spent $85 million on political campaigns (mostly funding conservative judicial appointments) while his foundation gave out less than $50 million. He's basically a billionaire phantom—present in wealth rankings, absent in public service.
🥉 Larry Page & Sergey Brin – The "Moonshot" Excuse Club
The Google co-founders (worth $277B and $255B respectively) argue that funding "asteroid mining research" and "renewable energy moonshots" is their version of the public good. The problem? The intellectual property remains privately held, the timeline is 50+ years, and they've spent millions in legal fees fighting California's exit tax—the very tax that would fund the schools and hospitals their employees use.
California's Billionaire Tax: The $100 Billion Showdown
Enter California's 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, the most aggressive fiscal experiment in U.S. history. It's a ballot initiative that would impose a one-time 5% tax on anyone with a net worth over $1 billion.
The Details:
- The Target: California's ~200 billionaires, whose combined wealth exceeds $2.2 trillion.
- The Revenue: An estimated $100 billion over five years.
- The Allocation: 90% to healthcare (backfilling Medi-Cal cuts), 10% to education and food assistance.
- The Trap: The tax applies to anyone who was a California resident on January 1, 2026—even if they flee to Texas afterward.
Who Gets Hit Hardest?
| Name | Net Worth | Est. Tax Bill |
|---|---|---|
| Larry Page | $285B | $14.25 billion |
| Sergey Brin | $266B | $13.30 billion |
| Mark Zuckerberg | $249B | $12.45 billion |
| Elon Musk | $775B | $38.75 billion (if still a CA resident) |
For context, Mark Zuckerberg's $12.45 billion tax bill is roughly what the U.S. spends annually on all federal homeless assistance programs. One guy. One check.
The Billionaire Counterattack
Rather than just pay the tax (which, let's be honest, would barely dent their wealth), billionaires have launched a five-pronged ballot initiative war:
- The "Supermajority Act" – Raises the voting threshold for any new tax to 66.7%, making it nearly impossible to pass.
- The "Residency Rules Act" – Defines anyone spending less than 183 days in California as a non-resident, creating a legal escape hatch.
- The "Retirement Protection Act" – Exempts "personal savings" from taxation, which conveniently includes most billionaire wealth.
- The "Protect Schools Act" – Forces all new taxes to follow school funding mandates, essentially stealing money from the healthcare fund.
- The "Gov. Efficiency Act" – Prohibits new taxes unless the state deletes "low-performing" programs first.
It's not just tax avoidance—it's constitutional warfare. They're treating the California Constitution like a software update, trying to code a version that makes them immune to democratic accountability.
The Supreme Court's Greatest Hits: How Corporations Became People (and People Became Irrelevant)
Of course, none of this billionaire power would be possible without two catastrophic Supreme Court decisions:
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
The ruling that declared money is speech and corporations can spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns. The result? Billionaires can now drown out the voices of millions of voters with a single Super PAC donation. In 2026, Oxfam reports that when the wealthy support a policy, it has a 45% chance of passing. If they oppose it? 18%. Democracy has become a pay-to-play game, and most of us can't afford the entry fee.
The "Corporations Are People" Doctrine
Stemming from Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) and reinforced ever since, this legal fiction grants corporations constitutional rights—free speech, religious freedom, due process—without the pesky obligations of, you know, being an actual human. Corporations can't be drafted, can't go to jail (in any meaningful way), and apparently can't be taxed like the rest of us mortals.
The combined effect? Political Capitalism, where billionaires don't just influence policy—they are policy. They're 4,000 times more likely to hold political office than the average citizen, and their campaign spending has become a more effective "investment" than any charitable donation.
The Exit Strategy: When Billionaires Vote with Their Feet
Faced with California's wealth tax, several billionaires have attempted the ultimate rejection of the public good: physical relocation.
Larry Page reportedly "decamped" to Florida in late 2025 to avoid the January 1, 2026 residency trigger. Peter Thiel has been vocal about moving his base to avoid the tax, calling it "economic hostage-taking." Even Elon Musk has threatened to move more operations to Texas (though he's already mostly there).
But California isn't letting them go quietly. The state's "Sourcing" laws allow the Franchise Tax Board to chase former residents for years:
- If you were granted stock options while working in California, the state can tax you when you exercise them—even if you've moved to Texas.
- The "Residency Audit" is infamous: Keep a mansion, a car, or even a primary doctor in California, and the FTB will argue you never actually left.
It's a high-stakes game of cat-and-mouse, where billionaires are hiring armies of lawyers to prove they really, truly, cross-their-hearts love Florida now.
The Verdict: A Love Letter to Greed
So here we are in 2026, watching the richest people in human history spend billions to avoid contributing to the society that made their wealth possible.
They'll fund a Mars colony before they'll fund Medi-Cal. They'll buy a social media platform to "protect free speech" while gutting a newspaper that actually practices journalism. They'll pledge billions to "cure all diseases by 2100" while lobbying against universal healthcare today.
The billionaire class has sent us a message, and it's written in the language of ballot initiatives, Super PAC donations, and one-way tickets to Florida:
"We reject your public good. We'll build our own—and you're not invited."
The only question left is whether the rest of us will accept the rejection letter, or write one of our own.
November 2026 can't come soon enough.
[Author's Note: This article was written with maximum wit and minimum patience for oligarchic nonsense. All figures are based on early 2026 data. If any billionaires would like to dispute these claims, my Venmo is open for "charitable donations."]
Resource Guide & Community Response For No Kings Day — No Kings
#NoKingsProtest #NoKingsMar28 #NoKingsInAmerica #NoKings
