I think that argument should stop with advocacy for law. I have no problem with this when it's means playing optimally within the current laws, things like hiring world class tax attorneys. But if using your immense wealth to ensure the rules that everyone plays by favor you specifically, instead of the country/world, It feels like this is closer to bribing a judge than hiring a tax attorney.

Not if I was that rich, no. Fundamentally Sergey does not have faith that an accountable government merits the money.

> if you could spend 0.04% of your net worth to protect 5% of your net worth

If I was anywhere near being a billionaire I wouldn't. There would be much better things to spend my time and effort on. That's not even counting the fact that I would probably care about the ethical aspect too.

0.95x of an obscene amount of money I can't spend is still an obscene amount of money I can't spend. That 5% wouldn't make any discernible difference in my life.

No. It's irrational at that level of wealth. He can make it back in a year. Billionaires very commonly see 20% returns a year.

I'm not in favor of the billionaire tax, there's better ways, but if the people want it he can just put his big boy pants on and fucking deal.

If my net worth were that high? No.

Folks need to remember that we're closer to being homeless than we are to being as rich as them. You don't need to defend billionaires.

If you mean given my current net worth, then the question doesn't make sense.

If you mean a world where I had his net worth, then you're accusing me of being a sociopath.