Trending Content - Hedge Fund Forum
Career Resources
WSO Free Modeling Series - Now Open Through
July 31, 2026
9 Free Financial Modeling Lessons
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
High Finance Applications
Guaranteed
Get at least one offer GUARANTEED
- 1:1 support
- 92% success rate
- 2,000+ mentor network
- Unlimited Live bootcamps
- AI for resume + LinkedIn
- Networking automation tools
- HireVue simulation tool
- Full course library
- Private Slack community
- 20hrs of mocks
- + much more...
what happened
he wasn't wrong tho? he paid a lot in taxes when citadel was in chicago
Bump
yo how are your hours. doesnt this make you feel a bit better that at least you can shaft the group heads in some way
let's say your $100k analyst salary gets cut to $80k midyear- how do you feel. Are you happy?
It's strange how people love to "redistribute" but then crickets when they are asked to pay more taxes themselves.
Lol you are such an apologist bootlicker. Allow me to explain why your argument is retarded
Calling Ken Griffin a “baby” misses the actual reason firms behave this way.
The issue isn’t emotion, it’s that New York has become structurally expensive. Between high state and city taxes, extreme commercial real estate costs, and rising regulatory burden, the cost of operating and expanding in NYC is significantly higher than competing hubs.
That’s why firms are already diversifying away from New York. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and others are not “leaving” entirely, but they are clearly expanding major operations in lower-cost states like Texas and Florida because marginal growth in NYC is expensive. Citadel literally moved its headquarters to Miami for the same reason: taxes, regulation, and cost structure.
And this directly affects real investment decisions like Ken Griffin’s proposed $6B 350 Park Ave tower, which is projected to generate ~6,000 construction jobs and ~15,000 permanent roles. If higher taxes on high earners and luxury property increase the cost of building or occupying projects like that, the outcome isn’t redistribution in isolation, it’s fewer or slower large-scale developments in NYC.
So the debate isn’t “tax the rich vs not.” It’s whether New York can keep attracting major capital projects and high-income job creation when its total cost base is already among the highest in the world.
If it's expensive to build in NYC, the solution isn't to subsidize the billionaire class even more. We have 5 decades of data to show that subsidies to billionaires funded by the middle class do not get redistributed back but instead hoarded
Nobody is arguing billionaires should be subsidized. Keeping taxes competitive isn't a subsidy.
The issue is that capital is mobile. If New York becomes materially more expensive than competing financial hubs, investment and jobs follow. We've already seen firms like Citadel relocate headquarters and banks like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan expand significantly in Texas and Florida.
That's why Ken Griffin is speaking out. It's not because he wants a handout, it's because higher taxes and costs affect where firms choose to invest. If projects like Citadel's proposed $6B 350 Park Avenue development, which is expected to create roughly 6,000 construction jobs and 15,000 permanent jobs, become less attractive, those jobs and future investment don't magically stay in New York.
If NYC is currently more expensive, then its just the free market moving to lower cost states. Nothing wrong with that. Every single head office doesnt need to be in NYC - our office vacancy is 2nd lowest in the country so we are doing fine. Regardless, I don't think the answer is to pit states against eachother to kowtow to billionaires for their "investment". Taxes should go up broadly on a national level for the billionaire class
Billionaires being taxed at substantially higher rates is critical to ensure the stability and survival of our society
If it’s just “free market moving,” then you’re already conceding the point: policy differences change where capital and jobs go.
NYC isn’t “fine” just because vacancy is low today. That says nothing about marginal decisions on future $6B projects like 350 Park Ave and the ~6,000 construction + 15,000 permanent roles tied to them.
And “tax billionaires more nationally” doesn’t remove the tradeoff, it just shifts it. Higher marginal taxes still reduce incentives for large, mobile capital to commit at the margin.
Calling that “subsidizing billionaires” is just rhetoric. The actual debate is competitiveness vs redistribution, not morality vs greed.
hedge funds pay ordinary income - you kids are conflating entrepreneurs deferring capital gains elon musk style with one of the top tax paying groups, bar none. doesn’t bode well for your future in finance if that distinction is lost on you
run this calculation. take total billionaire wealth and tax it at x% a year. sum that up and compare it against the federal deficit. what does x need to be to balance the budget?
answer: we need a wealth tax of more than 20%. and five years later there are no more billionaires to tax. socialist systems always heavily tax the middle class because theres not enough wealth in the rich alone. see VATs in europe
the country has a spending and waste problem, not a billionaire problem. it’s just easy to pick on them.
some more numbers for you:
-80%+ of all income tax are paid by top 20% earners. misleading to say a tax cut is spent on rich people, it’s just refunding some what they’re already paying.
-40% of all households pay no federal income tax -social security, medicare medicaid, interest is 75% of the federal budget. most of the federal budget is transferring wealth from workers to old retirees. defense is low teens and everything else COMBINED is low teens too. welfare and entitlements have crowded everything else out
if you want to rank the egregiousness of tax policy, hedge funds don’t rank anywhere near the top:
-property is the worst with 1031 exchanges
-then it’s VCs and startups with QSBS
-then it’s PE with long term capital gains but that is generally 3 years now
-hedge funds are almost all short term income and therefore pay full income tax at highest marginal rate
don’t be an uneducated lefty, it’s not a good look. if you want to debate policy understand the numbers first
So is no one going to call out the very obvious AI slop? Consulting tag checks out
Odit recusandae et molestiae non pariatur veniam. Sunt et deserunt eveniet. Explicabo deleniti saepe et corrupti quas omnis molestias. Consequatur omnis autem dolorem harum.
Eaque explicabo nostrum laudantium magni. Dolorem voluptatum quidem rerum architecto modi veritatis est. Iste sed sequi asperiores in necessitatibus molestiae dolorum. In dolorem quis quibusdam modi dolorem similique. Animi quisquam delectus nesciunt.
Consequatur in eveniet et placeat quos est voluptates. Laudantium cupiditate quia asperiores quia minus. Hic voluptatem commodi porro exercitationem consequuntur dicta rerum.
Soluta velit est hic inventore impedit nulla nobis voluptatem. Consequuntur soluta ea velit quisquam dolorum in.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...