Spencer Pratt

Spencer Pratt DRAGS Bill Maher Out of His Liberal Bubble in Brutal Reality Check on LA’s Collapse


Pratt may be best known for reality television, but if you watched his appearance on Bill Maher’s Club Random podcast this morning, you saw something very different.

What started as a conversation about his long-shot campaign for mayor of Los Angeles quickly turned into a discussion about why so many ordinary Californians have lost faith in the people running their city.

And throughout the interview, Pratt kept bringing the conversation back to one central point: the political class, the elites, are obsessed with issues that matter to them, while regular people are worried about problems that are right in front of their faces.

The conversation began with the wild story of how Pratt ended up running for mayor in the first place.

According to Pratt, becoming mayor was never the goal. He’s just a man who lost his house in the Palisades fire.

SPENCER PRATT: “I never planned to be the mayor of LA.”
Click to expand...
“I only ran to have a bigger platform to expose all the negligence, is the reason why I even ran because this person in charge burned my house down, my mom’s house, my neighbors.”
Click to expand...
Maher pushed back immediately, arguing that Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass deserved criticism but wasn’t personally responsible for the fires.
BILL MAHER: “Honestly, I keep hearing you say that…you’re making it a little too personal.”
Click to expand...
“I mean, she is not a great mayor…and that is a very common view even among a lot of Democrats…”
Click to expand...
“She fcked up some things, a lot of people fcked up some things…one person didn’t burn your house down.”
Click to expand...
Pratt actually agreed with part of Maher’s point, but explained why the issue still feels personal to him.
SPENCER PRATT: “Agreed, agreed. But let me…one person who’s in charge of all the things that got f*cked up that burned my house down.”
Click to expand...
“So you have to hold somebody responsible who’s in charge.”
Click to expand...
When Maher acknowledged that leadership carries responsibility, Pratt brought the conversation back to what happened in his own neighborhood.
SPENCER PRATT: “She was in Ghana, so she obviously didn’t light the fire, so…”
Click to expand...
“But it is personal because I have to hear my crying mom every day, the lady across from my house burned alive…that lady with parrots, you know, so it is personal.”
Click to expand...

That exchange really set the tone for the rest of the interview.


https://twitter.com/x/status/2061508961287688304
View: https://x.com/overton_news/status/2061508961287688304?s=20
 
cawacko said:
Most billionaires have homes across the country, and the globe. So the idea that if they're not in California full time they won't have access to beaches, mountains or shopping doesn't really carry water.

Now if this were to pass not every billionaire is going to leave the state of course. But California relies heavily on income tax from the rich, thus even a small number of wealthy people leaving has a material impact on the state's budget.

You can look at European countries that passed wealth taxes and have since repealed them. Gavin Newsom is a Democrat but he (among many others) has spoken out against this measure in California.

I'm happy to post the whole article if you want to read it, but it shows people are already moving. It's not an abstract idea.

California’s Tax-Weary Billionaires Seek Refuge on Lake Tahoe’s Nevada Shore​

The proposed wealth tax has the superwealthy paying a premium for homes across the state line​


Click to expand...
That tax would not drive them out. It would cost a lot more to leave the homes, beaches, mountains, entertainment, and financial possibilities. This is right wing fantasy talking.
 
Nordberg said:
That tax would not drive them out. It would cost a lot more to leave the homes, beaches, mountains, entertainment, and financial possibilities. This is right wing fantasy talking.
Click to expand...


What makes you say that?

Rich people can go anywhere.

@cawacko is far from an right-wing fantasist, AFAIK.
 
Diogenes said:
What makes you say that?

Rich people can go anywhere.

@cawacko is far from an right-wing fantasist, AFAIK.
Click to expand...
Florida is not the new Wall St., gumby. To do that would take a monumental shift of resources, infrastructure, etc.

This BS threat of relocation is just that, as moving SECTIONS of you business offices is not the same as full blown total relocation.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Florida is not the new Wall St., gumby. To do that would take a monumental shift of resources, infrastructure, etc.
Click to expand...

Has anyone suggested that? It's a virtual world, BTW, in case you hadn't noticed. Wealthy people need not live in any particular state (or nation) in order for businesses to exist.

Taichiliberal said:
This BS threat of relocation is just that, as moving SECTIONS of you business offices is not the same as full blown total relocation.
Click to expand...

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Hundreds of businesses have relocated their headquarters (HQ) out of California in the past decade (roughly 2016–2026), including dozens of major or high-profile ones, though the total represents a small share of the state’s overall companies and the trend involves both large and small firms.

Comprehensive data is most detailed through 2021, with public announcements and high-profile cases filling in later years. Key findings from nonpartisan and research sources:

All companies (broad definition): The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC, using Dun & Bradstreet data) found 147–213 headquarters relocated out of California each year from 2011 to 2021, with an upward trend after 2017 (reaching over 200 in 2021). This resulted in a net loss of 789 headquarters (1.9% of the state’s ~47,000 at the start of the period). Larger companies were more likely to leave proportionally than smaller ones.

A Hoover Institution analysis (tracking announcements, state filings, and other sources) documented 352 companies moving their HQ out of California from 2018 to 2021 alone. The pace accelerated sharply: 153 in 2021 (more than double 2020 levels). This count understates smaller moves that receive little media attention.

Publicly announced / notable relocations (more aligned with "major companies"): CBRE’s tracking of 725 U.S. headquarters relocations (2018–2025) showed California metros as the biggest net losers. The San Francisco Bay Area had a net loss of 163 headquarters; Los Angeles/Irvine also saw substantial outflows (around 50–106 in earlier subsets of the period). Texas metros (especially Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin) captured the most gains nationwide.

Fortune 500 / Fortune 1000 level ("major" large public companies): Hoover identified 11 Fortune 1000 companies leaving in 2018–2021. CBRE data showed California losing 8 Fortune 500 headquarters from 2018–2023 (many to Texas). Media roundups consistently highlight 14–20 prominent examples across the decade.

Notable high-profile moves (examples from lists covering the past decade, often to Texas or other lower-tax/lower-regulation states) include:
  • Tesla (Palo Alto → Austin, 2021)
  • Chevron (San Ramon → Houston, 2024)
  • Oracle (Redwood City → Austin, 2020; later partial moves)
  • Charles Schwab (San Francisco → Westlake, TX, 2019)
  • Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) (San Jose → Spring, TX, 2020)
  • McKesson (San Francisco area → Irving, TX, 2019)
  • CBRE (Los Angeles → Dallas, 2020)
  • Palantir (Palo Alto → Denver, 2020)
  • SpaceX (Hawthorne → Starbase, TX, 2024)
  • Others: AECOM, FICO, Realtor.com, Neutrogena (part of Kenvue), Playboy, and more.


    These outflows are real and accelerating (driven by taxes, regulations, housing costs, and business climate), but PPIC and others emphasize they affect a small percentage of California’s total businesses. In short, hundreds overall (with annual rates of 150–200+ in recent years studied), and at least 20–30+ major/high-profile corporations by common definitions. The exact figure for “major companies” depends on thresholds, but the pattern of notable exits is well-documented and ongoing.
 
Nordberg said:
That tax would not drive them out. It would cost a lot more to leave the homes, beaches, mountains, entertainment, and financial possibilities. This is right wing fantasy talking.
Click to expand...
You're telling me it's a fantasy that rich people respond to economic incentives (this wealth tax), when I literally just posted an article showing you exactly that.

And yes California's beauty is special, but you're acting like it's the only place on the planet with mountains and beaches that wealthy people have access to. And that if someone sets up their primary residence in another state they no longer have access to California.

And this bears repeating. Not every billionaire is going to leave if it passes. But the state relies heavily on taxing high earners. It doesn't take many to leave to have a serious financial impact on the state's budget. That's just reality. And that's why there's such pushback.
 
Nordberg said:
That tax would not drive them out. It would cost a lot more to leave the homes, beaches, mountains, entertainment, and financial possibilities. This is right wing fantasy talking.
Click to expand...
Nordie, it is no wonder you have won the

THOOPER THMART PERTHUN AWARDTH​

so many times.
 
cawacko said:
You're telling me it's a fantasy that rich people respond to economic incentives (this wealth tax), when I literally just posted an article showing you exactly that.

And yes California's beauty is special, but you're acting like it's the only place on the planet with mountains and beaches that wealthy people have access to. And that if someone sets up their primary residence in another state they no longer have access to California.

And this bears repeating. Not every billionaire is going to leave if it passes. But the state relies heavily on taxing high earners. It doesn't take many to leave to have a serious financial impact on the state's budget. That's just reality. And that's why there's such pushback.
Click to expand...
It not only has the beauty and natural choices, but it also has their mansions. It costs a lot to sell a California mansion and go through the trouble and expense of moving. To say you will leave if a 5 percent tax is levied is free. Actually doing it is different..
 
Nordberg said:
It not only has the beauty and natural choices, but it also has their mansions. It costs a lot to sell a California mansion and go through the trouble and expense of moving. To say you will leave if a 5 percent tax is levied is free. Actually doing it is different..
Click to expand...


Ridiculous.

Wealthy Californians (especially billionaires targeted by the proposed 2026 Billionaire Tax Act) are leaving or restructuring their residency, precisely because the tax savings massively outweigh any one-time moving costs.

Nordberg claims "to say you will leave... is free. Actually doing it is different."

But the record shows action, not just talk. In direct response to the proposed one-time 5% wealth tax on net worth over $1 billion (aimed at ~200-250 California billionaires holding ~$2 trillion), multiple high-profile figures have already moved or are relocating assets/residency:

  • Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have shifted major assets and residence toward Florida (Page reportedly spent $170 million on Miami properties).


  • Peter Thiel opened a new office in Miami; David Sacks relocated to Austin, Texas.


  • Mark Zuckerberg has been buying in Florida's "Billionaire Bunker" area.

  • Estimates put $700 billion to $1 trillion in wealth already at risk of leaving (or having left) before the tax even passes, turning a steady trickle into a flood toward no-income-tax states like Florida and Texas.


This isn't hypothetical "right-wing fantasy"—it's preemptive flight by the exact group the tax targets. Broader IRS migration data confirms high earners are disproportionately exiting California for low/zero-income-tax states (Texas +56k net tax filers, Florida +55k in one recent year alone; California lost ~100k filers). High-income out-migration rates spiked during/after tax pressures and remain elevated.


Moving costs (even selling a mansion) are trivial compared to the tax hit.

Yes, real estate transaction costs exist—typically 5-6% commissions on a luxury home, plus moving logistics. For a $20-50 million California mansion, that's roughly $1-3 million one-time, plus hassle. But compare that to the tax:
  • A 5% wealth tax on $1 billion net worth = $50 million (one-time, but the proposal's design and deferral options can push the effective burden higher).


  • Even for "mere" multi-hundred-millionaires, the math is lopsided. Ongoing California top income tax (13.3%) vs. 0% in Florida/Texas means a $500k earner saves ~$51k/year by moving—compounding to $750k+ in extra wealth over a decade.
For billionaires, the wealth tax alone dwarfs mansion-sale costs by 10-50x.

Many don't even sell their California properties outright—they change legal residency (establishing domicile elsewhere while keeping vacation homes) or buy comparable luxury elsewhere. California has no formal "exit tax" beyond sourcing rules on certain income/gains.

The recurring (or large one-time) tax savings pay for the move almost instantly.
 
Nordberg said:
It not only has the beauty and natural choices, but it also has their mansions. It costs a lot to sell a California mansion and go through the trouble and expense of moving. To say you will leave if a 5 percent tax is levied is free. Actually doing it is different..
Click to expand...
Leaving aside the fact that the cost of moving is negligible to the decisions made with the wealth of the people we are talking about, you don't have to sell your California home to set up legal residence in another state.

These folks often own multiple homes around the country and globe.

You're choosing not to address the article I posted showing the people doing this.
 
FastLane said:
Will Spencer Pratt be the next mayor of L.A.? Karen Bass has already proven she sucks at the job. He is out raising her 10 to 1 in money . Plus he is getting free viral ads that are pretty cleaver. He says he wants to fix LA's problems. Bass didn't fix LA's problem when she had her chance to do it.
Click to expand...
I think it is likely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TOP
Damocles said:
I think it is likely.
Click to expand...


Pratt has a real but still uphill chance—roughly 25-30% per prediction markets—of ultimately unseating incumbent Mayor Karen Bass in the 2026 Los Angeles mayoral race.

The race is a nonpartisan primary tomorrow (June 2, 2026), with the top two advancing to a November 3 general election runoff unless someone hits 50%+ (highly unlikely).

Pratt has raised over $3 million, outraising Bass at times, and his campaign emphasizes “zero encampments,” cracking down on fentanyl, and holding officials accountable for issues like the empty reservoir during the fire.

LA remains overwhelmingly Democrat (Democrats outnumber Republicans ~4:1), and Pratt’s GOP registration and Trump-adjacent endorsements could cap his ceiling even in a nonpartisan race.

Bass has broad institutional backing (labor, business groups, Gov. Newsom, etc.).

Crowd-sourced betting markets, which have been accurate in recent cycles, currently price Pratt’s overall chance of winning the election at:
  • Kalshi: ~27% (Bass 62%, Raman 12%). Heavy volume (> $36 million).
  • Polymarket: Similar range (~23-25% for Pratt, Bass ~64%).

 
Diogenes said:
Pratt has a real but still uphill chance—roughly 25-30% per prediction markets—of ultimately unseating incumbent Mayor Karen Bass in the 2026 Los Angeles mayoral race.

The race is a nonpartisan primary tomorrow (June 2, 2026), with the top two advancing to a November 3 general election runoff unless someone hits 50%+ (highly unlikely).

Pratt has raised over $3 million, outraising Bass at times, and his campaign emphasizes “zero encampments,” cracking down on fentanyl, and holding officials accountable for issues like the empty reservoir during the fire.

LA remains overwhelmingly Democrat (Democrats outnumber Republicans ~4:1), and Pratt’s GOP registration and Trump-adjacent endorsements could cap his ceiling even in a nonpartisan race.

Bass has broad institutional backing (labor, business groups, Gov. Newsom, etc.).

Crowd-sourced betting markets, which have been accurate in recent cycles, currently price Pratt’s overall chance of winning the election at:
  • Kalshi: ~27% (Bass 62%, Raman 12%). Heavy volume (> $36 million).
  • Polymarket: Similar range (~23-25% for Pratt, Bass ~64%).
Click to expand...
He's got a very good chance to get into the runoff, once there Bass's truly horrible job performance gives him a very good chance to beat her like a rented mule.
 
Damocles said:
He's got a very good chance to get into the runoff, once there Bass's truly horrible job performance gives him a very good chance to beat her like a rented mule.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of moderate Dems will vote for him. And I think a lot of Republicans will show up to vote.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Florida is not the new Wall St., gumby. To do that would take a monumental shift of resources, infrastructure, etc.

This BS threat of relocation is just that, as moving SECTIONS of you business offices is not the same as full blown total relocation.
Click to expand...
Wall Street is starting to crumble. It will take time but other major finical hubs will taking large parts of Wall St. business.

Yes, Dallas is rapidly emerging as a major national financial hub often dubbed "Y'all Street," aimed at becoming a serious alternative to New York's Wall Street by 2026. Driven by low taxes and a business-friendly environment, Dallas is attracting significant capital, with the Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE) set to begin trading in early 2026 and NYSE launching a regional branch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top