Yawn.

California has an insanely progressive income tax rate.
9.3% starting at $72,000.

And yet we still have a budget DEFICIT OF $21 BILLION.

Taxing more isnt going to fix that.

You should reconsider your sources of information

dajo9 said:

---

You should reconsider your sources of information

---

In California, it should be obvious that we dont have a tax revenue problem given how insanely progressive it is.

We have a SPENDING problem.

Go ahead and blame the WSJ Opinion Section.
That's not the problem.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

For those that dont subscribe to the WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/states-taxes-migration-democrats-irs-f13d9d04?st=CRDYE2

---

The chart says CA lost ~$12 billion of AGI in 2022 and 2023. Since 500,000 people left in those years that is an average AGI of $24k per person.

Based on the data you provided, it seems that poor people are leaving CA. The Wall Street Journal opinion section framing it as an exodus of the wealthy is par for the course from that group of liars. You are less informed after reading the WSJ opinion section.

---

This post is utter nonsense. The 2022-3 refers to a fiscal year. The number refers to net migration, The CA State Census Bureau of the State Dept. of Finance says the State lost 37,000 to 75,000 residents between July 2022 and July 2023. The 500,00 number is garbage pulled out of your imagination. Now that really is a selective framing par for the course .....

Using what is your faulty analysis to its natural conclusion, and using the medium of the State's own numbers, we talking $220,000 per person. I will let you figure out why your analysis fails Statistics 101. Diablo can share his other experiences where you shaded business related numbers to meet your agenda.

---

You should try your statistics again, lawyer*. We are talking net migration between states. The Wikipedia link below has that data. The average between the two years of 2022 and 2023 is about 300k making the AGI per person about $40k. The article was unclear about the timeframe but even for 1 year we are talking about lower levels of income at $40k.

The issue is housing affordability not taxes. Southern California, in particular, has more people than it should given water resources. People moving out is a good thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus

* I hope this personal insults doesn't get me suspended

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You should reconsider your sources of information

---

In California, it should be obvious that we dont have a tax revenue problem given how insanely progressive it is.

We have a SPENDING problem.

Go ahead and blame the WSJ Opinion Section.
That's not the problem.

---

I dont disagree that California has a spending problem. Primarily the spending for municipal workers is too much. But that is a different discussion.

DiabloWags said:

---

Yawn.

California has an insanely progressive income tax rate.
9.3% starting at $72,000.

And yet we still have a budget DEFICIT OF $21 BILLION.

Taxing more isnt going to fix that.

---

It wasn't that long ago (or am I getting old) that CA was flush with excess!!!

What happened?

December 24, 2023

With CA facing a $68 Billion budget deficit for 2024-2025:

"General Fund Expenditures have climbed 63.9% since Governor Newsom took office, growing at more than twice the annual rate at which those expenditures grew under Governor Brown (10.4% vs 4.7%)"

"Since 1971, there were 9.1 state workers for every 1,000 residents. Today, there are 11 state workers for every 1,000 residents"

"Back in 1971, California spent an inflation adjusted $2,473 for every person who lived here. Today, California is slated to spend $7,977 for every person who lives here."

Population growth has doubled over the past 50 years.
But one would have thought you'd see increased efficiencies and fewer state workers for every 1,000 residents.

Believe it or not, Revenue Growth = Spending




What's behind California's skyrocketing spending and $68 billion deficit? Orange County Register

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You should reconsider your sources of information

---

In California, it should be obvious that we dont have a tax revenue problem given how insanely progressive it is.

We have a SPENDING problem.

Go ahead and blame the WSJ Opinion Section.
That's not the problem.

---

I dont disagree that California has a spending problem. Primarily the spending for municipal workers is too much. But that is a different discussion.

---

I assume with the State deficit you mean State workers. In any event I asked my Apple AI:

Key Components of Increased Spending (20232025)

• Medi-Cal Expansion and Health Services (42% of budget): The largest driver of spending increases, including the expansion of full-scope Medi-Cal coverage to all eligible undocumented adults, regardless of immigration status. Additional costs arise from higher enrollment, increased pharmacy costs, and provider rate increases.
• K-14 Education (Proposition 98): Funding for K-12 schools and community colleges has continued to rise, with 2024-25 spending growing by billions due to higher General Fund revenue estimates and constitutional formulas. Key drivers include the full implementation of Universal Transitional Kindergarten (TK) and rising cost-of-living adjustments (COLA).
• Homelessness and Housing: Despite recent deficits forcing some delays, the state has invested billions in the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Program (HHAP), encampment resolution grants, and the Homekey program.
• Climate Change and Environmental Protection: Significant spending on wildfire prevention (CAL FIRE), drought response, and zero-emission vehicle infrastructure. The 2025-26 budget includes $2.7 billion in new climate spending via Proposition 4.
• State Workforce Expansion: The state workforce grew by nearly 28% (from 376,990 to 481,850) over recent years, adding ongoing labor costs.

This spending surge was fueled by a consistent overestimation of revenues, creating what has been described as a "structural deficit" in the $18-$35 billion range. While 2024-25 saw some spending cuts and deferrals, the long-term trend has been significant, ongoing program expansion.

Here is a Cal Matters article with links to numbers:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/02/newsom-spending-california-chronic-deficit/&ved=2ahUKEwid8q3dlciTAxXHPkQIHZCBGvIQFnoECDcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Ow5YR21yxjU-y9Hc60Ru7


Wtih respect to municipal workers and city/county budgets in free fall:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://calmatters.org/commentary/2025/03/california-budget-gaps/&ved=2ahUKEwik14OcmMiTAxVeJkQIHcIDAmkQFnoECD8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0I87s-qBuNc7y5dCV4zREA

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You should reconsider your sources of information

---

In California, it should be obvious that we dont have a tax revenue problem given how insanely progressive it is.

We have a SPENDING problem.

Go ahead and blame the WSJ Opinion Section.
That's not the problem.

---

I dont disagree that California has a spending problem. Primarily the spending for municipal workers is too much. But that is a different discussion.

---

I assume with the State deficit you mean State workers. In any event I asked my Apple AI:

Key Components of Increased Spending (20232025)

• Medi-Cal Expansion and Health Services (42% of budget): The largest driver of spending increases, including the expansion of full-scope Medi-Cal coverage to all eligible undocumented adults, regardless of immigration status. Additional costs arise from higher enrollment, increased pharmacy costs, and provider rate increases.
• K-14 Education (Proposition 98): Funding for K-12 schools and community colleges has continued to rise, with 2024-25 spending growing by billions due to higher General Fund revenue estimates and constitutional formulas. Key drivers include the full implementation of Universal Transitional Kindergarten (TK) and rising cost-of-living adjustments (COLA).
• Homelessness and Housing: Despite recent deficits forcing some delays, the state has invested billions in the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Program (HHAP), encampment resolution grants, and the Homekey program.
• Climate Change and Environmental Protection: Significant spending on wildfire prevention (CAL FIRE), drought response, and zero-emission vehicle infrastructure. The 2025-26 budget includes $2.7 billion in new climate spending via Proposition 4.
• State Workforce Expansion: The state workforce grew by nearly 28% (from 376,990 to 481,850) over recent years, adding ongoing labor costs.

This spending surge was fueled by a consistent overestimation of revenues, creating what has been described as a "structural deficit" in the $18-$35 billion range. While 2024-25 saw some spending cuts and deferrals, the long-term trend has been significant, ongoing program expansion.

Here is a Cal Matters article with links to numbers:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/02/newsom-spending-california-chronic-deficit/&ved=2ahUKEwid8q3dlciTAxXHPkQIHZCBGvIQFnoECDcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Ow5YR21yxjU-y9Hc60Ru7


Wtih respect to municipal workers and city/county budgets in free fall:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://calmatters.org/commentary/2025/03/california-budget-gaps/&ved=2ahUKEwik14OcmMiTAxVeJkQIHcIDAmkQFnoECD8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0I87s-qBuNc7y5dCV4zREA

---

BTW, CA is not the only State where municipal governments are facing budget deficits and cuts. The national economy is not exactly doing well, and that has a trickle down impact on local governments.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

For those that dont subscribe to the WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/states-taxes-migration-democrats-irs-f13d9d04?st=CRDYE2

---

The chart says CA lost ~$12 billion of AGI in 2022 and 2023. Since 500,000 people left in those years that is an average AGI of $24k per person.

Based on the data you provided, it seems that poor people are leaving CA. The Wall Street Journal opinion section framing it as an exodus of the wealthy is par for the course from that group of liars. You are less informed after reading the WSJ opinion section.

---

This post is utter nonsense. The 2022-3 refers to a fiscal year. The number refers to net migration, The CA State Census Bureau of the State Dept. of Finance says the State lost 37,000 to 75,000 residents between July 2022 and July 2023. The 500,00 number is garbage pulled out of your imagination. Now that really is a selective framing par for the course .....

Using what is your faulty analysis to its natural conclusion, and using the medium of the State's own numbers, we talking $220,000 per person. I will let you figure out why your analysis fails Statistics 101. Diablo can share his other experiences where you shaded business related numbers to meet your agenda.

---

You should try your statistics again, lawyer*. We are talking net migration between states. The Wikipedia link below has that data. The average between the two years of 2022 and 2023 is about 300k making the AGI per person about $40k. The article was unclear about the timeframe but even for 1 year we are talking about lower levels of income at $40k.

The issue is housing affordability not taxes. Southern California, in particular, has more people than it should given water resources. People moving out is a good thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus

* I hope this personal insults doesn't get me suspended

---

Okay stock picker, I see the net domestic migration is the number used, which is another problem, but I get where you got your numbers. My apologies. But the analysis is just wrong.

Per the State of California: Net Population Change in California by Year (July to July):

20222023: Growth of nearly 200,000 people (first gain since 2020).

20232024: Growth of about 108,00019,200 (various reports indicate slower growth in 2024 vs 2023).

The increase in population is from international population which is a mixed bag with lower income migrants from Mexico and South America and higher income level than average from all other immigrants. (happy to cite the stats). Also net domestic migration doesn't include the fact that people are actually born the state. This goes to show that narrative about the State losing population in the popular media, which even you perpetuate, just isn't true. The State's population is increasing.

The real question is who is leaving the State. Dividing numbers into lost revenue doesn't tell the correct story when in comes to balancing a budget. The only thing that makes sense is looking at the amount of money leaving:

1) Sure, the majority of people leaving report incomes under $100,000, struggling with housing costs, lack of affordable housing, and high cost of living. There are leaving for jobs in other states where the can have a better standard of livling. This is almost always the case with out migration from any state. Most moves are driven by family economics, especially at the lower income levels.

2) As noted in the article and numbers stated therein. there is a growing number of households with incomes over $200,000 are moving out, especially to states with no income tax. This group has accelerated their departures, with high-earning millennials (ages 2645) moving out at high rates for, among other reasons, better tax environments. 48,875 high-earner households left the state in 2022, a 7.2% increase, taking $31.5 billion in adjusted gross income with them.While the exodus of high-income households is growing, it is partially offset by new international wealthy residents arriving.

3) Then there are billionaires. Doing some idiotic division of the number of net outflow of immigration in no way shows the impact of their departures. While only a small number of billionaires (roughly 6) officially relocated recently, their departure represented a potential loss of $27 billion in tax revenue. according to the PPIC (that is who Fortune is citing). I guess some billionaires do pay taxes. California personal income tax revenue for the 2026-27 fiscal year is projected to reach approximately $125.2 billion, based on the Legislative Analyst's Office, so that means over 20% of the personal income tax base just left.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fonly-6-billionaires-left-california-073000585.html%23%3A~%3Atext%3DR-%2COnly%25206%2520billionaires%2520left%2520California%2520over%2520its%2520proposed%2520wealth%2520tax%2Ctech%2520industry%2520and%2520overall%2520economy.&ved=0CA0Q1fkOahgKEwj4o_SNjMiTAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQgQE&opi=89978449

https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/

From this former CFO of a NYSE company with a JD/MBA and two Econ degrees (one which is applied econometrics), when your tax base is so reliant on high earner income tax base you are incredibly vulnerable to a small number of wealthy individuals leaving. Trying to show the impact by dividing number of people left by dollars left is a meaningless calculation. When you have a net $11 billion in income taken out of system during a specified period, you have $11 billion taken out of CA, It doesn't matter that it came primarily from just a few wealthy people leaving, and the fact that you can come-up with a smaller average number by dividing the loss in revenue by people doesn't have any impact on the State trying to pay its bills or the economy. It is just bad analysis designed to bolster your views. The $11 Billon left.

---

I appreciate you apologizing for your error but it makes no sense for you to still claim I am wrong after admitting my analysis was sound (and your post still got 4 stars for being wrong).

The problem seems to be that you don't seem to understand the difference between income and wealth. If we recap the discussion, it began with Diablo bemoaning the amount of income that left the state in 2022-2023 and saying high income tax rates are why high income people are leaving. I asked for his evidence and he provided an article that did not prove his point based on a simple average calculation. Now you can try to twist and turn that average calculation all you want but the bottom line is that the numbers are the numbers. There is simply no way to be distribute those numbers in a way that supports Diablo's argument. You have to reach levels of incredulity to try to say my analysis is not valid.

Your discussion about the overall state population levels is an irrelevant non-sequiter.

Then you have point #1, in which you basically use a whole paragraph to say I am correct.

Then you have point #2, in which you convert to wealth and 2026 era political arguments and wealth based tax numbers that have nothing to do with income or the data from 2022-2023. As I have said in this thread, I don't support a wealth tax for the state of California, which should be done at the Federal and International levels. 6 billionaries leaving over a wealth tax vs. California's income tax is a different discussion. Is 6 billionaires a lot, relative to hundreds of thousands of others leaving the state? I think California should avoid a wealth tax and should focus on the financial struggles of everyday Californians who are leaving the state under financial duress.

wifeisafurd said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I do want to poibt out that brin has drip 45 million and counting to defeat this measure. Feela like a lot of money when he could just call uhaul. He clearly cares about all the other billionaires who cant

---

Can you rephrase? Brin the Drip? Can't follow.

---

I suck at typing on my phone. Totally unacceptable.

Here is what I was trying to say


I do want to point out that Brin dropped $45 million and counting to defeat this measure. Feels like a lot of money when he could just call Hhaul. He clearly cares about all the other billionaires who cant call up Uhaul and move.


In other words, a core argument on the "no" side is that moving out of state to avoid the tax is relatively easy. Call your movers, buy a house in Incline Village (or your other state of choice) and start living there. Hell, you don't even need to sell your Silicon Valley pad, just rent it out as an AirBNB and stay in the valley at a lux suite at the Four Seasons when you need a face to face.

But apparently Brin et. al. care so much about the state not doing dumb things they have dropped now over $100 million (and counting) in the no side - including paying a record amount of $$$ for signatures for their _THREE_ poison pill initiatives.

So while I was being a bit sarcastic and snide only a bit - because that is serious coin to drop even for them if it was costless to move out of the Golden State. Maybe they DO like living here ;-)

(BTW - my guess is that the political consultant class decided it was a payday opportunity and sold the billionaires on this - and now they are invested in their egos and the spice is flowing. But honestly I would have advised that spending money to defeat sorta makes SEIU's point and they would have been FAR better served (politically and financially) by spending the money buying up really cool property in Incline and investing Politico to the housewarming party to make the point. They could always sell if the thing fails.)

wifeisafurd said:

---

Third and most importantly, you then somehow declare victory lap after I tell you dividing the revenue by numbers of people doesn't negate the loss of $11 million in taxable revenue. Then after I point out the complete idiocy of your per capita division approach by telling you that by only six people leaving caused at 20% reduction in the personal income tax base (which means your per capita approach on tax revenue loss is utter BS), you start off discussing some wealth tax crap. The bottom line is the State during the period lost $11 billion in taxable income it can no longer tax every year. You conflating things by mentioning taxing wealth doesn't negate that.

Dude, the State lost $11 million in taxable income, not wealth.

Dude, when the 6 billionaires left, the State lost $27 billion in tax revenue it can no longer tax each year.
Dude, you trying to divide any of those numbers by number of people that are leaving CA doesn't change the fact that the State is losing its personal income tax base. What that does to the wealth tax is irrelevant to the point being made by the WSJ, which you clearly don't get.

No matter how much mud you throw on the wall by trying to inject wealth (which was never mentioned), additional out migration of lower income people or whatever other deflection you want to raise, The STATE IS LOSING ITS PERSONAL INCOME TAX BASE. Hopefully you now understand the discussion and can add something of value.

---

This is an excellent summation and was essentially my point all along.
Thanks for this.

wifeisafurd said:

---

BTW, CA is not the only State where municipal governments are facing budget deficits and cuts. The national economy is not exactly doing well, and that has a trickle down impact on local governments.

---

Case in point: The City of San Jose is looking at a $56 million dollar budget deficit in the coming year.

And we haven't even gotten close to going into a Recession yet.
When that happens, that number is going to immediately double, if not triple.

And they aren't alone.

socaltownie said:

---

I suck at typing on my phone. Totally unacceptable.

Here is what I was trying to say


I do want to point out that Brin dropped $45 million and counting to defeat this measure. Feels like a lot of money when he could just call Uhaul. He clearly cares about all the other billionaires who cant call up Uhaul and move.

So while I was being a bit sarcastic and snide only a bit - because that is serious coin to drop even for them if it was costless to move out of the Golden State. Maybe they DO like living here ;-)

---

People like Brin and Page at Google have already been "moving"

Google Co-Founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page Reduce Ties to California - The New York Times

socaltownie said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I do want to poibt out that brin has drip 45 million and counting to defeat this measure. Feela like a lot of money when he could just call uhaul. He clearly cares about all the other billionaires who cant

---

Can you rephrase? Brin the Drip? Can't follow.

---

I suck at typing on my phone. Totally unacceptable.

Here is what I was trying to say


I do want to point out that Brin dropped $45 million and counting to defeat this measure. Feels like a lot of money when he could just call Hhaul. He clearly cares about all the other billionaires who cant call up Uhaul and move.


In other words, a core argument on the "no" side is that moving out of state to avoid the tax is relatively easy. Call your movers, buy a house in Incline Village (or your other state of choice) and start living there. Hell, you don't even need to sell your Silicon Valley pad, just rent it out as an AirBNB and stay in the valley at a lux suite at the Four Seasons when you need a face to face.

But apparently Brin et. al. care so much about the state not doing dumb things they have dropped now over $100 million (and counting) in the no side - including paying a record amount of $$$ for signatures for their _THREE_ poison pill initiatives.

So while I was being a bit sarcastic and snide only a bit - because that is serious coin to drop even for them if it was costless to move out of the Golden State. Maybe they DO like living here ;-)

(BTW - my guess is that the political consultant class decided it was a payday opportunity and sold the billionaires on this - and now they are invested in their egos and the spice is flowing. But honestly I would have advised that spending money to defeat sorta makes SEIU's point and they would have been FAR better served (politically and financially) by spending the money buying up really cool property in Incline and investing Politico to the housewarming party to make the point. They could always sell if the thing fails.)

---

Okay, understood. No problems.

Back to the wealth tax after trying to make the point about CA losing its income tax base.

Don Brin will be 94 in May and is worth $19 plus billion dollars, mostly in SoCal real estate. That real estate takes a big hit if the tax passes, so I get that he is concerned for his kids, and is putting money into fighting the legislation. It may also be personal for him since he owns a good portion of SoCal, and developed a lot of areas in which the ultra wealthy live. This may sound weird, but $100 million really is a drop in the bucket to him and I would expect that he will spend a lot more. He has the reputation as being the kind of guy that would rather fight.

Bren is known for working in stealth ways. I guess his family could try to move him out of State, but at his age, who knows what he will do or has done (he could already be out of State and he has many residences in and out of CA). While voted on in Nov. 2026, the tax is designed to be retroactive, applying to wealth held as of Jan. 1, 2026. No one thinks that retroactive impact is legal, and who knows if Bren will be living when and if the tax is ever imposed. It most likely is about his legacy.

Why the shot at Politico?

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

For those that dont subscribe to the WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/states-taxes-migration-democrats-irs-f13d9d04?st=CRDYE2

---

The chart says CA lost ~$12 billion of AGI in 2022 and 2023. Since 500,000 people left in those years that is an average AGI of $24k per person.

Based on the data you provided, it seems that poor people are leaving CA. The Wall Street Journal opinion section framing it as an exodus of the wealthy is par for the course from that group of liars. You are less informed after reading the WSJ opinion section.

---

This post is utter nonsense. The 2022-3 refers to a fiscal year. The number refers to net migration, The CA State Census Bureau of the State Dept. of Finance says the State lost 37,000 to 75,000 residents between July 2022 and July 2023. The 500,00 number is garbage pulled out of your imagination. Now that really is a selective framing par for the course .....

Using what is your faulty analysis to its natural conclusion, and using the medium of the State's own numbers, we talking $220,000 per person. I will let you figure out why your analysis fails Statistics 101. Diablo can share his other experiences where you shaded business related numbers to meet your agenda.

---

You should try your statistics again, lawyer*. We are talking net migration between states. The Wikipedia link below has that data. The average between the two years of 2022 and 2023 is about 300k making the AGI per person about $40k. The article was unclear about the timeframe but even for 1 year we are talking about lower levels of income at $40k.

The issue is housing affordability not taxes. Southern California, in particular, has more people than it should given water resources. People moving out is a good thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus

* I hope this personal insults doesn't get me suspended

---

Okay stock picker, I see the net domestic migration is the number used, which is another problem, but I get where you got your numbers. My apologies. But the analysis is just wrong.

Per the State of California: Net Population Change in California by Year (July to July):

20222023: Growth of nearly 200,000 people (first gain since 2020).

20232024: Growth of about 108,00019,200 (various reports indicate slower growth in 2024 vs 2023).

The increase in population is from international population which is a mixed bag with lower income migrants from Mexico and South America and higher income level than average from all other immigrants. (happy to cite the stats). Also net domestic migration doesn't include the fact that people are actually born the state. This goes to show that narrative about the State losing population in the popular media, which even you perpetuate, just isn't true. The State's population is increasing.

The real question is who is leaving the State. Dividing numbers into lost revenue doesn't tell the correct story when in comes to balancing a budget. The only thing that makes sense is looking at the amount of money leaving:

1) Sure, the majority of people leaving report incomes under $100,000, struggling with housing costs, lack of affordable housing, and high cost of living. There are leaving for jobs in other states where the can have a better standard of livling. This is almost always the case with out migration from any state. Most moves are driven by family economics, especially at the lower income levels.

2) As noted in the article and numbers stated therein. there is a growing number of households with incomes over $200,000 are moving out, especially to states with no income tax. This group has accelerated their departures, with high-earning millennials (ages 2645) moving out at high rates for, among other reasons, better tax environments. 48,875 high-earner households left the state in 2022, a 7.2% increase, taking $31.5 billion in adjusted gross income with them.While the exodus of high-income households is growing, it is partially offset by new international wealthy residents arriving.

3) Then there are billionaires. Doing some idiotic division of the number of net outflow of immigration in no way shows the impact of their departures. While only a small number of billionaires (roughly 6) officially relocated recently, their departure represented a potential loss of $27 billion in tax revenue. according to the PPIC (that is who Fortune is citing). I guess some billionaires do pay taxes. California personal income tax revenue for the 2026-27 fiscal year is projected to reach approximately $125.2 billion, based on the Legislative Analyst's Office, so that means over 20% of the personal income tax base just left.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fonly-6-billionaires-left-california-073000585.html%23%3A~%3Atext%3DR-%2COnly%25206%2520billionaires%2520left%2520California%2520over%2520its%2520proposed%2520wealth%2520tax%2Ctech%2520industry%2520and%2520overall%2520economy.&ved=0CA0Q1fkOahgKEwj4o_SNjMiTAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQgQE&opi=89978449

https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/

From this former CFO of a NYSE company with a JD/MBA and two Econ degrees (one which is applied econometrics), when your tax base is so reliant on high earner income tax base you are incredibly vulnerable to a small number of wealthy individuals leaving. Trying to show the impact by dividing number of people left by dollars left is a meaningless calculation. When you have a net $11 billion in income taken out of system during a specified period, you have $11 billion taken out of CA, It doesn't matter that it came primarily from just a few wealthy people leaving, and the fact that you can come-up with a smaller average number by dividing the loss in revenue by people doesn't have any impact on the State trying to pay its bills or the economy. It is just bad analysis designed to bolster your views. The $11 Billon left.

---

I appreciate you apologizing for your error but it makes no sense for you to still claim I am wrong after admitting my analysis was sound (and your post still got 4 stars for being wrong).

The problem seems to be that you don't seem to understand the difference between income and wealth. If we recap the discussion, it began with Diablo bemoaning the amount of income that left the state in 2022-2023 and saying high income tax rates are why high income people are leaving. I asked for his evidence and he provided an article that did not prove his point based on a simple average calculation. Now you can try to twist and turn that average calculation all you want but the bottom line is that the numbers are the numbers. There is simply no way to be distribute those numbers in a way that supports Diablo's argument. You have to reach levels of incredulity to try to say my analysis is not valid.

Your discussion about the overall state population levels is an irrelevant non-sequiter.

Then you have point #1, in which you basically use a whole paragraph to say I am correct.

Then you have point #2, in which you convert to wealth and 2026 era political arguments and wealth based tax numbers that have nothing to do with income or the data from 2022-2023. As I have said in this thread, I don't support a wealth tax for the state of California, which should be done at the Federal and International levels. 6 billionaries leaving over a wealth tax vs. California's income tax is a different discussion. Is 6 billionaires a lot, relative to hundreds of thousands of others leaving the state? I think California should avoid a wealth tax and should focus on the financial struggles of everyday Californians who are leaving the state under financial duress.

---

First, your wrong that the population is declining in the state, and you missed the point now made in several points that dividing-up the taxable income number by number of people leaving proves nothing about the loss of revenue and that original analysis is wrong (and thanks for the 4 stars for the people who actually understand this). You seem to forget that I say that while your math was using the wrong numbers (for which I was incorrect) your analysis didn't pass statistics 101. And it still doesn't.

Second The nonsequiter is in response to your wrong comment about declining population.

Third and most importantly, you then somehow declare victory lap after I tell you dividing the revenue by numbers of people doesn't negate the loss of $11 million in taxable revenue. Then after I point out the complete idiocy of your per capita division approach by telling you that by only six people leaving caused at 20% reduction in the personal income tax base (which means your per capita approach on tax revenue loss is utter BS), you start off discussing some wealth tax crap. The bottom line is the State during the period lost $11 billion in taxable income it can no longer tax every year. You conflating things by mentioning taxing wealth doesn't negate that.

Dude, the State lost $11 million in taxable income, not wealth.
Dude, when the 6 billionaires left, the State lost $27 billion in tax revenue it can no longer tax each year.
Dude, you trying to divide any of those numbers by number of people that are leaving CA doesn't change the fact that the State is losing its personal income tax base. What that does to the wealth tax is irrelevant to the point being made by the WSJ, which you clearly don't get.

No matter how much mud you throw on the wall by trying to inject wealth (which was never mentioned), additional out migration of lower income people or whatever other deflection you want to raise, The STATE IS LOSING ITS PERSONAL INCOME TAX BASE. Hopefully you now understand the discussion and can add something of value.

---

Sadly, you are so tangled up in your failed argument that you don't even know what I am arguing and what you are arguing.

1. I never said the population is declining. That is another one of your straw men.

2. You brought up the wealth tax - not me. The article you linked literally says "wealth tax" in the headline. You have twice now claimed the projected future wealth tax losses discussed in that article are evidence of income tax losses already accrued by the state. You have twice conflated wealth taxes with income taxes and then accused me of doing so. You arent making any sense. You sound like Trump.

3. The average I used is a perfectly valid debunk of Diablo. You can't come up with a coherent distribution of the numbers (net in-state migration and income lost) that says anything other than the lost income is predominantly from lots of people leaving that are in the bottom half of CA incomes.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

For those that dont subscribe to the WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/states-taxes-migration-democrats-irs-f13d9d04?st=CRDYE2

---

The chart says CA lost ~$12 billion of AGI in 2022 and 2023. Since 500,000 people left in those years that is an average AGI of $24k per person.

Based on the data you provided, it seems that poor people are leaving CA. The Wall Street Journal opinion section framing it as an exodus of the wealthy is par for the course from that group of liars. You are less informed after reading the WSJ opinion section.

---

This post is utter nonsense. The 2022-3 refers to a fiscal year. The number refers to net migration, The CA State Census Bureau of the State Dept. of Finance says the State lost 37,000 to 75,000 residents between July 2022 and July 2023. The 500,00 number is garbage pulled out of your imagination. Now that really is a selective framing par for the course .....

Using what is your faulty analysis to its natural conclusion, and using the medium of the State's own numbers, we talking $220,000 per person. I will let you figure out why your analysis fails Statistics 101. Diablo can share his other experiences where you shaded business related numbers to meet your agenda.

---

You should try your statistics again, lawyer*. We are talking net migration between states. The Wikipedia link below has that data. The average between the two years of 2022 and 2023 is about 300k making the AGI per person about $40k. The article was unclear about the timeframe but even for 1 year we are talking about lower levels of income at $40k.

The issue is housing affordability not taxes. Southern California, in particular, has more people than it should given water resources. People moving out is a good thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus

* I hope this personal insults doesn't get me suspended

---

Okay stock picker, I see the net domestic migration is the number used, which is another problem, but I get where you got your numbers. My apologies. But the analysis is just wrong.

Per the State of California: Net Population Change in California by Year (July to July):

20222023: Growth of nearly 200,000 people (first gain since 2020).

20232024: Growth of about 108,00019,200 (various reports indicate slower growth in 2024 vs 2023).

The increase in population is from international population which is a mixed bag with lower income migrants from Mexico and South America and higher income level than average from all other immigrants. (happy to cite the stats). Also net domestic migration doesn't include the fact that people are actually born the state. This goes to show that narrative about the State losing population in the popular media, which even you perpetuate, just isn't true. The State's population is increasing.

The real question is who is leaving the State. Dividing numbers into lost revenue doesn't tell the correct story when in comes to balancing a budget. The only thing that makes sense is looking at the amount of money leaving:

1) Sure, the majority of people leaving report incomes under $100,000, struggling with housing costs, lack of affordable housing, and high cost of living. There are leaving for jobs in other states where the can have a better standard of livling. This is almost always the case with out migration from any state. Most moves are driven by family economics, especially at the lower income levels.

2) As noted in the article and numbers stated therein. there is a growing number of households with incomes over $200,000 are moving out, especially to states with no income tax. This group has accelerated their departures, with high-earning millennials (ages 2645) moving out at high rates for, among other reasons, better tax environments. 48,875 high-earner households left the state in 2022, a 7.2% increase, taking $31.5 billion in adjusted gross income with them.While the exodus of high-income households is growing, it is partially offset by new international wealthy residents arriving.

3) Then there are billionaires. Doing some idiotic division of the number of net outflow of immigration in no way shows the impact of their departures. While only a small number of billionaires (roughly 6) officially relocated recently, their departure represented a potential loss of $27 billion in tax revenue. according to the PPIC (that is who Fortune is citing). I guess some billionaires do pay taxes. California personal income tax revenue for the 2026-27 fiscal year is projected to reach approximately $125.2 billion, based on the Legislative Analyst's Office, so that means over 20% of the personal income tax base just left.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fonly-6-billionaires-left-california-073000585.html%23%3A~%3Atext%3DR-%2COnly%25206%2520billionaires%2520left%2520California%2520over%2520its%2520proposed%2520wealth%2520tax%2Ctech%2520industry%2520and%2520overall%2520economy.&ved=0CA0Q1fkOahgKEwj4o_SNjMiTAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQgQE&opi=89978449

https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/

From this former CFO of a NYSE company with a JD/MBA and two Econ degrees (one which is applied econometrics), when your tax base is so reliant on high earner income tax base you are incredibly vulnerable to a small number of wealthy individuals leaving. Trying to show the impact by dividing number of people left by dollars left is a meaningless calculation. When you have a net $11 billion in income taken out of system during a specified period, you have $11 billion taken out of CA, It doesn't matter that it came primarily from just a few wealthy people leaving, and the fact that you can come-up with a smaller average number by dividing the loss in revenue by people doesn't have any impact on the State trying to pay its bills or the economy. It is just bad analysis designed to bolster your views. The $11 Billon left.

---

I appreciate you apologizing for your error but it makes no sense for you to still claim I am wrong after admitting my analysis was sound (and your post still got 4 stars for being wrong).

The problem seems to be that you don't seem to understand the difference between income and wealth. If we recap the discussion, it began with Diablo bemoaning the amount of income that left the state in 2022-2023 and saying high income tax rates are why high income people are leaving. I asked for his evidence and he provided an article that did not prove his point based on a simple average calculation. Now you can try to twist and turn that average calculation all you want but the bottom line is that the numbers are the numbers. There is simply no way to be distribute those numbers in a way that supports Diablo's argument. You have to reach levels of incredulity to try to say my analysis is not valid.

Your discussion about the overall state population levels is an irrelevant non-sequiter.

Then you have point #1, in which you basically use a whole paragraph to say I am correct.

Then you have point #2, in which you convert to wealth and 2026 era political arguments and wealth based tax numbers that have nothing to do with income or the data from 2022-2023. As I have said in this thread, I don't support a wealth tax for the state of California, which should be done at the Federal and International levels. 6 billionaries leaving over a wealth tax vs. California's income tax is a different discussion. Is 6 billionaires a lot, relative to hundreds of thousands of others leaving the state? I think California should avoid a wealth tax and should focus on the financial struggles of everyday Californians who are leaving the state under financial duress.

---

First, your wrong that the population is declining in the state, and you missed the point now made in several points that dividing-up the taxable income number by number of people leaving proves nothing about the loss of revenue and that original analysis is wrong (and thanks for the 4 stars for the people who actually understand this). You seem to forget that I say that while your math was using the wrong numbers (for which I was incorrect) your analysis didn't pass statistics 101. And it still doesn't.

Second The nonsequiter is in response to your wrong comment about declining population.

Third and most importantly, you then somehow declare victory lap after I tell you dividing the revenue by numbers of people doesn't negate the loss of $11 million in taxable revenue. Then after I point out the complete idiocy of your per capita division approach by telling you that by only six people leaving caused at 20% reduction in the personal income tax base (which means your per capita approach on tax revenue loss is utter BS), you start off discussing some wealth tax crap. The bottom line is the State during the period lost $11 billion in taxable income it can no longer tax every year. You conflating things by mentioning taxing wealth doesn't negate that.

Dude, the State lost $11 million in taxable income, not wealth.
Dude, when the 6 billionaires left, the State lost $27 billion in tax revenue it can no longer tax each year.
Dude, you trying to divide any of those numbers by number of people that are leaving CA doesn't change the fact that the State is losing its personal income tax base. What that does to the wealth tax is irrelevant to the point being made by the WSJ, which you clearly don't get.

No matter how much mud you throw on the wall by trying to inject wealth (which was never mentioned), additional out migration of lower income people or whatever other deflection you want to raise, The STATE IS LOSING ITS PERSONAL INCOME TAX BASE. Hopefully you now understand the discussion and can add something of value.

---

Sadly, you are so tangled up in your failed argument that you don't even know what I am arguing and what you are arguing.

1. I never said the population is declining. That is another one of your straw men.

2. You brought up the wealth tax - not me. The article you linked literally says "wealth tax" in the headline. You have twice now claimed the projected future wealth tax losses discussed in that article are evidence of income tax losses already accrued by the state. You have twice conflated wealth taxes with income taxes and then accused me of doing so. You arent making any sense. You sound like Trump.

3. The average I used is a perfectly valid debunk of Diablo. You can't come up with a coherent distribution of the numbers (net in-state migration and income lost) that says anything other than the lost income is predominantly from lots of people leaving that are in the bottom half of CA incomes.

---

You can bring a donkey's behind to water, but you can't make it drink. I think by now everone had figured out the discussion is about lost income tax revenue and your attempt to minimize the impact by dividing the amount by some sort of population measure is an attempt to manipulate the number in a manner that no one does. I have now seen over twenty articles quoting the WSJ's numbers, and not one has tried to manipulate a weak argument by applying some sort of per capita number. The State is losing the tax revenue regardless of the number of people leaving the State. The guys rating bonds only care about the amount of money, the Legislature that is required to balance the budget only cares about the overall amount of tax revenue, and every decision that has to be made to increase taxes or make cuts only revolves about the amount of overall amount of tax revenue. Only you can make an argument against Diablo and I based some stupid per capita method - the rest of the world, including the WSJ, doesn't care. At no point do you explain why the WSJ is wrong. Your criticism about bias seems wildly out of place when sources like Yahoo News, NYT, Politico, Fox Business and on and on are in fact using the WSJ's numbers as evidence that tax revenues are declining due to migration of the wealthy.

As for the remaining nonsense, the readers here can decide:

1) if your argument that people moving out because there is not enough water ad affordability is good didn't mean less people are moving out doesn't mean the population is declining,, but actually what , the actual positive population growth rate is good because ?????

2) I may have only been discussing the reduction in income tax revenues, in the text of my posts, but by referencing an article that had wealth tax in its title, I therefore (a) brought up the wealth tax and (b) somehow was conflating the wealth tax with the loss of income tax revenue ( by the way the article was referenced for its discussion about the amount of lost income tax revenue because six billionaires left the State, and not the wealth tax to show that in fact it wasn't the bottom half as you call it that was where the income tax revenue loss occurred).

3) Somewhere Diablo and I said the lost income "is predominantly from lots of people leaving that are in the bottom half of CA income". For starers, no where did we say that or anything remotely resembling that. Moreover, if you actually read Diablo's posts, he constantly said these people in the lower income groups don't pay state income taxes. I appreciate you pay taxes in another State, but your ignorance of the CA tax system works is on display. What utter nonsense.

---

Your argument circles the drain. I don't have the interest in it.

wifeisafurd said:

---

3) Somewhere Diablo and I said the lost income "is predominantly from lots of people leaving that are in the bottom half of CA income". For starers, no where did we say that or anything remotely resembling that. Moreover, if you actually read Diablo's posts, he constantly said these people in the lower income groups don't pay state income taxes. I appreciate you pay taxes in another State, but your ignorance of the CA tax system works is on display. What utter nonsense.

---

Bingo.

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

3) Somewhere Diablo and I said the lost income "is predominantly from lots of people leaving that are in the bottom half of CA income". For starers, no where did we say that or anything remotely resembling that. Moreover, if you actually read Diablo's posts, he constantly said these people in the lower income groups don't pay state income taxes. I appreciate you pay taxes in another State, but your ignorance of the CA tax system works is on display. What utter nonsense.

---

Bingo.

---

Funny, because you bingo'd more incoherence from furd that caused me to lose interest. It's all straw men or confusion, hard to tell which. I didn't say you said that quote. I said that quote. Also, the second half of the post is irrelevant. Another straw man about something that wasn't being discussed. The complaint is that $12 billion of AGI is lost. That is true whether it was 12 people with a billion AGI or net 300,000 people averaging $40k AGI. Of course the tax implications are very different - nobody is disputing that.

"The billionaire tax fight is becoming a test of whether AI creates shared prosperity or a level of wealth concentration that Amodei warns could "break society."
Axios

But nowhere has anyone recognized the SEIU United Healthcare Workers teamed up with none other than a highly liberal Cal economist in the likes of Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the Paris School of Economics.

Saez and Zucman have spent years using dubious assumptions to push the case for confiscation of wealth.
Their numbers simply don't add up.

They rely on selective accounting methods and questions assumptions to tilt the scales in favor of confiscatory wealth taxes. California's proposal is simply an attempt to circumvent the constitutional constraints that would doom a federal wealth tax.

That's why we are seeing it pushed at the state level.

Dwight Way said:

---

But nowhere has anyone recognized the SEIU United Healthcare Workers teamed up with none other than a highly liberal Cal economist in the likes of Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the Paris School of Economics.

Saez and Zucman have spent years using dubious assumptions to push the case for confiscation of wealth.
Their numbers simply don't add up.

They rely on selective accounting methods and questions assumptions to tilt the scales in favor of confiscatory wealth taxes. California's proposal is simply an attempt to circumvent the constitutional constraints that would doom a federal wealth tax.

That's why we are seeing it pushed at the state level.

---

You don't have to be particularly astute to be able to observe an incredible wealth imbalance in our society these days. I think that point is beyond the need for debate.

The problem is lying to the public about what serves as the basis for a ballot initiative.
And making claims about income tax liability that are not true.
It's deceptive.

Using the always inflated Forbes 400 list where studies have shown the wealth posted is actually half in reality, claiming that the Top 1/10th of 1% has a combined federal, state, and local income tax rate of only 23% when it is in reality 41%, and artificially inflating the tax burden borne by lower income Americans to 24% by conveniently ignoring the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is not an honest analysis by Saez and Zucman.

It's fraudulent analysis.

Dwight Way said:

---

The problem is lying to the public about what serves as the basis for a ballot initiative.
And making claims about income tax liability that are not true.
It's deceptive.

Using the always inflated Forbes 400 list where studies have shown the wealth posted is actually half in reality, claiming that the Top 1/10th of 1% has a combined federal, state, and local income tax rate of only 23% when it is in reality 41%, and artificially inflating the tax burden borne by lower income Americans to 24% by conveniently ignoring the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is not an honest analysis by Saez and Zucman.

It's fraudulent analysis.

---

So you are worried about an obscure analysis but not the actual problem of wealth inequality.

Petition qualified for the ballot. Establishment including Gavin Peter Thiel and unions trying to keep it from a vote

.

There is a saying in the law business:

"If the clients aren't p@issing and moaning about your bill, you aren't charging enough."

Same applies to really rich guys and taxes.

Economics Nobel Laureates Support letter for Proposition 40,
the California billionaire tax September 19, 2026.

Daron Acemoglu (MIT)
Abhijit Banerjee (University of Zurich and MIT)
Peter Diamond (MIT)
Esther Duflo (University of Zurich and MIT)
Paul Krugman (CUNY)
Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia University)

In November 2026, California will vote on Proposition 40, a 5%
one-time tax on the wealth of California's billionaires. The revenue
would help cover the massive funding cuts to California's Medicaid
enacted by Congress in 2025.

If it passes, Proposition 40 would be the first-ever tax on billionaire
wealth enacted anywhere in the world. California is the right place
to take this historic step. The explosive growth of the state's
billionaires over the past few decades has made it one of the most
unequal places in America.

Ten years ago, the wealthiest 0.001% of California residents were
worth a combined $700 billion. Today, that same fraction of the
population, California's 250 billionaires, are collectively worth $2.3
trillion. Their wealth now amounts to the entire annual income of all
California taxpayers some 20 million of them.

This extreme wealth has translated into extraordinary power, in
California just like in the United States more broadly. During the
2000 federal election cycle, billionaires accounted for about 1% of
total donations; in 2024 this number had risen to 19%.

The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times,
Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, X are all owned or controlled by
prominent billionaires. Sergey Brin alone has already spent more
than $100 million to defeat the California billionaire tax.

How did the billionaires get to be so rich? In many cases, they
made important contributions, for which they have been amply
rewarded. But our failure to tax their returns on capitala myriad
of loopholes they've taken full advantage ofhas also allowed their
wealth to compound, while ordinary Americans have paid higher
rates.

Over the 2019-2025 period, the total amount of California
income tax paid by billionaires amounted to only 1.6% of their $1.4
trillion wealth gain, much less than what ordinary Californians pay
on their paychecks.

Consider now what a targeted intervention like Proposition 40
would do. This tax only partially plays catch-up, but it is a move in
the right direction.

First, it would raise a large amount of revenue. A one-time tax of
5% on the wealth of California's 250 billionaires would raise as
much revenue as a 5% income tax on all Californian taxpayers:
about $100 billion.

The wealth tax would be modest relative to the
gains made by billionaires, yet large enough to offset the federal
cuts to Medicaid. Nvidia's CEO Jensen Huang, who would be one
of the main taxpayers, put it plainly when he said he would be
"perfectly fine" with it.

If approved in November, the tax would apply to billionaires who
resided in California as of January 1st of 2026. It is too late for them
to try to avoid it by moving to another state. Some affected
taxpayers may have tried to leave between the time they learned
about the proposed ballot initiative in late November 2025 and
January 1st of 2026. But the window was so short that it is unlikely
any significant number of billionaires successfully cut ties with the
Golden state in such a short period of time.

And contrary to the claims of its opponents, taxing billionaires will
not doom Silicon Valley, quite the opposite. Since the beginning of
2026, after the wealth tax initiative was announced, California has

attracted 80% of all new venture capital funding in America, up from
about 50% before 2025.
What will allow California to thrive in
Economics Nobel Laureates Support letter for Proposition 40,
the California billionaire tax September 19, 2026.
Daron Acemoglu (MIT)
Abhijit Banerjee (University of Zurich and MIT)
Peter Diamond (MIT)
Esther Duflo (University of Zurich and MIT)
Paul Krugman (CUNY)
Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia University)
In November 2026, California will vote on Proposition 40, a 5%
one-time tax on the wealth of California's billionaires. The revenue
would help cover the massive funding cuts to California's Medicaid
enacted by Congress in 2025.
If it passes, Proposition 40 would be the first-ever tax on billionaire
wealth enacted anywhere in the world. California is the right place
to take this historic step. The explosive growth of the state's
billionaires over the past few decades has made it one of the most
unequal places in America.
Ten years ago, the wealthiest 0.001% of California residents were
worth a combined $700 billion. Today, that same fraction of the
population, California's 250 billionaires, are collectively worth $2.3
trillion. Their wealth now amounts to the entire annual income of all
California taxpayers some 20 million of them.
This extreme wealth has translated into extraordinary power, in
California just like in the United States more broadly. During the
2000 federal election cycle, billionaires accounted for about 1% of
total donations; in 2024 this number had risen to 19%. The
Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times,
Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, X are all owned or controlled by
prominent billionaires. Sergey Brin alone has already spent more
than $100 million to defeat the California billionaire tax.
How did the billionaires get to be so rich? In many cases, they
made important contributions, for which they have been amply
rewarded. But our failure to tax their returns on capitala myriad
of loopholes they've taken full advantage ofhas also allowed their
wealth to compound, while ordinary Americans have paid higher
rates. Over the 2019-2025 period, the total amount of California
income tax paid by billionaires amounted to only 1.6% of their $1.4
trillion wealth gain, much less than what ordinary Californians pay
on their paychecks.
1
Consider now what a targeted intervention like Proposition 40
would do. This tax only partially plays catch-up, but it is a move in
the right direction.
First, it would raise a large amount of revenue. A one-time tax of
5% on the wealth of California's 250 billionaires would raise as
much revenue as a 5% income tax on all Californian taxpayers:
about $100 billion. The wealth tax would be modest relative to the
gains made by billionaires, yet large enough to offset the federal
cuts to Medicaid. Nvidia's CEO Jensen Huang, who would be one
of the main taxpayers, put it plainly when he said he would be
"perfectly fine" with it.
If approved in November, the tax would apply to billionaires who
resided in California as of January 1st of 2026. It is too late for them
to try to avoid it by moving to another state. Some affected
taxpayers may have tried to leave between the time they learned
about the proposed ballot initiative in late November 2025 and
January 1st of 2026. But the window was so short that it is unlikely
any significant number of billionaires successfully cut ties with the
Golden state in such a short period of time.
And contrary to the claims of its opponents, taxing billionaires will
not doom Silicon Valley, quite the opposite. Since the beginning of
2026, after the wealth tax initiative was announced, California has
2
attracted 80% of all new venture capital funding in America, up from
about 50% before 2025. What will allow California to thrive in the
future is not letting a handful of billionaires live tax free: it is
adequate public spending on health, education, and public
infrastructure, key engines of economic growth to which it is only
fair to ask the ultra-wealthy to contribute.
Proposition 40 offers the first opportunity for the people to start
reining in the power of billionaires. It isn't just critical for
Californians. If the state that houses some of the country's most
powerful billionaires votes to tax their wealth, it will kickstart a
movement to tax ultra-high-net-worth individuals in other states
and eventually at the federal level and in other countries. As
Californians head to the polls, their vote may well come to be seen
as a turning point in the battle between democracy and oligarchy.

The future is not letting a handful of billionaires live tax free: it is
adequate public spending on health, education, and public
infrastructure, key engines of economic growth to which it is only
fair to ask the ultra-wealthy to contribute.

Proposition 40 offers the first opportunity for the people to start
reining in the power of billionaires. It isn't just critical for
Californians.

If the state that houses some of the country's most
powerful billionaires votes to tax their wealth, it will kickstart a
movement to tax ultra-high-net-worth individuals in other states
and eventually at the federal level and in other countries.

As Californians head to the polls, their vote may well come to be seen
as a turning point in the battle between democracy and oligarchy.

…5…4…3..2..1…

This is a pretty weak and naive argument.

They can still move out of state and to low tax states such as Texas and Florida, or nearby Incline Village like Dave Duffield.

Never mind that California sports the most progressive state tax system in the nation.
It's top marginal rate of 13.3% is the highest of ANY state.

If approved in November, the tax would apply to billionaires who
resided in California as of January 1st of 2026. It is too late for them
to try to avoid it by moving to another state. Some affected
taxpayers may have tried to leave between the time they learned
about the proposed ballot initiative in late November 2025 and
January 1st of 2026. But the window was so short that it is unlikely
any significant number of billionaires successfully cut ties with the
Golden state in such a short period of time.