admin
California voters are being asked to weigh a radical one-time “billionaire tax” that would slap a 5 percent levy on anyone with a net worth above $1 billion — a measure backers say could raise roughly $100 billion if it ever becomes law. The proposal would value assets as of the end of 2026 and reach trusts and part-year residents, making it unusually broad and retroactive in its scope. This is not a careful reform; it’s a shotgun approach to seize private wealth on a massive scale.
Under that formula, a celebrity-turned-entrepreneur like Kim Kardashian — whose net worth estimates hover around roughly $1.7 to $1.9 billion depending on the outlet — would face a one-time hit in the ballpark of $85 million to $95 million if the measure were applied to her full reported wealth. Spread out over the optional payment plan the ballot text allows, that tax bill could still balloon with nondeductible interest and penalties. Punishing risk-takers and brand-builders who created jobs and value with such a confiscatory tax is short-sighted and unfair.
The political theater around this ballot measure has already sparked an exodus of the very people who fund jobs, innovation, and philanthropy; reports show tech founders and other wealthy Californians quietly moving assets and homes to Florida, Texas, and other friendlier states. When you threaten people’s property rights, you shouldn’t be surprised when they vote with their feet — and when capital leaves, so do the opportunities for ordinary Californians. State coffers will likely see a temporary headline number, but the long-term economic hit could be severe.
The experts who modeled this plan already warn that initial windfalls would erode as billionaires change residency and restructure assets to avoid the tax, shrinking the projected haul and complicating revenue forecasts. California has sacrificed entire industries before by chasing short-term revenue with bad policy, and this proposal doubles down on that mistake; the net effect would likely be fewer startups, slower job growth, and less private capital for communities that need it. Lawmakers chasing applause from progressive activists should remember there’s a real economy and real people paying the price.
Proponents — chiefly a healthcare union — insist the money will patch holes caused by federal cuts and will funnel mostly into health care and anti-poverty programs, but organized raids on wealth are still class warfare disguised as compassion. Even Governor Gavin Newsom and other establishment figures have raised concerns about the policy’s economic fallout and legal vulnerability, which should give voters pause before endorsing a constitutional amendment that could spawn endless litigation. Politics shouldn’t be a license to punish success under the guise of fairness.
Americans who believe in free enterprise and the sanctity of private property should see this measure for what it is: a dangerous precedent that turns envy into public policy. If Californians truly want to help the vulnerable, they should fix systemic failures in spending priorities rather than yank a blunt instrument across the state’s wealth creators. Hardworking men and women across the country — not Silicon Valley moguls or reality stars alone — will feel the ripple effects if Washington and Sacramento start treating success as a cash cow.
