admin
California voters are being asked to decide whether the state should slap a one-time 5 percent “wealth grab” on residents worth more than $1 billion, a blunt, retroactive levy that would hit the very people who created jobs and innovation in the state. The proposal would be on the ballot for November 2026 if backers gather enough valid signatures, and it represents a radical expansion of state power over private property.
Under the measure, residency would be determined by a snapshot date of January 1, 2026, and the tax would be due in 2027; billionaires could stretch payments over five years but would pay a stiff extra charge to do so. The plan even carves out certain assets like real estate and retirement accounts, while including business holdings, securities, art, and intellectual property—an obvious invitation to lengthy valuation fights and costly litigation.
For one of the most prominent targets, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, back-of-the-envelope math from reputable wealth trackers shows a staggering potential bill — roughly five percent of an estimated $209.4 billion fortune, coming in at just over $10 billion. That number is not theoretical to everyday Californians; it’s a real transfer of capital that would be demanded of someone who built an immense private enterprise and employs thousands.
This measure is being pushed by a powerful union and its allies who promise to spend the money on healthcare and social programs, but voters should ask whether confiscatory one-off taxes are the right tool to fix budget shortfalls or federal policy changes. History and common sense tell us such schemes penalize success, drive entrepreneurs and investment out of the state, and invite complex enforcement battles that will suck up administrative resources.
We’re already seeing the predictable reaction: tech founders and wealthy families are quietly restructuring their affairs or relocating to states that respect property rights, and state officials including the governor are scrambling to stop an economic hemorrhage. The risk is straightforward — when you punish creators, you shrink the pie that funds wages, goods, and philanthropy, and California’s economy pays the price long after the headlines fade.
Voters should weigh the short-term political appeal of “soak the rich” rhetoric against the long-term damage of weaponizing the tax code to settle political scores. Conservatives should remind their neighbors that liberty, the rule of law, and a stable climate for investment matter more than a one-off levy that promises fast cash today and decline tomorrow.
