admin
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove went on Bloomberg this week and said something very honest: California’s tax system depends on a tiny slice of ultra-wealthy people to pay the bills, and that makes state revenue “very volatile.” The timing mattered. Her remarks came after reporting that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and others are taking steps to prepare for the possible passage of Proposition 40, the so-called billionaire tax. If you think that admission will stop Sacramento from chasing big checks, think again.
Kamlager-Dove’s admission — and the obvious contradiction
On air the California Democrat acknowledged the core problem: a handful of residents generate a huge share of income-tax receipts. That is not opinion; it’s how California’s books work. But then she defended the push for a one-time wealth levy that targets billionaires. Translation: yes, our budget is fragile because a few people pay a lot, and we’ll make it riskier by chasing them out of the state. If the goal is steady revenue, you don’t torch the tree that bears the fruit.
Why the Zuckerberg headlines matter
Reports that Mark Zuckerberg and other wealthy Californians are planning for Prop 40 are not theater. Meta has taken corporate steps to give Zuckerberg options if the measure passes. Opponents of the measure are pouring hundreds of millions into the fight. Voters should not be surprised when CEOs and founders act like rational actors — because they are. Penalize success with a one-time 5% net-worth tax over $1 billion and some people will simply move, sell, or restructure. That’s not a conspiracy; it’s economics.
Better ways to fix volatility — spoiler: they don’t involve grandstanding
If Rep. Kamlager-Dove really cared about steady budgets, she would push for common-sense reforms that don’t scare away capital. Build up rainy-day reserves. Flatten out special carve-outs and loopholes that let income hide and then pop volatility into one year. Broaden the tax base with fair, growth-friendly changes instead of headline-grabbing wealth grabs. And yes, control spending. You can’t tax your way to stability by making your most productive residents feel unwelcome.
California deserves honest debate, not moralizing spectacles. Kamlager-Dove was right to highlight the risk of a revenue base concentrated at the top. What she didn’t do is explain why making that base flee is a good answer. Voters should weigh the trade-offs: a flashy one-time tax that promises programs today, or steady policies that preserve jobs, investment and the tax base tomorrow. If Sacramento wants revenue that lasts, it should stop chasing billionaires and start fixing the state’s economy and spending habits instead.
