The wealth tax initiative is drafted to be highly punitive by including large Roth IRAs and negating the benefits of complex trust structures typically used for tax avoidance. This makes it extremely difficult for wealthy individuals to escape its reach if passed.

Once a 'one-time' wealth tax is implemented to cover deficits, it removes pressure on politicians to manage finances responsibly. The tax becomes a recurring tool, and the definition of 'wealthy' inevitably expands as the original tax base leaves the jurisdiction.

The idea that a billionaire can "spend" their net worth is flawed. Their wealth is primarily in company stock; liquidating it would crash the price and signal a lack of confidence. This misunderstanding of wealth versus income fuels unrealistic proposals for solving global problems.

Congressman Ro Khanna proposes a tax on the total net worth of individuals with over $100 million. Unlike an income or capital gains tax, this targets unrealized wealth, forcing the liquidation of assets like stocks to generate the cash needed to pay the tax.

The SEIU's ballot initiative for a 5% billionaire wealth tax is likely unconstitutional. However, its real purpose may be to force wealthy individuals and politicians to publicly oppose it, creating identifiable political targets for the next election cycle.

A proposed wealth tax in California triggered a significant flight of capital and high-net-worth individuals, even without becoming law. The key factor was the failure of politicians to uniformly condemn the proposal, which was perceived as a threat to fundamental property rights, signaling a hostile business climate.

When a political party uses the IRS to punish enemies, it simultaneously shields its wealthy allies from audits. This allows them to evade taxes, creating a revenue gap. To fund the government, that money must be collected from lower and middle-income taxpayers, effectively creating a tax increase for them.

Proponents often describe wealth taxes as a "one-time" event to make them more palatable to voters. However, the true aim is not the initial revenue but establishing a permanent legal precedent for the government to seize private property. The "one-time" language is a deliberate misdirection to cross a legal and political Rubicon.

Billionaire CEOs face a no-win situation where publicly opposing a wealth tax invites attacks from employees, shareholders, and media. The rational response is to remain silent while privately planning a move to a more favorable tax jurisdiction like Austin or Miami.