The proposed wealth tax applies to illiquid assets. A founder of a highly-valued private AI startup could be deemed a 'billionaire' and face a massive tax bill on paper wealth, even if their company never exits or ultimately sells for a much lower price, creating a huge financial risk.
Related Insights
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.
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.
A controversial feature of the proposed California billionaire tax is its retroactive application. The tax would affect anyone who was a billionaire resident at the start of the year, even if the law passes months later. This legal mechanism is designed to stop wealthy individuals from moving their assets out of state before the vote occurs.
California is on the verge of a massive tax revenue surge from upcoming IPOs of companies like SpaceX and OpenAI. However, a proposed wealth tax on illiquid assets is causing tech leaders to relocate, potentially costing the state the very economic boom it needs to balance its budget.
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.
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.
The wealthiest individuals don't have traditional paychecks. Instead, they hold appreciating assets like stock and take out loans against that wealth to fund their lifestyles. This avoids triggering capital gains or income taxes, a key reason proponents are pushing for a direct wealth tax in California to address this loophole.
The proposed tax on billionaires' assets isn't about the billionaires themselves, who hold a fraction of national wealth. The real goal is to establish the legal precedent for a private property tax. Once normalized, this mechanism can be extended to the middle class, where the vast majority of assets reside.
While popular on the American left, direct wealth taxes have a poor track record in Europe. Countries like France, Sweden, Germany, and others discarded them because they were too complex to administer and ultimately failed to generate enough revenue to be worthwhile. This historical precedent presents a significant practical challenge for proposals like the one in California.
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.