Attrition due to tax increases targeting the wealthy tends to be ~10%. The tax would almost certainly be a net gain. Most people aren’t willing to uproot their entire lives over an amount of money they (billionaires) wouldn’t even notice, and most of the people who think in terms that suggest this is a good course of action are NOWHERE near the levels of wealth that would be impacted by an ultra-wealth tax.
statistically_viable on
Oh no more housing availability!
In jest unless we’re talking about Europe where the a billionaire Parisian can relocate their wealth to Luxembourg next door wealth taxes seem to be quite effective at collecting tax revenue. We didn’t see a panic happen when nyc elected a socialist and we didn’t see every wealthy person move to Florida when they basically ended all income taxes. California will probably continue to out perform most of the country economically as the weather, high education investment and general tolerance will continue to motivate California being a capital of economic growth and investment.
Obviously LA’s now infamous “mansion tax” is counter proof to the claim but that’s a different discussion.
findingmike on
There will be plenty of headlines about this, but the reality is that taxes would have to be much higher for billionaires to give up their status and power by leaving California.
They wont leave, they never leave. Like how the rich left New York with Mamdani? Or similar to how the rich say that when their side loses an election they are moving out of the country? And if they aren’t contributing, with many taking more than they put in, why would them leaving be a threat. Might be a net benefit for the rest of society to fill that gap.
geostocktravelfitguy on
For the Tech elite class, they have already shown they are not going to go 100% to Austin, several of those endeavors already went back to the Bay area or Seattle.
California is also aggressive on tax collection, normally I’m like no more taxes but a billionaire class tax, meh..
ProletariatLiteracy on
LIES! Just like they were going to leave if Mamdani won in NY. Well guess what, they’re still there… They sre just going to whine and moan at the thought of paying a little extra money as if they were poor themselves and didn’t have any to spare
chiripa605 on
Im pretty sure Norway tried this and did not achieve intended results. Assets are much more liquid now then they have been in the past. Money will avoid significant taxation. I’m not saying I am against , but I think it has to be well thought out .
kennykerberos on
I was happy to see prop 13 technically bite the dust last week now that a judge ruled initiatives can be passed by a simple majority to increase fees and taxes on homeowners. Time for these people to pay their fair share.
vman3241 on
Wealth taxes and unrealized gains taxes are bad ideas because they would force people to sell large amounts of stock and would discourage investment.
If you want to actually tax the ultra wealthy without a lot of dead weight loss, get rid of all the tax expenditures (adds up to $1.6 trillion annually), impose a VAT, and do a land-value tax.
Wind_Best_1440 on
Ah yes, the wealth tax paradox.
Do the wealthy flee to avoid the tax but allow it to go through giving up their power to try and change it slightly?
Or do they stay and pay the wealth tax, but not give up their lobbying power to try and make it hurt less?
On one hand, if they stay and pay a wealth tax they can try and water it down and not give up their full power over the state. But if they flee and try to save all their wealth to avoid the wealth tax they give up their lobbying power and the idea of a wealth tax will gain a foot hold and then spread from California to other states without being lobbyied against.
The Wealth tax paradox. If money always flees from it, eventually the world will create a global wealth tax, you can only run for so long.
Impressive-Dig-3892 on
For a single industry Silicon Valley based economy with already enormous tax rates this may be a real issue with the tech billionaires who are waiting for an excuse to cut and run, this is very different than a slight increase for millionaires in New York.
jsc1429 on
This is just propaganda for billionaires. As others have stated, it is an inconsequential amount for billionaires and they aren’t going to uproot for that. But what they will do is use their power in media to try to persuade and scare you into believing it’s a bad thing and get you to vote against it
billybobthehomie on
Then fucking leave.
As if a billionaire is ever going to move to like Mobile Alabama, even if they paid a 0% tax rate there.
Desireable destinations need to start calling these billionaires bluffs and alligator tears. Of course when there’s a proposed tax rate hike, rich people are going to raise hell and cry to the papers.
But these people choose to live in democratic states and cities for a reason. In Little Rock Arkansas, for instance, you don’t get 3 Michelin star restaurants, broadway shows, court-side Knicks tickets, fifth Avenue, 50th story penthouses, Tiffany’s, Gucci stores, every type of cuisine you could ever imagine, good schools for your kids, rich people clubs in fancy buildings with gargoyles, and (most importantly for these people) … prestige.
These people would rather die than admit they live on Lexington Avenue instead of park Avenue. Let alone choose to live in a Republican controlled city, where there are less tangible entertainment and luxury activities. As well as less prestige.
So do it. Because the amount of people who leave will be a small fraction of the people who are threatening to do it. Because what billionaire wants to live in Tuscaloosa?
Tiny_Dare_5300 on
I’d prefer if we just had a progressive housing tax, so every house beyond your first costs an additional 20% tax or something to discourage the wealthy from buying up all the houses and turning everyone else into perpetual renters. That plus reform proposition 13.
EmotionalGuarantee70 on
Oh no we can’t upset the billionaires! Don’t worry California I’ll continue to make my 60.000 a years pay 10.000 in fed and state tax any pay 20.000 a year for a 400sqft studio apartment – We will be just fine without them
olionajudah on
Good. Bye. Giving up the benefits of California residency for most tax benefits is exactly the sort of self own the sort willing to put their ass where their mouth is deserve.
timpham on
What’s the point of being a trillionaire if you live on Mars where there’s no peasants to serve you? All that amenities, the plethora of entertainment, foods, services are only available in mega cities. But too bad the peasants are too stupid or brainwashed to realize that
apostlebatman on
More fearmongering by the NYTimes. They haven’t even left NYC yet. Mamdani is going to tax them so hard that they are going to love it and stay.
slinkywafflepants on
In reality, it would only make it more desirable for billionaires to live in CA. Like when they buy $100M yachts and mansions they never use. Simply to show that they can afford it.
Ownuyasha on
Oh no….anyways
Don’t let the door hit youre ass on the way out..
Not like they were paying taxes anyway
Apparently that was too short so let’s also say the whole country needs to follow suit and also tax corporations and anyone else not paying their fare share and while we’re at it eliminate the income tax and make it a sales tax so people who can afford to buy multimillion dollar houses and yachts can also afford to pay the applicable taxes on those items
PublicMandate on
This tax is stupid, but not because it’s a wealth tax but rather because it’s a one time tax and a tax on property that isn’t scarce and is rather liquid/not location constrained.
Raising taxes on the wealthy is fine, but this one time tax would barely bring in more tax than what they currently bring in for income tax and genuinely runs the risk that people will leave/move their assets out of state for a short period of time.
Comparisons to MA are not correct because that was just an extension of the income tax. Norway is a slightly similar tax but the picture there is less pretty than the authors of the California bill would show. Their wealth tax has been successful, but that one has clearly shown that the ultra wealthy do actually flee in the face of large asset based taxes. Their wealth tax is sustained by the low threshold (approximately $170,000).
So with all of that being said, this tax is dumb.
Glum_Introduction755 on
They say that every time there’s a law meant to hold the rich to the same standards as everyone else and yet here they are, still being parasites.
Master-Shinobi-80 on
Good! I hope they leave.
Does anyone actually think someone like Zuckerberg has had a positive influence on California or the World?
10% of his companies profit is from scams. He knows this and should be incarcerated for the remainder of his life.
Gamestonkape on
No they won’t. They never do. Look at Manhattan. It’s nonsense. And if they do… oh well. This may be the fakest, dumbest argument against doing this.
24 Comments
Attrition due to tax increases targeting the wealthy tends to be ~10%. The tax would almost certainly be a net gain. Most people aren’t willing to uproot their entire lives over an amount of money they (billionaires) wouldn’t even notice, and most of the people who think in terms that suggest this is a good course of action are NOWHERE near the levels of wealth that would be impacted by an ultra-wealth tax.
Oh no more housing availability!
In jest unless we’re talking about Europe where the a billionaire Parisian can relocate their wealth to Luxembourg next door wealth taxes seem to be quite effective at collecting tax revenue. We didn’t see a panic happen when nyc elected a socialist and we didn’t see every wealthy person move to Florida when they basically ended all income taxes. California will probably continue to out perform most of the country economically as the weather, high education investment and general tolerance will continue to motivate California being a capital of economic growth and investment.
Obviously LA’s now infamous “mansion tax” is counter proof to the claim but that’s a different discussion.
There will be plenty of headlines about this, but the reality is that taxes would have to be much higher for billionaires to give up their status and power by leaving California.
Massachusetts’s millionaire tax hasn’t been an issue for the wealthy: [https://www.nbcboston.com/news/politics/data-shows-mass-is-home-to-more-millionaires-despite-new-surtax-according-to-advocates/3698430/](https://www.nbcboston.com/news/politics/data-shows-mass-is-home-to-more-millionaires-despite-new-surtax-according-to-advocates/3698430/)
They wont leave, they never leave. Like how the rich left New York with Mamdani? Or similar to how the rich say that when their side loses an election they are moving out of the country? And if they aren’t contributing, with many taking more than they put in, why would them leaving be a threat. Might be a net benefit for the rest of society to fill that gap.
For the Tech elite class, they have already shown they are not going to go 100% to Austin, several of those endeavors already went back to the Bay area or Seattle.
California is also aggressive on tax collection, normally I’m like no more taxes but a billionaire class tax, meh..
LIES! Just like they were going to leave if Mamdani won in NY. Well guess what, they’re still there… They sre just going to whine and moan at the thought of paying a little extra money as if they were poor themselves and didn’t have any to spare
Im pretty sure Norway tried this and did not achieve intended results. Assets are much more liquid now then they have been in the past. Money will avoid significant taxation. I’m not saying I am against , but I think it has to be well thought out .
I was happy to see prop 13 technically bite the dust last week now that a judge ruled initiatives can be passed by a simple majority to increase fees and taxes on homeowners. Time for these people to pay their fair share.
Wealth taxes and unrealized gains taxes are bad ideas because they would force people to sell large amounts of stock and would discourage investment.
If you want to actually tax the ultra wealthy without a lot of dead weight loss, get rid of all the tax expenditures (adds up to $1.6 trillion annually), impose a VAT, and do a land-value tax.
Ah yes, the wealth tax paradox.
Do the wealthy flee to avoid the tax but allow it to go through giving up their power to try and change it slightly?
Or do they stay and pay the wealth tax, but not give up their lobbying power to try and make it hurt less?
On one hand, if they stay and pay a wealth tax they can try and water it down and not give up their full power over the state. But if they flee and try to save all their wealth to avoid the wealth tax they give up their lobbying power and the idea of a wealth tax will gain a foot hold and then spread from California to other states without being lobbyied against.
The Wealth tax paradox. If money always flees from it, eventually the world will create a global wealth tax, you can only run for so long.
For a single industry Silicon Valley based economy with already enormous tax rates this may be a real issue with the tech billionaires who are waiting for an excuse to cut and run, this is very different than a slight increase for millionaires in New York.
This is just propaganda for billionaires. As others have stated, it is an inconsequential amount for billionaires and they aren’t going to uproot for that. But what they will do is use their power in media to try to persuade and scare you into believing it’s a bad thing and get you to vote against it
Then fucking leave.
As if a billionaire is ever going to move to like Mobile Alabama, even if they paid a 0% tax rate there.
Desireable destinations need to start calling these billionaires bluffs and alligator tears. Of course when there’s a proposed tax rate hike, rich people are going to raise hell and cry to the papers.
But these people choose to live in democratic states and cities for a reason. In Little Rock Arkansas, for instance, you don’t get 3 Michelin star restaurants, broadway shows, court-side Knicks tickets, fifth Avenue, 50th story penthouses, Tiffany’s, Gucci stores, every type of cuisine you could ever imagine, good schools for your kids, rich people clubs in fancy buildings with gargoyles, and (most importantly for these people) … prestige.
These people would rather die than admit they live on Lexington Avenue instead of park Avenue. Let alone choose to live in a Republican controlled city, where there are less tangible entertainment and luxury activities. As well as less prestige.
So do it. Because the amount of people who leave will be a small fraction of the people who are threatening to do it. Because what billionaire wants to live in Tuscaloosa?
I’d prefer if we just had a progressive housing tax, so every house beyond your first costs an additional 20% tax or something to discourage the wealthy from buying up all the houses and turning everyone else into perpetual renters. That plus reform proposition 13.
Oh no we can’t upset the billionaires! Don’t worry California I’ll continue to make my 60.000 a years pay 10.000 in fed and state tax any pay 20.000 a year for a 400sqft studio apartment – We will be just fine without them
Good. Bye. Giving up the benefits of California residency for most tax benefits is exactly the sort of self own the sort willing to put their ass where their mouth is deserve.
What’s the point of being a trillionaire if you live on Mars where there’s no peasants to serve you? All that amenities, the plethora of entertainment, foods, services are only available in mega cities. But too bad the peasants are too stupid or brainwashed to realize that
More fearmongering by the NYTimes. They haven’t even left NYC yet. Mamdani is going to tax them so hard that they are going to love it and stay.
In reality, it would only make it more desirable for billionaires to live in CA. Like when they buy $100M yachts and mansions they never use. Simply to show that they can afford it.
Oh no….anyways
Don’t let the door hit youre ass on the way out..
Not like they were paying taxes anyway
Apparently that was too short so let’s also say the whole country needs to follow suit and also tax corporations and anyone else not paying their fare share and while we’re at it eliminate the income tax and make it a sales tax so people who can afford to buy multimillion dollar houses and yachts can also afford to pay the applicable taxes on those items
This tax is stupid, but not because it’s a wealth tax but rather because it’s a one time tax and a tax on property that isn’t scarce and is rather liquid/not location constrained.
Raising taxes on the wealthy is fine, but this one time tax would barely bring in more tax than what they currently bring in for income tax and genuinely runs the risk that people will leave/move their assets out of state for a short period of time.
Comparisons to MA are not correct because that was just an extension of the income tax. Norway is a slightly similar tax but the picture there is less pretty than the authors of the California bill would show. Their wealth tax has been successful, but that one has clearly shown that the ultra wealthy do actually flee in the face of large asset based taxes. Their wealth tax is sustained by the low threshold (approximately $170,000).
So with all of that being said, this tax is dumb.
They say that every time there’s a law meant to hold the rich to the same standards as everyone else and yet here they are, still being parasites.
Good! I hope they leave.
Does anyone actually think someone like Zuckerberg has had a positive influence on California or the World?
10% of his companies profit is from scams. He knows this and should be incarcerated for the remainder of his life.
No they won’t. They never do. Look at Manhattan. It’s nonsense. And if they do… oh well. This may be the fakest, dumbest argument against doing this.