Posted on 12/24/2025 6:50:55 AM PST by Libloather
California’s richest residents could be slapped with a one-time 5% tax on their net worth if a new law makes it onto the ballot next year.
The measure – called the “2026 Billionaire Tax Act” – seeks to counter $30 billion in potential federal funding cuts to California’s Medicaid program.
Cash from the new tax could also pay for the Golden State’s struggling public education system, according to supporters of the act, which include the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
If passed and signed off by Gov. Gavin Newsom, California’s tech bosses like Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, could face huge tax bills.
Five percent of Huang’s estimated net worth could see him paying a one-time bill of over $8 billion, for example. Zuck’s bill could be even higher, at around $12 billion or more.
Liberal supporters argue that around 200 billionaires in California hold about $2 trillion in wealth, but the state’s other 19 million taxpayers pay a “much larger portion” of their true income — echoing policies of New York mayoral front-runner Zohran Mamdani.
“If we do not do this, millions of people are going to lose health care, an untold number of people will go without treatment and there will be tragedy after tragedy,” Dave Regan, president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, said in a statement, according to Newsweek.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Why are they still there?
They have to pay for their illegal immigrants somehow.
If CA keeps it up all they'll have left are illegal welfare recipients.
It is fascinating (and greatly disappointing) that while Californication is awash with communistic propaganda in the media, there’s almost no visible statements or clarifications or anything from a more conservative perspective. Neatly none at all. And no visibly active conservative political activity or party and nearly no moderate or conservative politicians either. Visit out there and see for yourself. It’s frightening just how ignorant and programmed people can be
1984. Part 1, Chapter 2. “The Party indoctrinates everyone, including children, who are sometimes so brainwashed they turn parents in to the Thought Police.”
Eric Blair (aka George Orwell)
The whole idea seems pretty bogus to me. Making the wealthier citizens pay for the state’s srew-up doesn’t sound right. Naturally, with thee state of finance California is in, they would never be reimbursed..and they would be the most likely financially to be able to leave the state. Hopefully the majority of citizens would catch on & never again vote for clowns like Newsom.
“Then get packed. It’ll pass”
exactly ... and my exact first thoughts too: any tax increase that makes it to the ballot in CA automatically passes because the ignorant, socialist-loving takers far outnumber the makers ...
the billionaires need to start planning NOW to be ready to leave the next microsecond after the bill makes the ballot ...
oh, and WHEN the bill passes, it’s gonna be major popcorn time as a blizzard of lawsuits arise over what exactly constitutes “net worth” and how should that be computed ... such lawsuits could also take a century to resolve ...
nonetheless, any billionaire waiting around to find out what happens is a fool and deserves to lose a big chunk of their net worth ...
What took ‘em so long?
Or CA could stop giving benefits to illegal immigrants. That reminds me… CA says they haven’t been doing that anyway. Strange how when thethe federal law gets enforced properly, CA is short 30 billion. People fight against immigration enforcement so hard, it must be so intertwined into our system. All I ever want is for laws to be enforced. If you don’t like laws, change them. It’s really pretty simple.
While the idea might seem bogus.
Remember the bank Robber Willy Sutton. When asked “why do you rob banks?” he replied because that’s where the money is”
It’s the same with taxation. The state must tax where the money is.
This is asset seizure. Nothing new, especially to a communist gov’mt like what CaCaLand already has in place.
Theproperty tax on you home is the same. Miss a tax payment. Your house will be seized and sold to a crony of the politicos in charge at the market value they determine. You might get the difference/leftover — although in some states that does not happen.
Any tax that puts your asset at risk is asset seizure.
State laws limiting how you use your property is the same. If the law diminishes your property’s value, that is seizure. See laws on “protecting” wild animals, like preserving wetlands for migrating geese.
I’m not in favor of this crappola. But, the unconstitutionality of this has been ignored for decades. Too late.
GENERALLY speaking, states do enforce some judgements of other states, but they do NOT enforce other states’ taxes:
“the statement “Other states must generally enforce the tax laws of another state” is not true.
Under the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1), states must give full faith and credit to the “public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings” of other states.
However, the Supreme Court distinguishes between judgments (which generally must be enforced) and laws (or “public acts”), which states are not required to apply if they conflict with their own policies.
Tax laws themselves are public acts, not judgments, so one state is not obligated to directly enforce or apply another state’s tax statutes (e.g., collecting taxes on behalf of another state under its specific rules).
Instead: States enforce their own tax laws, subject to constitutional limits like the Due Process Clause and Dormant Commerce Clause, which restrict extraterritorial taxation or undue burdens on interstate commerce.
For final tax judgments (e.g., a court-ordered tax liability), other states generally must enforce them under full faith and credit, similar to other money judgments, as long as the originating court had jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has explicitly stated that tax judgments are not denied full faith and credit merely because they involve taxes.
Enforcement of unpaid taxes across states often occurs through reciprocal agreements or comity (mutual deference), not constitutional mandate.
Many states have adopted uniform acts allowing reciprocal collection of taxes, but this is voluntary and based on reciprocity, not a general requirement.
In summary, states do not “generally” have to enforce another state’s tax laws themselves—each applies and enforces its own. The statement overstates interstate obligations in taxation.”
I’d add the liberal parts of Minnesota being annexed by Canada.
Years ago I worked for a Congressman in South Florida. We used to have to go these huge retirement villages for events.
One time it came up in conversation that they couldn’t vote for my boss because they were residents of New York. They proceeded to lecture me on how it was perfectly fair to vote in both locations because they paid taxes in both locations.
When I pointed out that they might have a point on local elections, they were obviously voting twice in national elections, which was definitely against the law.
Their answer...if they are dumb enough to send us the ballots, we are going to use them.
Wow.
If we made voter fraud a capital crime, and prosecuted it accordingly, we’d have a lot less of it.
One way or the other.
Either way works for me.
No. In order to make Obongo care legal Roberts twisted the constitution to say taxes are immune to things like ex facto.
Probably retroactive to 2025.
A car or a house is property. So are stocks and bonds. If you rent out a house you own you pay taxes on the rent income plus the property tax. Isn’t a property tax just a wealth tax on some assets, not all?
Stewart Resnick own up to 75% of California’s water rights. Maybe Stewart will move to Hawaii and steal the water rights there?
I believe we are at Margaret Thatcher’s point of running out of other people’s money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.