Posted on 10/28/2025 8:15:59 AM PDT by Angelino97
For years, Gov. Gavin Newsom has staunchly opposed increasing taxes on wealthy Californians even when the issue repeatedly reared its head during recent tough budget years. But faced with deep federal cuts to social services programs, labor and health care groups are asking voters to circumvent the governor – to tax a very small number of people.
Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and St. John’s Community Health in Los Angeles want voters statewide to approve a “billionaires tax” to help prop up the state’s health care and education systems.
The proposed ballot initiative would levy a one-time, 5% tax on the approximately 200 billionaires in the state, generating roughly $100 billion in revenue, according to proponents.
Going to the ballot is a common move for advocacy groups frustrated with Sacramento politics, which, while dominated by Democrats, can still be factious. Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, said at a news conference the ballot initiative is the “only solution anyone can see.”
“We are facing literally a collapse of our health care system here in California and elsewhere,” Regan said. “This will help us keep health care facilities open. It will stabilize premiums and coverage for all Californians, protect health care jobs, and also improve public education.”
The proposed initiative would tax the 2025 net worth of billionaires residing in California, allowing them to pay off the obligation over five years. The revenue would go into a special fund with 90% reserved for health care spending and 10% reserved for K-12 education spending.
It needs 874,641 signatures to be placed before voters on the 2026 ballot, a number that the groups are confident they can reach. Getting voters to ultimately approve the tax, however, could be a hard sell.
While California has taxed the income of millionaires, lawmakers have never successfully passed a wealth tax. Instead of targeting earnings, the state would levy such a tax on the net worth of an individual, everything from investments to property value and even other assets, like jewelry and paintings.
The governor is a big reason why. Newsom has never supported a wealth tax, at times angrily rejecting conservative efforts to link him with one as “shameful.” He quashed the most recent legislative effort last year.
Democratic lawmakers this year had considered raising revenue to help support the state’s social services programs, which receive billions in federal funds annually, but pivoted to focus on Newsom’s Proposition 50 redistricting fight.
Regan said there are no plans to cut a deal with state lawmakers and pull the initiative from the ballot.
President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax reform and budget bill — the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — is projected to cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid over a decade. California is estimated to lose roughly $30 billion in federal Medicaid funds annually as a result. The state’s Medicaid agency estimates 3.4 million people will lose coverage as a result of federal eligibility changes.
The bulk of cuts won’t take effect until 2027. But states, including California, are already taking steps to shrink their health insurance programs for low-income and disabled individuals.
California lawmakers facing a $12 billion deficit earlier this year made cuts to the state’s insurance program for immigrants without legal status, including a partial enrollment freeze that starts Jan. 1. They also reinstituted the Medi-Cal asset test, which limits how much enrollees can have in property value and savings.
Susan Shelley, vice president of communications with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said most Californians will probably assume that the tax will not affect them, but establishing a wealth tax in the state could create a troubling precedent.
“We tax income at a very high level, but we don’t tax wealth and assets,” Shelley said. Nearly half of the state’s personal income tax revenue comes from just 1% of the state’s earners. Over time, she added, a wealth tax “could come all the way down to the middle class and they say you have too much equity in your house and we’re taking it.”
Shelley also said the proposed initiative would incentivize billionaires to leave the state, creating a “huge hole in the state budget” that would hurt the economy in the long term.
Proponents of the measure disagreed with that characterization of the proposal. They said that it would not levy taxes on the middle class nor would it affect businesses because it targets the net worth of ultrawealthy individuals.
Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC Berkeley and supporter of the proposal, said the tax is structured to prevent billionaires from avoiding the bill simply by leaving the state.
It would tax their wealth established in 2025, and any billionaires who moved to the state in 2026 would not be subject to the levy.
“California billionaires are not going to be able to avoid the tax by moving their assets outside of California,” Saez said.
Remember how the income tax was only going to affect the wealthy, and then the AMT was only going to affect the wealthy?
Yeah, no.
Ex Post Facto. Clearly unconstitutional.
Stupid premise, thinking they can prevent the rich from leaving, sure you get 1 year’s taxes, but after that there is no way to collect taxes from any who leave.
Figures such a moronic idea comes from an econ professor.
Also, some billionaires might have to sell assets to get the cash. So, they’ll need to pay capital gains tax on the appreciated assets, and then use post-tax dollars to pay the tax.
You’re welcome!
Right, drive the rest of the people running or owning a business out of the state. Great plan to further DECREASE the state economy.
Wonderful, How tiny of an income will be taxed. Everything the dumb-a$$ CA assembly passes hits the middle-class working people.
My wife is finally agreeing to move away from this s^^thole.
> The proposed ballot initiative would levy a one-time, 5% tax… <
Only one-time, and only 5%. For now.
Obamacare was written by SEIU to increase membership.
“The proposed ballot initiative would levy a one-time, 5% tax on the approximately 200 billionaires in the state”
########################
“It’s OK, I’m only gonna put it in 5% of the way...”
There will be 180 odd lawsuits dragging on for years on this latest “tax the rich” proposal as “NET WORTH” is largely subjective and impossible to set at an exact, taxable amount.
That said, the billionaires that hung around for this for years, deserve it. Ray Charles could see it coming! Those that will stay and pay are hopeless anyway.
As bad as this sounds, more states will have to figure out how to pay for their own spending. Either reduce spending, or raise more revenue to pay their own way.
A rich guy doesn’t have to live in one place.
A rich guy doesn’t have to live in California at all.
The rent on two or three houses is going to be far less than the tax California wants to collect.
A possible cycle is Florida for the winter, Tennessee for the spring and fall, and New Hampshire for the summer.
I live in Florida. The winters are nice. In late March, April and May, I tend to travel as other places have better weather. The Florida summers are no more miserable than in most places in the USA.
When I was growing up in the Northeast US, it was off to Florida in October and back north in the spring for the rich folks.
I know of two retired teachers from Michigan that spend each winter here in Florida in a rented house.
Unions want voters to decide on Socialism Marxism Communism select one and you get all three.
Intent in action
> Ex Post Facto. Clearly unconstitutional. <
Good point. I wonder what’s next. Maybe California will try to add an additional 5% on all yearly real estate taxes paid since 1950.
🤔
Trump once suggested a one time 14.25% wealth tax on people whose net worth is over something like $50 million. It could be popular and acceptable. The problem is somewhere down the road it would have be done again-say 10 years.
His wealth tax was in his book “The America We Deserve”.
Good, keep running off billionaires, California. There are 85 of them. Let’s see how many you can get to move their official addresses to a home somewhere else.
“The proposed ballot initiative would levy a one-time, 5% tax on the approximately 200 billionaires in the state”
I just asked the net and it says there are 85.
Billionaires have the money to move wherever they want
how about a 5% tax on the illegal immigrants in the state?.. they can give back 5% of all of the free stuff the government is giving them
“Obamacare”
Americans might retire at age 55, live overseas until age 65 and rent out their house on a 10-year lease.
The rental income might be enough to qualify for highly subsidized PPACA coverage. Emergency foreign coverage could be bought.
170 days in Ireland, 170 days in the UK, 170 days in France, 170 days in Israel, etc.
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.