Below is my column in the California Post and New York Post on the exodus of wealthy taxpayers from the state as Democrats seek to trap them with a retroactive wealth tax. They are engineering a type of reverse Gold Rush as up to a trillion dollars leave the state with a line of U-Hauls heading for the nearest border.
Here is the column:
This month, the anniversary of the California Gold Rush came and passed with little mention … for good reason. When James W. Marshall found gold at Sutter’s Mill, millions traveled great distances to seek their fortune in the “Golden State.” Now, 178 years later, California has engineered an inverse Gold Rush, virtually chasing wealth from the state. Rather than covered wagons going West, there is a line of U-Hauls going anywhere other than California.
From boondoggle projects to reparations, California politicians continue to rack up new spending projects despite a soaring deficit and shrinking tax base. Rather than exercise a modicum of fiscal restraint, Democrats are pushing through a tax that takes five percent of the wealth of any billionaires left in the state.
I have long criticized the tax as perfectly moronic for a state with the highest tax burden and one of the highest flight rates of top taxpayers.
In my new book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss the reversal of fortunes in California and other blue states as politicians unleash new “eat the rich” campaigns before the midterm elections.
The problem, of course, is that billionaires are mobile, as is their wealth. Liberals expect billionaires to stay put in a type of voluntary canned hunt. They are not. Billionaires are joining the growing exodus from the state, taking their companies, investments, and jobs with them.
The latest billionaire to be chased off may be Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who is reportedly heading for Florida.
The growing departures have triggered outrage among many on the left, who are in disbelief that billionaires will just not stand still to be fleeced.
Former New York Magazine editor Kara Swisher captured that rage in a recent posting, declaring “you made…all your money in California, you ungrateful piece of s***, you could figure out a way to pay more taxes, and we deserve the taxes from you, given you made your wealth here . . . so why don’t we just do shock and awe at this point, because you don’t seem to be availing yourself to thinking that you owe your state something more.”
By some estimates, California has already cost over a trillion dollars in lost investments and business. That is no small achievement.
Here’s a mind teaser: How can you burn a trillion dollars (which would create a stack some 67,866 miles high) without taking years and destroying the environment?
California politicians have a solution: Have people take it out of the state in a reverse gold rush.
In addition to saying that they want to grab 5 percent of the wealth of these billionaires, California Democrats are planning to base wealth calculations on the voting shares of corporate executives. Often, particularly with start-ups, entrepreneurs have greater voting shares than actual ownership. However, they will be taxed as if voting shares amounted to actual wealth.
In other words, California is moving to nuke the entrepreneurs who created the Silicon Valley boom.
Emmanuel Saez, the U.C. Berkeley economist who helped design the tax, insists that they may not want to stay, but they will still be tapped. They are planning to trap the wealthy fleeing the state retroactively: “The tax is based on residence as of Jan. 1, 2026, sharply limiting their ability to flee the state to avoid paying. Despite billionaires’ threats to leave, I think extremely few will have been able to change residence by Jan. 1, given the complexity of doing so.”
The effort to retroactively impose such a tax is legally controversial and will face years of challenges. In my view, this is unconstitutional, but admittedly it is a murky area.
Regardless of the outcome, a wealth tax will affect a wide range of other wealthy taxpayers. If Democrats can get a retroactive wealth tax to be upheld, it is doubtful that they will stop with billionaires. Why should other top taxpayers stick around to find out where the next cull will fall in the tax brackets?
Recently, Gavin Newsom boasted, “California isn’t just keeping pace with the world — we’re setting the pace.” That is undeniably true if the measure is the record number of U-Hauls fleeing the state — more than any other state. Indeed, the only thing harder to find than a wealthy taxpayer in California appears to be a U-Haul.
According to U-Haul’s data, the state is again leading blue states in the exodus. The Washington Post noted recently that “California came in last. Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey rounded out the bottom five. Of the bottom 10, seven voted blue in the last election.” Conversely, “nine of the top 10 growth states voted red in the last presidential election,” with Texas again leading the growth states.
The Post put it succinctly, “People want to live in pro-growth, low-tax states, while the biggest losers tend to be places with big governments and high taxes.”
The problem is that, while the economics are horrific, the politics remain irresistible.
Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, who represents part of Silicon Valley, recently mocked billionaires rushing to escape the state. Laughing at his own constituents, Khanna quipped, “I will miss them very much.”
You will not be alone as California becomes known as the La Brea Tar Pit of taxation. They are on the verge of converting the state motto from “Eureka” to “Welcome to Hotel California, you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Dear Democrats, Please continue down this communist path of destruction for your constituents that voted for you. Please give them all they are asking for. Hurry up November is coming we need to see the ‘progress’ you’ve made before then, double your efforts, please!
The short sightedness of this proposal is mind boggling. Residency may be established elsewhere well within a year. Even if successful in year one it not only dies on the vine in year two it is a barrier to anyone who might theoretically be subject to the tax remaining in the state. It also is a billionaires not wanted in the future negative campaign. Truly ignorant.
The gold rush is over but the “Company Store” just needed to find new captives, i mean resources, for revenue.
“That’ll be 8 bucks for that gallon of gas peasant, I’ll put it on your tab”
So California is driving out its rich? For those of you that think they do not pay their fare share, now what do you do? Do you think the tax burden goes down with the rich moving out? California is now going to hit you with an exit tax. That will prevent the rich from even thinking of moving in when they know they will get clobbered.
This should be fun to watch.
AI Overview: A retroactive state wealth tax applied to former residents is highly legally suspect and would likely face immediate, severe constitutional challenges. Key issues include violations of the Due Process Clause due to retroactivity, the Commerce Clause, and the fundamental right to interstate travel, making it a “graveyard” of constitutional obstacles.
Tours 732.
Akroinon 740.
Vienna 1683.
Tehran 2026.
“Sen. John Husted, a MAGA-friendly Ohio Republican, voted against a measure to release the Jeffrey Epstein files last year, only a few months after taking a donation from a man recently named as an alleged Epstein conspirator.”
Nothing to see here, just a small bribe. Move along, JT has some BS 1st amendment stuff to rant about.
Anonymous troll: what does that have to do with California’s wealth tax. Moron.
. Perhaps breaking up the calif investment first with various hubs in low tax states. Facebook California for instance with 49 other hubs.
. Worrying about Mark Zuckerberg keeps me awake at nights. 😏.
He might relocate to another country or two, a yacht?
PS. There is a heaven. Doubt we’ll ever see it. Brush up on your crime skills?
/s
Epstein is a Bush/Obama/Biden/Harris thing that has no relationship to Professor Turley or President Donald J. Trump.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
Jeffrey Epstein’s illegal activities were first formally revealed through a 2005 investigation by the Palm Beach Police Department in Florida, triggered when parents reported that he had sexually molested their 14-year-old daughter.
Somehow, the “Go East, Young Man” (NY/NJ) or “Go South, Young Man” (Mexico, Venezuela), or “Go North, Young Man” (Canada) doesn’t quite hold the same charm and appeal, does it?
“Go NorthEast, Young Man” (Greenland) doesn’t sound much better.
I guess we need to get all our ducks in a row before Daffy and Daisy can run the rest of us out of this great HomeLand.
Lin – go southeast young man sounds about right to me.
Yours,
Uncle Henry
““Go NorthEast, Young Man” (Greenland) doesn’t sound much better.”
I’m no longer young, but I could entertain thoughts of moving to Greenland (desolate as it is) if the US acquires it and some very attractive opportunity should present itself. I would increase that potential motivation by factor of 10 if the Marxist regime in Cuba should fall and be replaced by something that substantially recognizes individual liberty.
Of course, residing in PRNJ may have an influence on my POV in that regard…
“PRNJ”
Present day Cuba might be an upgrade.
When this is at the Supreme Court, or even at lower levels, won’t some Justice ask what is the limiting factor on the retroactivity? It’s retroactive to January 1 2026. Could it have been retroactive to 2020, 20120, or birth of an individual? Given the formula for calculating value if you hold supervoting stock,I’m wondering if an entrepreneur who owns $500 million of supervoting stock in a startup, is considered to be a billionaire because the formula values his stock at $5 billion. His 5% would then be $250 million. But it would mean that people with a lot less than a billion would be taxed.
Again, I could care less about wealthy people fleeing states for financial reasons. The question remains: are they willing to do things differently and not arrogantly pollute wherever they go to, that was fine before they arrived? I am not hopeful on that front. they will take their idiocy with them, never realizing they were the problem to begin with. How many of these people will relocate and then stop voting blue? Not many. and that is sheet for the people they are integrating with.
It is absolutely 21st century colonialism, and the stratification of wealth the Professor talks about is a very real thing. If we don’t want a caste society, make it equally difficult for these ‘economic refugees’ to reshape wherever they flee to. States seeing an influx had better get past their greed and pragmatically fortify themselves or the rinse cycle will simply repeat, and that greed will completely backfire and leave them where they were or worse off than they were (pro tip: the current rush to build data centers in what used to be flyover country).
The problem is there ARE places to run, that have been well-managed, and the people running to them are so privileged and tone-deaf, they just remake wherever they were and the greedy cronies in charge are all too happy to bend over thus destroying what the managed. This is going to continue to be a problem.
“The Right to Rage: How Billionaires Hire Millionaires to Convince the Middle and Lower Class to Be Minions.”
This is what Turley has been paid to do. He is protecting the 1% and is rewarded for doing so and his job focus is getting those on the Right to Rage and not watch the man behind the curtain who is draining the US economy into the wealth of those at the very top.
you do know the overwhelming majority of the 1% (or 0.1% if you want the ultraweathly) are liberal leftists? Wall Street has been nothing but Democrat since Obama was president and turned the regulatory state into a protection racket against Wall Street.
Claiming Turley is attempting to keep us ignorant when he has no love for the left is rather odd. The only way to fight against being fooled is our freedoms. Specifically speech.
So… I guess don’t try to think about it or you’ll hurt your head.
So you’re deeply concerned that the money they generate increases inflation and a governmentmust take it to decrease inflation? 🤔
No, 🤔 you think laws should require owners to pay 49% of cash flow directly to employees as salary or cut hours worked for that same salary creating jobs until 49% of cash flow is reached disallowing owners growth and reinvestment?
What do you think the government does with collected taxes? Oh, you’re for smaller government? 🤔
James
You make some sweeping generalizations and stereotypical statements about “rich” people. Colonialism, really…come on… your wealth envy is showing. They are fleeing excessive taxation, I don’t think they are interested in “reshaping “ states to their benefit, they are escaping to states that are to their economic interests.
Let’a nationalize elections. Why not? Who doesn’t want the WH and its lackeys in DOJ micro-managing elections?
Funny. In the 80’s and 90’s, the term “conflict of interest” was used whenever analyzing such proposals. Since DJT, nobody uses the phrase “conflict of interest” anymore. Desensitization to this concept is complete. Young people are not even exposed to the term. The assumption is that if you hold public office, you use that power to advance your own interests, even if they clash with others’ or the publics’.
You have to question whether our President is receiving any cautionary legal advice. He embarrasses our nation with increasing frequency. His oath to uphold the Constitution was made the same way you and I OK a EULA without reading it.
Did this comment somehow relate to California’s wealth tax? Because I did not see it.
@pbinca
Heh? Nobody has any idea what you are even ranting about.
Who wants to nationalize elections? The Democrats tried under Biden but luckily failed (it would’ve been found unconstitutional). Trump certainly isn’t.
States control “time, place, and manner… but Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.” Therefore, Congress may regulate federal elections (as it previously did when voting in federal elections was 21 but in many state elections it was 18). This is not “nationalize elections”. Some municipalities within states even allow illegal aliens to vote. This is not only illegal but unconstitutional… in FEDERAL elections.
A state can still allow someone without an ID to vote in state elections or allow for mail in ballots in state elections. However, Congress can regulate Federal.
Art. I, Sec. 4, Clause 1.
How about feds’ rules for fed elections and states’ rules for state elections? If a state wants to distribute state taxes for zumba dancing go ahead. Fed money should be narrow with fed interests only, national defense, interstates, some dams, post offices, communications, airports, rails, ports, borders and such?
There is that Constitution thing 🤔.
The retroactive aspect of the law is the most troubling. This law makes its levies retroactive to Jan 1 2026 even though it won’t even be voted on for months. What if they decided to make it retroactive to 2025 or 2000. They could tax people who long left (like Musk) and have been paying taxes in another state for years. It’s ridiculous. I only hope that other states tell them to pound sand. Let them go to Florida to go after Zuckerberg or Sergei Brin. If DeSantis says they won’t enforce any California state judgements – and they shouldn’t – then what happens? Is California going to invade? Do they expect Trump and Bondi to help them out? Fat chance.
Money is like water; it follows the path of least resistance.
It seems to me a certain Russian-born author, familiar with the ways of socialist collectivism, wrote about this type of situation in the 1950s. See Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
The book is way too long and its characters are wooden, but its premise is an important one to keep in mind. When the people vote for “fairness” in the form of confiscating the wealth of the productive members of society, a downward spiral into widespread poverty begins. What’s different here is that California is only one of 50 states, and the productive entrepreneurs have options to leave the state. But what’s to say this could not be done on a national scale in the future?
“The book is way too long and its characters are wooden, but its premise is an important one to keep in mind. ‘
Exactly so. Fortunately, Rand’s ideas are well propounded in any number of books that focus on summarizing them in the absence of a plot. Frankly, I can find AS entertaining, but I need to read it in small chunks.
“. . . characters are wooden . . .”
When your reference point is people as they are, you would believe that ideal, heroic characters are “wooden.”
Tis called, “The Laugher’s Curve”. Once taxes reach a certain level, taxpayers flee laughing all the way. Way to go Gavin, you boob.
“Laffer Curve” – but I like your version better.
“Joker’s Curve” (Batman reference) might be better yet…
The billionaires are not leaving the state with U-Haul’s, they’re leaving with Bentley’s
That changes everything. (eye-roll)
I think you mean eye Rolls Royce…
Rolls Royce is what the newly rich own. Bentley is what the very wealthy own. A Rolls Royce is a gaudy thing.
Yeah, like Gaudy almighty you wish you had one!😝
“Rolls Royce is what the newly rich own. Bentley is what the very wealthy own. ”
Only to a certain extent. Remove the Flying Lady ornament and marque name plates from several RR models and they become fundamentally indistinguishable from the equivalent Bentley.
Seattle has passed a law that says that chain grocery stores cannot keep competitors from buying their properties to open a new Grocery store.
Just how many competitors are going to be interested in moving into a location where profits are lost because of rampant shoplifting that the city will not prosecute. The only way for a store to survive in Seattle will be to raise prices to cover the cost of theft otherwise known as shrink in the retail industry.
When they raise the prices in order to stay in business the city will say that they are price gouging.
It’s never Seattle’s fault. It’s never San Francisco’s fault. It’s always the big bad Capitalism business thats the big bad demon. You reap what you vote for.
If I owned a grocery store in Seattle or any other blue S-hole city, I think I would go to an online shopping model where customers were never allowed to go into the store. They would place their order online, employees would pick it for them, and the customer would pay for it before they either pick it up at the designated lockbox area or for an extra fee have it delivered.
Nobody ever accused CA voters of being smart, but this just defies any tiny spec of common sense.
Of course, their politicians just keep getting richer because of billionaire donors (who are smart enough to NOT live there) so they can just keep laughing and lying, like Newscum, Bass and Khanna.
And good luck trying to win the court case against that retroactive residency date requirement. It’s not like billionaires can’t afford to take it all the way to SCOTUS, if necessary.
Once the state defaults on its debt and can’t recover financially, those rich people will join those Hollywood celebrities who quietly moved to FL, TX, TN or overseas to avoid those high taxes and bleak prospects, but claiming it was for other reasons.
What those fires left standing will soon be deserted, and Henley’s song will be proven absurd and invalid, yet again.
“you made…all your money in California, you ungrateful piece of s***, you could figure out a way to pay more taxes, and we deserve the taxes from you, given you made your wealth here . . . ” This is the type of rhetoric I have heard from Detroit politicians. The idea is that successful businesses have taken money out of the city and should be happy to give it back. It is a third-world attitude. A successful business brings wealth into a city through providing desired goods and services. They also provide employment opportunities and the teaching of life skills. But to a certain left-wing politician, who can only think in terms of exploitation, a successful business is a type of thief. Places governed by such people have little chance of becoming desirable places to live.
“Welcome to Hotel California, you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.” That lyric was intended as an insult to Ronald Reagan’s California. Don Henley owes Ronald Reagan an apology. Don owes a lot of conservatives an apology.
You know, if they just taxed the people who voted for more taxes, liberalism would literally disappear overnight. That is a true statement. I’m not exaggerating and liberals know it.
“Hotel California” was/is a moniker of San Quentin Prison which didn’t have a whole lot to do with Ronald Reagan.
Unless you’re Henley, you’re wrong.
Google: “Don Henley was primarily inspired by the dark underbelly of the American Dream and the excesses of life in Los Angeles during the 1970s. He described the song as a commentary on materialism, narcissism, and the music industry’s hedonistic lifestyle. The Beverly Hills Hotel served as a symbolic backdrop, representing both the allure and entrapment of fame and luxury. Henley also drew from personal experiences, including his breakup with girlfriend Loree Rodkin, which influenced lines like “Her mind is Tiffany-twisted, she got the Mercedes-Benz.” The song reflects a journey from innocence to experience, capturing the disillusionment beneath California’s glamorous surface.”
Thanks for backing me up. That was exactly my understanding. Never liked the song even before I understood what it meant.
. Southern California was an amazing place. It’s true the young women all looked like movie stars. They had endless beauties. Kindergarten teachers looked like Tippi Hedrin. The beaches were enormous in width and length. It was stunning and always summer.
@Diogenes
I won’t relent on this point. Someone raised the (younger and younger, it seems) people that are increasingly in these positions, let alone the ones out breaking and setting fire to things. I didn’t do it. Did you? This would be a nothing burger in the past, but given our population and the advent of 24/7 interconnection, we are talking about millions, not just a handful. It is not the only salient point, but it’s an important one.
We need to turn it around while there are still people living that know better – we will not live forever. The legalese, and we see this very front and center now – comes after the fact. We are fine with our legal protocols amongst ourselves, but we are knowledgeable, and we project that to our folly – they are unaware of them and do not give a ****. and increasingly, neither does the modern left.
Do you want to be subjugated because a bunch of supremely spoiled children got out of hand? I don’t. But that is where we are headed. It may be simple and stupid, bit it is what it is.
Nowhere To Run
Heat Wave
It’s like a heat wave
It’s burning in my heart
I can’t keep from burning
It’s tearing me apart
Oh, my!