Below is my column on Fox.com on the new push by Democrats to impose a wealth tax nationally. While the proposal currently focuses on billionaires, this legislation would be a test case for the federal courts in asserting this new and unlimited tax authority. If allowed, Congress would then be able to set any wealth level for special taxation. At the same time, Democrats in states from Washington to Virginia are moving to impose a ten percent millionaire’s tax on income.
Here is the column:
“Enough is enough.” With those words, Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt) launched a push to impose a 5% annual wealth tax on America’s billionaires. With Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Cal.), the legislation, “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act,” echoes the growing “eat-the-rich” mantra on the left — seeking to replicate a disastrous push in California that has led to an exodus from that state and an estimated loss of $2 trillion in taxable assets.
It is also flagrantly unconstitutional.
Under the plan, Congress would target 938 billionaires to tap them for $4.4 trillion. That money would then be redistributed as a $3,000 direct payment to every man, woman, and child in a household making $150,000 or less – $12,000 for a family of four.
The timing of the move is telling. Not only is it calculated before the midterm elections, in which the Democrats hope to retake power, but it follows the push by California Democrats and unions to impose a similar wealth tax in that state.
Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley, has supported the state law, which includes a ruinous provision for startup entrepreneurs. The law would not only be retroactive to try to trap wealthy taxpayers who have fled the state, but also base wealth calculations on the voting shares of corporate executives. Often, with start-ups, entrepreneurs hold greater voting shares than actual ownership. However, just in case they need more incentive to leave the state, they will be taxed as if their voting shares represented actual wealth.
The practical problem is that the wealthy, like their wealth, are mobile. As a result, many are fleeing California. So now Khanna is joining with the nation’s leading Democratic Socialists to ensure there is nowhere to hide in the United States. For billionaires in California, they could be double-tapped for ten percent of their wealth.
It has long been the dream of the far left. Years ago, Sen. Elizabeth Warren delighted Democratic voters in her run for the presidency by telling the rich she was coming after “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.” In one debate, she dramatically rubbed her hands together after saying she would take some of the wealth of fellow candidate John Delaney, a self-made millionaire.
In my book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss the growing threat of “economic factionalism” as politicians fuel rage against the wealthy based on the false premise that they are not “paying their fair share.” While there are good-faith arguments for adjusting tax burdens to address budget demands, the top 1 percent pays more taxes than the bottom 90 percent combined.
There is little reason to believe that a wealth tax targeting billionaires will not, if upheld, be later extended to lower tax brackets, starting with multimillionaires. That is the signature of economic factionalism, which feeds an insatiable appetite for greater wealth seizure.
The Sanders-Khanna plan is notable in its express commitment to direct wealth redistribution. It also explains why the left has made the packing of the Supreme Court a priority. As Harvard professor Michael Klarman explained years ago, the radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election” requires control of the Supreme Court to uphold such measures.
The problem is that the Constitution bars the implementation of such a federal wealth tax. When the 16th Amendment was ratified, it allowed for federal income taxes, and only income taxes: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
The effort to expand federal taxation beyond income taxes will require either a constitutional amendment or an enabling, packed Court.
Nevertheless, these politicians will continue to dangle wealth distribution before voters. They will demonize figures like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk for their wealth while ignoring that these same figures are wealth and job creators, driving our economic growth. Instead, Sanders declared that “Billionaires cannot have it all.”
The irony of Rep. Khanna (who has been floating a run for President in 2028) turning on his own constituents in Silicon Valley underscores the appeal of wealth-redistribution campaigns. He is turning the very heart of his state’s economic growth as state deficits and out-of-state migration increase.
For Sanders, the legislation is a key moment to advance his long-standing socialist agenda. He declared the beginning of the end of “unprecedented income and wealth inequality” in the United States through such redistribution. The stated objective of erasing wealth inequality highlights how this is just the start and the end of wealth taxation.
As discussed in Rage and the Republic, none of this is new. Countries like France previously targeted the wealthy, triggering an exodus of taxpayers and their businesses from the country. It had to reverse its policy as the economy collapsed.
Of course, many young people have no memory of such failures in the 20th Century. Instead, they are drawn to the very same soundbites used in France and Great Britain before disastrous experiments with socialism. With no experience with socialist economies, figures like socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani can entice voters to “the warmth of collectivism.”
There are legitimate concerns over the glaring and growing wealth gap in the United States. However, a wealth tax is neither a constitutional nor a practical way of addressing the problem.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the New York Times bestselling “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
John Wesley is credited with saving 18th-century England from the violent upheaval
John Wesley (1703–1791) is
credited with saving 18th-century England from the violent upheaval of a French-style revolution through a massive spiritual and social revival. His Methodist movement transformed a degenerate society by promoting personal holiness, education, and social reform, which provided moral stability during a time of widespread societal tension.
John Wesley is credited with saving 18th-century England from the violent upheaval
“…entities should be taxed according to their financial capacity.” Each according to his ability. Each according to his need.
Leave the rich the hell alone. You want to reduce our GNP? Just dissuade the entrepreneurs from seeking wealth. It’s evident that non-billionaires blame the rich for accumulating what they would kill to have. It’s their fault they’re rich. They don’t deserve their money.
They should pay their fair share. They’ve been paying taxes all their lives, just like the rest of us. The poor reap the benefits of all their hard work, living like kings compared to the poor from poorer countries.
With honest, hard working citizens, taxes would shrink dramatically. Less prisons, less crime, less drug abuse, less cheating medicare and medicaid, less greed, greater generosity, on and on. But No. We can’t do that. It would take the spiritual revolution of society, and we can’t afford that. Spiritually is the problem, according to the God haters and deniers and THAT is what motivates them to demand secular answers to everything. They hate God, claim they can’t hate what doesn’t exist. Which proves God must exist, because indeed they hate Him, almost as much as they hate those who try to live for Him. They HATE. Their lives are built upon hatred.
The “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act” omits the key issue … “fair share of what”? Taxes are not supposed to be “a taking for no reason”; they are supposed to be “a taking for a good reason”. The Bernie Sanders tax is “a taking for no stated reason”.
The more government takes, the more it spends (after taking its “vig” off the top). The choice is clear: tax cuts (less money for government) v. tax increases (more money for government). May we all remember President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address: “Ask not what your country can do for you”.
“…entities should be taxed according to their financial capacity.” Each according to his ability. Each according to his need.
Leave the rich the hell alone. You want to reduce our GNP? Just dissuade the entrepreneurs from seeking wealth. It’s evident that non-billionaires blame the rich for accumulating what they would kill to have. It’s their fault they’re rich. They don’t deserve their money.
They should pay their fair share. They’ve been paying taxes all their lives, just like the rest of us. The poor reap the benefits of all their hard work, living like kings compared to the poor from poorer contries.
With honest, hard working citizens, taxes would shrink dramatically. Less prisons, less crime, less drug abuse, less cheating medicare and medicaid, less greed, greater generosity, on and on. But No. We can’t do that. It would take the spiritual revolution of society, and we can’t afford that. Spiritually is the problem, according to the God haters and deniers and THAT is what motivates them to demand secular answers to everything. They hate God, claim they can’t hate what doesn’t exist. Which proves God must exist, because indeed they hate Him, almost as much as they hate those who try to live for Him. They HATE. Their lives are built upon hatred.
Well looks like time for the BIG MONEY to crank up the LOBBY MACHINE again and put this rabid idea to sleep. Just need enough EASILY BOUGHT OFF UNIPARTY CAREER TYPES to accept some donations and Dark PAC help to lightly obstruct this and should be “dead as fried chicken” per RFK Jr. Oh, and if Billionaires and Multi-Millionaires can leave a confiscatory state they can just as easily leave a confiscatory country. Maybe Bernie and Ro should explore FEDERAL BUDGET CUTS or is that like seeking BIGFOOT?
Isn’t it funny that none of these Slugs ever introduce a “insider trading politician” tax? What other industry can a nothing enter the workforce with a entry level paycheck and in a few short years bank a few million?
🎱You just sparked an idea. Amend the Sanders/Khanna Billionaire’s tax to include a provision that confiscates 90% of the increase in wealth of Senators and Representatives during the time they are elected to Congress, and 10% annually thereafter when they leave Congress.
A pair of idiots babbling like a pair of parrots.
If you confiscate the entire wealth of all the billionaires living in the US, it would only cover the deficient spending for about 3+ years, than what? We have a spending problem, not a not enough tax problem.
How about solving the housing problem by limiting the number of houses one person can own? How many does one person need? Sen. Sanders owns three. Asking for a friend,,,
States like Massachusetts and New Jersey have passed “millionaire taxes” without seeing the predicted total collapse of their tax bases.
Billionaires may be more ‘mobile’ but that doesn’t mean the cost of moving will be cheaper than the cost of paying the tax. Billionaires don’t just rent a U-haul and move to a new state. They require massive expenses to move. Selling mansions, adding more travel expenses to continue to do business in the state where the majority of their wealth infrastructure is and the talent that supports it will still reside in the state they wish to leave. These “exoduses” are either short lived, or often too small to have any serious impact on a state economy.
Take Massachusetts, they implemented a millionaire wealth tax in 2023. The expected “exodus” did not happen. In fact it increased the number of millionaires by 39%. Instead of the expected $1 billion in extra revenue they got $2.2 Billion. More than double the expected revenue.
Simply being wealthy and very mobile does not mean they will immediately move to a lower tax state. Only a small minority do so. But the vast majority stay because of connections to the state, family, business connections, and the talent that allows them to continue to grow their wealthy are in the state. Massachusetts implemented a 4% wealth tax and they did not experience the exodus Turley’s alarmist views claim.
The exodus is hardly the result of tax laws george. Also you did not retail the number of millionaires and billionaires who allegedly departed. George will you stop lying please You’re been fact cheeked daily, Your every comment is filled with lies and distortions.
MA did not experience you say?
Massachusetts is experiencing a notable outflow of residents, particularly high-income earners and younger professionals, with taxes cited as a major factor.
High-income earners are leaving Massachusetts in significant numbers. IRS data shows Massachusetts lost $3.9 billion in adjusted gross income (AGI) between 2021 and 2022, with 55% of that loss attributed to high earners (those making $200,000+), despite them accounting for only 22% of net outmigration.
The 4% millionaire’s tax on income over $1 million, approved in 2022, is a key driver. A 2024 survey of Massachusetts CPAs found 90% reported their high-income clients were considering leaving, with 55% citing the surtax as the primary reason.
Young professionals (26–44 years old) are a major group departing, accounting for 44% of the AGI lost. Many are relocating due to unaffordable housing and the ability to earn high salaries while working remotely in lower-cost states.
Despite claims by some that a “mass exodus” is a myth, reliable data from the IRS and Pioneer Institute confirm net outmigration and AGI loss, placing Massachusetts among the worst in the Northeast for population and income loss.
Public opinion supports this trend: a September 2024 poll found 65.7% of Massachusetts residents believe high taxes are a main reason people are leaving, with 87% of 18–34-year-olds saying taxes are too high.
While some argue that wealthy individuals are less likely to move due to strong professional and social ties, evidence from client reports and tax data suggests the tax policy is already influencing relocation decisions.
I can say one thing about george. When it comes the lying. He’s # 1.
Dustoff, what was the lie?
Anonymous,
Your ‘mass exodus’ argument relies on looking in the rearview mirror. The IRS data showing income loss is from 2021-2022—before the Millionaire’s Tax even took effect. That migration was a nationwide post-pandemic trend driven by remote work and housing costs, not a reaction to a tax that didn’t exist yet.
If the tax were truly driving people out, we’d see state revenues cratering. Instead, the opposite happened: in its first two years, the tax generated $5.7 billion, nearly triple what was expected. Even more telling, the number of millionaires in Massachusetts actually grew by 38% between 2022 and 2024. People aren’t just staying for the ‘vibes’; they’re staying because the state’s talent pool and schools are worth the 4% surtax. The ‘collapse’ didn’t happen—the investment did.
Rearview huh? George you lost the argument, anon bested you. Now you want to toss in some nonsense rearview. You silly sore loser.
The Massachusetts tax was an income tax not a wealth tax
It’s still a tax on millionaires. Of course Republicans will call any tax on the wealthy a wealthy tax.
It’s an income tax. The subject here is a wealth tax. Khanna and Sanders are proposing a wealth tax, not an income tax, and that is unconstitutional. (Or rather, it would have to be allocated among the states by population, and I haven’t yet seen an explanation of how that’s supposed to work that makes any sense.)
Same diff., its progressive…
Well then X, why are the businesses deciding to move? They look at things from a long term perspective. They crunch the numbers and then make a decision. Yamaha has just decided to move from California to Georgia. Do you think they have made the decision without looking at the long term effects of higher taxes. They also are considered the reality that with the tax the rich crowd history has proved that too much is never enough. We know the real story with you. If you could you would take it all and give it to the state. A socialist through and through. One hundred years of the failure of socialist regimes and you’re still hanging on by a thread claiming that all you’re trying to do is to protect our democracy. Socialist vomit sprayed from the nose is unbecoming.
Thinkitthrough,
Business decisions are rarely about a single tax line; they’re about the total cost of operations. Yamaha moved its headquarters to Georgia primarily for cheaper land, lower utility costs, and proximity to its Southern manufacturing hubs—not just to dodge a wealth tax that hasn’t even passed yet.
If taxes were the only thing that mattered, California and New York would be ghost towns, yet they remain the top two economies in the U.S. because that’s where the venture capital and the elite talent live. This isn’t about ‘socialism’ or ‘taking it all’; it’s about closing a loophole where billionaires pay a lower effective rate than their own secretaries by living off loans instead of salaries. You can call it ‘socialist vomit,’ but asking the ultra-wealthy to pay the same percentage as a middle-class family is just basic fiscal fairness.
Single tax line? geez George you have no idea what you’re saying, state taxes are pass throughs, federal not, International taxes are credits, federal tax reducing. George the shit you make up is unbelievable.
Take Massachusetts, they implemented a millionaire wealth tax in 2023. […] Massachusetts implemented a 4% wealth tax
No, they didn’t. You’re simply lying. Massachusetts passed a 4% tax on income after the first $1M. Income, not wealth. You thought no one would notice and you’d get away with the lie. Either that or you’re so stupid that you have no idea what a wealth tax is, in which case you have no right to an opinion on the subject.
There’s one thing that is certain: neither Sanders nor Khanna will increase their own pain. Sanders, a multimillionaire who owns at least three climate changing homes, will not suffer one bit. Khanna is hardly poor by any measure, either. Democrats never want to reach into their own pockets for the wealth they want to give away. It’s always taken from the forgotten man. Democrat pickpockets are ideological shameless.
Bernie Sanders’ net worth is estimated to be around $3 million as of recent reports. All in real estate; based on his annual salary, that wealth accumulation is “in line” with his employment. This represents a significant increase from earlier in his career, when he was among the least wealthy members of the U.S. Senate.
Ro Khanna’s net worth is estimated to range from $27 million to over $100 million, based on financial disclosures and public reports. The wide range reflects the limitations of congressional disclosure rules, which report assets in broad categories rather than exact values. One could call him a self made man.
“The problem is that the Constitution bars the implementation of such a federal wealth tax. When the 16th Amendment was ratified, it allowed for federal income taxes, and only income taxes: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
The effort to expand federal taxation beyond income taxes will require either a constitutional amendment or an enabling, packed Court.”
Actually, the Constitution doesn’t bar this. In Moore v. United States, Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion clarified that Congress has wide latitude to define what constitutes ‘income.’ Under the Taxing Clause, Congress has broad authority to tax for the ‘general welfare.’ If a wealth tax is structured as an excise tax—targeting the privilege of holding vast property rather than the property itself—it avoids the requirement for apportionment among the states.
This is a necessary fix for the ‘Buy, Borrow, Die’ loop: billionaires avoid traditional income taxes by never selling their stocks, instead living off low-interest loans. This makes their effective tax rate significantly lower than the average worker’s. By redefining these massive capital transfers or unrealized gains as taxable events, Congress can finally close the gap between nominal tax rates and the reality of how modern wealth is used.
Justice Amy Coney Barret’s concurrence however seems designed to blunt any nationwide wealth tax by categorizing it as a ‘property tax’ instead. Which would make it harder to let states impose one on their own. But that poses a problem for those who claim the justices are not there to interpret, just read what the constitution says and there is absolutely nothing that would disallow Congress to define what Income is as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out. Barrett is the one adding a definition that does not exist.
Is there a point somewhere in that jumble of words?
Fortunately, words do have definitions and income cannot be interpreted as already existing property. Further, a minimum of research into the origin of the law would confirm that it was intended for income and not pre-existing wealth
We are but one election away from the loss of our democratic capitalist republic and thus our freedom. A wealth tax is a confiscation of property absent any economic activity. The Dems have been waging an assault on property rights for some time through the regulatory state. A wealth tax is a culmination of that effort to relive us our burdensome wealth which is foundational to our freedom and turn it to their on power. The warmth of collectivism comes from the barrel of a gun aimed at us to protect our overlords. There is nothing altruistic about the Democrat party.
“already pay higher income tax than in almost all European countries. Irrelevant.
Europe doesn’t have as many billionaires as the USA. Keep in mind that the “Ability-to-Pay Principle” is applicable here, but not there. This concept holds that individuals and entities should be taxed according to their financial capacity. Those with higher incomes, wealth, or consumption levels are expected to pay more because they can afford to bear a greater tax burden without significant hardship. This principle is rooted in the work of 18th-century economist Adam Smith, who stated that citizens should contribute to government support in proportion to their ability.
As of 2025, the U.S. is home to 924 billionaires, far surpassing Europe’s total. In contrast, Europe collectively has 954 billionaires, but this number is spread across many countries. The largest concentration in Europe is in Germany (156 billionaires), followed by the UK (91), France (46), and Italy (61). However, even the combined total for Europe is still lower than the U.S. count.
The U.S. also leads in combined billionaire wealth, with $6.9 trillion, compared to Europe’s $3.1 trillion. This reflects the U.S.’s dominance in innovation, entrepreneurship, and financial markets.
That’s right. And that’s because here we don’t punish them for being billionaires as they do in Europe. So the people who create and innovate are here rather than in Europe. Impose this tax and that will change.
The question needs to change from “where can we collect more money” to “where is our money going now?” The fraud and abuse should be every politician’s main concern.
We are essentially pouring tax dollars into a war of choice. In just the first week of Operation Epic Fury, the Pentagon burned through over $11.3 billion—with $5.6 billion spent in the first 48 hours alone just on munitions. We’re using $4 million interceptors to stop $20,000 drones, which is a losing mathematical game for our stockpiles.
Meanwhile, the administration seems blindsided by the rise of Mojtaba Khamenei, and as long as Iran can threaten the Strait of Hormuz, gas prices will keep climbing toward $4 a gallon. Even with U.S. escorts, shipping companies aren’t willing to risk their tankers, and trying to protect them all would only drain our high-end missile supplies even faster. It’s a massive drain on resources with no clear exit strategy.
Forget the 16th amendment. Packing the Supreme Court will take care of that.
Forget the illegals voting problem, Packing the Supreme Court will take care of that.
Forget the Electoral College problem. Annexing DC and Puerto Rico will take care of that.
Forget the “taxing the rich” problem. The ultra rich have always escaped taxes.
Think of taxes as in “The Blob” film from years ago. Taxes eventually claim everyone.
Think of illegals as our new friends – originating from everywhere – with freshly minted citizenship papers.
Those with high wealth living in California and New York already pay higher income tax than in almost all European countries. Why do Democrats not feel that is sufficient?
Because they want far more than Europe delivers in terms of domestic and foreign aid, including far more comprehensive health coverage than the most generous of Europe’s nations, and refuse to take “no” for answer.