There is an interesting controversy brewing in California after four California university professors threatened a political candidate, Richard Lucas, for criticizing them for their roles in the “Billionaire Tax” and sent him a “cease and desist” letter. David Gamage from the University of Missouri, Brian Galle and Emmanuel Saez from UC Berkeley, and Darien Shanske from UC Davis claimed that the public criticism violated anti-doxxing laws by sharing contact information. They are clearly wrong. One of the aggrieved professors, Brian Galle, teaches at Berkeley Law School called Lucas “a clown,” but insisted that sharing public information is unlawful.
Attorney Catha Worthman sent the letter, but has reportedly refused to respond to inquiries after attorneys for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) pushed back on her legal claims and those of her clients.
I have long been a critic of such wealth taxes, specifically California’s Billionaire Tax, as economically moronic and legally questionable. The proposal has already cost the state trillions in lost wealth as wealthy taxpayers have fled, taking their businesses and jobs with them.
As I discuss in Rage and the Republic, these wealth taxes have a terrible track record and, on the federal level, face serious constitutional challenges. In California, the drafters included a retroactive clause that can also be challenged.
One of the four professors — who Lucas referred to as “the looter dream team” — destroyed the claims of many supporters that this is just a one-time tax. Some of us have written that this is simply the first salvo. Once they succeed in targeting billionaires, the same measure will likely be used for those in lower tax brackets.
In a recent debate, Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez admitted that he could not seriously claim this would be a one-time tax, as many in the public have asserted. He said they would have to wait to see if it passes, but it is likely to be repeated, and noted that there may also be a federal wealth tax on the way.
He said:
“I don’t think it’s going to be a one-time tax…because you can’t surprise billionaires more than once.
Even then, you know, maybe some of them were expecting something like this.
So it’s going to be a debate about this time, you know, a permanent wealth tax at a low rate that’s going to last for a number of years.”
Saez has publicly taunted the wealthy who are fleeing the state:
He noted the move on the left to create a federal wealth tax which has been pushed by Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna.
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.
Now back to the legal threat. I believe that the threatened legal action is wildly off base. Putting aside the fact that this is protected speech, the two anti-doxing statutes, Penal Code §653.2(a) and Civil Code §1708.89, contain clear scienter or intent requirements.
They must show that Lucas demonstrated an “intent to place another person in reasonable fear for their safety, or the safety of the other person’s immediate family.” Penal Code §653.2(a); Civil Code §1708.89. There is no evidence of such intent. If simply posting such identifying information is a violation, a significant range of protected speech would be proscribed.
There are ample reasons to criticize this tax and the claims made by its champions. There is a type of self-sustaining pattern on the left in support of such measures. Universities have largely purged conservatives and libertarians from departments, leaving most faculties with professors who run exclusively from the left to the far left.
These professors then added intellectual support for radical proposals like wealth taxes. The media then reports that experts have reviewed and approved the measures. It becomes an entirely closed loop from political groups to academics to media creating a uniform narrative.
The ADF wrote a strong letter pointing out the flaws in the claims of these professors under anti-doxxing laws from the lack of intent to the protection of free speech. These professors became public advocates for this ill-conceived plan and, as a result, have drawn criticism for that advocacy.
Lucas was one of those critics:
Nevertheless, the professors sent two cease and desist letters to Lucas, requesting that he remove their names and contact information from his website “California Wealth Exodus.” Lucas has remained adamant that he will not remove their contact information.
The site for figures like Galle link to his academic page, as I have done above. We routinely link to such sites for people to look at the background of figures discussed in columns. In the case of Lucas, it is also meant to allow citizens to express their views to those pushing this proposal.
In my view, the threat of legal action is fundamentally flawed and would not prevail in the courts. These professors will need to respond to their critics rather than work to silence them.
OT https://x.com/bitcoin_teddy/status/2064090591177101677?s=43
Two economists go for a hike. They find a pile of shit. One pays the other $100 to eat it. …
Interesting joke, Alan. One should note that Elon Musk didn’t accomplish sh!t with all his DOGE cuts. All he did was alienate the best and brightest. But that was the whole idea: ‘Clear out anyone with any expertise’.
I’m always amused that so many of the public electorate continue to fall for the pseudo-virtuous “Robin Hood” tactics* —that are in reality meant to serve as election/vote enhancers. (*take from the rich to buoy the poor; -more accurately, take from the rich to BUY the poor)
“Approximately 60% of ILLEGAL immigrants in the U.S. earn less than the federal poverty level.”
“We estimate that 59.4 percent of ILLEGAL immigrant households use one or more welfare programs.” (is 59.4 pretty close to 60.0?)
“…the Biden-Harris Administration has released into the United States more than 5.6 million ILLEGAL aliens, with another 1.9 million ILLEGAL alien ‘gotaways’ escaping into the country…”
https://cosm.aei.org/key-data-on-federal-benefits-paid-to-illegal-immigrant-households/
I do NOT believe that the way to solve crime, slums, trashy streets, gangs, drug trade, healthcare needs/strains/drains, and Minnesota welfare fraud -is by GIVING AWAY the grease to our squeakiest wheels.
It’s one thing to share our surplus with deserving recipients. It’s yet another to enable them in order to buy their favor.
“The Roar of the Greasepaint The Smell of the Crowd.”
ooops. forgot to add: “California continues to serve as the primary destination and home for the largest population of undocumented immigrants in the United States…approximately 2.3 to 2.6 million…” https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/illegal-immigrants-in-california/
lin: just WHO do you think plants, harvests and packs the tomatoes, lettuce and other perishable vegetables and fruits that have to be picked and packed by hand? Do you think that if all of the migrants were deported that there would be enough US citizens available to fill their jobs, and even if there were, how would that affect the price of produce? If the California agriculture industry, which relies heavily on migrant labor fails, what then? There would be shortages of fresh fruits and vegetables. And just WHO do you think cleans rooms, does laundry and kitchen work in hotels and restaurants? Do you think there are enough US citizens to fill these jobs, and if so, how much more would guests and customers have to pay? WHO do you think does landscaping work, roofing and non-union construction work? If all of these people were not here, what would happen to our economy and the price we pay for groceries and hospitality, such as hotels and restaurants? Migrants vastly contribute to our economy, and many of them have US citizen spouses and children.
Gigi, What does that have to do with illegal vs. illegal entrance to the U.S. for employment?
Did you ever hear of H-2 visas to enter the United States LEGALLY and PRECISELY for “seasonal or temporary” employment? Maybe not, eh? Thanks anyway.
“We estimate that 59.4 percent of ILLEGAL immigrant households use one or more welfare programs.” (is 59.4 pretty close to 60.0?)“
That’s not the whole story. You left out the fact that most of those illegals have U.S. citizen children or family members who have legitimate claim to welfare programs meant for U.S. citizens. Your own link cites this. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) article explicitly notes under Question 6, these households collect benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are legal U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment. Denying benefits to these households would mean withholding legally mandated food and healthcare from American citizen children.
In the past the “rich” were taxed at a much higher rate than today and it produced the most wealth in the nation. It didn’t cause the dire predictions that most conservatives peddle today and it still won’t if the tax rates were slightly higher than they are now. For the billionaire tax bracket.
X/George: Pleases be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot with your own enthusiasm to jump on my comments every day.
Did it escape you that ILLEGAL immigrants come here every day precisely to have their children BORN here in order to become citizens eligible for benefits? Do you think they make the trip here to sightsee at Disneyland?
Read carefully:
“About 7 million children in the United States live with immigrant parents who are NOT U.S. citizens, and 4 million of these children live with an undocumented immigrant parent. About 80 percent of these children are U.S. citizens themselves.”
https://www.nccp.org/immigration-profiles/
I think, although I may be wrong, that you are smart enough to see that I left out only information that hurts rather than helps your criticism. Think, X. Think. I know that AI is capable of that.
Lin, your response is highly disingenuous. You did not just “leave out information”—you cited a study that directly refutes your entire premise.
If you had actually used AI to read the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) report you linked, it would have shown you why your claims fall short of your intent. You Twisted the Study’s Core Conclusion.
The NCCP study does not argue that immigrants come here to exploit welfare. It explicitly states that these families face a “patchwork access to major public benefit programs” and concludes that broadening their eligibility improves long-term health and educational outcomes for future Americans. You are using a pro-immigrant child welfare study to support an anti-immigrant talking point.
Federal law (PRWORA) strictly bars undocumented parents from receiving federal cash assistance, Medicaid, or SNAP. Benefits are pro-rated and apply only to the U.S. citizen child. Data overwhelmingly shows that immigrants risk their lives for labor opportunities and physical safety, not to navigate complex state bureaucracies for pro-rated food vouchers.
An AI doesn’t have political bias—it just reads the text and the law. And in this case, both prove you completely wrong.
You really think they come here only to have babies, only that? Come on, even I know your’e smarter than that. Are you?
Immigrants ADD to our economic power. The don’t diminish it by using a few benefits once in a while.
From Lin’s Article:
“At the start of 2023, the net cost of illegal immigration for the United States – at the federal, state, and local levels – was at least $150.7 billion.”
…………………………….
That’s it..?? $150.7 billion..??
Congressional Republicans are going to appropriate $70 billion for ICE while Trump’s War On Iran might creep to $1 trillion when all the costs are finally added.
And meanwhile America’s population growth would be totally flat without undocumented immigrants.
This is the party that is a-okay with a Nazi tattoo, but a tattoo of an Israeli flag would be a dealbreaker. The Left’s instincts are always totalitarian.
https://x.com/TheCarolineMc/status/2063803200902168769
A tattoo of the Israeli flag would be a dealbreaker in most MAGA circles.
Balony. Most means more than half. There is a fringe anti-Israel contingent on the right, but it is not nearly more than half. The vast majority of “MAGA circles” are friendly to Israel.
What’s behind the campaign to demonize Israel inside Trumpworld?
Dubious leaks about the Jewish state spying on America signify an effort to break up a valued alliance by those whose motives are rooted in antisemitic conspiracies.
…Their obsessive hatred for the Jewish state extends to believing without a shred of proof that Jerusalem was behind the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Like the myths about “The Israel Lobby” that fuel resentments about AIPAC, the Jews and their state are not merely the scapegoats for scandals, but are believed to be manipulating Trump and the United States to work against American interests. In this way, antisemitic shorthand about “Zio-pedos” has become the way the far-right mimics the Marxist formulations about a “white oppressor” state in which Israel and Zionists are demonized as not just wrongheaded, but perverted criminals. …
https://www.jns.org/opinion/column/jonathan-s-tobin/whats-behind-the-campaign-to-demonize-israel-inside-trumpworld?utm_campaign=Daily%20Syndicate%20Emails&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9S3Y_Tl2XOAre9AuRztx9wodvwGIqjlnX9s0PdG-gxODYYuzPONFlZL65286o0yFjyyfKAvHYS287-m_QoFcCbdhTJfg&_hsmi=137918477&utm_content=137918477&utm_source=hs_email
S. Meyer: I believe both you and J. Tobin pose credible takes. I also believe that there IS/WAS surveillance, but I don;t see where critics are allowing for the possibility that surveillance of real-time or recorded exchanges might be for other purposes, e.g., assessment of ambiguous responses in the exchanges as being equivocal/subject to interpretation, etc.
I had seen NYT’s take on it and I think NYT further harmed its reputation as a reliable, neutral source.
Israel does not benefit if Iran remains instant in its present state. So it benefits them to spy on Trump so they can undermine the negotiations. They don’t want a deal with Iran. That is why the JCPOA was such a threat to Israel. They would have lost any leverage they had if the deal was allowed to continue.
Trump is a moron and he has no idea what he is doing with Iran. He’s already ‘bored’ with it. Wow.
Israel is what brought us into this new war that Trump promised would be a presidency of “no new wars”.
Israel has to act in its own sovereign best interest. Iran has been attacking Israel for 47 years, so the threat has expanded from Israel to European capitals and, in a short time frame, the US itself.
“Israel is what brought us into this new war that Trump”
You are not alone in this belief. There are a good number of dummies on the extreme right and much of the Democrat party who agree and whose prior membership would look at this new turn of the Democrat party in horror. Democrats: the party of slavery. Democrats: the party of Jim Crow. Democrats: the party of political slavery. Democrats: the party of antisemitism.
I know Israel surveiled the US in the past: Pollard. But I don’t think in the present as it was too costly for them. But, I think we all know the US surveils Israel. That is a game all nations do, but only Israel is signalled out.
The NYT’s has never been honest, including their coverge of Nazi atrocities, Stalin atrocities and Pol Pot atrocities.
What a collection of inane comments.
Israel has undoubtedly surveilled the US in the past, but you don’t THINK that they do now because it would be too costly.
Really ???
What exactly is the basis for these “thoughts” of yours ?
Is there any evidence to support these “thoughts”, or are they simply the meandering thoughts of wishful thinking or a diseased mind?
You THINK that we all know the US surveils Israel.
Really ???
Who exactly is WE ????
Perhaps the voices in your head.
What makes you think that WE all know that the US surveils Israel?
How exactly do WE know this?
The NYT coverage of various atrocities has not been honest.
Really ???
In what way have they not been honest?
Have they denied that the atrocities did not take place?
Have they said that the atrocities were not all that bad?
Did they support the atrocities?
You are making absurd statements that are completely disconnected from reality. There is no evidence for any of these “THOUGHTS” of yours.
You are simply making stuff up.
Just HOW does the US benefit from supplying Israel with bombs, airplanes and missile defense systems, along with the billions in foreign aid? Note that the US, under Trump, took away the money to provide food to starving kids in Africa, but we have anything Israel wants thanks to rich Jews like Miriam Edelson donating hundreds of millions to Trump’s campaign. We are now blowing through a billion a day, minimum, killed 13 American service members, and are depleting our stockpile of weapons, and for what? We had the JCPOA, which unequivocally said that Iran would not create, seek or acquire a nuclear bomb. Trump tore it up because it was an achievement of Obama, of whom Trump is insanely jealous. We would be much better off siding with the oil-producing countries than Israel that does nothing but take from us, which creates enemies because of our support. Israel conned Trump into starting the war with Iran by lying about Iran being ready to nuke us, after it couldn’t BS Biden, Obama, Clinton or Bush into starting a bombing campaign as a cover for Israel to start bombing in Lebanon so it could steal territory, all while claiming they are going after Hezbollah. It’s the LAND they want and they have no respect for human life or the suffering they cause to the Palestinian people or people of Lebanon. It’s Israel’s abuses that create Hezbolla and other anti-Israel groups. But then, again, Trump also thinks he can steal Canada, Greenland, the Panama Canal and Cuba, so he doesn’t have a problem with killing people or stealing their land. Well, the rest of us DO have a problem with this. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with Israel being a Jewish country.
Israel has committed human rights violations against the Palestinian people, stole their land, moved in Israeli settlers, bombed Gaza back to the Stone Age and refused to allow in humanitarian aid, resulting in unnecessary starvation, people dying of thirst, and people dying of malnutrition and from lack of medical supplies. And, you claim that if people are opposed to the abuses committed by Israel, then we must just be anti-Semitic. It wouldn’t matter what the religious beliefs of a country are that commits human rights violations and steals land from other countries, all of this is contrary to what America used to stand for.
Even Israel bans dual citizens from holding office. It’s about time we did the same. In fact, receiving any federal money via any pathway should require US and US only citizenship.
Meanwhile, the topic, it amazes me that anyone thinks exit taxes and wealth taxes are going to fix inequity or budget problems. One results because people are not all the same, the other because politicians and their beneficiaries have no respect for taxpayers or their money.
You could not be more wrong.
I support Israel and their right to be their own state.
I have Jewish friends who I would gladly defend against those violent pro-Hamas protestors.
The irony of a woman saying she does not support genocide while supporting a guy with a Nazi tattoo he had for 17 years seems to have gone over her head.
Good observation. She’s saying she’s fine with a Nazi tatoo because she’s against the very thing the Nazis did. Makes no sense at all. And then she repeats fictitious left-wing talking points about Israel doing it. Typical Dem voter, I suppose.
Professor Turley’s argument that taxing billionaires is a “first salvo” to tax lower brackets is a slippery slope fallacy. Targeting the ultra-wealthy requires highly specific asset-valuation mechanisms that simply cannot be applied to everyday wage earners. Furthermore, claiming California lost “$2 trillion in assets” from this proposed tax is a mathematical impossibility; it wildly miscalculates the actual movable net worth of the state’s billionaires, who still heavily rely on California’s massive tech infrastructure.
History proves that taxing extreme wealth is both viable and constitutionally sound.
There is historical Precedent. During the 1950s and early 1960s, the U.S. maintained a top marginal income tax rate of 91% and a corporate tax rate over 50%. Far from destroying the economy, this era saw the greatest middle-class expansion, infrastructure boom, and GDP growth in American history.
There’s also Constitutional Realiy. The 16th Amendment explicitly grants Congress the broad power to lay and collect taxes on incomes “from whatever source derived.” Legal scholars have long argued that accumulated wealth and unrealized capital gains fall well within this definition to prevent dangerous levels of plutocracy.
Billionaires do not generate wealth in a vacuum; they rely on public infrastructure, educated workforces, and legal systems funded by the public. Asking them to pay a marginal tax on their extreme wealth isn’t “looting”—it is a constitutionally grounded, historically proven method to ensure a stable and fair economy.
What these billionaires do is benefit from the wealth creating population of talented engineers, managers, salespeople, etc. and the infrastructure that California offers. The earn billions in profit. But when to comes time to pay their fair share its’ “peace out, I’m headed to Florida because I will go broke if I have to pay a little more in taxes than I usually do”. They love the infrastructure and talent that California provides but do not want it contribute to it as much as everyone else does. The majority of these billionaires can afford these higher taxes. They can afford the higher taxes. It’s as simple as that. The “billionaires” of the 1950’s weren’t ‘suffering’ from high taxes. It produced the most producers era in our nation and produced the best middle class we ever had.
OK, so why not expand the charitable donation limit from 50% –> 80% of taxable income and property tax?
This approach could lead to an explosion of privately-owned service companies that take over human development functions from govt., and through competition for clients and philanthropic givers, achieves high levels of innovation and excellence. The big problem with govt. programs is there’s no competition and very low accountability.
Why not raise the Giveback Expectation on the uber-wealthy, but let them choose how best to give back? What’s wrong with giving them an alternative to funding incompetent govt. bureaucracies?…so long as they’re giving back?
pbinca: Actually, I like your proposition (that is why I like reading this blog-it should make us appreciate other thought processes other than our own). You are making me think outside of my general sphere, good for you.
(But I do not think your proposal can be meritorious without concomitant enhanced auditing/tracking of 501(c) and general NGO applications/filings)
“other thought processes outside our own.”
Pbinca, under a voluntary system, donors choose what to fund based on personal interest, not societal need. Studies consistently show that the vast majority of ultra-wealthy philanthropic giving goes to elite universities, major art museums, and high-profile hospital wings—not to low-income food banks, homelessness prevention, or rural infrastructure. This approach would strip funding from vulnerable communities and concentrate it in wealthy cultural hubs.
Government programs, for all their bureaucratic flaws, are strictly bound by constitutional protections, anti-discrimination laws, and public oversight. Citizens can vote out politicians who fail them. In contrast, private charities and private service companies are completely unaccountable to the public. A private charity can legally deny services based on religious beliefs, political affiliation, or race, leaving citizens with zero legal recourse.
Allowing the wealthy to write off up to 80% of their taxable income and property taxes creates an enormous loophole for tax evasion. Wealthy individuals would simply route their tax liabilities into their own private family foundations or Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs). They would legally wipe out their public tax obligations while retaining total, permanent control over how that money is invested and spent—frequently paying salaries to their own family members to run these foundations.
The idea that an “explosion of privately owned service companies” can efficiently replace government functions is fundamentally flawed.
Philanthropy is inherently unstable and highly cyclical; during economic recessions—exactly when human development functions are needed most—private donations dry up completely. Private charities lack the massive scale, legal authority, and borrowing capacity required to manage nationwide safety nets like Social Security, disaster relief, Medicaid, or national infrastructure. Fragmenting these services into thousands of competing private entities would create massive administrative waste and an uncoordinated, chaotic system and fraud.
X/George: please, please, pretty please with whipped cream and a cherry on top, –STAY AWAY from AI and Google– OR at least use it more wisely, KNOWING full well the SELECTIVE information and perspectives they provide (as rated by independent analyses/outside sources).
Thanking you in advance, lin
They? You’re not saying it’s inaccurate or wrong. So why stop. I do double check more often when even I spot something that is inconsistent or off.
Do YOU check if your sources are accurate? Or do you just post because you did a cursory ‘read’ of the source? You’ve already been to be wrong on occasion.
“Google News 73% Left Bias Exposed: AllSides 2026 Study | Image by SvetaZi/Shutterstock”
https://dallasexpress.com/national/curious-why-your-google-news-feed-feels-so-one-sided-study-reveals-73-left-bias/
https://acekfund.org/2024/08/15/study-reveals-ai-algorithms-have-left-leaning-bias/
Thanks anyway.
You seem to equate wealth tax with income tax. Two dfferent things.
A tax is a tax and Congress CAN levy a tax on anything it chooses. For example if Congress chose to tax ammunition or guns at 40% per transaction it would be absolutely constitutional. It would not violate the 2nd amendment since it is not a prohibition on owning or bearing arms.
It could create a tax on EV’s only because it would help offset the lack of gas tax they don’t pay.
They can define a wealth tax and what it specifically is targeted and they would still be within the law.
“For example if Congress chose to tax ammunition or guns at 40% per transaction it would be absolutely constitutional. “
Wrong: It has to pass the smell test of intention.
S. Meyer that’s not a thing. Congress can pass any tax it wants. If it chose to tax ammunition and guns at even 50% they could. Intention would be the intent to tax guns and ammo at 50%. If they passed the law it would be legal. It still wouldn’t violate the 2nd amendment since there’s nothing in the constitution about having the right to afford to buy a gun or ammo. You can have one if you can afford one. Right? Nothing says you can’t buy one. If you can’t buy a weapon you can’t claim a right to have one because you can’t afford it. No?
Washington State went from top five in the nation for business to bottom five, all due to liberal tax policies. Seattle and other major west coast cities, all deep blue, are turing into hell-holes, with their downtowns becoming boarded-up former business establishments, and consisting of homeless encampments, drug use, and violence. Other blue states like CA, IL, and NY, are hemmoraging taxpayers and experiencing the same social ills. People with enough means to move, are flowing out and a huge number of them are going to red states like TX, TN, and FL, for more favorable living conditions, including cost of living, economic freedom, and freedom from crime. Seattle’s mayor just flippantly said “bye” to job-creators and millionaires, as if her city didn’t need them. Justice Louis Brandeis once famously said that states are laboratories of democracy. An experiment is underway with the results clear for all to see if they have eyes. But Dem voters apparently don’t have eyes, otherwise they wouldn’t keep voting D, and thereby voting for their own destruction. Mayor Bass burned down LA and deprived it of water. LA has become a hellscape of drugs, needles, human feces, crime, and homeless encampments. And yet the Dem voters prefer her over Pratt, who would be dedicated to fixing the systemic problems in that city. It boggles the mind how ignorant and cult-like Dem voters really are in these deep-blue cities and states.
Washington dropped slightly due to rising operational costs, it remains an economic powerhouse. The 2025 CNBC Top States for Business Rankings placed Washington at No. 14 in the nation, scoring near the top for its workforce (#5) and technology/innovation (#4). A CNBC Economic Analysis also ranked Washington among the top five strongest state economies prepared for economic headwinds. It is nowhere near the bottom five.
According to the Association of Washington Business (AWB), the employer climate is increasingly pessimistic. Recent economic reports—such as the 2026 Competitiveness Redbook—suggest the state’s economic health and 10-year business failure rates rank poorly due to overwhelming tax and regulatory burdens, with a significant number of employers considering expansion or relocation outside the state.
Nearly one-quarter (24%) of Washington employers are considering relocating out of state due to a growing tax burden, economic pessimism, and a controversial high-earners income tax. The Association of Washington Business reports that over 50% of surveyed business leaders are also looking to move their personal residences out of state
Washnigton State is ranked 46th out of 50. It used to be number 5, so it want from top 5 to bottom 5.
http://washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/latest-survey-from-chief-executive-ranks-washington-the-46th-worst-state-to-do-business-in
Time to raise MORE taxes, right Gavin.
_______________________
At the end of 2023, Gov. Gavin Newsom framed it as a matter of principle when under his administration, California became the first state in the nation to pay for undocumented immigrants to use Medicaid.
“In California, we believe everyone deserves access to quality, affordable health care coverage – regardless of income or immigration status,” Newsom said in a statement to ABC News at the time.
“In California, we believe everyone deserves access to quality, affordable health care coverage – regardless of income or immigration status,” Newsom said in a statement to ABC News at the time. People flocked to the system, with about 1.5 million undocumented Californians using the state’s Medi-Cal healthcare by November 2025. But now Newsom and fellow Democrats in Sacramento are walking back on their promise to provide healthcare access to all.
The cuts are being driven by multiple factors. The program is far more expensive for California taxpayers than it was originally expected to be,
We told you so. You wonder why so many illegals go to CA. Here ya go!
STFU you moron
Poor crybaby. Mommy take away your Binky.
Typical lib response.
Core Democrat beliefs are based on falsehoods perpetuated by their leaders and the media and swallowed whole by their lemmings-like voters. Just two examples. First the need for a “billionaire tax”. There does not seem to be any debate that the top 1% of earners in the US pay approximately 40% to 50% of all federal taxes while the bottom 50% (those the Democrats pretend to care about) pay approximately 3%. Unless the Democrats are arguing that the bottom 50% should pay less than 3% or the top 1% should pay more than half of all taxes, this core belief rings very hollow. Then there is the need for reparations. In New York, a leading proponent of reparations, a few nights ago in New York at the Tony Awards, seemingly half of the award winners were black. In professional sports, the ratio is even greater. And, in society at large, there are huge numbers of blacks who are successful lawyers, doctors, business people and others who have seized legally mandated equal opportunities and made the most of them. The logical conclusion is that this core belief also is based on a myth. The truths are that billionaires pay taxes and black citizens can be and are successful if they, like the rest of us, work hard and are motivated. But, none of this matters. Democrats will continue to vote as they are told because lemmings do not think, they just vote for whomever has the “D”.
Once upon a Time I use to say “thank god for Georgia and Alabama” – because whenever the supreme court would allow further infringement on a right – GA and AL would take it to far and the court would backtrack.
Today it is CA and NY and VA that I am thankful for.
It will take time to get rid of Stupid left wing nut laws.
Some of these will be be shot down by SCOTUS as unconstitutional.
Others will just fail catastrohically.
I am sorry for the residents of these states that they are afflicted by abysmal government passing stupid laws.
But the people of these states voted these idiots into power.
If you look at Lucas’s site, the so-called doxx information, is their professional, public, contact information i.e .edu. Not a personal email address.
Once again Mr. Upstate points out the facts that crush these fascist’s argument.
Exactly the one point that truly matters.
I was curious to what doxxing information Lucas had up on his web site.
If you read the College Fix article linked above, Ryan Riedmueller, a legal fellow at Vanderbilt Law School’s First Amendment clinic, said,
“In California, a party moving for relief under the Anti-SLAPP statute must first show they are engaged in protected activity,” he said. “Mr. Lucas’s speech at issue here involves debate on California tax policy, and as a candidate for public office, this sort of speech falls squarely within the First Amendment’s core protections for political speech.”
Not only is Lucas’ speech public and legal, but neither does it categorize as doxxing, according to Ryan Riedmueller’s analysis. He explained to The Fix the two issues with the doxxing claim against Mr. Lucas.
He said it is “unclear” that Lucas is acting with “malicious intent.”
“Second, the information he shared about the six individuals appears to be public,” he said, which would undermine claims of doxxing.
“Given those problems, it might be a difficult claim to prove in court.”
https://www.thecollegefix.com/four-professors-threaten-candidate-for-criticizing-their-billionaire-tax-proposal/
Oh… contact info, the place to send death threats etc., you mean? You SF.
It’s the contact info the professors themselves publicize. Perhaps you didn’t understand that.
LOL Oldman wins again.
If they did not want to receive criticism, then they should not of put up their own professional contact information on a web site viewable by the public.
How hard is that to understand?
Upstate – our leftist trolls are getting dumber by the day.
I think that is even more true moving forward in time, because their limited understanding of things is reinforced by biased media, podcasters going for clicks rather than thoughtful discussion, and the fact that when they actually search, the AI engines initially provide the same. Conservative people have to search to prove their case, improving their thought processes and coming closer to the real answers.
That’s not doxing if it’s just manually repeating contact info the individual has agreed to show to the public.
However, if bots are used to swarm the target’s email address, then that would be a militant act intending to harm the target in their communication capacity, and it should be grounds for legal consequences.
Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach… teach teachers. Prior conversations as to why the towers of academia sre overcrowded with self-satisfied, self-aggrandizing ultra liberal louts are supported by their brain dead allegations
Those who cannot spell or complete a sentence are typically commenting here in support of Turley.
Get a life. Or don’t. Who cares?
The professors seem to want the influence of political actors and the immunity of private citizens. Those are two different roles. If you help write a major tax proposal that affects millions of people, citizens have every right to know who you are, read your work, and criticize your ideas. The answer to bad criticism is better argument, not cease-and-desist letters. The courtroom is a poor substitute for persuasion.
Good point, an idiot like you, and the above idiots, comes here and threatens and insults others while hiding behind a anon meme.
Point out where OLLY threatened or insulted anyone.
Great analysis, Olly!
Thought it was unusual that a prof at the University of Missouri would choose to be included in the letter about policy concerning California.
Looked him up. He’s got two degrees from Stanford and his JD from Yale. He spent nine years at UC Berkeley before coming to Indiana (seven years) and now Mizzou since 2024.
There is already a wealth tax – it’s just called property tax, a tax on the wealth that is held as property. It mainly burdens the middle and lower class as a larger percentage of their wealth and income than it does the 1%.
The property tax is obsolescent, dating back to when one’s property was one’s source of income: farm or ranch, store, boarding house, saloon, stables, blacksmith’s shop, or doctor’s office.
And property was easy to measure, in terms of acres of land, or square fdet of building.
But land is seldom a source of income any more. Moreover, we now can measure income directly, and have for over a century.
Property tax makes sense to fund local government. Police and fire protection services are tied to local property and other services like parks, planning, and public health are related to the amount of local property. If people own multiple properties or properties in multiple locales they pay proportionally more.
Priced Out: Relocation Amidst California’s Affordability Crisis
https://capolicylab.org/priced-out-relocation-amidst-californias-affordability-crisis/
Executive Summary
Growing costs of living are squeezing Californians’ pocketbooks and causing some households to consider relocating. Using unique data that anonymously tracks the same households over time from 2016 to 2025, this report examines how many Californians are moving, who is leaving the state, where they are going, and what happens to their finances after they move.
The findings suggest that affordability plays a major role in Californians’ relocation decisions. Californians who leave move to much more affordable areas and see large increases in homeownership, on average. At the same time, the data show how more people continue to leave the state than choose to move here, a gap that is reshaping California’s population.
Key findings
Californians are leaving the state for more affordable communities and improving their financial position. On average, movers relocate to neighborhoods where monthly housing costs are $672 less. After seven years, they are 48% (or 11 percentage-points) more likely to own a home.
People moving out of California increasingly come from higher-income neighborhoods and appear financially weaker than their neighbors. The share of exits from higher-income neighborhoods rose 19% over the last decade. Those who leave have $5,500 more in student debt, on average, and credit scores that were 17 points lower than their neighbors.
Proximity drives relocation popularity, with Nevada claiming the top spot. Nearby states receive the most Californians per capita. Nevada is the standout, receiving a net 81 Californians per 10,000 residents annually, followed by Idaho, Oregon, and Arizona. Contrary to most headlines, Texas and Florida rank only 11th and 20th, respectively.
There is still a gap between entrances to California and exits, though it has narrowed since the pandemic. While exits have moderated from their pandemic peak, there are now fewer people moving into the state, a trend that continues to drag on California’s population growth.
Ah ha! The old Streisand Effect again.
The CA anti-doxing law Prof. Turley is referring to went into effect at the beginning of 2025:
The recently enacted AB 1979 (The Doxing Recourse Victims Act)…. allows victims to seek damages and restitution by suing the doxer(s).
I don’t care what side of an issue is driving an activist, the publishing of personal details in order to intimidate, harass, and silence an opponent takes public speech over the line into deranged militancy. I’m personally glad to live in a state that draws a red line in this way, even if the state is being seriously mismanaged in other ways.
I wonder why JT did not say more about this legal innovation. As a free speech champion, what does he make of it?
Is doxing an abuse of free speech deserving of being dragged into civil court? Or, is it “speech I don’t like, but will defend to the death your right to say”???
the publishing of personal details in order to intimidate, harass, and silence an opponent takes public speech etc.. That has to be proven – it can’t. Is that why you post as anonymous, afraid to stand by your words?
Juries in court settings almost always go beyond the provable facts to ascertain the motives (mens rea) of the accused. That is not only accepted legally, it is the genius of our legal system to give this common sense judgment over to a panel of 12 average Americans. The intent of the doxer to intimidate is so obvious, it easily meets the preponderance of the evidence standard in civil court.
pbinca – “Mens Rea” means “guilty mind” it is NOT about motive or intent – though these can be used to prove “mens Rea”
It is about knowing that what you did was WRONG. Why you did it is mostly irrelevant. What is relevant is that you KNEW it was wrong.
I would further note – that while you are correct that Juries incorrectly go way beyond what they are allowed to – which is to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, The fact that they do is not genius – it is a FLAW. Common sense has no place in court – Courts are about conformance tot he law and violations of our rights.
You rant about what is obvious – as if everyone shares your values – when even YOU do not share your values
LEft wing nuts rant about being harrassed as a result of public information – but it is Charlie Kirk that was assassinated
It is Brian Thompson that was murdered, it is Conservative Supreme court justices that are harrassed or subject to violence.
It is Rand Paul that was assaulted, it was the Republican Baseball team that was gunned down, it is ICE agents whose families are harrassed in school and at home.
You claim there is an obvious intent to intimidate – What is the Intent of BLM riots ? No Kings nonsense ? The attacks on ICE
If you beleive that public intimidation is illegal – why isnt the entire left in prison right now ?
As always you play stupid word games – without actually thinking about how what you push will work.
Can Trump sue anyone that calls him Hitler, Nazi, Fascist in CA ? That is clearly “intimidation”.
Obviously Trump is a public figure – but So are these professors. That is what happens when you seek to change the law – you become a public figure.
Regardless, the standard for this type of speech was established long ago – Brandenburg Vs. Ohio.
“The Brandenburg test is a legal standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to determine when speech advocating illegal action can be restricted. It states that speech can only be prohibited if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”
This law fails that test.
@ John Say,
Under California Penal Code § 653.2 (electronic harassment), the law explicitly carries a specific intent requirement. The prosecution must prove the specific intent to place another person in reasonable fear. It is not an abstract query about whether the person “knew it was morally wrong”; it is an objective look at the intent behind the action.
Also, Brandenburg applies to incitement—publicly advocating for a cause or generalized violence (e.g., a speech at a political rally). Doxxing laws are evaluated under the “True Threats” doctrine, which is entirely separate from Brandenburg.
Under Supreme Court precedent (including Counterman v. Colorado), speech that a reasonable person would perceive as a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence is a “true threat.” True threats receive zero First Amendment protection. Sharing targeted personal contact details to prompt harassment does not require an “imminent riot” standard to be illegal.
Furthermore, being a public figure or speaking publicly changes the standard for defamation civil suits (requiring “actual malice”). It does not strip an individual of their protection under criminal law. A public figure has the exact same right to be protected from targeted electronic cyber-harassment and safety threats as any private citizen.
Just thought I’d clarify a few things you got wrong.
FWIW, I would remind you that the judge in the George Floyd case informed the jurors that he would be releasing their names and addresses publicly. Normally this would be considered jury intimidation, but, you know..
That’s an outrageous act of judicial power. That was one of the most corrupt prosecutions ever brought into Court. That Judge was anything but neutral.
I have little knowledge of the CA antidoxing law – though I am hard pressed to think of how a law against doxing would be constitutitonal.
“I don’t care what side of an issue is driving an activist, the publishing of personal details in order to intimidate, harass, and silence an opponent takes public speech over the line into deranged militancy. ”
Is perfectly legitimate and what left wing nuts do all the time.
You protested in front of Supreme Court Justices homes. You call people you do not like Fascists, and Nazi’s and Hitler,
You assassinate health care company CEO’s and speakers whose ideas you do not like.
You demand that ICE agents unmask an you threaten their families if they do.
The FACT is when you join the public debate – you have made your personal details relevant.
You do not get to lobb grenades into public discourse shielded from the public.
Participate, Don’t. But if you join the parade you can not complain because others took pictures.
You continue to enjoy the govenments protection from actual crimes – that is ALL.
If you do not trust government to protect you from those who would do you violence – then you should not be shilling for them to confisated other peoples wealth.
Turley did address this “legal innovation” – restrictions on free speech are unconstitutional.
But this case egregiously points that out – These professors did not just join the public debate they CREATED it.
They made themselves public figures.
You can not parade naked down the streets and then demand privacy.
Ironic that CA has enacted a law establishing recourse to those who are doxxed yet the public officials of that bluest of blue states would take away the facial masks worn by federal agents to protect them from real doxxing that threatens themselves and their families. These agents like the professors are public employees. The difference is that the professors are publicly advocating for public policy while the latter are engaged in law enforcement in support of laws passed by Congress. They are under the command and supervision of superiors. The professors are not threatened in any way by those who wish to debate them. The is ample evidence of the physical threats to ICE agents enforcing the law.
pbinca – we have spent milenia actually working these things out.
Contra your claim – this is not innovation – it is regression.
While Our founders framed free speech as a near absolute right, even they unconstitutionally infringed on it.
We have sent another 250 years getting rid of lunacy such as this nonsense.
You may restrict “intimidating speech” that advocates for immediate violence AND is likely to produce immediate violence.
Notice there is no mining for your intent – you must explicitly advocate for violence AND you must demand it NOW.
We have arrived here after we have found laws like your antidoxing law to have failed by chilling legitimate and important speech.
The Dems are sizing up a pretty fair to do list when next they win next year.
1. Impeach Trump and everybody he knows.
2. Tax the living crap out of billionaires, and then everybody else.
3. Reinstate their NGO gravy train and USAID.
4. Give China every advantage they don’t already steal. (Thanks Bernie)
5. Reopen those borders.
6. Back to wind turbines and solar farms.
I watch all the cable channels. I haven’t heard one Democrat talk about reopening the border Biden-style. They seem to be OK with cutting off the uncontrolled flow of new illegals. They just lacked the political guts themselves to do it. But now that it’s proven beyond a doubt that CBP has the capability, I don’t think a Dem Congress or President could get away with the lame excuses Biden/Harris/Mayorkas hid behind.
This is the time for Trump to be pushing Congress to pass Merit-based Immigration Reform, in exchange for regularization of status of the DACAs. Let’s lock in some permanent changes, so that a Dem Congress and President cannot ever return to what Biden did as a way of childishly trolling their opposition..
The last reasonable chance for immigration reform died when Obama chose DACA by executive order over political compromise int he senate.
It is likely to be a long long time before we see immigration reform, and any that we do so will likely be that sought by the right.
There are lot of changes to immigration law that would be improvements over what we have – but neither democrats nor republicans are behind any actually good reforms.
Republicans have the laws they can live with, and Democrats have the laws they can ignore.
And both parties think they have a politial issue that appeals to their base.
I’m pretty sure the Hitler loving dem from Maine wants open boarders.
Perhaps they wouldn’t now. But we know what they approved of just a scant two years ago, so why risk giving them power back?
Better add mail in ballots for all federal elections so the democrats can lock in place all six items above in perpetuity
To give $3,000 to every household man, woman and child making less than $150,000. This is laughable, $4.4 Trillion stolen from the producers to give to the less productive people of the free market.
$4.4 Trillion is about two years of interest due on our National debt these ftards have saddled us with.
This is just more typical dead end Fascist Democrat logic on display once again.
These Professors must think they live in the EU and criticism is misinformation. I think the victim of this legal threatening should send his own cease and desist order.
All sorts of new legal standards-public information is doxing-criticism of voodoo economics as practiced by the left is misinformation or doxxing or both.
Personally I think the wealth tax in California is a great idea. It gives us a marker on the voters there. I think any voter or businessman who is thinking of leaving because of the tax shows a certain amount of sanity and fiscal understanding and would be welcome in many other states. Those that stay are obviously too poor to leave or think the tax is a good idea and I think most other states would like to see those people stay in California.
Maybe the mass exodus will leave California irrelevant and we can just make it a big national park and emphasize the mountains, the redwoods and the beaches. The only problem would be the remaining wildlife and I don’t mean the animals.
I would like to see progressives in their primitive state as long as there is large reinforced wall between me and them.
Mass exodus you? Where did you get that stupid idea?
The narrative of a recent “California mass exodus” is largely disproven by recent data, as the state saw its population increase by 232,570 (0.6%) from July 2023 to July 2024, marking the second consecutive year of growth. While net domestic migration remains negative—with more residents leaving than arriving—the overall population rebound was driven by increased international immigration and a smaller domestic outflow returning to near pre-pandemic levels.
Yeah, funny how Magagots’ believe everything Fox News spews. A simple Wiki search would have left any reader with questions about that assertion.
“Between the year 2000 and 2024, California’s population peaked in year 2020 at 39.52 million.”
Regardless, the tax base is collapsing.
That claim is incorrect. While California’s population did hit a pandemic-era peak of 39.52 million in 2020, it did not remain a permanent high point or plateau.
After a brief, pandemic-related exodus in 2021 and 2022, the state’s population rebounded and grew for three consecutive years. Driven by a massive resurgence in legal international migration, data from the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau confirm that by 2024–2025, California’s population stabilized back at 39.5 million residents.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/E-6/
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045224
The tax base is not collapsing. It’s actually pretty healthy.
According to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) May 2026 Report, state tax revenues from the “Big Three” sources (income, corporate, and sales taxes) have recently experienced a massive $25 billion upgrade over initial expectations.
This financial boom is heavily driven by a booming stock market, strong corporate earnings, and unprecedented investment in artificial intelligence, which directly feeds into California’s progressive income tax base.
Official state data from the California Revised 2026-27 Budget Summary projects the state’s multi-year general fund revenue forecast to be $16.8 billion higher than previously anticipated, largely driven by capital gains realizations.
It’s still happening.
In December, the state agency declared that as of last July, California’s population was 39.529 million, a gain of 19,200 since 2024. Although arithmetically insignificant, the tiny gain was hailed by officialdom and media as proof that California is no longer losing people.
Last month, the Census Bureau released its latest estimates, fixing California’s population at 39.355 million, a decline of 9,465 souls from the previous year. It implies that California’s slide, which began in the COVID-18 pandemic, is still happening, with a net loss of 200,394 residents since the 2020 census.
Keep taxing away and more will leave.
It will keep happening when they can no longer afford to live there
California has the highest poverty rate in the nation (tied with Louisiana at 17.7%). Nearly 7 million Californians lack the resources to meet basic living needs. The crisis is driven by skyrocketing housing costs, expiration of pandemic-era financial aid, and a massive divide between top earners and low-income residents
And way too many residents..
Who don’t pay into the system
DustOff,
Additional evidence of the exodus,
Which US States Gained The Most Residents In 2025
CA was number 47 at -25.1%.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-which-u-s-states-gained-the-most-residents-in-2025/
California says it lost $2 billion in state income taxes from earners leaving
“Foregone revenue increased more (three-fold) than net domestic outmigration of people (two-fold) because, prior to the pandemic, outmigration was concentrated among lower-income households,” continued the LAO. “Since then, more middle- and higher-income households have moved to other states, meaning the effect on state revenue has been greater because these tax filers tend to make larger income tax payments.”
Note the source of that report is the California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, using IRS data.
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/california-says-it-lost-2-billion-state-income-taxes-earners-leaving
U-Haul Growth States of 2024: South Carolina Tops List for First Time
“California experienced the greatest net loss of do-it-yourself movers in U-Haul equipment and ranks 50th for the fifth consecutive year.”
https://www.uhaul.com/Articles/About/U-Haul-Growth-States-Of-2024-South-Carolina-Tops-List-for-First-Time-33083/
California loses one taxpayer per minute, Florida gains
“The states losing taxpayers most frequently are California, New York and Illinois. California loses a taxpayer every 1 minute and 44 seconds; New York loses a taxpayer every 2 minutes and 23 seconds; and Illinois loses a taxpayer every 6 minutes and 4 seconds.”
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/california-loses-one-taxpayer-minute-florida-gains
Your cherry-picked examples don’t really support your argument.
Show us where.. Noticed you failed to do just that
Yes, CA is rapidly becoming a banana republic – increasingly large portions of the population are people from banana republics.
I would also ask how you think the CA population fared in 2025 – when ilegal immigration was reduced to near zero ?
Regardless, who do you think pays more taxes ? 232K illegal immigrants or Elon Musk ?
This is an argument only a left wing nut would make.
“Yes, we are riving out all the successful productive tax payers, but we are gaining larger numbers of non-productive people who pay no taxes”
Thwe man on the video SOUNDS like he LIVES in the EU!
Much like Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun
Conservatives want to clear cut the big redwoods and sell the sand from the beaches to China construction for pennies a ton. They look at national parks as private profit opportunities.
I would like to see conservatives create something new, anything, but they cannot. They see what progressives invent and then copy or steal it.
Make sure to keep those strawman arguments well away from open flames.
All It Takes Is a New President: Take a Look at DC’s Columbus Circle Then and Now
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2026/05/28/all-it-takes-is-a-new-president-take-a-look-at-dcs-columbus-circle-then-and-now-n2202796
Stunning new before-and-after renderings reveal what’s in store for NYC’s Penn Station
https://nypost.com/2026/06/08/us-news/stunning-new-before-and-after-renderings-reveal-whats-in-store-for-nycs-penn-station/
Yawn…
Thanks to both Oregon & WA state. They have major forest fires, year after year because they fail to clean up the forest or have little firefighting equipment .
Look what happen in LA. No water supply… Talk about stupid.
Come On Man! You gotta get out and take some deep breaths of that good Cali AIR (pollution) to clear your mind of those logical thoughts! Application of the LAW in the Land of Californicators is in the EYE of the Whacky Beholder! And this bunch of NUT CASES is a Class Action for Whack Jobs!
Legal action against critics? It should not be allowed!
Only if one can afford it?