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.
I observe that our supposed enemy the Communist Party of China, does not impose any such confiscatory “wealth tax.” They do not even have an estate tax (here applying to estate in excess of $15 million.
Moreover, in general, there is no real property tax. There is a real property transfer tax which most states don’t have, but not an annual skim that costs regular people thousands of dollars in state stolen rent just to keep their homes.
Finally, some Chinese people don’t even realize that there is actually an income tax, since so few people pay it.
Now, tell me, propagandists and haters of all things PRC, why American politicians of BOTH parties, think they are entitled to take so much of our money? THEY are the bandits not the dreaded “See See Pee”
Saloth Sar
An interesting attempt to expand the power of lawfare, college professors turning it against the 1st Amendment.
Four University Professors:
If we add all of these Professors salaries together:
David Gamage – $183,936
Brian Galle – $220,000 [*Note: This is the lowest value based on A.I. prediction values]
Emmanuel Saez – $586,662.00
Darien Shanske – $329,375.00
—————————–
Total (≈2024) $1,319,973.00
So if we apply the same taxation basis to these 4 as they would apply to Billionaires, as they are all not low tax bracket earners, it would be fair on several points.
1. ‘Hypocrisy’ These individuals espouse and targeted High Wage Earners (Billionaires), when is fact they are themselves comfortable above the average U.S. wage earners.
2. They have used their positions of Employment to launch a Lawfare attack on a currently active political candidate (Dick Lucas) who is running for California State Assembly Election.
This is equivalent to the State of California (University System) actively-interfering (Election Interference by the State) with the California Election (another type of Hypocrisy).
3. The use of their ‘Station in Life’ (Professors) is hypocritical to their Profession and Students in setting and illustrating by through example of how to corrupt the Political system processes via Lawfare currently in play.
IMO: The University Chancellors should take their unscrupulous actions seriously and terminate them immediately. Further if it is found that there was Election malfeasance (crime or civil tort) that Their retirement account also be seized per California Law.
Basically: It’s time they put Their fair share up ($), where their mouth is. (put your money where your mouth is – Boys)
https://www.thecollegefix.com/four-professors-threaten-candidate-for-criticizing-their-billionaire-tax-proposal/
—
A.I. ( average income per year in the U.S. )
The average annual salary for an individual American worker is $69,847, while the median salary is $62,088. The median is often considered a more accurate reflection of what a typical worker earns because the average can be skewed upward by exceptionally high-income earners.Income varies based on a few key factors:Age: Workers aged 45 to 54 typically earn the most, with a median of roughly $71,552 per year.Education: Those with a bachelor’s degree earn a median of $83,356, while those with advanced degrees make $101,972 or more annually.Location: Earning power fluctuates significantly by region. For example, workers in Washington D.C. have a median of $119,080 and Washington state averages $92,612, compared to Mississippi at $49,920.
—
David Gamage – University of Missouri
Gamage, David University of Missouri-Columbia Law Professor $183,936
[Link] graphics.stltoday.com/apps/payrolls/salaries_2025/master_search/?q=David+Gamage
2025 University of Missouri Gamage David Professor $183,935.90
[Link] openthebooks.com/missouri-state-employees/?pg=74
[Missouri public employee transparency]
Missouri provides public employee transparency primarily through the Missouri Accountability Portal (MAP), which allows citizens to search for gross pay amounts, position titles, and agencies by employee name. Additionally, the state enforces the Missouri Sunshine Law, which guarantees public access to government records and employee-related documents. Key Public Employee Transparency Resources Missouri Accountability Portal (MAP): The official platform MAP Employees tracks state employees’ pay, displaying year-to-date and prior pay cycle gross amounts. You can search by individual name, agency, or job title. MAP is updated automatically on a regular basis. Missouri Sunshine Law: This state statute ensures public access to meetings, records, and the votes of public governmental bodies. Each public agency must appoint a custodian of records to respond to public information requests. Media & Watchdog Databases: Regional publications and watchdog groups often aggregate and host additiona searchable databases (e.g., St. Louis Post-Dispatch Public Pay or Open The Books) to help analyze payrolls. How to Access Information For Direct Salary Lookup: Visit the Missouri Accountability Portal to search for current state employee gross pay data. For Detailed Records Requests: Submit a formal public records request to the specific agency’s custodian of records. While not strictly required to be in a specific format, the Missouri Attorney General’s Office suggests written requests (email or letter) to keep track of deadlines and what was asked.
—
Brian Galle – UC Berkeley
Brian Galle is a Professor of Law at UC Berkeley, joining the faculty in 2025 after serving on the Georgetown Law faculty and previously at Boston College and Florida
Note: Brian D. Galle is a recent hire to the UC system there is no information available aa of this time.
[Link] taxprofblog.aals.org/2025/04/30/brian-galle-leaves-georgetown-for-uc-berkeley/
* A.I.: Brian Galle’s specific 2024 salary is not publicly available or disclosed in official university or public payroll databases. During this time, he was a tenured professor at the Georgetown University Law Center before moving to UC Berkeley Law, which do not routinely publish exact salaries for individual faculty members.Because he is a leading tax law scholar, his 2024 professional activities largely focused on state and federal tax policy design. Most notably, Galle—alongside other experts—was drafting and advising on wealth tax and mark-to-market legislation for jurisdictions such as California, Vermont, and Washington State.If you are looking for general compensation figures or need data on his economic research, let me know how you’d like to proceed:I can provide salary averages for tenured law professors at comparable institutions.I can share details on the economic impact of the tax policies he designed during that period.We can explore his recent published research and monographs on wealth taxation.
Tenured full law professors at elite institutions like Georgetown University Law Center and UC Berkeley Law generally earn base salaries ranging from $220,000 to over $390,000 per year.At the highest tier of legal academia, actual compensation heavily depends on seniority, endowed chairs, and summer research stipends.Understanding the Salary LandscapeThe compensation structure for tenured faculty at top-20 law schools is divided into clear tiers based on rank and institution type:Top-Tier Private Institutions (e.g., Georgetown Law):Full professors average $285,000 to $292,000 in base pay.Senior faculty or those holding endowed chairs routinely report packages between $389,000 and $498,000.Top-Tier Public Institutions (e.g., UC Berkeley Law):Public universities use strict, publicly transparent step scales.According to the UC Berkeley Faculty Salary Scale, the base scale for full Law Professors ranges from $182,200 to $276,600.Highly distinguished professors at UC Berkeley frequently cross $340,000+ through negotiated above-scale adjustments.
Transparent California: [Results Null]
[Link] transparentcalifornia.com/agencies/salaries/#university-system
[Link] ucannualwage.ucop.edu/wage/
—
Emmanuel Saez – UC Berkeley
Transparent California:
[Link] transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=Emmanuel+Saez
Emmanuel Saez Prof-Ay-B/E/E
University of California, 2024 $468,417.00 $0.00 $53,500.00 $521,917.00 $64,745.00 $586,662.00
2024 Berkeley EMMANUEL SAEZ PROF-AY-B/E/E 521,917.00 468,417.00 0.00 53,500.00
[Link] ucannualwage.ucop.edu/wage/
—
Darien Shanske from UC Davis
[Link] transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=Darien+Shanske
Darien Shanske Prof-Ay-Law
University of California, 2024 $258,817.00 $0.00 $21,050.00 $279,867.00 $49,508.00 $329,375.00
[Link] ucannualwage.ucop.edu/wage/
2024 Davis DARIEN SHANSKE PROF-AY-LAW 279,867.00 258,817.00 0.00 21,050.00
—
P.S.: SO – Now We have Universities engaging in Political Lawfare.
-30-
Bazinga!
Tom Steyer’s $200 Million Campaign
Mr. Steyer has spent $200 million of his own money campaigning for governor, a record sum that enabled him to quickly raise his profile in the nation’s most populous state, where it is difficult to reach voters in a fractured media landscape.
He has argued that his personal wealth frees him from being beholden to corporate interests. And Steyer has attacked the Democratic front-runner, Xavier Becerra, for relying on donations from Chevron and other companies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/30/us/tom-steyer-housing-wealthy.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
…………………………………………
Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, actually ‘supports’ the billionaire’s tax. Though ironically his campaign illustrates why billionaires ‘should be’ taxed.
If a single digit billionaire like Steyer can drop $200 million campaigning for governor, then what about the double and triple digit billionaires?
Our system has no checks to defend against the ultra wealthy who can drop hundreds of millions on political campaigns. What’s more, SCOTUS rulings have created a climate where dark money is now the tail that wags the dog.
In other words, just a few billionaires can distort an election; creating phony momentum for themselves or handpicked candidates.
The Specter Of Trillionaires
Fifteen years ago, the world’s billionaires collectively had $4.5 trillion.
By 2024, their wealth had more than tripled to $14.2 trillion.
Now, their combined wealth totals $20.1 trillion — an amount that is equivalent to nearly a fifth of the entire world’s total yearly output.
The stunning figures — calculated by the French economist Gabriel Zucman, director of the International Tax Observatory, a research organization funded by the European Union — reveal more than a surprisingly rapid increase in the concentration of wealth at the tippy top.
They also reflect a series of important global trends: the growing dominance of a few technology companies leading artificial intelligence development; the shrinking slice of the economic pie that goes to workers; and a deepening inequality that will be handed down to the next generation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/09/business/economy/billionaires-musk-gabriel-zucman.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
……………………………………….
Anyone who thinks this country could benefit from having trillionaires is a blithering idiot who should be totally ignored.
But unless we get realistic about taxing billionaires, the prospect of trillionaires may not be far off.
At that point mere millionaires are only middle-class. And the rest of us will have no hope of ever owning property. Because trillionaires will buy up all the real estate! That’s what Trump would do
^ Chinese Communist Party bot programmed to show up here every day and tell lies. Ignore. ^
LOL
You’re blithering idiot
The world has more wealth than ever before.
Contra your claim – we are ALL better off – The standard o living of ever single person on the world has doubled since 1965 – and the population has more than doubled.
Separately the wealthy – really most anyone possessing more than a few hundred thousand is all INVESTED in making their own lives and the lives of others better
All you have pointed out is that fewer and fewer people spend everything they earn.
BTW Adam Smith extablished over 250 years ago that the wealthy work almost entirely to make the world better for others.
In smith’s era he realized there were only so many coaches you could own and actually use.
Today it would be Gulfstream jets but the point is the same.
Musk and Bezos do not headonistically consume all their wealth – it is nearly all invested in making the rest of our lives better.
What if taxes were replaced by investment? Choose the investments or entities a person wants to support? Privatize everything. Road builders RB stock if citizens want better roads. MLTY , military stock for better equipment. It’s an exaggeration but I don’t really support Zumba Dancing but taxes are spent in its support.
Taxes should be investments. Tax the wealthy is theft.
IF the law were written in such a way as to preclude its extension downward, I might agree with it. But politicians are NEVER satisfied with the level of taxation or the power they can wield. ,
THE FOUNDERS’ MANIFESTATION OF APPROPRIATE TAXES
_________________________________________________________________
In 1789, taxes in the newly formed United States were extremely low, entirely indirect, and primarily took the form of customs duties (tariffs) on imported goods.
There was no federal income tax, no sales tax, and no Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
There was no progressive tax in 1789; the tax system established in 1789 was highly regressive.
Repeal the 16th Amendment
If you support the war in Iran, then why don’t you go there and fight?
America has forces there, and they are ready, willing, and able and chomping at the bit to go.
America has forces near Ukraine, too.
There also.
If you support the war in Iran, then why don’t you go there and fight?
If you support health care for people, why don’t you go to medical school and become a doctor?
How old are you?
If you support Iran then Why don’t you go fight for Iran?
Why is it acceptable for U.S. soldiers to die while fighting in Iran, but not in Ukraine?
Both are acceptable and they were acceptable, nay, encouraged to do so by George Washington et al.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Everybody’s had to fight to be free”
– Tom Petty
Why is it acceptable for U.S. soldiers to die while fighting in Iran, but not in Ukraine?
No b—-d ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b—–d die for his country.
– General George S. Patton
Clearly, you’ve never been in combat.
LOL
Beclown yourself much?
It is not a question of “acceptable”
Ukraine is not in the US national interests – and never was.
Conversely The US has without exception for 50 years determined that Iran can NEVER have a nuclear weapon.
We did not want North Korea, india, or pakistan to have nuclear weapons – but we allowed that to happen.
Not Iran – The Ayatolah’s are correctly considered more dangerous than Kim Un in North Korea.
LOL! We didn’t “allow that to happen”. India surprised the world with a nuclear weapons test. We didn’t know. We used to threaten North Korea with sanctions for even thinking of building a nuclear weapon. Pakistan got one with the help of North Korea.
Iran was never going to build one. Until WE attacked them for the false threat by Israel that Iran was weeks away from building one. What IS true is none of the countries that have them would be attacked. If anything just having them is enough of a deterrent to prevent wanton attacks like those of Israel. They would think twice about it if Iran did have nuclear weapons.
The previous Iranian leadership was LESS extreme than the current one which WE are responsible for “allowing”.
Well, we’re investing in Ukraine with future payback in minerals? Investing in Israel, future payback in tech and Nobels?