CA: Idea of One-Time 5% Wealth Tax Terrifies Billionaires

Saturday, December 27, 2025

The Golden State is home to a few hundred people with wealth over $1 billion, many of whom amassed their riches as executives or investors in California technology companies. Oligarchs Peter Thiel (59) and Larry Page (52) are considering cutting or reducing their ties to California by the end of the year because of a proposed ballot measure for a one-time five percent tax on their Mammon-sized fortunes.

Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 10:31 PM | 25 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Billionaires are considering cutting or reducing their ties to California by the end of the year because of a proposed ballot measure that could tax the state's wealthiest residents.

[image or embed]
-- The New York Times (@nytimes.com) Dec 26, 2025 at 6:55 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

California Wealth Tax Proposal:

"One-Time Wealth Tax on Billionaires: Billionaires living in California on 1 January 2026 would have to pay a one-time state tax equal to five percent of their net worth. The tax would be due in 2027. Taxpayers would have the option to spread the payments over five years, but would have to pay more to do so. Real estate, pensions, and retirement accounts would be excluded from the tax.

Most of the Money Set Aside for Health Care: Revenues from the wealth tax would be set aside in a special account. The state would decide how and when to spend the money but it would have to be spent on certain types of services. In particular, 90 percent of the money would have to be spent on health care services for the public. The rest would have to be spent on administration of the wealth tax, education, and food assistance. Other state laws that require some tax revenue to be used in certain ways, like spending on schools and building the state's rainy day savings, would not apply to this money."

Source: California Wealth Tax Proposal

"I ain't paying California a nickel for their healthcare programs! I need every single penny of my ill-gotten gains! GFY poor people!"

"Thank you for your attention to this matter."

#1 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-12-27 02:31 PM | Reply

Billionaires have no right to exist

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-12-27 03:21 PM | Reply

- Oligarchs Peter Thiel (59) and Larry Page (52)

(Musk-54)

Damn Billionaire Boomers!.... oh, wait: "Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, are currently (in late 2025) between 60 and 79 years old."

Never mind.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2025-12-27 03:43 PM | Reply

Of course, were we to overturn Citizens United, and all the laws that billionaires paid to have written for them, we prolly wouldn't need taxes like this one.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2025-12-27 03:58 PM | Reply

Revenues from the wealth tax would be set aside in a special account. The state would decide how and when to spend the money but it would have to be spent on certain types of services.

Grifting is a service in CA. Millionaires going after Billionaires .... America is hilarious

Of course, were we to overturn Citizens United, and all the laws that billionaires paid to have written for them, we prolly wouldn't need taxes like this one.
#4 | POSTED BY CORKY

What exactly is the point of this tax?

I speculate the percentage will go up, and the min "wealth amount" will go down.

#5 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-12-27 07:51 PM | Reply

---- off idiot.

#6 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-12-27 08:44 PM | Reply

So, the California billionaires, after having sucked their wealth out of working people, are afraid of a tax that helps support those very working people?

Quelle surprise.

That seems to be the mantra of the Trump oligarchy.

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-12-27 08:57 PM | Reply

Corky, we don't need to overturn CU. States can amend their corporate laws to forbid corporations operating in their state from spending money on elections.

#8 | Posted by dibblda at 2025-12-27 11:19 PM | Reply

@#8

States can override the Supreme Court for Federal elections?

Really?

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-12-27 11:28 PM | Reply

The federal government doesn't control corporate law, that is a state power.

#10 | Posted by dibblda at 2025-12-27 11:31 PM | Reply

Corporate charters are granted and can be revoked by the states.

#11 | Posted by dibblda at 2025-12-27 11:32 PM | Reply

@#10 ... The federal government doesn't control corporate law, that is a state power. ...

But election donations seem to be a Federal power.

Elections are not corporate law.

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-12-27 11:42 PM | Reply

"But election donations seem to be a Federal power.
Elections are not corporate law."

That's the argument they would make, but corporations are granted their right to exist and how they operate their business by the states.

www.americanprogress.org

#13 | Posted by dibblda at 2025-12-28 12:31 AM | Reply

Please take a look Lamplighter. This is interesting and deserves more publicity.

#14 | Posted by dibblda at 2025-12-28 12:36 AM | Reply

@#13 ... That's the argument they would make, but corporations are granted their right to exist and how they operate their business by the states. ...

That does not answer the question I posed.

Let me ask again ...

Election donations seem to be a Federal power to supervise.

And the Supreme Court, unfortunately, illustrated that with its Citizens United (~corporations are people~) decision.

So, with that in mind, I have to ask, what else yer got?

#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-12-28 02:55 AM | Reply

Xymox - Imagination (1989)
www.youtube.com

Lyrics excerpt ...

genius.com

...
[Verse 1: Anka Wolbert]
I have come to indecision
Someone is pushing me
All the cities, subways, rivers
No direction left for me

I have lost my way home early
I don't care cause I won't stay there
All I hear is this silent whisper
Will you be here again?

[Chorus: Anka Wolbert]
Imagination takes the shadows away
Every day I've been without you
Imagination keeps the shadows away
Every day I stay without you
Too many times -- without you
...

#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-12-28 03:00 AM | Reply

funy you Dems just keep eating each other alive. Remember, the Democrats are the Party of the Rich

#17 | Posted by Maverick at 2025-12-28 11:11 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

the Democrats are the Party of the Rich

------------, is that why Leon spent $44 billion on twitter to get the decomposing------------------- elected?

#18 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2025-12-28 11:14 AM | Reply

#17 Political cannibalism:

Trump vs. Anti-Trump Factions: Deep divisions persist between supporters of Donald Trump and those who are critical of him, with some long-time Republicans facing consequences for their opposition.

House Leadership Struggles: The party has experienced significant internal battles and disunity over electing a House Speaker and passing legislation, leading to government shutdown threats and a "chaos caucus".

Ideological Divides: Tensions exist between different ideological wings (e.g., MAGA supporters vs. more traditional conservatives) which often manifest as personal "troll wars" and public feuds among high-profile figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson.

State-Level Disputes: Internal conflicts and infighting also occur at the state level, impacting local political dynamics and legislative priorities.

#19 | Posted by A_Friend at 2025-12-28 11:36 AM | Reply

#17 Party of the rich ...

Donald Trump's second cabinet is historically wealthy, with estimates placing the combined net worth of his appointees in the hundreds of billions of dollars, largely due to figures like Elon Musk (if counted as a top appointee) and numerous other billionaires like Linda McMahon and Howard Lutnick, significantly surpassing previous administrations, including his own first cabinet and Joe Biden's. Reports from late 2024 and 2025 cite figures ranging from over $13 billion (excluding Musk) to over $313 billion (including top appointees) or even around $390 billion for the entire White House team, making it the richest ever.

You were saying something about the party of the rich, mossback?

#20 | Posted by A_Friend at 2025-12-28 11:40 AM | Reply

Lamp, from the article I linked:

Citizens United held that government may not regulate a corporation's right to spend money independently in elections. But the court did not say what a corporation is"it could not. That question lies beyond even the Supreme Court's reach.

Each state creates and defines its corporations. It need not permit its creations to consume it.
In American law, corporations are not born; they are built. Corporations are creatures of statute, not of nature. And for more than two centuries, the power to build them"to define their form, limits, and privileges"has belonged to the states and only to the states.

#21 | Posted by dibblda at 2025-12-28 11:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#21 Newsworthy and a spot-on observation.

Thank you, Dibblda.

#22 | Posted by A_Friend at 2025-12-28 11:44 AM | Reply

"funy you Dems just keep eating each other alive. Remember, the Democrats are the Party of the Rich"

You say this in a thread about Democrats wanting to tax the rich while your president is a paper billionaire backed by billionaires.

Your head is deeply up Trumps ass you pinecone.

#23 | Posted by dibblda at 2025-12-28 11:46 AM | Reply

#17 I suspect that the Trump's entire team did not have to limit themselves to just 2 dolls for their daughters, and 2 pencils for their sons.

Nope.

I suspect that the Trump's team enjoyed unlimited gifts for their children.

Let the poor and suckers eat cake.*

* Well, they can have the crumbs from the wealthy's cakes.

Trickle down, don't cha know?

#24 | Posted by A_Friend at 2025-12-28 11:49 AM | Reply

" for more than two centuries, the power to build them, "to define their form, limits, and privileges", has belonged to the states and only to the states."

Which is why every bank corporation is formed in Delaware.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-12-28 02:40 PM | Reply