Knives are out for California’s golden goose
- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
SACRAMENTO — California may be headed toward killing the billionaire birds that lay the golden eggs needed to nourish this Golden State.
The English fable about the farmer and his wife who foolishly whack their golden goose comes to mind when I think about the proposed billionaire tax in California.
The couple possessed a bird that laid a golden egg every morning, but they slaughtered it for one fat meal.
The billionaire tax — or wealth tax — would generate a one-time bounty for the state government of up to $100 billion collected over five years, according to its promoters. But its many critics say it would drive billionaires out of California, costing the state lots more in tax revenue over the long run.
These birds are capable of flying off to anywhere, after all.
Here’s how the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office summarizes the proposal’s fiscal effects:
- “Temporary increase in state revenues … probably would add up to tens of billions of dollars spread over several years.”
- ”Likely ongoing decrease in state income tax revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars or more per year.”
The golden goose is replaced by a mud hen.
Whether billionaires fly the coop or are forcibly penned in by the measure, as its drafters intend — and whatever the policy’s merits — it just seems like bad PR for California.
We might as well run TV ads and erect billboards along the border proclaiming: “Welcome to California, the land of opportunity. Make a fortune so state politicians can grab a sizable chunk.”
We’ve already got by far the highest income tax rates in the nation, topping out at 13.3%. The top 1% of earners pay between 40% and 50% of the entire state income tax collected annually. The top 0.1% kick in about 20%.
California is infamous for its unfriendly business climate, with byzantine regulations and an agonizingly slow permitting system.
“It sends out the worst possible message to the people we need in the state, the people who produce jobs,” says Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable.
Democratic strategist Garry South says: “Bleating about ‘tax the billionaires’ is a good applause line at Democratic gatherings, but it appears oblivious to the fact they’re already being taxed …
“Our revenue base is disproportionately dependent on capital gains and other income sources unique to the well-off.”
This wealth tax is not being pushed by Sacramento Democrats.
Love from labor, spurned by Newsom
Gov. Gavin Newsom is adamantly opposed. “It is not something that will allow us to be competitive,” he says.
And the governor asserts: “You would have a windfall one time, and then over the years you would see a significant reduction in taxes because taxpayers will move.”
Most Democratic candidates for governor oppose the ballot initiative.
“Driving out the entrepreneurs and innovators who have enriched California is not the answer to the pressing societal question” of how to address the “growing concentration of wealth,” says the latest gubernatorial entry, San José Mayor Matt Mahan.
The initiative is being led by a labor organization: the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West, which represents 120,000 healthcare workers. It intends to spend up to $14 million to collect nearly 875,000 voter signatures by June 24 to place the measure on the November statewide ballot.
Here is a list of some of the billionaires who’ve made moves to leave California.
It would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California’s 200-plus billionaires, based on their wealth as of Jan. 1 this year. The tax would be due in 2027, but it could be paid in installments over five years.
That’s assuming state bureaucrats can even figure out the billionaires’ worth. And the new tax law isn’t tied up in courts for many years, as it surely would be.
Band-Aid for Republican healthcare cuts
The measure’s purpose is to make up for the billions of dollars in federal cuts to California healthcare programs, especially Medi-Cal. Of the total tax take, 90% would go to healthcare and 10% to education.
“If we don’t do something about [the federal cuts], we’re going to see devastating consequences,” says Suzanne Jimenez, the union’s chief of staff.
Unless the billionaires are taxed extra, she says, money will need to be seized from other programs — such as education and public safety — to salvage healthcare.
It’s just the opposite, critics argue: If billionaires flee the state to avoid the wealth tax, all programs will suffer in the long run because the golden geese no longer will be producing billions in annual tax revenue.
Actually, a better, more reliable solution than the billionaire tax for Democrats is to flip the House of Representatives in November. Win enough seats to seize control from Republicans. Maybe take over the Senate, too. Then restore adequate federal healthcare funding.
Some political infighters suspect that the union is using the threat of a ballot initiative to negotiate more healthcare money from the state budget.
“I think this whole thing is a bluff,” says Mike Murphy, a veteran political consultant who has been helping the opposition. “If you don’t want to see this thing on the ballot, make me happy by putting more money in the budget.
“But they picked the wrong time to rob an empty bank.”
The state government is running on red ink, with deficit estimates ranging from $3 billion (Newsom’s figure) to $18 billion (the legislative analyst’s). Even deeper holes are projected for the future.
Jimenez denies the measure is being used as a negotiating hammer.
“No,” she says. “Our focus is to qualify this for the ballot.”
If it does, there will probably be flocks of golden geese voting by absentee ballot in other states.
What else you should be reading
The must-read: A political earthquake in mayor’s race makes election a referendum on L.A.’s future
Gavin’s exit, stage right: Tax billionaires, cut rents and other takeaways from California’s first gubernatorial debate
The L.A. Times Special: Real, fake or overblown? Sorting fact from fiction in fraud allegations surrounding Newsom, California
Until next week,
George Skelton
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The proposed billionaire tax resembles a cautionary fable about killing the golden goose, offering temporary revenue of up to $100 billion but risking long-term economic damage by driving wealthy residents out of California. The Legislative Analyst’s Office forecasts the tax would likely produce a temporary increase in state revenues while causing an ongoing decrease in income tax revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars or more annually. The measure sends a problematic message about California’s business environment, particularly when the state already imposes the nation’s highest income tax rates at 13.3% and the top earners already shoulder a disproportionate tax burden. California’s existing regulatory challenges and slow permitting systems compound concerns that the wealth tax would deter the entrepreneurs and innovators the state needs to remain competitive and generate jobs.
Governor Gavin Newsom and most Democratic gubernatorial candidates have joined critics in opposing the initiative, with the governor stating the measure would not enhance competitiveness and would eventually reduce tax revenues as taxpayers relocate. The initiative does not originate from Sacramento Democrats but rather from the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West, a labor organization seeking to address anticipated federal healthcare funding cuts. Critics argue that if billionaires flee to avoid the tax, all state programs will suffer because the state’s revenue base remains disproportionately dependent on capital gains and income sources unique to high earners, rather than on stable alternative funding sources. A more viable long-term solution, according to this perspective, would involve Democrats gaining control of Congress to restore adequate federal healthcare funding rather than pursuing a policy that threatens the state’s existing tax base.
Different views on the topic
Supporters of the billionaire tax argue the measure is necessary to address an immediate healthcare crisis, with the union’s chief of staff asserting that without additional taxation of billionaires, devastating consequences would result from federal cuts to programs like Medi-Cal, forcing the state to redirect money from education and public safety to salvage healthcare. The tax proposal directly addresses wealth inequality, as supporters contend that California’s billionaires currently pay lower tax rates than working families, despite their substantial accumulation of wealth[1]. The initiative reflects a calculation that billionaires’ combined wealth has surged dramatically from $300 billion in 2011 to $2.2 trillion by October 2025, making a one-time 5% tax feasible to generate approximately $100 billion in revenue for healthcare, food assistance, and education[2].
Proponents counter claims of a billionaire exodus by noting a lack of public confirmations and reports substantiating claims that the overwhelming majority of California’s approximately 200 billionaires have already departed, characterizing such assertions as “sensationalized claims” from billionaires and their consultants[1]. The wealth tax includes provisions to support legitimate business concerns, allowing entrepreneurs whose wealth is concentrated in illiquid private businesses to defer payment until stock sales or issuances occur, thereby preventing the tax from interfering with ongoing business operations[2]. Supporters further argue the measure aims to preserve the California environment and infrastructure that enabled billionaires’ wealth accumulation in the first place, asserting that those who have already succeeded should contribute to sustaining the conditions that fostered their success[2].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
In 2005, there was no bigger show in L.A. than USC football. The players were household names, celebrities crowded the sidelines, and the wins kept piling up — until Texas came to town.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
