This Is The End For California

Added: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]Picture a treehouse deep in a redwood forest north of San Francisco on a December evening in 2025. Christmas lights glow between the trees. A 30-foot abominable snowman with red glowing eyes stands in the clearing below. Janelle Manet is performing for a private audience of tech executives. The host of the party is Chris Larson. The cryptocurrency billionaire who founded Ripple. Inside the treehouse, a governor of California is cold and hungry. And the fourth richest man on the planet is cornering him about attacks. Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google, has just been told that a labor union called the SEIU, United Healthcare Workers West, is about to put a measure on the November 2026 ballot. The measure will impose a 5% tax on the personal net worth of every Californian who possesses over $1 billion in assets as of January 1st, 2026. Brin is worth approximately $272 billion. So the math is simple. If the measure passes and Brin is still in California on January 1st, the state of California will send him a bill for roughly $13.5 billion. Brin is standing next to his girlfriend, the wellness influencer Gary Gilbert Sodto. They are explaining to Governor Nuome that they are leaving the state. Newsome would later complain to associates about the encounter for months. he had caught a lingering cold from the couple. The encounter was also the first wave of what would become the most expensive ballot fight in California history. 6 days later on January 1st, 2026 at 11:59 p.m. Pacific time, six of the wealthiest men on the planet were no longer Californians. Sergey Brin, Larry Pageige, his Google co-founder, Peter Teal, the venture capitalist who funded Facebook, Travis Kalanick, the founder of Uber, Don Hankley, the Los Angeles auto lender, and Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta. Their combined net worth was hundreds of billions of dollars. By the time the clock struck midnight in Sacramento, billionaires had filed flight plans out of San Jose, Burbank, and San Francisco. Press documents were signed in Reno, Austin, and Miami. Tax attorneys worked through the holiday week. According to venture capitalist Chamath Popidia, $700 billion in personal wealth left the state of California in the months following the announcement of this measure. The measure is called the 2026 billionaire tax act. The official designation is initiative 25-0028.

[00:02:29]The proponent of record is a man named George M. Yin. The actual sponsor is SEU United Healthcare Workers West, a union representing 120,000 California healthcare workers. The official campaign is called Billionaire Tax Now.

[00:02:44]The opposition is led by a brand new political organization called Building a Better California, founded by Sergey Brin and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

[00:02:53]That organization has already raised over $80 million. Brand alone has contributed approximately $57 million, making him the second largest individual political donor in California this election cycle, trailing only Tommy Styer. The campaign has not even officially begun, and it is already on track to be one of the most expensive ballot fights in American history. This is the story of how a public sector union representing 120,000 California healthcare workers convinced the world's wealthiest people to flee the wealthiest state in the union before the tax was even a tax. A story of why over $700 billion has already moved across state lines. A separate story about what happens when a state government with the highest taxes in America runs the largest budget deficit in America while losing population for a fifth straight year. and the story of November 3rd, 2026. And this is a story of why the man who fled the Soviet Union with two suitcases at 6 years old just told the New York Times in writing that California is becoming exactly what he and his family ran from. This is front page.

[00:04:02]Initiative 25-0024 is 47 pages long. It was drafted by SEIU, United Healthcare Workers West, a labor union with 120,000 healthcare worker members in coordination with three academic economists, a team of state level constitutional lawyers, man named George M. Yin, who was listed as the official proponent on the attorney general's filing. The mechanics of the tax are unusual. Most income taxes apply to money a person earned in a given year. The billionaire tax does not. The measure applies to net worth, which means everything a person owns minus what they owe. Assets covered include publicly traded stock, privately held company shares, art, jewelry, intellectual property, trust holdings, partnership interests, businesses, and securities. Real estate, pensions, and standard retirement accounts are all exempt from the calculation. Liabilities like mortgages, business debt, and lines of credit can be subtracted from the total. The tax rate is 5% on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.

[00:05:02]There is also a smaller tax for people worth between $1 billion and $1.1 billion. The bill comes due in 2027.

[00:05:10]Taxpayers can spread the payments across 5 years, but they pay a deferral charge to do so. A founder with $10 billion in net worth would owe California $450 million. Scaled to $100 billion, the same founder owes California $4.5 billion. Sergey Brin worth 272 billion would owe California roughly 13.5 billion. So where does that money go?

[00:05:34]90% of the revenue is set aside for one specific purpose, healthcare, specifically medical, which is California's version of Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income residents. The remaining 10% goes to administering the tax, public education, and food assistance programs. The pitch from the union is straightforward.

[00:05:52]Hospitals across the state are closing.

[00:05:55]Federal cuts to medical are pending and reimbursement rates have fallen below the cost of providing care. The 200 wealthiest Californians can afford to pay 5% of their wealth to keep the emergency rooms open. And then there's the trap. The drafters of initiative 25-0024 anticipated the exact scenario that has already unfolded. They added a residency provision designed to prevent the wealthy from simply leaving. The provision works like this. Anyone who was a California resident on January 1st, 2026 owes the tax, even if they have moved out of state by the time the bill arrives in 2027. Ren can be sitting in his new home on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe in 2027, and California will still send him a bill for $13.5 billion.

[00:06:39]So will every other billionaire who lived in California on January 1st of this year. Critics call the provision a hotel California clause after the Eagle Song in which guests can check out but can never leave. Constitutional scholars from the Ko Institute, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and the law schools at Stanford and UCLA have argued the provision violates the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.

[00:07:02]The tax foundation has argued the provision is quote highly susceptible to legal challenge. Supporters of the measure argue that residency cutoff mirrors existing federal expiration tax provisions and will survive judicial review. Legal questions aside, the bigger problem is the marketing of the tax itself. The 2026 billionaire Tax Act is being sold as a one-time temporary single-year levy. Supporters insist the language of the initiative limits a collection to a single round of payments. Section 4 of the measure adds a new section to article 13 of the California Constitution. It does not contain language barring the legislature from imposing a similar tax in the future. The measure also fails to bar SEIU union healthcare workers west from sponsoring a sequel ballot measure in 2028, 2030, or any year thereafter.

[00:07:51]According to the Tax Foundation analysis published in January of 2026, quote, others are skeptical that the wealth tax would be allowed to expire. This pattern is older than California itself. The federal income tax was sold to Americans in 1913 as a temporary measure. The top rate was 7%. It applied to the wealthiest 1% of households. The temporary tax has now been collected for 113 years, and the top federal rate has been as high as 94%. The alternative minimum tax was passed in 1969 in response to 155 highincome households who legally owed 0 in federal tax. By 2017, the AMT applied to 5.5 million American taxpayers, almost none of whom were the wealthiest households the law was originally designed to capture. The federal telephone excise tax was passed in 1898 to fund the SpanishAmerican War.

[00:08:43]The war ended in 5 months. The phone tax was collected for 108 years and was finally repealed in 2006. American consumers paid a war tax on every long-distance call for more than a century after the war was created to fund ad ended. Closer to home, in 2012, California's voters passed Proposition 30, which raised the top state income tax rate from 10.3% to 13.3%. The measure was sold as a temporary 7-year increase to fund public schools during the Great Recession. The expiration was scheduled for 2018. In 2016, the legislature passed Proposition 55 on the ballot, which extended the temporary tax through 2030. Polls suggest a third extension will appear on the 2028 ballot. Sometimes the tax is temporary.

[00:09:27]Other times, the tax is only on the rich. Once the machinery is built, governments rarely dismantle it. The promise is the entry point. Reality is the president. Sergey Brin was born in Moscow in 1973. His father, Male, was a mathematician at Moscow State University. His mother, Eugina, was a researcher at the Soviet Oil and Gas Institute. The Soviet Union in the 1970s was an officially atheist and unofficially anti-semitic. Male Brin had been blocked from graduate study in physics because he was Jewish and forced into a backwater of mathematics where Jews were tolerated. The family applied for an exit visa in 1978. They were denied. Muel was fired the next day for the act of asking. 6 months later, the visa was approved. The Brin family arrived in Maryland in 1979 with two suitcases and approximately $700 in cash. Sergey Brin was six years old when his parents fled the Soviet Union. He attended public schools in Maryland and he earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Maryland and a master's degree from Stanford. In 1995, he met another Stanford graduate student named Larry Page. In 1998, in a garage in Menllo Park, California, the two of them founded Google. By April of 2026, Brin's personal net worth was approximately $272 billion. He was the eighth richest person on Earth. In December 2025, Sergey Brin gave the New York Times a written statement. He said, quote, "I fled socialism with my family in 1979 and know the devastating oppressive society it created in the Soviet Union.

[00:10:56]I don't want California to end up in the same place." The statement was published 2 days before his California residency was officially terminated and his Nevada residency was officially established.

[00:11:05]Brinn had spent his political career as a moderate Democrat. He had donated to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and to Joe Biden. In 2024, for the first time in his career, Brinn donated to the Republican National Committee. He has also donated to the governatorial campaign of Steve Hilton, the Britishborn Fox News host, now leading the Republican primary polls in the race for California governor. Larry Page, Grin's Google co-founder, finalized residency in Singapore. Peter Teal had already established residency in Florida in 2018, but had maintained a primary home in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles home was sold in November of 2025 for $88 million. Travis Cullen, the founder of Uber, finalized residency in Miami.

[00:11:46]Don Hankley, the founder of the Los Angeles auto lender, Knight Specialty Insurance, established residency in Nevada. Mark Zuckerberg established residency in Florida with a $170 million waterfront mansion on Indian Creek, the same Miami Island where Jeff Bezos has his compound. These departures represent the publicly confirmed cases. The state franchise tax board does not release residency data on individual taxpayers.

[00:12:10]Industry sources told the Los Angeles Times that as many as 20 additional billionaires changed their official tax doicile in the final 90 days of 2025.

[00:12:19]The combined net worth of just the publicly confirmed cases adds up to a number that according to SEIU United Healthcare Workers West own internal modeling eliminates more than a quarter of the projected revenue from the tax.

[00:12:32]Roughly 26.8 billion in projected tax revenue walked out of California before the measure even qualified for the ballot. None of this exodus pattern was created by the billionaire tax. Capital flight from California is older than the wealth tax. It is older than the SEIU United Healthcare Workers West campaign.

[00:12:50]It is at this point older than most of the staffers running the campaign. Elon Musk moved Tesla's headquarters from PaloAlto to Austin in 2021. SpaceX moved its headquarters from Hawthorne to Starbase, Texas in 2024. Oracle moved its headquarters to Austin in 2020.

[00:13:06]Ullet Packard Enterprise moved its headquarters to Houston in 2020. Taros Swab moved its headquarters to Westlake, Texas in 2021. Palanteer moved its headquarters to Denver. Toyota North America moved its headquarters to Plano, Texas. Chevron moved its headquarters from San Raymond to Houston in 2024. The pace accelerated after 2020. California has lost net domestic population every single year from 2020 through 2025.

[00:13:30]Texas gained 1.2 million net residents during that 5-year window. Florida gained roughly 1.05 million. Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina all posted record migration growth. The Internal Revenue Service tracks migration through tax filing. In 2024, the most recent year with full data, California experienced a net outflow of approximately 24,000 households earning over $200,000 per year. Florida gained 55,359 of those households. Texas 51,600.

[00:14:00]Population shifts translate directly into political power. The 2030 census is projected to cost California three congressional seats and three electoral college votes. Texas will gain four.

[00:14:11]Florida will gain three. The political map of the United States is being redrawn by U-Haul drivers. Tony Shu, the founder of Door Dash, retains his California residency, but has restructured his holdings through a Wyoming trust. Chummath, Helia Pediga, the venture capitalist, relocated to Texas. Joe Wndale, the Palanteer co-founder, relocated to Austin. Keith Rawa, the PayPal mafia veteran, relocated to Miami. Bill Lee, who hosted Donald Trump's 2020 fundraisers, relocated to Texas. And Hollywood also wasn't spared. Joe Rogan moved his podcast and entire production operation to Austin in 2020. Ben Shapiro moved the Daily Wire to Nashville. Mark Wahlberg purchased a $38 million estate in Nevada. The cultural exodus mirrors the economic one. And the entertainment industry has begun studying relocation packages in Austin, Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Nashville. Corporations followed the people. The people followed the climate, cost of living, the schools, crime statistics, and the taxes. The exodus has accelerated under the wealth tax pressure. It didn't begin there. Began roughly 15 years ago and it has compounded every single year since. To understand why six billionaires would rather pay tax attorneys to handle the relocation than write California a check, it helps to look at what California does with the tax money it already collects. Start with the Employment Development Department. The Employment Development Department, known by the acronym EDDD, is the California state agency that handles unemployment insurance. The Department of Labor's Inspector General estimates the EDDD paid out $55 billion in fraudulent claims between March 20120 and the end of 2022. To put that number in perspective, $55 billion is more than the entire annual budget of the state of Tennessee. It is more than the GDP of Iceland. The figure also exceeds NASA's annual budget, and the state of California simply gave it away. Among the recipients of fraudulent California unemployment benefits were 35,000 individuals filing claims from inside California state prisons. The list included 133 inmates on death row at San Quinton. Scott Peterson, who was on death row for murdering his pregnant wife, Lacy, received unemployment benefits. Carrie Stainer, the Yosmite serial killer who decapitated four people in 1999, received benefits. Wayne Adam Ford, the truck driver serial killer, received benefits. Wesley Shermanine, the speed freak killer, received benefits. Izzoro Agira, who tortured 8-year-old Gabriel Fernandez to death in 2013, received benefits. Some of these claims were filed under names like Poopy Britches and John Doe. The Sacramento County District Attorney at the time and Marie Schubert called it the most significant fraud on taxpayer funds in California history. According to investigators, the social security numbers belong to convicted felons whose incarceration records were available to any government employee with a working computer. The technology to cross-check unemployment claimants against the prison database has existed at the EDDD for 5 years. The EDDD had simply chosen not to implement it. The EDDD paid benefits to claimants in Russia, Nigeria, and Romania. Bank accounts in foreign countries received direct deposits from the state of California for months. The Department of Labor Inspector General identified roughly $600 million in claims paid to foreign accounts. Investigators believe the figure is several times higher. The official in charge of the EDDD during the worst years of the fraud was Julie Sue. Julie Sue faced no professional consequences for the EDDD failure. The Newsome administration did not demote her. The state attorney general never opened an investigation into her conduct. In 2021, President Biden nominated her to serve as Deputy Secretary of the United States Department of Labor. The nomination was confirmed by the Senate. In 2023, she was elevated to acting secretary of labor of the entire United States. While serving in that position, she signed off on forgiving California's $20 billion debt to the federal government. The debt California had run up paying out the fraudulent claims she had failed to prevent. Now, move to highspeed rail. In 2008, California voters approved the ballot measure authorizing $9.95 billion in bonds to build a high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

[00:18:23]The total project cost was estimated at $33 billion. The completion date was 2020. The voters were promised a state-of-the-art bullet train comparable to the Chinajin in Japan or the Téj in France. In April of 2026, the projected cost of the project has risen to to $231 billion. That figure was confirmed by state senator Tony Strickland, who is the vice chair of the state senate transportation committee. The California highspeed rail authority disputes the $231 billion number and insists the actual figure is only $126 billion, but either way, the original $33 billion budget has been exceeded by at least 3.8 times and at most by seven times. The completion date has also slipped from 2020 to 2032 with the first segment and 2040 for the full Los Angeles to San Francisco line. Federal funding of $4 billion was pulled by the Trump administration in 2025. As of June 2025, no track has been laid. Lou Thompson, the former chair of the authorities peerreview group, called the entire project a quote dead end. Morocco, by comparison, completed its Alber highspeed rail line in 2018. The Alber runs 200 m from Casablanca to Tangier at speeds of 200 mph. The total construction cost was $2.3 billion.

[00:19:41]Morocco's per capita gross domestic product is roughly $4,000. California's is roughly $95,000. Morocco built operational highspeed rail and California built a 1,600 ft bridge to nowhere in Madera County and a 700page binder of business plans. Now homelessness. California has spent $ 24 billion on homelessness programs over the past 5 years. During that exact same 5-year period, the official homeless population grew from 151,000 people to 181,000 people. The state auditor reported in 2024 that agencies responsible for spending those $24 billion could not account for how 20 of the $ 24 billion were used. The audit identified no central database tracking outcomes. There was no constant definition of housed versus unhoused.

[00:20:29]Roughly 200 separate state and local agencies operate homelessness programs in California with overlapping mandates and uncoordinated budgets. San Francisco spends roughly $60,000 per year per homeless individual. The median rent in San Francisco for a one-bedroom apartment is approximately $36,000. The city could rent every homeless individual a private apartment, pay all utilities, and have $24,000 left over per person every year. San Francisco doesn't. Money flows instead to nonprofit intermediaries, consultants, and case management services. 23 grand jury investigation in San Francisco identified one homelessness nonprofit that spent $1.7 million on staff salaries in a single year and produced not a single placement into permanent housing. Then there's Medical, the program at the heart of the billionaire tax pitch. Medicare pays out an estimated $4.4 billion in improper payments per year, according to the most recent state auditor's report. State auditor's report.5 million Californians, more than a third of the state's entire population. Eligibility verification has elapsed for years. The audit identified hundreds of thousands of enrolles who were no longer eligible, but continue to receive coverage. Provider fraud, including phantom billing and kickback schemes, accounts for approximately $1.8 billion of that loss every year.

[00:21:52]Finally, EBT cards. EBT cards skimming losses on California's CalFresh food stamp program have grown from $30 million in 2022 to a projected $250 million in 2025. The state allows benefits stolen by criminal skimming operators to be reissued from the state budget. California also does not require chip enabled cards. Despite the technology being standard in commercial banking for over a decade, Romanian and Bulgarian organized crime groups have built operations specifically targeting California EBT terminals. The skimming operations are well documented, but the state has not coordinated meaningfully with law enforcement to disrupt them.

[00:22:31]California faces a structural budget deficit of $20 billion in the 2026 to 2027 fiscal year. The state legislative analyst office projects deficits of $30 billion or more for the four following fiscal years. The billionaire tax is being sold as the answer. The deficit was not produced by insufficient taxation though. California already has the highest marginal income tax rate in America, the highest gas tax in America, the highest sales tax in major metropolitan areas in America, and the third highest corporate tax rate in America. The deficit was produced by a state spending base that has grown 78% in the past decade against a state population that has shrunk. So clearly they have no idea how to budget their money, which is why they should have used the dollar wise budgeting app. A budgeting app that you can try right now for free. And California would actually get their under control because with the automatic account connections, you see exactly where your money is going every moment of every day. So you can actually change what you need to change to improve what you want to improve in your financial life. So go to dollarise.com or download the dollariz budgeting app. Take the free trial. See if it works for you. Like the tens of thousands of monthly active users who use it to improve their lives. Every legislative session, a small number of California Republicans introduce bills designed to reduce state spending. Each session, those bills die in a committee.

[00:23:51]The math of California politics has made spending reductions structurally impossible. California's state legislature is 75% Democratic. Of the 80 seats in the state assembly, 60 are held by Democrats. In the state senate, Democrats hold 30 of 40 seats. The Democratic supermajority means tax increases require zero Republican votes.

[00:24:11]Spending reductions require zero Republican input. California has not had a divided government since 2010. Public sector unions are the single largest source of campaign funding for California state legislators. The California Teachers Association alone spent $23 million on the 2024 election cycle. The Service Employees International Union spent $18 million.

[00:24:32]The California Correctional Peace Officers Association spent $7 million.

[00:24:37]Combined union spending in California State Legislative Races approached $80 million in a single cycle. No legislator in a competitive district can win without union endorsement. No union endorses a candidate who has voted to cut public sector employment.

[00:24:52]California's state and local government employs 2.6 million people. California has more government employees per capita than any other large state in the country. Average state employee compensation, including benefits, exceeds $130,000 per year. The California Highway Patrol has 287 individual officers earning more than $300,000 per year in total compensation.

[00:25:14]The University of California system employs 11 vice chancellors at the Berkeley campus alone, each earning more than $400,000 per year. Kelpers, the California public employees retirement system, manages roughly $500 billion in pension assets and faces an unfunded liability of $165 billion. Calsters, the equivalent system for teachers, manages $320 billion in assets and faces an unfunded liability of $110 billion. The combined unfunded gap exceeds the state's entire annual operating budget.

[00:25:47]Closing the gap through investment returns alone would require sustained returns of 9% per year against a 30-year market average of roughly 7%. The alternative path, adding contributions, would require diverting roughly 12 billion every year from other state programs. Neither path has been adopted.

[00:26:04]The legislature has chosen to accept that future taxpayers will absorb the obligation. Spending cuts produce concentrated organized losers. Tax increases produces dispersed, disorganized losers. The political math always favors the tax increase. Public sector unions know exactly which legislators will receive their endorsement. Taxpayers do not have a comparable organization. The asymmetry is structural and it is compounded for 40 years. Polling on the billionaire tax tells the same story. Among California voters earning under $100,000 per year, the measure polls at 71% support. Among voters earning over $250,000 per year, the measure pulls at 38% support. The math of Democratic politics rewards taxation of small minorities. A successful campaign convinces 51% of voters that the cost will be paid by someone else. This logic produced the billionaire tax. The same logic will produce the next tax. Internal documents leaked to the Wall Street Journal in March 2026 show union modeling for a future variant of the same measure with the threshold lowered from $1 billion to $50 million. Second variant modeled but not yet drafted lowers the threshold to $100,000 in net worth. The starting point is billionaires. The destination is the upper middle class. That is eventually the average two income California household with a paidoff home, two cars and a 401k. Tax economists call this pattern bracket creep. The same dynamic plays out across every income tax, every estate tax, and every wealth tax ever imposed by any government in human history. The wealthy households at the top of the bracket leave. The revenue collapses. The threshold gets lower to capture a broader population. Repeat until everyone is paying. California is not the first government to attempt taxation of accumulated wealth rather than annual income. 12 OECD countries have imposed wealth taxes since 1990. Eight of those 12 have repealed their wealth taxes. The pattern is constant and the data is unforgiving. The building a better California opposition campaign has consultants studying that data right now in considerable detail. France imposed a solidarity tax on wealth in 1982. The tax applied to households with net assets above approximately 1.3 million.

[00:28:14]Between 2000 and 2017, French government data confirmed that approximately 42,000 millionaires left France to escape the tax. Independent estimates put the number above 60,000. The departures include parono flight, meaning the flight of inherited wealth became a national term. The French Treasury estimated the tax raised roughly 5 billion per year. Independent economists estimate the tax cost France 7 billion per year in lost income tax, lost capital gains tax, and lost economic activity. In 2017, President Emanuel Macron repealed the French wealth tax and replaced it with a real estate tax.

[00:28:50]His finance minister explained the reasoning in a speech to the National Assembly. France could no longer afford the cost of the tax. The wealth tax had become a tool for redistributing French wealth to Switzerland, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. Sweden imposed the wealth tax in 1947. The tax applied to all Swedish residents with assets above a certain threshold. Ingavar Comprad, the founder of IKEA, relocated his official residency to Switzerland in 1973 and ran the world's largest furniture company from a small Swiss village for the next 40 years. Hans Rousing, the founder of the Swedish package giant Petra Pac, relocated to the United Kingdom in 1982. Sweden repealed its wealth tax in 2007 with cross party support. The repeal vote included the Social Democrats, the same party that originally enacted the tax.

[00:29:35]Norway raised its wealth tax from 0.85% to 1.1% in 2022. In the two years that followed, 261 individuals classified as ultra high net worth left Norway. The number of millionaires departing Norway reached 254 in 2023, the largest single-year exodus in Norwegian history.

[00:29:54]Norwegian government's wealth tax revenue increased by 146 million euros in the first year of the higher rate.

[00:30:01]Lost income tax revenue from those who departed in the same year exceeded €594 million. Norway lost more than four times the new revenue again. Germany struck down its wealth tax as unconstitutional in 1995, Austria in 1994, Denmark in 1997, the Netherlands in 2001, and Finland in 2006. Iceland repealed its wealth tax in 2006, briefly reinstated it in 2010 during the post-financial crisis budget panic, and repealed it for the second time in 2014.

[00:30:28]Spain is the only major European economy that retains a wealth tax in 2026. The Spanish wealth tax raises approximately€ 1.7 billion per year against an estimated€2.4 billion in lost economic activity. Spain has lost an estimated 11,000 millionaires since 2020. Madrid, the regional capital, has refused to enforce the regional component of the tax, which has triggered an internal political crisis between the central government in Madrid and the regional one. Italy passed a one-time wealth tax in 1992 during a domestic financial crisis. Italy lost 23% of its top tier taxpayers within 5 years. Tax was not renewed. The pattern that repeats across every country, every decade, and every economic environment is straightforward.

[00:31:12]Wealth has legs. The very characteristic that defines a wealthy household, the ownership of mobile financial assets, is the same characteristic that defines its capacity to relocate a will. Capital does not respond to political emotion.

[00:31:25]Capital responds to expected return. The expected return on remaining in a wealth tax jurisdiction is negative. And over the long term, the negative return compounds. The decision to leave is not ideological. It's mathematical.

[00:31:37]California is now the last major economy on the planet that has not absorbed this lesson. The campaign behind the billionaire tax has cited Switzerland as a successful model. Switzerland's wealth tax raised 4% of total tax revenue.

[00:31:50]Switzerland has 8.7 million people. The country runs on a different government structure. No super voting share corporations, no concentrated technology sector, no Hollywood, and a 100-year political culture of canonal autonomy.

[00:32:02]The comparison is structurally meaningless. The architects of initiative 25-0024 know this and have cited Switzerland anyway because Switzerland is the only working example available. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan policy research organization in Washington DC, published an 18minute deep analysis of the proposed California billionaire tax in January 2026. The headline conclusion of the analysis is technical, but it matters. The advertised 5% rate according to the tax foundation is a quote profound understatement. The actual effective rate or many California founders is multiple times higher.

[00:32:39]Wealth as measured for the purposes of the tax is an accounting concept. The vast majority of California billionaire's net worth is not cash.

[00:32:47]Almost all of it is equity in companies that the individual founded or built.

[00:32:52]The valuation of that equity is determined by the public stock market for traded shares or by the most recent funding round for private shares. Tony Shu, the founder of Door Dash, owns roughly 2.5% of Door Dash equity. The public valuation of Door Dash places his personal wealth at approximately $7 billion. However, his annual income is largely composed of unrealized capital gains. His Door Dash shares are subject to super voting rights, meaning he votes the equivalent of 10 shares for every one share owned. Selling those shares to pay a wealth tax bill would dilute his voting control over the company he built. The Tax Foundation calculates that a 5% wealth tax paid against Tony Shu's realized income produces an effective tax rate of 173%. He would owe more in wealth tax than he made in income. The same analysis applies to Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, and Dario Mod of Anthropic.

[00:33:47]Jensen Hang of Nvidia is the exception.

[00:33:50]Hong has publicly stated he is staying in California and urging others to move there. The publicly stated net worth of these individuals reflects the market value of company shares they have not sold. The 2026 billionaire tax demands payment in cash. To pay the tax, the founder must sell company shares. The sale of the company's shares triggers federal capital gains tax at 23.8% and California state capital gains tax at 13.3%. The cumulative effective tax rate in the year of forced sale exceeds the income earned that year. And this isn't even theoretical. The mechanic is the entire reason the publicly traded technology sector functions the way it functions. Founders retain super voting shares specifically as a defense against hostile takeover attempts and short-term shareholder activism. Those shares fund long-term research, ambitious infrastructure investment, and high-risk product bets. Tesla's autopilot program, Google's quantum computing division, Meta's Reality Labs, all exist because the founders of those companies could afford to lose money on those bets without losing control on their boards.

[00:34:56]Forcing the sale of those shares year after year dilutes the entire control structure of the companies. It also depresses the stock price for every other shareholder. The Tax Foundation analysis identifies a separate problem with the 2026 billionaire tax that its own drafters appear to not have anticipated. The measure includes anti-avoidance rules designed to prevent billionaires from transferring assets to children or trusts to reduce their wealth tax liability. The way those provisions are written captures the entire value of any trust to which assets are transferred in 2026, not just the value of that single transfer.

[00:35:34]Founders who set up generation skipping trust in 2025 to manage their estates are now potentially liable for tax on the entire principle of those trusts, not just the new contributions. The tax foundation describes the drafting as quote possibly in averdent, but the result is the same. The actual tax owned by any individual founder may end up dramatically higher than the published 5% rate. The Hoover Institution at Stanford published its own 142page analysis in February 2026. The report concludes that the tax, even if it raises the projected $100 billion in revenue in year 1, will trigger a net loss of $25 billion to the California state economy over the following 10 years. The losses come from departed founders, departed corporate headquarters, depressed venture investment, and the migration of highincome employees who follow their employers across state lines. You see Berkeley economics professor Enrico Moretti in a Los Angeles Times interview called the SEIU revenue projection quote way overly optimistic and warned that the tax has quote the potential to completely destroy California's economy.

[00:36:43]California has been the global capital of venture capital deployment for 60 years. In 2024, roughly 51% of all American venture capital flowed into Californiabased companies. By the first quarter of 2026, that figure had fallen to 39%. The shift represents tens of billions of dollars in annual investment that previously concentrated in San Francisco, PaloAlto, and Mountain View, redirected to Austin, Miami, New York, and Seattle. The billionaire tax hasn't passed yet, but the capital is moving in advance. The Golden State is not failing because the state is uniquely cursed. It is failing because the state has adopted a model that doesn't work, refused to adapt when the model started to break, and now proposes to double down on the same model in a more aggressive form than any major economy on the planet has attempted in 30 years. But you understand why in the end, California seems to require more money. And lucky for you, you can literally get $200 for free right now by signing up for a Chime checking account using my link in the description below. It's not some weird scam or gimmick. They want you to use their platform. I want you to sign up because I get paid and you want to sign up because you get paid. So, it's a win-winwin. And with a high yield savings rate that is nationleading, there's literally no reason not to because it's an incredible bank as well.

[00:38:01]I personally keep my emergency fund there and it's growing at an awesome high yield rate. So, get $200 for free right now at chime.com/caleb or click that link below. Public revenue forecasting depends on stable assumptions. The billionaire tax breaks every assumption the state has used to model its revenue base. The top 1% of California earners produce roughly 50% of the state's income tax revenue.

[00:38:25]Inside that top 1%, the top onetenth produces roughly 25% of the total. In any given year, the top 200 California households produce close to half of the operating budget of the fifth largest economy on the planet. Departing households take their income tax with them. Revenue doesn't just dip. Revenue completely collapses across multiple budget cycles. France lost 14% of its top tier taxpayers within 10 years of imposing its wealth tax. Norway lost 19% of its ultra high net worth households in 2 years of a moderate rate increase.

[00:38:58]Italy lost 23% of its top tier taxpayers within 5 years of its 1992 one-time wealth tax. California has already lost six of its 214 confirmed billionaires before the measure even reached the ballot. So that number is only going to go up. The billionaire tax does not exist within a vacuum. The federal government is currently running annual deficits in excess of $2 trillion. The national debt has crossed $36 trillion.

[00:39:24]Federal interest payments now exceed the entire defense budget. Congress is unlikely to bail out California in the next major economic downturn. Sacramento will face its next recession alone once the wealth tax fails to deliver promised revenue. And the international evidence makes it certain that it will fail. The California legislature will face three options. Cut spending, which the political math forbids. Raise income taxes on middle-ass households, which is politically toxic. Lower the threshold of the wealth tax to capture a broader slice of the population. The third option is the path of least resistance.

[00:39:56]It's also the path that the supporters of the initiative have already touched.

[00:40:00]California's gross domestic product, if the state were a country, would rank fifth in the world. California's manufacturing output exceeds Texas.

[00:40:08]California's agricultural output exceeds Iowa. California's port traffic exceeds the rest of the West Coast combined. The damage from the billionaire tax, if the cascade unfolds in the manner Hoover and the Tax Foundation project, will be national damage, not regional. Capital doesn't just flow into a state in retreat. Once the perception of California shifts from rising power to declining empire, the recovery may take a generation. Other states are watching closely. New York Governor Kathy Hokll has publicly stated she will not pursue a wealth tax in New York. Massachusetts has imposed a millionaire's tax of 4% on incomes over $1 million and lost roughly 39,000 highincome filers to Florida and New Hampshire in the two years following passage. Illinois has imposed pension obligations that exceed the entire state operating budget. Connecticut has lost more high- netw worth households per capita than any state in the country.

[00:41:01]Washington state's voters rejected a wealth tax measure in 2024. The California vote is in the sense a national vote. The result will determine whether the most economically productive state in the union accelerates its decline or pulls back from the edge. A failed billionaire tax in California closes the door on similar measures in New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington for at least a decade.

[00:41:24]Successful billionaire tax in California opens that same door across the entire country. And there's also a clock. A California state law passed in 2014 allows ballot initiatives to be removed up until June 25th. That gives the state legislature about 2 months to negotiate a legislative compromise that would satisfy SEIU United Healthcare Workers West and convince the union to withdraw the measure. Governor Nuome has every political incentive to broker that deal.

[00:41:51]The union has every economic incentive to take it. If a compromise is struck before June 25th, the billionaire tax never reaches the ballot and the multiund million campaign collapses into a press conference in Sacramento.

[00:42:04]Without a compromise, the most expensive ballot fight in California history runs on television, online, and on the radio for the next 5 months. As of now, no compromise has been announced. Governor Gavin Nuome has publicly opposed the 2026 billionaire tax. Nuome calls the measure quote really damaging in an interview that aired in early 2026.

[00:42:24]Newsome has not directly endorsed the opposition campaign. He has not directly endorsed the measure either. His political calculation is pretty straightforward. Public endorsement of the tax ends his presidential ambitions for the 2028 Democratic primary before the campaign begins. Public opposition to the tax alienates the progressive base he needs to win the primary. The compromised position is to call the tax bad while doing nothing concrete to defeat it and to hope SEIU United Healthcare Workers West takes a deal before June 25th. Former Governor Jerry Brown has opposed the measure publicly in a Sacramento B oped. Brown, who governed during the original Proposition 13 era of the late 1970s, argues the wealth tax misunderstands what California's wealthy households already pay. The top 1% of California earners already produce 50% of the state income tax revenue. Driving them away does not solve the budget. The departure ends the budget. Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, has opposed the measure and co-founded Building a Better California, the primary opposition campaign organization. Mark and Trees, the venture capitalist who funded Facebook and Twitter, has opposed the measure.

[00:43:30]Patrick Coulison, the CEO of Stripe, has opposed it. Mike Morates, the venture capitalist who funded Yahoo, Google, and PayPal, has opposed it. John Door, the venture capitalist who funded Amazon, has opposed it. Chris Lson, the chairman of Ripple, has opposed it. Each of these individuals has donated millions to the opposition campaign. Among elected Democrats, Representative Ro Kana, who represents Silicon Valley in the United States House of Representatives, poses the measure publicly. Kana called it counterproductive. Kana has now drawn a primary challenger from his left, a venture capitalist who supports the measure in the 2026 primary. Kana may lose his seat to a more progressive Democrat over the issue. Among the candidates running to replace Newsome as governor in 2026, only one prominent Democrat has endorsed the billionaire tax. His name is Tommy Styer. He is a hedge fund billionaire who made his fortune at Farland Capital. Styrer is leading the Democratic gubanatorial primary on a platform of taxing himself.

[00:44:27]State superintendent of public institution Tony Thurman, also running for governor, has also endorsed the measure. Both of them are Democrats and neither of them are the moderate wing of the party. On the Republican side of the governatorial race, Steve Hilton, the Britishborn former Fox News host, leads the Republican primary polls. Hilton is opposing the billionaire tax aggressively. Hilton has also been the recipient of donations from Sergey Brin, marking the first time in Brin's career that he has financially supported a Republican candidate for any office.

[00:44:56]Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont, traveled to Los Angeles in February 2026 to campaign for the billionaire tax. Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, has endorsed the measure publicly. Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy has endorsed the measure publicly. The National Progressive Coalition supports the tax. The state Democratic establishment is split, anxious, and watching the polling weekly. Nvidia CEO Jensen Wong is the only confirmed California billionaire who has publicly broken with the opposition camp. Wong has not endorsed the tax. He has, however, publicly urged people to move to California rather than leave it. His position is that California is worth fighting for, not running from. Nvidia's headquarters remains in Santa Clara. Wong remains a California resident. He is an outlier and he knows it. On April 26th, 2026, SEIU United Healthcare Workers West announced that the campaign had collected over 1.5 million signatures in support of the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act.

[00:45:54]The required threshold for the ballot qualification was 875,000 valid signatures. The campaign turned in nearly double that number, providing a massive cushion against duplicate signatures, ineligible signatures, and signatures from non-registered voters.

[00:46:09]The Suzanne Jimenez, the SEIU United Healthcare Workers West Chief of Staff, gave a press conference in which she described the campaign as quote, "The opposition was already moving. Building a Better California, the political organization founded by Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt, has raised over $80 million by the end of the first quarter of 2026. The opposition campaign is not just running an advertising campaign against the billionaire tax. It is also funding three separate counter ballot initiatives, each of which would essentially nullify the tax if passed.

[00:46:40]The most aggressive of the three counter initiatives would amend the California state constitution to ban retroactive taxation entirely, which would invalidate the residency provision at the heart of the billionaire tax. A second counter initiative targets the way new tax revenue is allocated against existing education spending requirements. A third adds layers of additional audit requirements and spending restrictions to any new tax revenue. The cost of qualifying counter initiatives at the same speed has been enormous. Signature gatherers in California are now being paid up to $15 per signature, the highest rate in the history of the state. The arms race in signature collection has cost the opposition millions before the actual ballot campaign has even started. Three California gubanatorial candidates have wrapped themselves around the issue.

[00:47:28]Tommy Styer, the billionaire Democrat, is running for governor on a platform of supporting the billionaire tax. Steve Hilton, the Britishborn Republican, is running on a platform of opposing the tax and reforming the entire California state government. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan is running as a moderate Democrat opposed to the tax, primarily funded by Silicon Valley executives, but his polling numbers are stuck in the single digits. When Bernie Sanders campaigned in Los Angeles, the crowd was estimated at over 8,000 people. Sanders called the measure quote the most important state level economic justice fight in America.

[00:48:01]He compared Sergey Brin and the rest of the opposition donors to the robber barons of the late 19th century. He didn't mention that Brin himself is the son of two refugees who fled actual socialism in 1979. On February 7th, 2026 in San Francisco, a group of activists organized a pro-billionaire protest march outside the offices of SEIU United Healthcare Workers West. The march was the first of its kind in San Francisco history. The march was attended by approximately 400 people. Reports from CNN, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal all covered it. The visual of San Franciscans defending billionaires from a labor union became one of the defining images of the early campaign, even if it was only 400 people. In March 2026, a coalition of progressive activists organized a protest outside Sergey Brin's former mansion in the Pacific Heights neighborhood of San Francisco. The mansion had been sold 3 months earlier to a Saudi sovereign wealth fund subsidiary for $80 million. Protesters didn't even know that. They were photographed by the local news holding signs that read, "Tax Brin now outside a mansion Brin no longer owned, located in a state Bin no longer lived in in a neighborhood that had become quietly Saudi owned." The footage went viral.

[00:49:13]Conservative commentators on X used it for a week. A campaign on social media is fragmented along generational lines.

[00:49:19]California voters under the age of 30 support the billionaire tax at 79%.

[00:49:24]Voters over 65 support it at 41%. The under 30 cohort grew up consuming an online media diet that frames billionaires as the cause of every economic problem young Americans face.

[00:49:35]The math of capital flight of effective tax rates exceeding 100% of realized income of state level pension obligations that exceed annual revenue does not show up in 15-second Tik Tok clips. The class war narrative does. And these narratives are not equally true, but they are equally available. The Yes campaign has signed endorsement deals with 17 left-wing political influencers, including Hassan the Twitch streamer with over 3 million followers.

[00:50:00]The combined audience of those 17 accounts exceeds 80 million followers across all platforms. The campaign's primary advertising piece is a 90-second video that contrasts a homeless encampment in Skid Row with footage of Sergey Brin's superyacht. The video has been viewed over 47 million times across YouTube, Instagram, and Tik Tok. The opposition campaign has signed endorsement deals with Patrick Bet David, the entrepreneur and podcaster who hosts the value tainment YouTube channel. Building a better California has also signed deals with Joe Rogan, Flex Freiedman, and Ben Shapiro. The opposition strategy is to flood YouTube and podcast feeds with documentary style content focused on the EDDD fraud, the high-speed rail collapse, and the homelessness spending failures. And fun fact, this channel is not one of them.

[00:50:45]I'm just personally pro- sound economics and anti- stupidity, but I'd love some free money. Just But internal opposition polling indicates the documentary content moves voters above the age of 50. The S campaign content moves voters under the age of 30. Both sides are essentially running entirely separate campaigns to entirely separate audiences. And then there's Nuome. In April 2026, the governor appeared on Bill Maher's HBO talk show. Maher pressed him on the billionaire tax.

[00:51:10]Newsome refused to take a clear position. Maher asked the question three times. Newsome changed the subject three times. The clip went viral within 12 hours. Conservative commentators called it the death of Newsome's 2028 presidential campaign. Progressive commentators called it confirmation that Nuome had abandoned the Democratic base.

[00:51:28]Nome called his communications team and asked them to stop booking him on shows where he might be asked about the facts, which I guess means he won't be coming on financial audit anytime soon. Beyond the campaigns, beyond the influencers, beyond the protests outside mansions that no longer belong to the people the protesters are protesting, there is one final layer of the story, the numbers.

[00:51:47]214 California billionaires existed on January 1st, 2026 by the most reliable Forbes count. Six publicly confirmed billionaires had departed before the cutoff. As many as 20 more departed in the 90 days following the cutoff according to Los Angeles Times sources inside the franchise tax board. By April 2026, Pelotia estimated that approximately 700 billion in personal wealth had moved out of California since the announcement of the measure. That figure represents over 5% of the entire pre-measure California billionaire wealth base. The campaign committee billionaire tax now has raised approximately $84 million as of April 2026. Building a better California. The opposition group has raised over $80 million. Additional opposition committees, including the California Business Roundt, have raised approximately $18 billion from donors, including Peter Teal and Chris Larson.

[00:52:39]The total amount of money committed to the campaign as of May 2026 already exceeds $200 million. By election day, the total will likely exceed 500 million. That makes the Billionaire Tax Act the most expensive ballot measure campaign in American history, exceeding even the 2020 Uber Lift Proposition 22 campaign, which previously held the record at $224 million. The Hoover Institution net loss projection sits at $25 billion over 10 years. The Tax Foundation effective rate analysis identifies individual founders facing rates above 100% of their actual annual income. The state legislative analyst office cannot project the revenue with any meaningful confidence because the tax base is moving in real time. The LAO published a one-time conclusion in their analysis. Quote, "The temporary increase in state revenues would be spread across several years beginning in 2027. The exact amount the state would collect is very hard to predict for many reasons.

[00:53:38]You see Berkeley economist Professor Enrico Moretti, who had spent 20 years studying the migration of highincome workers across state lines, has called the SEIU revenue projection quote way overly optimistic and warned the tax as quote the potential to completely destroy California's economy. And then there is the political logic of the situation. SEIU United Healthcare Workers West sponsored the measure to capture funding for the state's healthcare system. The union represents 120,000 healthcare workers across the state where hospitals are closing, where medical reimbursement rates are falling, and where federal cuts to the program are pending. SEIU has a budgetary problem, and the legislature has refused to solve it through normal channels. The billionaire tax is the workaround. The question is whether a 5% wealth tax on 200 households is the correct tool to fix the problem. The international evidence says no. The Hoover analysis says no. The Tax Foundation analysis says no. The migration data says no. The six billionaires who have already left says no. The 20 additional billionaires who left in the 90 days after the deadline say no. $700 billion in capital flight says no. The 400 Pacific Heights protesters in three-piece suits carrying tax me last says no. The union which knows all of this says yes anyway.

[00:54:50]Saying yes is the only available political move that gets funding to the hospitals on the union's preferred timeline. The union does not need to win the argument on the merits. SEIU needs to win 51% of the vote on November 3rd.

[00:55:03]These are not the same thing. The vote is November 3rd, 2026. Polling currently shows the measure leading 56% to 38% with 6% undecided. 6 months of campaigning will narrow that gap. $300 million in opposition advertising will run in every market between Sacramento and San Diego between now and election day. The yes campaign will respond with footage of private jets, footage of Brin's former mansions, and pictures of the homeless population that the new tax money is supposedly going to help. The measure may pass. It may fail. The outcome of the vote does not change the underlying mechanics of the underlying problem. The Golden State faces a structural budget deficit, an ongoing exodus of highincome earners, a public sector workforce that cannot be reduced through political negotiation, and the tax base concentrated in approximately 200 households that have already begun in real time to leave. The billionaire tax is the system, not the cause. The cause is 40 years of compounding political incentives that reward taxation over reform, that reward concentrated benefits over dispersed costs. And that reward is the language of fairness over the math of productivity. The billionaire tax is what those incentives produce in their final stage. The wealthy households respond to the incentives of the situation in front of them. The unions respond to the incentives of the situation in front of them. The governor responds to the incentives of the situation in front of him. The voters under the age of 30 respond to the incentives of the media environment they grew up in. All of them are running the math the system in front of them rewards. California built the modern technology industry. The state built Hollywood. Sacramento built the freeway system, the University of California, and the agricultural powerhouse that feeds half of America. California produced more wealth, more innovation, and more cultural output than any subnational jurisdiction in the entire history of the world. The achievement is the largest in modern history. The decline, if the decline becomes permanent, will be the largest as well.

[00:56:54]Other states are watching, other countries are watching. The wealthy households of California are a global test case for whether progressive taxation can survive in a world where capital is mobile. Billionaires can move within two business days of notice and six of the world's wealthiest people can change their tax residency in a single calendar week. Sergey Brin escaped the Soviet Union with two suitcases when he was 6 years old. He built one of the most valuable companies in human history. He paid taxes in the state of California for 27 consecutive years. He left in December of 2025 and he now lives in a $42 million mansion called Crystal Point on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe with two glass enclosed finiculars running down to the lake. He commutes to the Google headquarters in Mountain View, California every other week on a private jet as a non-resident. None of the federal taxes that were sold as temporary stayed temporary. The income tax, the alternative minimum tax, the phone excise tax, each was promised as a narrow single-purpose timelimited measure. each became permanent, each expanded. California's voters will decide on November 3rd whether to repeat that history at the state level. Only a few months remain. The campaign will be the most expensive ballot fight in California history and likely the most expensive in American history. Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Peter Teal have already left. So have Travis Kalanick, Don Hankley, and Mark Zuckerberg.

[00:58:13]Pelipatia put the dollar number at $700 billion. The Hotel California clause says they cannot escape the bill.

[00:58:19]Constitutional scholars say the clause cannot survive a federal court. The trap is closed. It may not hold. On November 3rd, California will find out which of those two things is true, and I'll be there to cover it.

[00:58:32]I'll be candid. Front page loses money.

[00:58:34]The cost of research, audio editing, video editing, and everything else that goes into this project is substantial. I believe the neutral and factual perspective we bring to these topics are important in today's culture of endless misinformation for political or financial gain. If you support the journalism we do here, please consider clicking the join button or the channel membership link in the description or pinned comment below and join in with everyone else supporting this project.

[00:59:00]Every single supporter makes a difference and helps us continue front page. Click join or the link in the description or pinned comment below.

[00:59:07]Thank you. I'll see you in the next one.