- This topic has 9 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 5 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
When the idea of a “temporary” tax on California billionaires was floated, Gov. Newsom (distracted by national politics) said the quiet part out loud almost immediately…”Well this is the kind of thing you do on a national basis. If you do it on a state by state basis, they’ll just move.”
Too true, as the states and cities now run by Socialist democrats (BIG “S”, small d) are currently finding out.
Gavin Newsom just proposed on his Substack a nationwide wealth tax on anyone with more than $100 million in wealth. In effect, it would guarantee that the wealthy pay the same rates that average taxpayers pay.
Newsom says he’s voting “no” on the California billionaire tax. Also says that inheritance taxes need to be completely revamped to eliminate the concentration of wealth.
-
-
This remains a very interesting topic given tax minimization opportunities and the raging budget deficit. I guess part of me thinks persons over a certain wealth can and should contribute more, but they can flee the US just like they can flee NY or CA . . .
Some definitely can and will flee the U. S. But I wonder how many would leave the U. S. over an incremental increase in the wealth tax and a large increase in inheritance taxes? In which country would you rather live?
Second question: at what point will the U. S. just default on our collective debt? The Baby Boomers are starting to retire in numbers (I’m still four years away), and then GenX will want to retire. Will the remaining workers — who can’t afford a house and feel quite strongly that the Baby Boomers and GenX types got all the great opportunities — want to continue increased taxes while they are still physically able and their forebears are in their dotage?
Personally, I think they’ll continue the long trend of American selfishness that dates back to the 1970s. Remember when the 1970s were called the “Me” generation? Since then, each successive generation have had it worse than the prior generation — and their parents haven’t been collectively interested in their childrens’ travails.
-
-
-
I asked ChatGPT:
- How many billionaires in California? 214 by their count, Forbes said 239 at the end of 2025, and 250 at the present date.
- How many have already left California? Nine.
- How many are likely to leave? 25-60, with 40 being ChatGPT’s best guess.
- Any oddities? Key issue is whether the 15 ultra-wealthy ($50 billion or more) decide to leave.
Also asked about Newsom’s national billionaire tax. This is a little bit different, because if you want to leave the USA to avoid the billionaire’s tax, you need to renounce your American citizenship.
There’s an important twist here: once this is federal, “leave” mostly means renounce U.S. citizenship, not move to Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, Monaco, or Dubai. That makes the departure number much smaller, but the avoidance/planning number much larger.Yes — at the federal level, the math changes dramatically.My estimate: if Newsom’s federal $100M+ minimum-tax proposal passed, probably 500–2,000 ultra-wealthy U.S. households would try to leave the U.S. tax system over 10 years, with a base case around 1,000–1,500. Of those, I’d guess 25–75 billionaires would actually expatriate or seriously restructure citizenship/residency. That sounds big politically, but it is small relative to the affected population.The reason: moving abroad is not enough. U.S. citizens are generally taxed on worldwide income even while living abroad, so the tax-avoidance move is not “buy a house in Dubai”; it is renounce U.S. citizenship or abandon long-term resident status. The IRS also already has an expatriation-tax regime for people with $2M+ net worth, which would cover every $100M+ taxpayer.</p>The headcount affected
There are likely tens of thousands of Americans above $100M. One estimate based on Federal Reserve data put the number at about 74,000 U.S. households worth $100M+ as of 2022, and that number is probably higher now after the AI/market run-up. The billionaire tier is much smaller: Forbes’ 2026 list says the U.S. has 989 billionaires, while IPS/Forbes real-time data showed 935 U.S. billionaires with $8.1T combined wealth at the end of 2025.
How many leave?
Here’s my practical range:
Scenario Likely expatriating / leaving U.S. tax net Billionaires included Strong exit tax, immediate effective date 300–800 10–30 Normal political compromise 1,000–1,500 25–75 Weak exit tax / delayed effective date 2,000–5,000 75–150 The base-case number is not higher because federal taxation is sticky. The ultra-rich can change state residence in a weekend, but renouncing U.S. citizenship is permanent, reputationally loud, logistically hard, and taxable on exit. Empirical wealth-tax migration studies find real but modest migration effects: one recent Scandinavian study estimated that a 1 percentage-point wealth-tax increase reduces the stock of wealthy taxpayers by about 2% in the long run; a U.K. study of super-rich non-doms also found emigration responses were “modest.”
How much more revenue?
For a Newsom/Biden-style minimum tax on $100M+ households, I’d pencil in: $500B–$900B over 10 years gross, and probably $400B–$700B net after avoidance, litigation, valuation disputes, installment rules, and some expatriation.
That is much less than a Warren-style annual wealth tax, but still real money — roughly $40B–$70B per year net, on average. The closest prior federal model is Biden’s “billionaire minimum income tax.” The earlier 20% version was estimated by Treasury at $360B over 10 years from about 20,000 richest households; Biden’s later FY2025 version was a 25% minimum tax on income including unrealized gains for households above $100M. With 2026 asset values much higher, especially in AI/tech, a $500B+ decade estimate is plausible.
But if Congress passed a true annual wealth tax instead — say Warren-style 2% above $50M and 3% above $1B — the revenue number gets much larger. Penn Wharton estimated the 2021 Warren bill at $2.1T–$2.4T over 10 years, while the 2026 Jayapal/Warren release claims $6.2T over 10 years from 260,000 households.
So the clean answer: A federal $100M+ minimum tax probably raises $400B–$700B net over 10 years and causes about 1,000–1,500 ultra-wealthy households to leave or attempt to leave the U.S. tax system. A true annual wealth tax could raise several trillion, but would also trigger far more avoidance, litigation, valuation warfare, and expatriation planning.
-
-
3,302 billionaires and counting…
The World Now Has 3,302 Billionaires and They’re Getting Richer – SWI swissinfo.ch
-
-
As my friend Mick well knows, the wealth tax I used to promote was entirely different in concept than this absurdity.
That said, the affordability issue is no joke. I do believe it’s the underlying cause of the discontents of both Left and Right.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.