California’s Proposed Billionaire Tax and Its Portents for Normal People

Progressive taxation is not a modern innovation, but an ancient instrument of state power. The, dating back to 1753 BC, imposed heavier fiscal burdens on elites to stabilize political authority and replenish public coffers. Such measures were seldom temporary. Over time, they reshaped the relationship between citizens and the state by redefining which wealth was securely owned and which was held at the government’s discretion. This has repeated across centuries, from early modern Europe to contemporary welfare states.

In the United States, calls to “tax the rich” have become nearly ubiquitous with election cycles, embedded not only in policy debates but in popular culture itself. When Representative wore a “Tax the Rich” dress to the 2021 Met Gala, the message was less about a specific proposal than about a broader moral posture toward wealth and inequality. Against this backdrop, the California proposal for a “” initially appeared unremarkable, just another iteration of a familiar political slogan. This proposal, however, is not merely a rhetorical flourish or a marginal policy tweak. It represents a fundamental departure from how taxation has historically interacted with private property in the United States.

Unlike most prior efforts to increase taxes on high-income individuals, which target realized income or realized capital gains, the proposed California wealth tax would reach unrealized gains, paper valuations of assets that have not been sold, priced through an actual transaction, or converted into cash. This distinction is neither technical nor trivial. It cuts to the heart of what it means to own property, possess wealth securely, and plan one’s economic future under the rule of law.

The response from wealthy individuals has been swift and revealing. Since the proposal’s announcement, at least prominent billionaires (out of California’s roughly) with a combined net worth exceeding $400 billion, have already left or begun the process of leaving California. Historically, policies introduced as exceptional measures aimed at a small elite have rarely remained so confined. The deeper significance of this proposal lies not in its immediate revenue potential but in how it redefines what it means to own property in the United States.