In a development that will stun absolutely no one, the California Democratic Party's roughly 380-member executive board gathered at a waterside Sheraton in San Diego this weekend and voted to endorse Proposition 40 - a "one-time" 5% levy on the net worth of the state's roughly 200 billionaires - clearing the 60% supermajority required for the party's official blessing, three months before voters render judgment on November 3.
A large banner is seen at a campaign event for a proposed "billionaire tax" in Los Angeles on Feb. 18, 2026. | Jae C. Hong/APIf it passes - California residents on January 1, 2026 whose net worth is $1 billion or more on December 31, 2026, will owe Sacramento a nickel on every dollar. Directly held real estate is largely excluded - which means the drafters carved out the one asset class that cannot board a Gulfstream. The measure originated with a major healthcare union, the Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), which claims it would raise $100 billion to offset what it calls deep healthcare funding cuts under the Trump administration. Progressive lawmakers, including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna, have cheered it on. SEIU says it will raise about $100 billion, mostly to backfill federal healthcare cuts, with some crumbs earmarked for education and food assistance.
The arithmetic: $100 billion at a 5% rate assumes roughly $2 trillion in billionaire net worth sitting obediently in Atherton and Bel Air through year-end, marked to market and liquid enough to cut nine- and ten-figure checks to the Franchise Tax Board.
“I strongly support the grassroots effort in California to impose a 5% wealth tax on 200 billionaires worth $2 trillion,” Sanders said of the tax. “This is a model that should be emulated around the country, which is why I will soon be introducing a national wealth tax on billionaires.”
Yes: We need a wealth tax on billionaires. pic.twitter.com/2OUwSos5De
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) December 30, 2025The weekend itself was democracy at its most catered. The union threw a hospitality suite and handed out hats and T-shirts celebrating the confiscation of other people's balance sheets, while the "No on Prop 40" campaign - whose ranks include the California Medical Association (yes, the doctors oppose the measure written to fund them, calling a one-shot levy a flawed answer to a recurring hole), though its real bankroll is one Google co-founder, of whom more below - reportedly picked up around $7,000 in hotel rooms and travel for select board members via a hired consulting shop. Both sides whipped votes like the leveraged proxy fight it effectively was.
Afterward, the union's president declared that the endorsement settles the question of Democratic unity on the measure. Sure - minus the sitting Democratic governor, the party's own candidate to replace him, the California Teachers Association, and the state's firefighters. When even the teachers' union calls a tax too much, that tells you something.
Gavin Newsom - a man who never met a revenue stream he didn't like until it threatened his 2028 ambitions - has suddenly discovered the Laffer curve, warning that the state's largest taxpayers might simply leave.
After the measure qualified in June, he and his allies leaned on the union to pull it. The union's counteroffers tell you everything about the shelf life of "one-time": days before the June 25 withdrawal deadline, it publicly offered to swap the 5% levy for a 2% version Newsom would push through the Legislature - he passed - and, per the LA Times, union chief Dave Regan separately offered in private negotiations to pull the measure outright in exchange for help securing union contracts at several medical facilities - a demand he denies making. The temporary tax was, from birth, a down payment. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna cheer from the sidelines - neither of whom, we note, will be writing a check. Newsom, for his part, now stumps for a federal wealth tax - one billionaires can't dodge by moving - which concedes the entire case against this one.
In May, one of the co-authors of California’s controversial tax appeared to suggest that the levy could extend beyond a single imposition. Marxist economics professor Emmanuel Saez, who hails from France, made the comment during a heated debate against economist Arthur Laffer at the University of California, Berkeley
“I don’t think it’s going to be a one-time tax. Because you can’t surprise billionaires more than once,” Saez said. "Even then, maybe some of them were expecting something like this. So, it’s going to be a debate about this time, you know, a permanent wealth tax at a low rate that’s going to last for a number of years.”
How These Taxes Usually EndDo these people ever learn? Recall New Jersey circa 2016, when a single hedge fund manager's change of address to Florida had Trenton's budget officials publicly sweating over the state's revenue forecast - one guy, one moving truck, one fiscal panic. Recall Illinois' richest resident, Ken Griffin, packing his entire firm off from Chicago to Miami in 2022, taking what was reportedly the state's largest individual tax bill with him. Recall the Pacific Northwest's most famous ex-resident developing a sudden fondness for South Florida in 2023, mere months after Washington's shiny new capital gains tax survived its court challenge - and then unloading billions in stock from the comfort of a state that taxes none of it. Recall the world's richest man decamping California for Texas in 2020, with his companies trailing behind like ducklings.
And it's not just an American genre. Norway hiked its wealth tax in 2022 and promptly watched a procession of its wealthiest citizens establish residency in Switzerland. France ran the grand experiment for decades, bleeding tens of thousands of millionaires across its borders, until Macron finally euthanized the ISF - preserving, in the ultimate irony, a wealth tax on real estate alone, the one thing that couldn't flee. Prop 40's drafters studied that lesson and inverted it: exempt the immovable, tax the mobile.
California, of course, has been talking itself into this outcome for years - the 2023 wealth-tax bill with its infamous reach-back provisions for former residents died in committee, but the memo was received loud and clear in Austin, Miami, and Incline Village. The state lost a congressional seat after the 2020 census for the first time in its history, net domestic outmigration has been running for years, and the top 1% already supply north of 40% of state income tax collections. The geese aren't just laying the golden eggs; they're carrying the farm.
About that Incline Village entry: Sergey Brin decamped to the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe last year - safely ahead of the January 1 snapshot - and has since pumped roughly $82 million into the No side's war chest, a committee called Building a Better California that has raised north of $118 million from fewer than a dozen donors, with Peter Thiel dropping a separate $3 million on the California Business Roundtable, the lobby anchoring the institutional opposition. Nor did Brin leave alone: at least six billionaires got out before the residency date locked, clipping an estimated $27 billion off the projected haul before a single ballot was printed. Every anecdote in the genre now has a live, hometown edition - the man whose fortune was minted in Mountain View is bankrolling the fight against a California tax he has already arranged not to owe.
The trap already snapped shut: because residency was fixed on January 1, 2026, leaving now won't dodge this levy if it passes - that trap closed eight months ago. What leaving now does is guarantee you're not around for the sequel. So expect a December blizzard of trust restructurings, charitable pledges, and valuation disputes over illiquid private stakes, followed by a constitutional bar brawl that keeps white-shoe litigators billing well into the 2030s. Collecting 5% of a private company position from a founder newly domiciled in Texas will be a spectacle.
Polling shows a strong majority of California Democrats on board and a narrower majority of the overall electorate - which is to say, this thing can absolutely pass. The No campaign calls the measure "bad for our budget, bad for our economy and bad for our future."
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/03/2026 - 18:00Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,
Officials in three states are investigating or plan to investigate Dr. Anthony Fauci following the release of his diary and his refusal to answer questions during a Senate hearing.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, testifies before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in Washington on July 29, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times"Fauci lied," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill wrote on X on Aug. 1. "Louisiana and Missouri deposed Dr. Fauci. At the time, he claimed to not recall many key details of his own actions and now we are discovering contemporaneous records he kept."
Murrill said the investigation would look at whether Fauci committed any crimes for which state prosecutors could charge him.
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), who is running to be Alabama's next governor, said during a recent appearance on Newsmax that his state would be probing Fauci.
"Hopefully in the next six months, I'll be the governor of the state of Alabama," Tuberville said. "And I promise you one thing, we will find out if there's a possibility that we can bring him to Alabama, to put him in front of a court and a jury, to see if we can put this guy in prison."
Florida's attorney general said on July 29, also after Fauci's appearance before the Senate, that his office was opening an investigation into Fauci.
"It's past time we get the truth of what happened during COVID," Attorney General James Uthmeier said in a post on X.
He wrote in another post, "If he lied, and it resulted in physical and economic harm to countless Americans, billions of taxpayer dollars in 'medical expenses,' and learning-loss for our next generation, there should be accountability."
Fauci and his lawyer did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.
Fauci, 85, was director of the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022. He was also the chief medical adviser to the president during the Biden administration.
Fauci received a preemptive pardon from President Joe Biden in early 2025. That covers any federal crimes Fauci may have committed from Jan. 1, 2014, through Jan. 19, 2025.
Attorneys general from 17 states, including Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana, later in 2025 said they were conducting a joint investigation into Fauci for allegedly making misleading statements and suppressing scientific debate.
"The American people also have a right to transparency and accountability from the public officials whose decisions affected millions of lives. We will continue pursuing the truth because the American people deserve nothing less," South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, leader of the coalition, said in a July 29 post on X.
Ohio legal analyst Mike Allen, a current defense lawyer and former prosecutor, told The Epoch Times in an email that the statute of limitations for many offenses prosecutors may target Fauci over has likely expired.
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/03/2026 - 17:40