Matt Klink is owner and president of Klink Campaigns, Inc. a Los Angeles-based strategic communication and public affairs firm.
California’s flirtation with a wealth tax, possibly on the November 2026 ballot, is being portrayed as a vital rescue: an “emergency” measure, narrowly focused, precisely targeted and too virtuous to doubt.
The fine print reveals a different story. This is not real reform; it’s a political ploy by organized labor, the ultimate political insider, looking for more revenue to keep the system that set off California’s affordability and competence crises in the first place.
Whether such a tax is legal is debatable. In any case, the prospective ballot measure is so fundamentally flawed that it should alarm all Californians.
The initiative, the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, proposes a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of billionaires who are California residents as of Jan. 1, 2026. The retroactive tax would be due in 2027, with an option to extend payments over five years. Real estate, some pensions and retirement accounts would be excluded from calculations on how much people owe.
Supporters want it to sound precise, like a scalpel. In reality, it would function like a sledgehammer aimed at California’s remaining tax base, designed to pass by appealing to voters’ emotions.
The attorney general’s official title and summary state that this measure would exempt new revenues from constitutional requirements related to school funding, budget reserves and the state spending limit. These exemptions are not a drafting error. This initiative does not just seek additional revenue, it aims to loosen the limits on what Sacramento can do with it.
Golden State is a member-supported publication. No billionaires tell us what to do. If you enjoy what you're reading, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription and support independent, home-grown journalism.
California’s political class has spent decades building a government that is already large, costly and overreliant on the incomes of the state’s wealthiest residents, which often swing dramatically. When safeguards meant to ensure budget stability from one year to the next prevent further spending, these safeguards become targets.California does not have a revenue problem; it faces a spending problem. In 2000–01, California’s total budget spending was $99.4 billion. The Budget Act of 2025 projects $321.1 billion in total.
A government that triples its spending while the population increases by only 16% isn’t just “keeping up with needs” or appropriately expanding services; it’s fueling political desires and benefiting special interests that thrive on a constantly growing state budget.
SEIU–United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), which is collecting signatures to get the initiative on the ballot, frames the wealth tax as an emergency measure to save California’s healthcare system. Unions are not charities; they are political entities with clear motives. Larger government means bigger union budgets, expanded programs for its members, increased payrolls, more contracts, greater bargaining power and more dues-funded influence.
Erwin Chemerinsky
In a state like California where one party has all the power, that is not a minor detail. It becomes the driving force.When SEIU-UHW sponsors a wealth tax, it’s a strategic effort to boost revenue and influence within a system where increased spending is the goal, not the problem. And when the next “crisis” comes, you can bet there will be another emotional ballot measure demanding more money.
Tax supporters view billionaires as an ATM. If even a small portion of that group is pushed away from California, the consequences won’t just be symbolic. A one-time hit could lead to budget deficits for years.
Sacramento also has a credibility issue. The state auditor’s latest report naming agencies and programs that pose a high risk to taxpayers flags payment errors by the California Department of Social Services, which could result in the state having to assume $2.5 billion in CalFresh costs in federal fiscal year 2028. CalFresh is California’s version of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides monthly food benefits to low‑income individuals and families to help them buy groceries. The same report also keeps the Employment Development Department on the high-risk list, citing ongoing high rates of improper unemployment payments.
In a well-run enterprise, such an audit would trigger a pause, a restructuring and corrective action. Instead, we’re talking about a ballot measure to keep the money flowing.
David Helvarg
The psychology here is as old as politics: Pick a villain – and right now billionaires qualify. Promise the tax only hits the villain. Tell voters it will cost them nothing. Attach the revenue to emotionally charged programs. Quietly carve out exemptions from guardrails that exist to prevent runaway government. Then spend millions on a campaign to manufacture consent.
This initiative is engineered to feel like justice. In reality, it’s a ticking time bomb.
If Sacramento wants to be taken seriously, it should start with the basics: Demonstrate that government can control fraud, deliver essential services, stay within budget limits and stop treating taxpayers like an endless resource. A wealth tax isn’t a serious policy or progress. It’s another power grab by special interests addicted to spending and politicians who rely on punishing productive individuals to fund and expand government.
California voters should not fall for it.
