According to a new Citrin-POLITICO poll, two-thirds of Californians know Proposition 40 will not be a “one-time-tax.”
The poll asked:
The proposal is described as a one-time tax. How confident are you that it would actually remain a one-time tax and not be repeated or expanded?
Result?
66% said they were “not too confident” or “not at all confident it would remain one-time.”
Only 34% were “somewhat confident ” or “very confident it would remain one-time.”
The poll of 1,149 registered California voters was conducted Oct. 9-14.
The poll respondents are wise.
Advocates of the California “one-time” asset seizure ballot measure have been openly dreaming of a permanent state wealth tax.
Asset seizure proponents Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman are both Marxist-leaning Berkeley professors from France who spend a lot of time doing political work promoting tax increases, apparently since tax hikes have worked so well back in France.
Of Proposition 40, Zucman said: “This one-time tax is just the starting point of what could be.”
Saez is one of the four professors who wrote the tax proposal and has admitted it isn’t a “one-time tax” as the measure proponents claim.
Saez said: “I’m not there to pretend that it’s once and never again. That no wealth tax will ever happen after that one. You can’t commit to that.”
In a recent debate, Zucman said: “I don’t hide my belief that I think eventually California, other states, and the U.S. as a whole will need some form of annual wealth tax.”
It gets worse. Saez denied for months that residents would flee the tax. But after evidence of the fleeing become irrefutable, Saez with great arrogance said: “So be it.”
California has finished dead last in the U-Haul index for six straight years.
Zucman, Saez and the “billionaire tax” proponents are determined to make it a seventh.
Meanwhile Zucman is also pushing a global wealth tax that would kill 20 million jobs.
A major new macroeconomic analysis finds that a coordinated 2% global minimum tax on billionaire wealth—proposed by Zucman and commissioned by the G20—would inflict significant, sustained harm on the global economy, workers, and investment.
The study, titled Macroeconomic impacts of a coordinated global minimum effective taxation standard for ultra-high-net-worth individuals was conducted by QUEST at EY on behalf of the Tholos Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform.
The study estimates the following average annual costs over the first ten years (relative to the size of the 2025 global economy):
- Global GDP reduced by an average of $80 billion per year. After the first ten years, the damage gets even worse, with global GDP reduced by an average of $120 billion per year.
- Global employment reduced by an average of 2.0 million jobs each year.
- Global labor income reduced by an average of $10 billion each year. After the first ten years, global labor income is reduced by an average of $50 billion each year.
According to the study:
“Implementing a 2% coordinated minimum tax on billionaire wealth would increase the effective tax rate (ETR) on capital held by billionaires. This raises the user cost of capital for billionaire-owned assets, reducing the after-tax return on investment. A higher cost of capital discourages new investment and slows capital accumulation, reducing the capital stock available to workers over time. Lower capital per worker decreases labor productivity, which in turn reduces wages and employment. These effects compound over time as reduced investment leads to persistently lower capital stocks, generating sustained reductions in gross domestic product (GDP), wages, and employment.”
The study is a best estimate on the macro costs to taxing billionaire wealth. These effects compound over time as it leads to declining investment and avoidance strategies where wealth is actually stored in bedding rather than the economy.
The study notes that real-world avoidance, incomplete international coordination, and enforcement challenges complicate any type wealth tax.