California is fast-tracking a ballot measure that proponents call a "one-time" emergency levy on the ultra-rich—but don't be fooled, because if you live in the Golden State, you may soon get the bill too.
The commentary, published in ‘The Tennessee Star’ on June 4, 2026, warns that the so-called **California Billionaire Tax Act** (Initiative 25-0024) by Edward Ring, is not merely a tax on billionaires, despite its marketing. The measure, which supporters have gathered enough signatures to place on the November 2026 ballot, would impose a 5 percent tax on "covered assets." While its proponents advertise it as targeting roughly 200 Californians worth more than $1 billion—with a collective net worth exceeding $2 trillion—the commentary argues the framework is designed to ensnare ordinary residents as well.
The tax is positioned as a one-time emergency measure to raise an estimated $100 billion for state-funded healthcare, K–14 public education, and food assistance programs. Supporters, including labor unions like SEIU-UHW and the Teamsters, frame it as making billionaires pay their "fair share" to protect social services from federal funding cuts. However, critics note the bill defines "applicable individuals" broadly, including California residents and even part-year residents dating back to January 1, 2025—a residency provision critics liken to the Eagles' "Hotel California": you can check out, but you can never leave.
The Tennessee Star commentary highlights that if approved by voters, ordinary Californians could face a 5 percent tax on their own "covered assets." This raises the central argument: what starts as a tax on billionaires rarely stays there. The author suggests that once the state creates the administrative machinery to assess and tax wealth rather than income, the threshold will inevitably creep downward, putting middle-class homeowners, retirement savers, and small business owners in the crosshairs.
The piece also touches on the economic fallout already rippling through the state. Multiple billionaires, including tech entrepreneurs, have reportedly threatened to leave California or already relocated, taking their businesses, jobs, and tax revenue with them. Tax analysts note that tech wealth constitutes nearly 80 percent of California billionaire assets, making these individuals particularly mobile. The National Taxpayers Union has warned the proposal could actually lose the state money before it ever takes effect, as high earners flee to low-tax states like Texas, Florida, or Tennessee.
Additionally, the commentary raises legal red flags. The initiative attempts to build in alternative "apportionment mechanisms" and requests judicial reformation if its residency rules are struck down—a tacit admission by drafters that key provisions may be unconstitutional. The Tax Foundation and other policy experts have flagged serious constitutional questions about a state's ability to tax former residents or out-of-state assets.
The article's core message is a familiar conservative warning: Wealth taxes always expand beyond their original targets. What Sacramento sells as a one-time emergency levy on 200 plutocrats is, in reality, a precedent-setting wealth tax that could eventually hit anyone with a home, a 401(k), or a family business. California voters, the author concludes, should look carefully at who is really being taxed—because once government gains the power to tax wealth, everyone becomes a potential "covered asset." Welcome to the hotel Washington state…owned by government.
Editorial comments expressed in this column are the sole opinion of the writer
