on November 11, 2026, 07:25, in reply to "Congrats California for rejecting wealth tax"
That doesn’t mean the idea is going away.
Proponents in California have already floated putting another wealth tax on the ballot in 2028, saying they have learned important lessons from this year’s unsuccessful attempt to marshal voter support for a levy on billionaires. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party—which broadly favors tax increases to fill budget holes, reduce wealth disparities and fund progressive priorities—posted big wins in statehouses and gained control of the U.S. House and Senate.
Some tax supporters saw a silver lining in the California vote failure: It came close, even after wealthy opponents outspent proponents 10 to 1 in a heated campaign. Backers vowed to keep up the fight.
...
Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), who is in line to chair the Senate Finance Committee next year, has repeatedly proposed legislation in recent years that would impose 23.8% annual tax on billionaires’ unrealized capital gains. Each time he introduces it, the bill attracts more co-sponsors—a sign Democrats are getting less squeamish about the idea, a staffer said.
Wyden said the measure responds in part to the ballooning U.S. budget deficit. “Congress will not be able to fix the budget and pass a bold, progressive agenda without taking new steps to ensure billionaires pay a fair share,” he said in a statement....
The concept also faces potential legal hurdles. The Constitution imposes complicated and unresolved requirements around “direct taxes,” a term without a clear definition but one that some scholars believe could undercut wealth taxes. The 16th Amendment was ratified to allow income taxes despite those requirements, but it might not enable levies on wealth....
Emmanuel Saez, a University of California, Berkeley, economist who helped draft the tax proposal, said he’s already back at work looking for a possible path forward. At the state level, he expects a future effort to build a broader coalition—rather than a single union—and to propose an annual tax at a lower rate of, say, 1%.
* * *
Of course they'll be back.
46
