Forum

No, I’m not talking about your property tax, your income tax, your state income tax, your tax on excise gasoline, your sales tax, your capital gain when you sell your home, your tax on utilities, or your death tax. I’m talking about taxing what you have left.

In the shadow of the Munich Security Conference on February 13, 2026, two prominent Democrats—California Governor Gavin Newsom and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—took the global stage to lambast President Donald Trump and position themselves as forward-thinking leaders. But amid their critiques of Trump's climate policies and foreign relations, a subtle yet telling exchange emerged: Ocasio-Cortez's call for an "expeditious" wealth tax.

While framed as a measure targeting the ultra-wealthy, this rhetoric hints at a broader Democratic agenda that could eventually ensnare everyday Americans in a net of asset-based taxation. California, with its history of progressive fiscal experiments, stands as the prime test case for what critics fear could become a nationwide wealth tax on all citizens.

The Munich moment was a wealth tax call to arms!

At the prestigious Munich gathering, Ocasio-Cortez didn't mince words. When pressed by a moderator on whether she'd impose a wealth tax or billionaire tax upon a potential presidential run, she laughed it off but pivoted to urgency: "We don’t have to wait for any one president to impose a wealth tax... That needs to be done expeditiously." Her comments align with long-standing progressive advocacy for taxing accumulated wealth to fund ambitious social programs. Newsom, meanwhile, decried Trump as "doubling down on stupid" on climate issues, positioning California as a counter-model of progressive governance.

Yet, this international spotlight underscores a domestic push. Democrats, eyeing 2028 presidential bids, are using such forums to build foreign policy credentials while advancing domestic economic policies. Ocasio-Cortez pointed to strained U.S. alliances and democratic norms under Trump, arguing for deeper commitments to shared values—including economic equity. But equity, in this context, often entails redistribution through taxes on wealth, not just income.

The Billionaire Bait is nothing more than a trick to get their ‘toe in the door’ for wealth-grabbing and soon for home-grabbing. But don’t worry, it will be for the greater good!  

Current Democratic wealth tax proposals are ostensibly aimed at the elite. In California, the proposed "2026 Billionaire Tax Act" exemplifies this approach. This ballot initiative, backed by unions like the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, would levy a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of residents exceeding $1 billion (with a phase-out up to $1.1 billion). Proponents argue that it could raise up to $100 billion for healthcare, education, and nutrition, particularly after federal cuts to programs such as Medi-Cal.

Similar ideas are bubbling up elsewhere.

In Washington State, Democrats have floated a 9.9% tax on adjusted gross incomes over $1 million.

Virginia lawmakers are considering new brackets up to 10% for earnings above $1 million, paired with surtaxes on investment income.

Michigan eyes a 9.25% top rate for incomes over $500,000 to fund education.

Nationally, the "Billionaires Income Tax Act" introduced by congressional Democrats in 2025 targets unrealized gains for those with assets over $1 billion.

These measures are sold as "fair share" contributions from the rich. But history suggests they rarely stay confined, and the tax monster will escape and begin to devour all wealth in its path.

Income taxes, for instance, began in the U.S. as a levy on the top 1% in 1913, only to expand broadly within decades. Critics argue wealth taxes follow a similar path: start with billionaires to build public support, then lower thresholds as revenue needs grow.

California is the test case to see if the Democrat run state can dip into your 401K, pension, and home equity, claiming that you are too rich!

California isn't just talking; it's acting—and often leading the nation into uncharted fiscal waters. As the most populous state with a Democratic supermajority in the legislature, it's a natural laboratory for socialist policies.  California's top income tax rate is 13.3%, the highest in the nation, and it relies heavily on volatile capital gains from the wealthy for budget stability.

The billionaire tax proposal has sparked division even among Democrats. Newsom warns it could prompt an exodus, with figures like Peter Thiel and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin already relocating operations to low-tax states like Florida and Nevada. Yet, proponents like Representative Ro Khanna push back, insisting it's about sharing prosperity, which is code talk for ‘we want it all’.  If passed, the tax would apply retroactively to January 1, 2026, making escape tricky for current residents.

But here's the slippery slope: California's fiscal challenges are immense. A projected budget deficit, exacerbated by federal healthcare cuts, demands new revenue streams. If billionaire flight reduces yields—or if the one-time tax proves insufficient—policymakers could expand it. Past efforts, like Assemblymember Alex Lee's failed wealth tax bill started at thresholds as low as $50 million before being shelved. Broader proposals in states like Illinois have flirted with taxing unrealized gains, which could eventually hit middle-class investments in stocks or homes.

Economic analyses warn of this creep. A 2% national wealth tax on the top 1% could generate $1.2 trillion annually, per some estimates, but sustaining programs like universal healthcare or climate initiatives might require dipping lower. In Europe, where wealth taxes have been tried (and often abandoned), they began targeted but expanded, leading to administrative nightmares and capital flight.

Wealth tax could become law soon, especially if the Democrats were to win the midterms and enact legislation that would trigger hyperinflation.

The new approach to unlimited taxing resonates with Democrats like Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who've long championed national wealth taxes.

Yet, the logic invites expansion. If the goal is broad affordability—housing, education, wages—revenue from a few hundred billionaires won't suffice. As one think tank notes, a credible plan for transformative change requires tapping deeper into the wealth pool. Polls show wealth taxes are popular when framed as hitting the rich, but support wanes if perceived as universal.

In California, this could mean future taxes on assets like retirement accounts or primary residences for those worth $1 million or less. Other states' proposals already inch downward: Washington's on $1 million incomes, Virginia's on similar brackets. If successful in the Golden State, it could inspire federal action under a 2028 Democratic president.

Democrats insist these taxes are laser-focused on the ultra-wealthy, but that never stopped them before from redefining what a billionaire is. They can’t even figure out what a woman is, let alone something as complex as 4th-grade math. But fiscal pressures, political ambitions, and historical precedents paint a different picture.

As Newsom and Ocasio-Cortez eye higher office, their Munich performances signal a party ready to "deepen partnerships" on global issues—potentially at the cost of domestic wallets.

Final Word: Voters in November 2026 will decide on the billionaire tax, but the real question is, are you next?