Meet the California multimillionaires demanding the billionaire tax become law

California's Proposition 63, on the November ballot, would impose a 13 percent tax on net worth exceeding $2 million, an unprecedented wealth levy that has already cost nearly $15 million in competing ads before a single vote is cast. The letter, signed by roughly 130 wealthy Californians including venture capitalist Chris Sacca and actor Ben Affleck, arrives as polling shows the measure at roughly 50-50 odds—close enough that organized support from the state's own rich could actually move it. The tax is projected to raise $55 billion over a decade and would funnel revenue directly into schools, healthcare, and gun violence prevention programs. But the signature element matters more than the money: if passed, California becomes the first state in modern history to implement a direct wealth tax, a move that could trigger copycat legislation across blue states and fundamentally reset how capital is taxed in America.

The mechanics matter because they determine who actually gets hit. The 13 percent rate applies only to net worth above $2 million, meaning someone worth $10 million pays tax on $8 million. A billionaire owes roughly $130 million per year—though the state estimates compliance will be spotty. Compare this to wealth taxes attempted elsewhere: France's ill-fated version exempted real estate and was abandoned in 2017 after wealthy residents fled and revenue fell short by 80 percent. California's backers have studied those failures and written rules designed to prevent asset flight, but the mechanism has never successfully scaled in the modern U.S. What's genuinely at stake is whether the country's most economically powerful state can collect money from liquid assets—equities, cryptocurrency, intellectual property—that historically vanish when pursued by tax collectors.

The signatories' stated logic is straightforward: they argue the ultra-wealthy have engineered a system where they pay lower effective tax rates than middle-class wage earners, and that California's collapsing public services are evidence that the current structure fails. Affleck and Sacca, by framing this as multimillionaires supporting their own taxation, attempt to strip away the "class warfare" critique that's animated Republican opposition. Their open letter specifically addresses the capital flight question, arguing that leaving California over a wealth tax is a false choice because the state's infrastructure, workforce, and network effects are irreplaceable competitive advantages. It's an insider-to-insider pitch, essentially: you're already wealthy; more wealthy people leaving is a smaller threat than the state unraveling.

The straightforward conservative counterargument: this is exactly how you collapse a state economy. Wealth taxes fail because wealth is mobile—it's not like land or a business with roots. A venture capitalist can incorporate in Nevada, renounce California residency, and manage funds remotely. The state's own Legislative Analyst's Office estimated revenue at $55 billion, but California's history with aggressive tax schemes suggests actual collections will be closer to half that when people restructure their affairs. Meanwhile, the administrative apparatus required to track and audit net worth for hundreds of thousands of filers is itself a massive hidden cost. And fundamentally: if you're a successful tech founder or real estate developer, why stay? Texas, Florida, and Nevada will actively recruit you. The letter-signers might be comfortable in California because they've already made their billions; that doesn't mean the next generation of wealth creators will build it there.

The constitutional question lurking beneath both campaigns is real. A federal wealth tax failed in the 1990s because legal scholars argued it violated the Constitution's uniformity clause—states are permitted more latitude, but some tax lawyers argue Prop 63's targeting of "net worth" rather than income creates a direct property tax disguised as something else, which might violate California's own Proposition 13. If the measure passes by even a narrow margin, expect immediate litigation that could tie up collections for years, potentially invalidating the entire thing before the first dollar reaches schools. The vote is November 5th. Polls tighten closer to election day on taxes; turnout will be decisive.