Alex Frangadakis

It's no accident that the California wealth tax is framed as an excise tax on "the activity of sustaining excessive accumulations of wealth." The rationale is also one reason why people may be able to avoid the tax by leaving even though we're past the January 1 residency date. Retroactive residency requirements can be challenged on multiple fronts. Courts typically allow some retroactivity in tax law, though usually it must be within the same year. This initiative has anti-avoidance rules using an October 2025 date, which already exceeds that. It's also retroactive for residency while using a date a year apart (December 31, 2026) for valuation and assessment of tax, which will draw legal scrutiny. But another key consideration: the tax lacks any proportionality or fair apportionment. Residency is based on a one-day snapshot, and taxable net worth is based on a different one-day snapshot that is used even if the taxpayer is no longer a resident at that time. Even if retroactivity survived judicial scrutiny, these one-day snapshots aren't typically how either property or income taxes work. (And fundamentally, a wealth tax is a property tax, though on an absurdly large base.) They'd have to be allocated or apportioned, so someone who left in March wouldn't be taxed for a full year's worth, and certainly not on wealth accumulated after. The wealth tax initiative tries to get around any traditional limits, including those that may be required by the U.S. Constitution, by designing this as an excise tax not on the wealth itself, but on "the activity of sustaining" that accumulation. Courts usually care about substance over form, so just because the initiative calls itself one thing does not mean that courts won't conclude it's something else. Drafters recognized that courts may reject the dates they set in the initiative, which is why they include language asking courts to construe references to the "tax obligation date" and the "valuation date" to refer to different, later dates of the court's choosing, or even to punt the whole wealth tax and all its dates for a year, if they conclude it necessary for the wealth tax to survive. The possibility that courts would, instead of striking the law, set new dates or postpone implementation is yet another reason why affected taxpayers might move later this year if the initiative appears to have legs. Billionaires who left California by December 31st took the safest course of action if the goal was to avoid getting caught up in the proposed wealth tax, but those still in California have multiple grounds (what I've outlined here is certainly not exhaustive) to believe that leaving the state sometime later in 2026 could still be meaningful under the legal challenges that are certain to come if the initiative passes.

Same professional protestor found at 100 different protests

A third of community college applicants were fake. $17 billion was spent on High-Speed Rail with no track. $24 billion in homelessness funds disappeared. $32 billion was lost to unemployment fraud. Medi-Cal and SNAP are rife with improper payments. This is Newsom's California.

BREAKING - A 92-page report by the California State Auditor has found that over $70 billion in taxpayer funds have been lost, including $2.5 billion in SNAP fraud, $24 billion on fighting homelessness, and $18 billion for a high-speed rail where not a single track has been laid.

It’s not 1% a year for 5 years. It’s a one time 5% tax on all assets and it will kill entrepreneurship in California. Here is an example: John Doe starts a company. He takes a nominal salary - say $150k for this example - and the rest in equity in the company. Let’s say he owns 20%. He raises VC capital in 2026 from someone that invests $100M into the company and values the company at $6B. This means his 20% is “worth” $1.2B. I put it in quotes because he can’t actually sell. He has a paper value that putatively says he’s a billionaire. But he actually lives on $150k because that is what his income is. Just because someone decides to make a bet on the business does not mean some bank account in your name magically gets created with $1.2B in it. Under the proposed tax, however, John Doe would now owe $60M in cash to California in 2027. How will he pay it? Is there some buyer you know of, that the rest of the market doesn’t, that will do a deal at the max value when there is a distressed seller like John Doe who needs money he doesn’t have to pay taxes on value he also doesn’t have! Now imagine that after the tax is assessed, in early 2027, the company takes a write down to $200M. Now his share is $40M. But he still owes $60M. Again, there are no buyers for his shares per se. He still only makes $150k/yr. What is this person supposed to do? He now has a “worth” of $40M but owes California $60M. Should he declare bankruptcy now because he tried to start a business but was retarded enough to do it in California? So did you really get the billionaires?? No. Because the mega billionaires have already left or are tax structured to minimize the tax or will fight it. You will, however, drag a bunch of young, energetic folks who want to make things and hire people into bankruptcy court. Awesome work, Ro. You should be proud.

The Minnesota Somali fraud exposes everything that is wrong with government. Politicians and their administrators spend other people’s (taxpayers’) money to advance their own interests —getting themselves and their party elected and reelected by supporting an ethnic group which votes as a block — under the guise of supporting a purported good, in this case child daycare, autism care and ‘healthcare’ broadly defined. When this fraud is combined with a system which allows one voter to ‘verify’ up to eight other voters who do not have to show state or federal ID, at best you destroy the American people’s confidence in our democratic voting system, and, at worst, you have rigged elections. The only way this stops is for the people responsible to suffer severe criminal consequences and for there to be a Federal internal audit system where private citizen bounty hunters who find fraud earn rewards equal to a percentage of the grift identified. The time to fix our broken system is now.