Why would a single resident billionaire continue to remain a resident if this passes? It’s not like they can’t come here and spend time here while being a resident of another state. Hard to see how this would make a meaningful bump to state revenue.
Ah, I didn’t initially catch that it applies to tax year 2026.
I did a little reading this morning on case law of retroactive taxes, and while I’m certain this would be litigated, not really sure where it would land. It might depend on the jurisdictions that hear the case. I’m not at all optimistic that they’ll collect what they think they will, but they have sure attempted to craft it to tax people before they can exit.
Why would a single resident billionaire continue to remain a resident if this passes? It’s not like they can’t come here and spend time here while being a resident of another state. Hard to see how this would make a meaningful bump to state revenue.
A state could still claim you as a resident if you meet certain criteria. You don’t get to unilaterally decide if you are a resident or not.
Plus, what’s the point of wanting billionaires to stay in your state if they aren’t being taxed?
California would be better off without the billionaires.
Because it’s a one-time tax that applies retroactively.
If you move, you’d still owe it.
Ah, I didn’t initially catch that it applies to tax year 2026.
I did a little reading this morning on case law of retroactive taxes, and while I’m certain this would be litigated, not really sure where it would land. It might depend on the jurisdictions that hear the case. I’m not at all optimistic that they’ll collect what they think they will, but they have sure attempted to craft it to tax people before they can exit.