The Daily Signal - Government Overreach? Why California’s Billionaire Tax Is Pushing Top Taxpayers Out | Elaine Culotti

Episode Date: January 27, 2026

It is starting to look like California may be separating people from their personal property and taxing that property through search and seizure, argues Elaine Culotti, a Daily Signal California contributor, in today’s special video commentary on the Golden State’s impending billionaire tax. “ There are 17.5 million people out of 40 million people that pay taxes in California. The top 2% or 1% or half a percent—200 guys—pay 47% of those taxes.  If you create a wealth tax on those people, they are sure to leave, and it's not because of the 5% you're trying to charge them.  People do not want to disclose their assets. They deem it unsafe, invasive, overreaching government, and unconstitutional. Taxation without representation.” 👉For more videos like this, subscribe to The Daily Signal’s YouTube channel and enable notifications to be alerted the second a new video drops: https://www.youtube.com/dailysignal?sub_confirmation=1   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Medcan, we know that life's greatest moments are built on a foundation of good health, from the big milestones to the quiet winds. That's why our annual health assessment offers a physician-led, full-body checkup that provides a clear picture of your health today, and may uncover early signs of conditions like heart disease and cancer. The healthier you means more moments to cherish. Take control of your well-being and book an assessment today. Medcan. Live well for life.

Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started. It seems to me as though California is seeking to take personal property away from individuals. It's starting very much to look like that is true. There are 17.5 million people out of 40 million people that pay taxes in California. The top 2% or 1% or half a percent, 200 guys pay 47% of those taxes. If you create a wealth tax on those people, they are sure to leave. And it's not because of the 5% you're trying to charge them. It's because of the disclosures.

People do not want to disclose their assets. They deem it unsafe, invasive, overreaching government, and unconstitutional. Taxation without representation. Hi, I'm Elaine Kalati for the Daily Signal. I want to give you guys a wrap up on the politics. in California and some of the things that are starting to come down that I think are going to really make a difference. So after the crazy, what do we call it, one-year anniversary of the fires, Spencer Pratt jumped in the mayorial race, which, you know, I mean, God bless him. He and his wife

Heidi have lost everything, and like a lot of people in the Pacific Palisades, they're furious. And with good reason, I think. I think that everybody that lost their home in the Palisades and people that didn't lose their homes but can't, you know, help move the needle to get things built. I would probably fall closer into that category. I had a lot less damage than most. It's frustrating that we cannot get any help. And it feels like you want to go to your mayor, and it feels like you want to go to your city council. And I got to say, Tracy Parks, who's on city council has been really, really tried and really been helpful. And I can't say the same about Karen Bass, but I also can't really say that Karen Bass is the reason that the fire's

burned down. And so with all the confusion, there's a lot of finger pointing. It's just like a, who did it or who done it. And after the whole deal was over, I went to an event that Rick Caruso put on in the Palisades Village where he lit three lights that shoot up in the sky that will go out on January 1st. Each light represents a city that was burned. And it was kind of a somber event. And in some ways, probably more appropriate for the holiday, you know, if you want to call it that or anniversary or whatever you want to call it. It's a somber, somber event. He also made a point that he'll be running for something, for sure, probably governor, I'm guessing,

and that he didn't feel that the anniversary of the Palisades was a good time to announce that. So he'll announce in a couple weeks and he'll probably run for governor. So here we are. That's what the fires, one-year anniversary resulted in at least two new candidates. for California government. Again, I'm going to say the same thing. I'm not sure I've seen anybody running for anything that's going to actually be able to run the state. I mean, we've got such monumental problems. We've got this billionaires tax thing, which everybody's familiar with now, because it's been on every single podcast. Likely it won't pass, but some

version of it might. And this is the beginning of trying to separate people from their personal property, taxing people on things that have not transacted. This is not American. So, for example, if you sell a house, you'll pay a tax, or if you go to a store, you'll pay a sales tax, or if you work and get a paycheck, you're going to pay a tax. These taxes are transactional taxes. When you seek to do a clawback on assets and have them put on a Schedule C and create a kind of balance sheet of assets and tax 5% without any transaction, that's different. Taxation without representation. That's essentially going on an asset hunch, search, and seizure. You're seizing 5% of assets and you're asking for people to disclose that on a Schedule C or some sort of schedule.

Well, this is really disruptive to California. First of all, most people don't realize that California has 40 million people, but only 17.5 million pay taxes. So if the lying share of those taxes are paid by the top 200 earners, which is kind of the case, it's not the lying share, but it's massive, it's more, it's 47%, so it's almost half. So that's not the lying share, but it's almost half. these guys leave over this billionaire's tax overnight California could lose up to $122 billion a year in its general fund for the 47% of taxes that are paid every year by the top 200 taxpayers in the state let me say that again there are 17.5 million people out of 40 million people that pay taxes in California The top 2% or 1% or half a percent, 200 guys, pay 47% of those taxes. That is 122 billion a year in the general fund.

If you create a wealth tax on those people, they are sure to leave. And it's not because of the 5% you're trying to charge them. or anybody else. It's because of the disclosures. People do not want to disclose their assets. They deem it unsafe, invasive, overreaching government, and unconstitutional. Taxation without representation. I am surprised, really, that anybody that has a job or pays taxes, whether you're a billionaire or not, does not understand the trickle-down effect of these egregious. egregious overreaching ideologies that happened through Sacramento. So with that, the next issue we have is SB 7-9.

SB 7-9 is a high-density bill that is tied to transit districts, which was voted in to the state by representing that it only goes where Tanger's transit districts are. So a bill that is represented to go where a train station is, is or an airport is or a bus station is is very different than in your backyard because what SB 79 seeks to do is rezone R1, which is residential, one house per lot to multi-family. So in the palisades, in your burned out neighborhood, single-family residential, if you want to rebuild, you run the risk of someone putting an apartment building. building next to you. Now this is, in my opinion, and I'm pretty seasoned in real estate and real estate

developers and law and understanding what it means to have single family residential real estate, you are slandering title. Because if your title is single family residential and it's that, that's the zone and that's why you invested in that property and they change the zoning under erroneous unapproved bills, that's slendering your title. And I am very hopeful that Donald Trump's bill to ban corporations from buying up single-family residential real estate will tie nicely into SB 7-9 and will help California save its single-family residential neighborhoods from this egregious overreach into real estate. It seems to me as though California, California is seeking to take personal property away from individuals.

It's starting very much to look like that is true. If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck.