WSJ What’s News - More States Want to Tax the Rich. Here's How.

Episode Date: July 12, 2026

Voters in California are weighing a one-time tax on billionaires. Meanwhile, states including Maine and Massachusetts have already implemented income taxes on wealthy residents. The idea of levying higher taxes on the rich is catching on across the U.S., but the way the measures work—and how residents feel about them—couldn’t be more different. Host Alex Ossola discusses the efforts to tax the wealthy (and their opposition) with WSJ economics reporter Jeanne Whalen and Journal enterprise reporter Laura Nelson.  Further Reading Proposed California Billionaire Tax Clears Key Hurdle on Way to Ballot  Rich Californians Are Finding Creative Ways to Get Ahead of the Billionaire Tax California’s Tax-Weary Billionaires Seek Refuge on Lake Tahoe’s Nevada Shore  Wealth-Tax Fever Is Spreading to Less-Wealthy States Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Accenture. When your advertising operations fall out of sync, everything else follows. Spotify and Accenture are working together to reinvent the rhythm of ad sales, using automation, analytics, and smarter workflows to simplify campaign delivery and access better data across the business. The result? Less time spent on operations, more time connecting brands with the moments and fandoms that matter most. Learn more at Accenture.com slash Spotify.

Hey, What's News listeners, it's Sunday, July 12th. I'm Alex O'Sullough for the Wall Street Journal. This is What's News Sunday, the show where we tackle the big questions about the biggest stories in the news. On the show this week, we're looking at efforts around the U.S. to increase taxes on the wealthy. There's a proposal in California to tax the state's billionaires, and the effort recently cleared a key hurdle, so it'll appear on the ballot in November. That's no guarantee it'll become long. But it's good news for the health care workers union that proposed it. In fact, they say it's necessary.

This is a one-time emergency tax to address the collapse of our health care system in California and the loss of health care coverage for three and a half million people. That was Dave Regan, the president of the Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West, speaking recently on KCRA news. But there are also lots of people who oppose the billionaire tax, even among people who support higher taxes in general. general. Billionaire venture capitalist Vinod Kozla recently discussed it in an interview with journal reporter Gunjan Banerjee. And though Kozla says he's in favor of higher taxes to support

labor, he doesn't think this tax is the way to do it. I'd be happy to pay more taxes and have capital gains, which is mostly what I pay, be the same as ordinary income. But you have opposed the wealth tax on the table right now in California. Not every tax is a good idea. It solves nothing. The California tax is one of a growing number of state efforts around the country to impose new taxes on America's wealthiest residents. I spoke about where those efforts stand and what they tell us about what could happen with California's billionaire tax. With WSJ economics reporter Gene Waylon and Laura Nelson, Journal Enterprise Reporter based in Los Angeles. Laura, let's start with this California billionaire tax. What is the idea behind this and how would it actually work?

So it is a first of its kind proposal in the U.S. Typically in America we tax assets when they're sold. If you buy a stock and then sell it a couple of years later, you pay taxes on the gains that you make at the time of sale. But when you hold it, you typically don't have to pay much, if anything. This tax in California would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of individuals who have a net worth of at least a billion dollars. So that means for someone worth $10 billion, the tax. would amount to a one-time bill of about $500 million. The health care union that's backing this tax has said that this revenue is vital because of cuts

that have been made to Medicaid that were passed through Congress and signed into law last year by President Trump. And the union that's backing this tax estimates that California could lose about $100 billion in funding for Medi-Cal, which is the state's Medicaid program, and that this revenue is the only thing that they could think of to backfill cuts of that size. But this is, as you said, a one-time tax. So what happens after that? The idea with the health care union is that this would buy them a little bit of breathing

room to figure out how to fund these programs over the long term. And of course, during that time period, they are thinking there could be a change in which party controls Congress. If Democrats take control of the House or the Senate or both chambers or the presidency in 28, there could be real changes to the way that the country approaches health care spending and funding from a federal level as opposed to at a state level. So this is kind of a stop gap. And where does the effort stand right now? The measure has qualified for the ballot. That means that California voters in November will have the chance to say yes or no to it, up or down. There's also

two other measures that have qualified for the ballot as well that have been funded by a handful of people, including Google co-founder Sergei Bryn, and those measures take aim at portions of the wealth tax. But we are headed into a very busy ballot measure season where there will be multiple billionaire tax-related efforts all on the ballot at the same time for voters in November. Well, okay, that's messy. We're going to talk about pushback a little bit later. But, Gene, I want to go over to you. So California is considering a wealth tax, as we've just heard, but other states are considering or have implemented income taxes on the wealthy. What is the difference there? So the California tax, as Laura explained, is what people who follow these things

closely call a wealth tax, and that is a tax on people's assets. Most other states that are interested in this are either enacting or considering new taxes on wealthy people's income, as opposed to their assets. States such as Maine, Washington, Massachusetts, have actually enacted these new income taxes on income over $1 million a year. There have been discussions among Democrats and progressive groups and other states, such as Rhode Island and Colorado, about trying to push for these new income tax levies. So that is the more common approach throughout the U.S. these days in blue states.

The opponents of it would say it's dangerous because what's to stop the state down the road from expanding this higher income tax rate to income under a million dollars and hitting more taxpayers. But the idea here is there are more people these days earning more than a million dollars a year. We need more money in our states to pay for health care and food assistance, particularly in the wake of the federal cuts to those programs that were part of the Republicans' tax and spending bill last year, the so-called one big beautiful bill. Some of these measures are still pretty new, like Maine's measure only went into effect in April and Washington's in March. But Massachusetts has been in place since 2022.

What effect have we seen on that state's balance sheet as a result of this tax? In 2022 voters, they're approved a 4% surtax just to the portion of the income that's over a million dollars in that state. And the state collected $3 billion just from that extra surcharge in 2025. and that was up from $2.5 billion a year earlier. So it's providing a substantial chunk of change to Massachusetts. I want to zoom out for a second to ask you both. You know, it seems like this idea of having the wealthy pay more in some sort of tax is kind of catching on lately more than in the past.

Why now? Well, partly because of the cuts in the one big, beautiful bill, a lot of blue states are saying we need new sources of revenue. we have wealthy people in our states. We don't want to punish them for being wealthy, but we need them to pay more. And they are actually pretty popular among regular folks, too. There is rising anger or discontent in the country

over wealth inequality, income inequality. And so these taxes tend to be very popular among voters. They are not, of course, popular among wealthier people, and including small business owners who own restaurants, who maybe are making a good living doing that sort of thing. So it isn't just hitting tech billionaires. Yeah, I will say the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, as they have gained prominence nationally, I would say we are seeing more and more discussion of this idea in states where that flank of the party is gaining strength.

And if you're not very wealthy, the idea of taxing wealthy people who aren't you has a lot of appeal. And polling shows that across a number of states across the country, including in California. Coming up, who's opposing these efforts to tax the rich? It's more than just billionaires. We'll get into it after the break. My name is Peter Parker, but I'm also Spider-Man. This July, we're faced with a threat. That can be anyone.

The world may have forgotten Peter Parker. I'm just a neighbor, friendly neighbor. But he hasn't forgotten them. Sometimes Spider-Man has to do the hard thing. That's my responsibility. Talk to Banner? I didn't know you could get that big. Spider-Man.

Day in theaters July 31st. So in California, the billionaire tax measure has enough support to make it to the ballot, at least that far. But as you sort of alluded to, there is also some pushback. What form is that pushback taking and how prominent is it? It is a fascinating coalition of people opposing it, including the current governor, Governor Gavin Newsom and the leading Democratic Party candidate to replace Newsom a man named Javier Bacera. There is a broad coalition of groups that have come out in opposition to the tax.

That includes the California Teachers Association, Planned Parenthood of California, and the California Medical Association, which is an industry group that represents thousands of doctors in the state. So groups that have ties to both health care and labor that are creating distance between themselves in this health care union that's backing the tax. Only a handful of prominent people have come out in support of the billionaire tax. That includes Congressman Rope. who represents Silicon Valley, as well as Senator Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont. I find it pretty surprising some of the people who you just said were opposing this measure. What are they saying is the biggest issue with it, besides that they're rich and they don't want to pay taxes?

Well, the governor has been against it since it was first introduced and actually has always generally been opposed to wealth taxes on assets. He has said that there's a great risk that billionaires will leave the state, places like Florida, places like Texas, places like Tennessee, where you can get a lot more value for your money and you won't be subject to this kind of tax. That is an idea that is hotly debated. It's hard to know where people actually pay taxes,

so it's sometimes difficult to say, this state is their residence, this state is not their residence. But my sources are telling me that there are a number of California billionaires that are considering it, and some very high profile, high net worth billionaires have already started making moves to create distance between themselves and the state.

Gene, have we seen that actually happen in states that have implemented, admittedly, a slightly different tax? I have not seen any evidence in data form of whether rich people flee these states. Economists will say there isn't a ton of evidence over time of people actually in large numbers moving states because of tax changes. You do hear some wealthy people speaking out against these taxes. in Washington State, a group of wealthy residents tried to mount a lawsuit against it, saying that it violates the state's constitution. In Maine, actually, I heard from quite a few wealthy Mainers who said they were supportive of this new income tax, including Stephen King, the author who lives in the state.

He said, if I can afford to send my kids to college and have a nice home and have a retirement that is comfortable and still have a lot of money left over, why shouldn't I help others? So other leaders elsewhere in the U.S. have expressed interest in implementing similar taxes on the wealthy. New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani won his election on a platform of taxing the rich, and hikes on top earners are a priority for some Democrats and progressive groups as they head into elections this fall, places like Rhode Island and Colorado. What can these leaders learn from governments that have already done this? There is a growing conversation about what a change in the federal tax structure would need to look like.

Governor Newsom in California has said that he actually supports a national reform to the tax structure because he thinks that there's no other way to really tackle the question of inequality in the tax system. And income is not always a great way to try to extract more revenue from the wealthy because there are a number of ultra-wealth residents of the U.S. who don't pay that much in income taxes. And that's partly because of this structure called buy, borrow, die. It's a tax strategy that allows the wealthy to buy assets and borrow against them to get cash to live on instead of selling those assets and incurring capital gains or other taxes at the time of sale. This is a structure that allows very wealthy people to both get cash to live on

and allow their assets to accrue value over time without really having to have a tax bill come due. And there are now growing discussions, including with Governor Newsom and others, about how you might go about closing loopholes like that in the federal tax code. That's not something that you would be able to address at the state level. Laura, Jean, thank you both so much for joining me. Sure thing. Thank you. Thank you, guys. And that's it for What's New Sunday for July 12th. Today's show is produced by Danny Lewis with supervising producer Melanie Roy.

I'm Alex Osala, and we'll be back tomorrow morning with a brand new show. Until then, thanks for listening. If you want a $3,000 a month payday for life, What would you feel free to do? Maybe take a long weekend, every weekend, or try a bunch of new hobbies? Would you feel free to upgrade and listen ad-free? Don't worry, we get it.

Every $20 ticket could win you $3,000 a month for life and supports life-saving cancer research at the Princess Margaret. Feel free to buy your payday-for-life ticket today. Raffle number 155-2194. Please play responsibly.