A Billionaire Exodus? Here’s What California’s Proposed Wealth Tax Could Mean For Business And The Future Of The State

California has built its reputation as the engine room of American innovation. From Silicon Valley to Hollywood, the state attracts founders, investors and global talent at a scale few places can match.

But, it seems like that might be about to change. Has it already?

A proposed wealth tax targeting billionaires has reopened an uncomfortable question: could California be pushing its most valuable economic contributors away, and what would that mean for businesses and the wider economy?

The proposal, often referred to as the Billionaire Tax Act, aims to levy a one-time tax on extreme wealth to boost public finances. Supporters, on the one hand, see it as a fair contribution from those best able to pay. Critics, however, argue that it risks unintended consequences that could outweigh any short-term gains.

What is clear here is that the debate goes far beyond billionaires themselves. The potential impact touches investment, entrepreneurship, job creation and California’s long-term competitiveness.

So, Why Does This Proposal Matter?

At face value, a one-off wealth tax appears to offer a straightforward solution to budget pressures. The promise of billions in new revenue is politically appealing, especially at a time when public services are stretched.

However, fiscal policy is rarely quite that simple. Legal challenges, difficulties in valuing complex assets and practical issues around collection mean that projected revenues are often uncertain. More importantly, a one-off measure does little to solve structural budget issues, raising questions about whether the policy addresses long-term problems or merely provides temporary relief.

Benjamin Trujillo, Partner J.D., LL.M. at MONETA, summarises this concern succinctly: “A one-time wealth tax of this magnitude is unlikely to produce durable fiscal benefits and may instead distort long-term capital behavior.”

That tension  – that is, short-term revenue versus long-term economic health – sits at the heart of the debate.

Are Billionaires Really Preparing to Leave?

The idea of a “billionaire exodus” makes for dramatic headlines, there’s no doubt about it, but the reality is more nuanced. Relocating wealth, assets and residency is a very complex process, particularly for individuals deeply embedded in California’s business ecosystem.

That said, many high-networth individuals plan years in advance. Some are already establishing stronger ties to other states, partly as a hedge against future policy changes. This doesn’t always mean physically leaving California overnight, but it can influence where new investments, businesses and philanthropic projects are based.

Christine Concepción, Partner at Concepción Global, argues that proactive planning is already underway among some of the ultra-wealthy: “While the law may limit retroactive tax planning, it does not prevent proactive relocation efforts as a complete repudiation of California’s tax policy in general.”

Even gradual shifts in behaviour (rather than dramatic departures) could still have meaningful economic consequences over time.

The Impact on Investment and Business Confidence

Perhaps the most significant risk of the proposed tax lies not in who leaves, but rather, in how capital behaves. Entrepreneurs and investors are highly sensitive to uncertainty, and tax policy plays a major role in long-term planning.

If California begins to be perceived as unpredictable or increasingly hostile to wealth creation, founders may choose to launch companies elsewhere, and investors may redirect funding to regions viewed as more stable. This probably wouldn’t show up immediately in employment data, but the cumulative effect over years could be substantial.

Jason Tassie, Business Growth Expert and Founder at Know Your Business, puts it plainly: “When capital and founders move out of the state you don’t just lose tax you also lose investment and job creation.”

That is particularly relevant in sectors like technology and biotech, where California’s dominance depends on its ability to attract both talent and capital from around the world.

What Could This Mean for Ordinary Californians?

Supporters of the billionaire tax rightly argue that the policy is aimed at funding services that benefit wider society. If successful, it could help support education, healthcare and infrastructure investment.

But, at the same time, critics caution that economic ecosystems are interconnected. Reduced investment, fewer startups and slower business growth tend to affect employment opportunities, wage growth and innovation – outcomes that directly impact everyday residents.

Jared Kessler, Founder of ForexBroker.tips, highlights this risk: “A policy focused on one group can cause ripples throughout the economy by causing investors to be less likely to invest in their respective industries due to increased economic uncertainty.”

In that sense, the key question isn’t just whether billionaires pay more tax, but whether California’s overall economic engine remains as strong as it has been for decades.

A Defining Moment for California’s Future

California’s challenge isn’t unique. Governments around the world are grappling with how to tax extreme wealth fairly without discouraging the entrepreneurship and investment that drive economic growth. But, because of California’s outsized role in the global innovation economy, the stakes here are unusually high.

If policymakers can strike the right balance, the state may succeed in strengthening public finances while preserving its attractiveness to founders and investors. If they misjudge it, however, the consequences may not be immediate – but the truth is, they could be long-lasting.

The billionaire wealth tax debate is therefore less about a handful of ultra-wealthy individuals, and more about what kind of economic environment California wants to create for the next generation of businesses.

Our Experts:

• Jared Kessler: Founder of ForexBroker.tips
• Christine Concepción: Partner at Concepción Global
• Benjamin Trujillo: Partner J.D., LL.M. at MONETA
• Jason Tassie: Business Growth Expert and Founder at Know Your Business

Jared Kessler, Founder of ForexBroker.tips

“Would this wealth tax meaningfully benefit California’s budget?

“Theoretically, there will be a one-time boost in revenue from a single wealth tax on the wealthy; however, actual revenues collected from such a tax typically fall short of estimated revenues because of asset valuations that cannot be agreed upon, legal challenges to the tax, and assets that cannot be liquidated. A one-time tax does nothing to address recurring structural deficit obligations in California’s budget. A one-time tax will temporarily fund a program, but it is not an ongoing fiscal solution to the state’s problems.

“Potential unintended consequences for businesses and investment

“The proposed plan creates an environment of policy uncertainty, which is likely to slow business decisions regarding investments. Investment in businesses that have a large amount of capital from ultra-high-net-worth individuals could be delayed as these businesses are less likely to expand their operations, and/or they will make changes to their plans for growth, to include locations with less risk than the current location.

“Although a mass migration of jobs may not occur immediately due to the proposed plan, it is possible that, over time, a reduction in venture funding and private investment in local businesses will negatively impact job development.

“Likelihood of billionaire flight and effectiveness

“Legally, relocation of assets is complicated and will not be a quick or absolute legal shelter from tax due to residency laws.Planning for long-term relocation of assets may begin years prior to the enactment of new taxes on income.Partial relocation of wealth (capital), as opposed to a physical move of people, will still have the impact of reducing a portion of the taxable economic activity that occurs in the state.

“Impact on average Californians

“Indirect and potential benefits of such policies exist; however, broader, possibly more immediate consequences include reduced economic activity from downstream costs (i.e., lower wages and fewer new business creations).A policy focused on one group can cause ripples throughout the economy by causing investors to be less likely to invest in their respective industries due to increased economic uncertainty.”

Christine Concepción, Partner at Concepción Global

“In my professional view, the proposed billionaire tax in California is poised to face significant challenges and unintended consequences. While the law appears to be retroactive in its application—targeting residents as of January 1, 2026—this does not mean that individuals and businesses will not seek to establish a foothold elsewhere in anticipation of a legal challenge to retroactive application. For instance, figures like Peter Thiel have been building a tangible presence in Miami since as early as 2020, effectively laying the groundwork to argue, if/when necessary, that he is not a California resident. Google co-founder Larry Page is also reportedly planning his exit amidst the billionaire tax law. I have no doubt that they are not the only billionaires who are watching closely and planning a swift exit.

“In essence, while the law may limit retroactive tax planning, it does not prevent proactive relocation efforts as a complete repudiation of California’s tax policy in general. Ultimately, this approach by California is likely to lead to both legal battles and a gradual exodus of high-net-worth individuals who simply won’t stand for being charged a “tax on success.”

For any questions, comments or features, please contact us directly.

Benjamin Trujillo, Partner J.D., LL.M. at MONETA

“A one-time wealth tax of this magnitude is unlikely to produce durable fiscal benefits and may instead distort long-term capital behavior. Even generous revenue estimates represent a small, non-recurring contribution relative to California’s ongoing budget commitments. The practical challenges of valuing illiquid operating businesses, private equity, and global holdings introduce significant administrative complexity and litigation risk.

“California’s deep economic infrastructure does make rapid physical relocation difficult, but it does little to prevent strategic adaptation. High-net-worth individuals may keep residences and legacy operations in-state while directing new investments, business expansions, and philanthropic structures elsewhere. These shifts occur gradually, but can materially affect entrepreneurship, job creation, and innovation over time.

“While relocation alone may not fully shield individuals from aggressive residency enforcement, the policy meaningfully alters long-term planning incentives. For average Californians, any near-term revenue gains risk being offset by reduced private investment, slower business formation, and greater fiscal volatility.”

Jason Tassie, Business Growth Expert and Founder at Know Your Business

“I think that the biggest mistake with the Billionaire Tax Act is assuming that the really high-net-worth individuals behave like ordinary taxpayers, because they don’t!

So even though a one-off wealth tax sounds politically neat, in practice, all it will do is accelerate decisions that were already being considered. For some billionaires, leaving California is just another portfolio decision.

For the state they should consider if these short-term cash grabs will actually risk longer-term revenue. When capital and founders move out of the state you don’t just lose tax you also lose investment and job creation.

This clearly might not benefit ordinary Californians. Wealth taxes only work if the people paying them are in town long enough to collect and the real risk is that California makes itself a less attractive place to invest in new businesses.”

For any questions, comments or features, please contact us directly.