When a state seriously threatens a wealth tax, wealthy residents can and do relocate or shift assets quickly enough to erase much of the projected revenue; early public departures (and their reported asset totals) can already remove a large share of the tax base before enactment. Retrospective or retroactive provisions reduce some avoidance but carry legal and political costs and may not stop pre‑emptive moves.
— This matters because it reframes wealth‑tax math: revenue projections must account for rapid behavioral responses and the political signaling effects that can hollow out state income and future tax receipts.
Shawn Regan
2026.11.04
100% relevant
California Proposition 40: Zucman’s $100B estimate vs. Rauh/Jaros’ $30B estimate and reported departures (Page, Brin and others removing ~$540 billion) illustrating avoidance and mobility effects.
← Back to all ideas