California helped make them among the richest people in the world. Now they’re fleeing because California wants a little something back.

The proposed California Billionaire Tax Act has plutocrats saying they are considering deserting the Golden State for fear they’ll have to pay a one-time, 5% tax, on top of the other taxes they barely pay in comparison to the rest of us. Think of it as the Dust Bowl migration in reverse, with The Monied headed East to grow their fortunes.

The measure would apply to billionaires residing in California as of Jan. 1, 2026, meaning that 2025 was a big moving year month among the 200 wealthiest California households subject to the tax.

The recently departed reportedly include In-n-Out Burger owner and heiress Lynsi Snyder, PayPal co-founder and conservative donor Peter Thiel, Venture Capitalist David Sacks, co-founder of Craft Ventures, and Google co-founder Larry Page, who recently purchased $173 million worth of waterfront property in Miami’s Coconut Grove. Thank goodness he landed on his feet in these tough times.

The principal sponsor behind the Billionaire Tax Act is the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), which contends that the tax could raise a $100 billion to offset severe federal cutbacks to California’s public education, food assistance and Medicaid programs.

The initiative is designed to offset some of the tax breaks that billionaires received from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act recently passed by the Republican-dominated Congress and signed by President Trump.

According to my colleague Michael Hiltzik, the bill “will funnel as much as $1 trillion in tax benefits to the wealthy over the next decade, while blowing a hole in state and local budgets for healthcare and other needs.”

The drafters of the Billionaire Tax Act still have to gather around 875,000 signatures from registered voters by June 24 for the measure to qualify on November’s ballot. But given the public ire toward the growing wealth of the 1%, and the affordability crisis engulfing much of the rest of the nation, it has a fair chance of making it onto the ballot.

If the tax should be voted into law, what would it mean for those poor tycoons who failed to pack up the Lamborghinis in time? For Thiel, whose net worth is around $27.5 billion, it would be around $1.2 billion, should he choose to stay, and he’d have up to five years to pay it.

Yes, it’s a lot … if you’re not a billionaire. It’s doubtful any of the potentially affected affluents would feel the pinch, but it could make a world of difference for kids depending on free school lunches, or folks who need medical care but can’t afford it because they’ve been squeezed by a system that places much of the tax burden on them.

According to the California Budget & Policy Center, the bottom fifth of California’s non-elderly families, with an average annual income of $13,900, spend an estimated 10.5% of their incomes on state and local taxes. In comparison, the wealthiest 1% of families, with an average annual income of $2.0 million, spend an estimated 8.7% of their incomes on state and local taxes.

“It’s a matter of values,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) posted on X. “We believe billionaires can pay a modest wealth tax so working-class Californians have Medicaid.”

Many have argued losing all that wealth to other states will hurt California in the long run.

Even Gov. Gavin Newsom has argued against the measure, citing that the wealthy can relocate anywhere else to evade the tax. During the New York Times DealBook Summit last month, Newsom said, “You can’t isolate yourself from the 49 others. We’re in a competitive environment.”

He has a point, as do others who contend that the proposed tax may hurt California rather then help.

Sacks signaled he was leaving California by posting an image of the Texas flag on Dec. 31 on X and writing: “God bless Texas.” He followed with a post that read, “As a response to socialism, Miami will replace NYC as the finance capital and Austin will replace SF as the tech capital.”

Arguments aside, it’s disturbing to think that some of the richest people in the nation would rather pick up and move than put a small fraction of their vast California-made — or in the case of the burger chain, inherited — fortunes toward helping others who need a financial boost.

A still from ‘Song Sung Blue’.
| Photo Credit: Focus Features/YouTube

Stephen A. Smith is arguably the most-well known sports commentator in the country. But the outspoken ESPN commentator’s perspective outside the sports arena has landed him in a firestorm.

The furor is due to his pointed comments defending an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who fatally shot a Minneapolis woman driving away from him.

Just hours after the shooting on Wednesday, Smith said on his SiriusXM “Straight Shooter” talk show that although the killing of Renee Nicole Good was “completely unnecessary,” he added that the agent “from a lawful perspective” was “completely justified” in firing his gun at her.

He also noted, “From a humanitarian perspective, however, why did he have to do that?”

Smith’s comments about the agent being in harm’s way echoed the views of Deputy of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who said Good engaged in an “act of domestic terrorism” by attacking officers and attempting to run them over with her vehicle.

However, videos showing the incident from different angles indicate that the agent was not standing directly in front of Good’s vehicle when he opened fire on her. Local officials contend that Good posed no danger to ICE officers. A video posted by partisan media outlet Alpha News showed Good talking to agents before the shooting, saying, “I’m not mad at you.”

The shooting has sparked major protests and accusations from local officials that the presence of ICE has been disruptive and escalated violence. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frye condemned ICE, telling agents to “get the f— out of our city.”

The incident, in turn, has put a harsher spotlight on Smith, raising questions on whether he was reckless or irresponsible in offering his views on Good’s shooting when he had no direct knowledge of what had transpired.

An angered Smith appeared on his “Straight Shooter” show on YouTube on Friday, saying the full context of his comments had not been conveyed in media reports, specifically calling out the New York Post and media personality Keith Olbermann, while saying that people were trying to get him fired.

He also doubled down on his contention that Good provoked the situation that led to her death, saying the ICE agent was in front of Good’s car and would have been run over had he not stepped out of the way.

“In the moment when you are dealing with law enforcement officials, you obey their orders so you can get home safely,” he said. “Renee Good did not do that.”

When reached for comment about his statements, a representative for Smith said his response was in Friday’s show.

It’s not the first time Smith, who has suggested he’s interesting in going into politics, has sparked outside the sports universe. He and journalist Joy Reid publicly quarreled following her exit last year from MSNBC.

He also faced backlash from Black media personalities and others when he accused Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas of using “street verbiage” in her frequent criticisms of President Trump.

“The way that Jasmine Crockett chooses to express herself … Aren’t you there to try and get stuff done instead of just being an impediment? ‘I’m just going to go off about Trump, cuss him out every chance I get, say the most derogatory things imaginable, and that’s my day’s work?’ That ain’t work! Work is, this is the man in power. I know what his agenda is. Maybe I try to work with this man. I might get something out of it for my constituents.’ ”