That shrill, high-pitched squeal you’ve been hearing lately? Don’t bother trying to adjust your TV or headphones, or calling your doctor for a tinnitis check. It’s just America’s beleaguered billionaires keening over a proposal in California to impose a one-time wealth tax of up to 5% on fortunes of more than $1 billion.

The billionaires lobby has been hitting social media in force to decry the proposed voter initiative, which has only started down the path toward an appearance on November’s state ballot. Supporters say it could raise $100 billion over five years, to be spent mostly on public education, food assistance and California’s medicaid program, which face severe cutbacks thanks to federal budget-cutting.

As my colleagues Seema Mehta and Caroline Petrow-Cohen report, the measure has the potential to become a political flash point.

Its well-heeled critics include Jessie Powell, co-founder of the Bay Area-based crypto exchange platform Kraken, who warned on X that billionaires would flee the state, taking with them “all of their spending, hobbies, philanthropy and jobs.”

Venture investor Chamath Palihapitiya claimed on X that “$500 billion in wealth has already fled the state” but didn’t name names. San Francisco venture investor Ron Conway has seeded the opposition coffers with a $100,000 contribution. And billionaire Peter Thiel disclosed on Dec. 31 that he has opened a new office in Miami, in a state that not only has no wealth tax but no income tax.

Already Gov. Gavin Newsom, a likely candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, has warned against the tax, arguing that it’s impractical for one state to go it alone when the wealthy can pick up and move to any other state to evade it.

On the other hand. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), usually an ally of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, supports the measure: “It’s a matter of values,” he posted on X. “We believe billionaires can pay a modest wealth tax so working-class Californians have Medicaid.”

Not every billionaire has decried the wealth tax idea. Jensen Huang, the CEO of the soaring AI chip company Nvidia — and whose estimated net worth is more than $160 billion — expressed indifference about the California proposal during an interview with Bloomberg on Tuesday.

“We chose to live in Silicon Valley and whatever taxes, I guess, they would like to apply, so be it,” he said. “I’m perfectly fine with it. It never crossed my mind once.”

And in 2000, another plutocrat well known to Americans proposed a one-time tax of 14.25% on taxpayers with a net worth of $10 million or more. That was Donald Trump, in a book-length campaign manifesto titled “The America We Deserve.”

“The rich will scream,” Trump predicted. “The pundits and editorial-board writers will warn of dire consequences … a stock market crash, a depression, unemployment, and so on. Notice that the people making such objections would have something personal to lose.” (Thanks due to Tim Noah of the New Republic for unearthing this gem.)

Trump’s book appeared while he was contemplating his first presidential campaign, in which he presented himself as a defender of the ordinary American. His ghostwriter, Dave Shiflett, later confessed that he regarded the book as “my first published work of fiction.”

All that said, let’s take a closer look at the proposed initiative and its backers’ motivation. It’s gaining nationwide attention because California has more billionaires than any other state.

The California measure’s principal sponsor, the Service Employees International Union, and its allies will have to gather nearly 875,000 signatures of registered voters by June 24 to reach the ballot. The opposition is gearing up behind the catchphrase “Stop the Squeeze” — an odd choice for a rallying cry, since it’s hard to imagine the average voter getting all het up about multibillionaires getting squoze.

The measure would exempt directly held real estate, pensions and retirement accounts from the calculation of net worth. The tax can be paid over five years (with a fee charged for deferrals). It applies to billionaires residing in California as of Jan. 1, 2026; their net worth would be assessed as of Dec. 31 this year. The measure’s drafters estimate that about 200 of the wealthiest California households would be subject to the tax.

The initiative is explicitly designed to claw back some of the tax breaks that billionaires received from the recent budget bill passed by the Republican-dominated Congress and signed on July 4 by President Trump. The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act 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.

California will lose about $19 billion a year for Medi-Cal alone. According to the measure’s drafters, that could mean the loss of Medi-Cal coverage for as many as 1.6 million Californians. Even those who retain their eligibility will have to pay more out of pocket due to provisions in the budget bill.

The measure’s critics observe that wealth taxes have had something of a checkered history worldwide, although they often paint a more dire picture than the record reflects. Twelve European countries imposed broad-based wealth taxes as recently as 1995, but these have been repealed by eight of them.

According to the Tax Foundation Europe, that leaves wealth taxes in effect only in Colombia, Norway, Spain and Switzerland. But that’s not exactly correct. Wealth taxes still exist in France and Italy, where they’re applied there to real estate as property taxes, and in Belgium, where they’re levied on securities accounts valued at more than 1 million euros, or about $1.16 million.

Switzerland’s wealth tax is by far the oldest, having been enacted in 1840. It’s levied annually by individual cantons on all residents, at rates reaching up to about 1% of net worth, after deductions and exclusions for certain categories of assets.

The European countries that repealed their wealth taxes did so for varied reasons. Most were responding at least partially to special pleading by the wealthy, who threatened to relocate to friendlier jurisdictions in a continent-wide low-tax contest.

That’s the principal threat raised by opponents of the California proposal. But there are grounds to question whether the effect would be so stark. For one thing, notes UC Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman, an advocate of wealth taxes generally, “it has become impossible to avoid the tax by leaving the state.” Billionaires who hadn’t already established residency elsewhere by Jan. 1 this year have missed a crucial deadline.

The initiative’s drafters question the assumption that millionaires invariably move from high- to low-tax jurisdictions, citing several studies, including one from 2016 based on IRS statistics showing that elites are generally unwilling to move to exploit tax advantages across state lines.

As for the argument that billionaires could avoid the tax by moving assets out of the state, “the location of the assets doesn’t matter,” Zucman told me by email. “Taxpayers would be liable for the tax on their worldwide assets.”

One issue raised by the burgeoning controversy over the California proposal is how to extract a fair share of public revenue from plutocrats, whose wealth has surged higher while their effective tax rates have declined to historically low levels.

There can be no doubt that in tax terms, America’s wealthiest families make out like bandits. The total effective tax rate of the 400 richest U.S. households, according to an analysis by Zucman, his UC Berkeley colleague Emmanuel Saez, and their co-authors, “averaged 24% in 2018-2020 compared with 30% for the full population and 45% for top labor income earners.” This is largely due to the preferences granted by the federal capital gains tax, which is levied only when a taxable asset is sold and even then at a lower rate than the rate on wage income.

The late tax expert at USC, Ed Kleinbard, used to describe the capital gains tax as our only voluntary tax, since wealthy families can avoid selling their stocks and bonds indefinitely but can borrow against them, tax-free, for funds to live on; if they die before selling, the imputed value of their holdings is “stepped up” to their value at their passing, extinguishing forever what could be decades of embedded tax liabilities. (The practice has been labeled “buy, borrow, die.”)

Californians have recently voted to redress the increasing inequality of our tax system. Voters approved what was dubbed a “millionaires tax” in 2012, imposing a surcharge of 1% to 3% on incomes over $263,000 (for joint filers, $526,000). In 2016, voters extended the surcharge to 2030 from the original phase-out date of 2016. That measure passed overwhelmingly, by a 2-to-1 majority, easily surpassing that of the original initiative.

But it may be that California’s ability to tax billionaires’ income has been pretty much tapped out. Some have argued that one way to obtain more revenue from wealthy households is to eliminate any preferential rate on capital gains and other investment income, but that’s not an option for California, since the state doesn’t offer a preferential tax rate on that income, unlike the federal government and many other states. The unearned income is taxed at the same rate as wages.

One virtue of the California proposal is that, even if it fails to get enacted or even to reach the ballot, it may trigger more discussion of options for taxing plutocratic fortunes. One suggestion came from hedge fund operator Bill Ackman, who reviled the California proposal on X as “an expropriation of private property” (though he’s not a California resident himself), but acknowledged that “one shouldn’t be able to live and spend like a billionaire and pay no tax.”

Ackman’s idea is to make loans backed by stock holdings taxable, “as if you sold the same dollar amount of stock as the loan amount.” That would eliminate the free ride that investors can enjoy by borrowing against their holdings.

The debate over the California wealth tax may well hinge on delving into plutocrat psychology. Will they just pay the bill, as Huang implies would be his choice? Or relocate from California out of pique?

California is still a magnet for the ambitious entrepreneur, and the drafters of the initiative have tried to preserve its allure. Those who come into the state after Jan. 1 to pursue their ambitious dreams of entrepreneurship would be exempt, as would residents whose billion-dollar fortunes came after that date. There may be better ways for California to capture more revenue from the state’s population of multibillionaires, but a one-time limited tax seems, at this moment, to be as good as any.

Paramount’s campaign to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery was dealt another blow Wednesday after Warner’s board rejected a revised bid from the company.

The board cited the enormous debt load that Paramount would need to finance its proposed $108-billion takeover.

Warner’s board this week unanimously voted against Paramount’s most recent hostile offer — despite tech billionaire Larry Ellison agreeing in late December to personally guarantee the equity portion of Paramount’s bid. Members were not swayed, concluding the bid backed by Ellison and Middle Eastern royal families was not in the best interest of the company or its shareholders.

Warner’s board pointed to its signed agreement with Netflix, saying the streaming giant’s offer to buy the Warner studios and HBO was solid.

The move marked the sixth time Warner’s board has said no to Paramount since Ellison’s son, Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison, first expressed interest in buying the larger entertainment company in September.

In a Wednesday letter to investors, Warner board members wrote that Paramount Skydance has a market value of $14 billion. However, the firm is “attempting an acquisition requiring $94.65 billion of [debt and equity] financing, nearly seven times its total market capitalization.”

The structure of Paramount’s proposal was akin to a leveraged buyout, Warner said, adding that if Paramount was to pull it off, the deal would rank as the largest leveraged buyout in U.S. history.

“The extraordinary amount of debt financing as well as other terms of the PSKY offer heighten the risk of failure to close, particularly when compared to the certainty of the Netflix merger,” the Warner board said, reiterating a stance that its shareholders should stick to its preferred alternative to sell much of the company to Netflix.

The move puts pressure on Paramount to shore up its financing or boost its cash offer above $30 a share.

However, raising its bid without increasing the equity component would only add to the amount of debt that Paramount would need to buy HBO, CNN, TBS, Animal Planet and the Burbank-based Warner Bros. movie and television studios.

Paramount representatives were not immediately available for comment.

“There is still a path for Paramount to outbid Netflix with a substantially higher bid, but it will require an overhaul of their current bid,” Lightshed Partners media analyst Rich Greenfield wrote in a Wednesday note to investors. Paramount would need “a dramatic increase in the cash invested from the Ellison family and/or their friends and financing partners.”

Warner Bros. Discovery’s shares held steady around $28.55. Paramount Skydance ticked down less than 1% to $12.44.

Netflix has fallen 17% to about $90 a share since early December, when it submitted its winning bid.

The jostling comes a month after Warner’s board unanimously agreed to sell much of the company to Netflix for $72 billion. The Warner board on Wednesday reaffirmed its support for the Netflix deal, which would hand a treasured Hollywood collection, including HBO, DC Comics and the Warner Bros. film studio, to the streaming giant. Netflix has offered $27.75 a share.

“By joining forces, we will offer audiences even more of the series and films they love — at home and in theaters — expand opportunities for creators, and help foster a dynamic, competitive, and thriving entertainment industry,” Netflix co-Chief Executives Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters said in a joint statement Wednesday.

After Warner struck the deal with Netflix on Dec. 4, Paramount turned hostile — making its appeal directly to Warner shareholders.

Paramount has asked Warner investors to sell their shares to Paramount, setting a Jan. 21 deadline for the tender offer.

Warner again recommended its shareholders disregard Paramount’s overtures.

Warner Bros.’ sale comes amid widespread retrenchment in the entertainment industry and could lead to further industry downsizing.

The Ellison family acquired Paramount’s controlling stake in August and quickly set out to place big bets, including striking a $7.7-billion deal for UFC fights. The company, which owns the CBS network, also cut more than 2,000 jobs.

Warner Bros. Discovery was formed in 2022 following phone giant AT&T’s sale of the company, then known as WarnerMedia, to the smaller cable programming company, Discovery.

To finance that $43-billion acquisition, Discovery took on considerable debt. Its leadership, including Chief Executive David Zaslav, spent nearly three years cutting staff and pulling the plug on projects to pay down debt.

Paramount would need to take on even more debt — more than $60 billion — to buy all of Warner Bros. Discovery, Warner said.

Warner has argued that it would incur nearly $5 billion in costs if it were to terminate its Netflix deal. The amount includes a $2.8-billion breakup fee that Warner would have to fork over to Netflix. Paramount hasn’t agreed to cover that amount.

Warner also has groused that other terms in Paramount’s proposal were problematic, making it difficult to refinance some of its debt while the transaction was pending.

Warner leaders say their shareholders should see greater value if the company is able to move forward with its planned spinoff of its cable channels, including CNN, into a separate company called Discovery Global later this year. That step is needed to set the stage for the Netflix transaction because the streaming giant has agreed to buy only the Warner Bros. film and television studios, HBO and the HBO Max streaming platform.

However, this month’s debut of Versant, comprising CNBC, MS NOW and other former Comcast channels, has clouded that forecast. During its first three days of trading, Versant stock has fallen more than 20%.

Warner’s board rebuffed three Paramount proposals before the board opened the bidding to other companies in late October.

Board members also rejected Paramount’s Dec. 4 all-cash offer of $30 a share. Two weeks later, it dismissed Paramount’s initial hostile proposal.

At the time, Warner registered its displeasure over the lack of clarity around Larry Ellison’s financial commitment to Paramount’s bid. Days later, Ellison agreed to personally guarantee $40.4 billion in equity financing that Paramount needs.

David Ellison has complained that Warner Bros. Discovery has not fairly considered his company’s bid, which he maintains is a more lucrative deal than Warner’s proposed sale to Netflix. Some investors may agree with Ellison’s assessment, in part, due to concerns that government regulators could thwart the Netflix deal out of concerns about the Los Gatos firm’s increasing dominance.

“Both potential mergers could severely harm the viewing public, creative industry workers, journalists, movie theaters that depend on studio content, and their surrounding main-street businesses, too,” Matt Wood, general counsel for consumer group Free Press Action, testified Wednesday during a congressional committee hearing.

“We fear either deal would reduce competition in streaming and adjacent markets, with fewer choices for consumers and fewer opportunities for writers, actors, directors, and production technicians,” Wood said. “Jobs will be lost. Stories will go untold.”

The fiery debate about a proposed ballot measure to tax California’s billionaires has sparked some soul-searching across the state.

While the idea of a one-time tax on more than 200 people has a long way to go before getting onto the ballot and would need to be passed by voters in November, the tempest around it captures the zeitgeist of angst and anger at the core of California. Silicon Valley is minting new millionaires while millions of the state’s residents face the loss of healthcare coverage and struggle with inflation.

Supporters of the proposed billionaire tax say it is one of the few ways the state can provide healthcare for its most vulnerable. Opponents warn it would squash the innovation that has made the state rich and prompt an exodus of wealthy entrepreneurs from the state.

The controversial measure is already creating fractures among powerful Democrats who enjoy tremendous sway in California. Progressive icon Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) quickly endorsed the billionaire tax, while Gov. Gavin Newsom denounced it .

The Golden State’s rich residents say they are tired of feeling targeted. Their success has not only created unimaginable wealth but also jobs and better lives for Californians, they say, yet they feel they are being punished.

“California politics forces together some of the richest areas of America with some of the poorest, often separated by just a freeway,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego. “The impulse to force those with extreme wealth to share their riches is only natural, but often runs into the reality of our anti-tax traditions as well as modern concerns about stifling entrepreneurship or driving job creation out of the state.”

The state budget in California is already largely dependent on income taxes paid by its highest earners. Because of that, revenues are prone to volatility, hinging on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, and are notoriously difficult for the state to predict.

The tax proposal would cost the state’s richest residents about $100 billion if a majority of voters support it on the November ballot.

Supporters say the revenue is needed to backfill the massive federal funding cuts to healthcare that President Trump signed this summer. The California Budget & Policy Center estimates that as many as 3.4 million Californians could lose Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals could shutter and other healthcare services would be slashed unless a new funding source is found.

On social media, some wealthy Californians who oppose the wealth tax faced off against Democratic politicians and labor unions.

An increasing number of companies and investors have decided it isn’t worth the hassle to be in the state and are taking their companies and their homes to other states with lower taxes and less regulation.

“I promise you this will be the final straw,” Jessie Powell, co-founder of the Bay Area-based crypto exchange platform Kraken, wrote on X. “Billionaires will take with them all of their spending, hobbies, philanthropy and jobs.”

Proponents of the proposed tax were granted permission to start gathering signatures Dec. 26 by California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

The proposal would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets, such as businesses, art and intellectual property, valued at more than $1 billion. There are some exclusions, including property.

They could pay the levy over five years. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs and the remaining 10% would be spent on food assistance and education programs.

To qualify for the November ballot, proponents of the proposal, led by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, must gather the signatures of nearly 875,000 registered voters and submit them to county elections officials by June 24.

The union, which represents more than 120,000 healthcare workers, patients and healthcare consumers, has committed to spending $14 million on the measure so far and plans to start collecting signatures soon, said Suzanne Jimenez, the labor group’s chief of staff.

Without new funding, the state is facing “a collapse of our healthcare system here in California,” she said.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) spoke out in support of the tax.

“It’s a matter of values,” he said on X. “We believe billionaires can pay a modest wealth tax so working-class Californians have the Medicaid.”

The Trump administration did not respond to requests for comment.

The debate has become a lightning rod for national thought leaders looking to target California’s policies or the ultra-rich.

On Tuesday, Sanders endorsed the billionaire tax proposal and said he plans to call for a nationwide version.

“This is a model that should be emulated throughout the country, which is why I will soon be introducing a national wealth tax on billionaires,” Sanders said on X. “We can and should respect innovation, entrepreneurship and risk-taking, but we cannot respect the extraordinary level of greed, arrogance and irresponsibility that is currently being displayed by much of the billionaire class.”

But there isn’t unanimous support for the proposal among Democrats.

Notably, Newsom has consistently opposed state-based wealth taxes. He reiterated his opposition when asked about the proposed billionaires’ tax in early December.

“You can’t isolate yourself from the 49 others,” Newsom said at the New York Times DealBook Summit. “We’re in a competitive environment. People have this simple luxury, particularly people of that status, they already have two or three homes outside the state. It’s a simple issue. You’ve got to be pragmatic about it.”

Newsom has opposed state-based wealth taxes throughout his tenure.

In 2022, he opposed a ballot measure that would have subsidized the electric vehicle market by raising taxes on Californians who earn more than $2 million annually. The measure failed at the ballot box, with strategists on both sides of the issue saying Newsom’s vocal opposition to the effort was a critical factor.

The following year, he opposed legislation by a fellow Democrat to tax assets exceeding $50 million at 1% annually and taxpayers with a net worth greater than $1 billion at 1.5% annually. The bill was shelved before the legislature could vote on it.

The latest effort is also being opposed by a political action committee called “Stop the Squeeze,” which was seeded by a $100,000 donation from venture capitalist and longtime Newsom ally Ron Conway. Conservative taxpayer rights groups such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. and state Republicans are expected to campaign against the proposal.

The chances of the ballot measure passing in November are uncertain, given the potential for enormous spending on the campaign — unlike statewide and other candidate races, there is no limit on the amount of money donors can contribute to support or oppose a ballot measure.

“The backers of this proposed initiative to tax California billionaires would have their work cut out for them,” said Kousser at UC San Diego. “Despite the state’s national reputation as ‘Scandinavia by the Sea,’ there remains a strong anti-tax impulse among voters who often reject tax increases and are loath to kill the state’s golden goose of tech entrepreneurship.”

Additionally, as Newsom eyes a presidential bid in 2028, political experts question how the governor will position himself — opposing raising taxes but also not wanting to be viewed as responsible for large-scale healthcare cuts that would harm the most vulnerable Californians.

“It wouldn’t be surprising if they qualify the initiative. There’s enough money and enough pent-up anger on the left to get this on the ballot,” said Dan Schnur, a political communications professor who teaches at USC, Pepperdine and UC Berkeley.

“What happens once it qualifies is anybody’s guess,” he said.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, called Newsom’s position “an Achilles heel” that could irk primary voters in places like the Midwest who are focused on economic inequality, inflation, affordability and the growing wealth gap.

“I think it’s going to be really hard for him to take a position that we shouldn’t tax the billionaires,” said Gonzalez, whose labor umbrella group will consider whether to endorse the proposed tax next year.

Peter Thiel speaks at the Cambridge Union in 2024.

(Nordin Catic / Getty Images for the Cambridge Union)

California billionaires who are residents of the state as of Jan. 1 would be impacted by the ballot measure if it passes . Prominent business leaders announced moves that appeared to be a strategy to avoid the levy at the end of 2025. On Dec. 31, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel announced that his firm had opened a new office in Miami, the same day venture capitalist David Sacks said he was opening an office in Austin.

Wealth taxes are not unprecedented in the U.S. and versions exist in Switzerland and Spain, said Brian Galle, a taxation expert and law professor at UC Berkeley.

In California, the tax offers an efficient and practical way to pay for healthcare services without disrupting the economy, he said.

“A 1% annual tax on billionaires for five years would have essentially no meaningful impact on their economic behavior,” Galle said. “We’re funding a way of avoiding a real economic disaster with something that has very tiny impact.”

Palo Alto-based venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya disagrees. Billionaires whose wealth is often locked in company stakes and not liquid could go bankrupt, Palihapitiya wrote on X.

The tax, he posted, “will kill entrepreneurship in California.”