California Democrats, supported by prominent left-wing leaders across the country, have proposed a ballot measure for a “one-time wealth tax” on the Golden State’s billionaires. California is already in the top ten states for per capita taxes, with a net domestic migration of about two million residents since 2016. More than 250 billionaires live there, who collectively possess more than $2 trillion. Democrats in favor of the tax see a $100 billion windfall to shore up medical spending. But skeptics see a good reason for billionaires to flee the Left Coast for more pro-business destinations.
If only Democrats in California were an outlier in fiscally disastrous ideas. But no. Apparently, they all suffer fever dreams of America’s wealthy swimming in gold like Scrooge McDuck.
Voices across the Left seem to think that solving America’s problems is as simple as transferring wealth from a few bank accounts to many. Yet such state intervention would not only accomplish the opposite, but empower government to control (and impoverish) ordinary citizens.
Complaints About The Wealthy Are A Bait and Switch
Granted, there are natural reasons for everyday Americans to bristle at hearing stories of billionaires and trillionaires. The tales of excess and unimaginable wealth is far removed from the experience of the average worker, whose median income is around $65,000 a year.
The uber-wealthy don’t have to worry about changes in grocery or gas prices, or whether they can afford a vacation this year. About one in 15 Americans are millionaires, which means it’s possible you know a millionaire, though probably one who is a small business owner with some capital, rather than one ostentatiously flaunting money around.
Remember when former president Joe Biden in his January 2025 farewell address claimed the “ultra-wealthy” are a threat to “our entire democracy?” Later that year, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani more explicitly declared: “I don’t think that we should have billionaires.”
This is not a unique position among Democrats. New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a discussed presidential Democrat contender for 2028, asserted in 2020: “billionaires should not exist.” Democrat Sen. Bernie Sanders, a previous presidential candidate, is on the record saying: “I think billionaires should not exist.” And don’t get the Left started on Elon Musk becoming the world’s first trillionaire, something Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Ro Khanna, and new Democrat darling Graham Platner all found viscerally despicable.
Yet as much as we can be cynical towards uber-wealthy Americans, there’s just as much reason to be skeptical of those demanding their downfall. Think for a moment about who has the loudest, and most influential voice in American politics today.
As John O. McGinnis argues in his recent book Why Democracy Needs the Rich, the answer is obvious: it is “the intelligentsia, or chattering class, including journalists, intellectuals, and entertainers,” who leverage the media, academy, and entertainment industry, to sway public opinion. “Like an unseen current in a river, their influence is constant, even as often relatively inexperienced political appointees with different views struggle to control the flow.” To disempower and silence the wealthy would effectively grant more power and influence to woke power blocs.
What Eliminating the Wealthy Would Really Do
As McGinnis argues, the rich can counter the influence of the “chattering class” in various ways. They can act as an obstacle to special interest groups, because most (though certainly not all) of the wealthy are interested in making money. In seeking out and supporting new business ventures, they overcome the “bureaucratic inertia” of big government.
This is what makes America’s economy so distinct. The United States is far more open to entrepreneurship and innovation, with a venture capital market approximately 3–4 times larger than Europe. There are also at least three times as many billion-dollar start-ups here than across the Atlantic.
The results speak for themselves. America generates incomparable wealth and opportunities, something from which all Americans benefit in untold ways, including what we eat, where we live, what we drive, and what we can accomplish.
Moreover, because wealth somewhat insulates them, the rich can “champion causes that are unpopular with the current majority” in a way that elected politicians often fear doing. Many legitimate voices would effectively be silenced or marginalized if not for wealthy donors who support their cause through supporting think-tanks, institutes, fellowships, and publications.
Because of this, the attack on the wealthy is not merely an attempt to “spread the wealth.” In reality, per McGinnis, it will create a “a more collectivist society, where the state — its bureaucrats and politicians advised by journalists and academics — hold greater and more unchecked authority.” This result will not bring prosperity to wide swaths of American citizens, but further empower bureaucrats, special interest groups, and professional guilds against innovators and entrepreneurs.
“Like a magician’s misdirection, the focus on the rich distracts from the real objective: to concentrate power in the hands of those who claim to speak for the people, while sidelining the diverse and decentralized forces that historically have kept American democracy vibrant and resilient.”
To Celebrate the Wealthy Doesn’t Mean We Canonize Them
The point here is not to valorize the wealthy. They are just as motivated to benefit themselves and their loved ones as any of us are. They want to make money, frequently regardless of the broader negative consequences on society, as the explosion of social media over the last two decades proved.
They are a power bloc, like many others. As Madison argues in Federalist No. 51, the proliferation of power blocs inhibits tyranny, because this disperses power, rather than allowing it to concentrate. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” wrote Madison, and that is precisely what the presence of multiple factions within a society helps accomplish.
The point is also not that America should give the wealthy any special favors — that, too, results in corruption and societal inertia. Rich Americans should have to hustle like the rest of us. When their business practices infringe on our rights, or cause societal harm, they should be confronted and reined in by other power blocs, such as media, the courts, or groups of concerned citizens. But seeking to eliminate wealthy earners is self-defeating, because it would make us more beholden to other power blocs that are already largely ideologically aligned.
Calls to eliminate our nation’s billionaires will make us poorer and more dependent on government and the chattering class and are thus fundamentally counter-productive. Unless, of course, you’re a leftist seeking to aggrandize your power bloc at the expense of ordinary Americans. In that case, it’s one of the best ways to undermine our republican regime.
