California’s proposed “Billionaire Tax Act,” a one-time 5% levy on residents with a net worth of $1 billion or more as of January 1, 2026, is facing significant headwinds, according to a new poll. With roughly 10 months until the November 2026 elections, the initiative, which is currently gathering signatures for ballot inclusion, reveals a deeply divided electorate and growing voter skepticism about its practical implementation and economic consequences.
The Mellman Group poll, commissioned by Republican strategist Mike Murphy and conducted among 800 likely California voters from January 6-12, indicates that the proposal starts with 48% support and 38% opposition, leaving a substantial 14% undecided. Crucially, ballot initiatives that begin with less than 50% support often struggle to gain momentum.
When voters were presented with both supporting and opposing arguments, the numbers shifted, with support dipping to 46% and opposition rising to 44%. This suggests that while the concept of taxing the ultra-wealthy may hold initial appeal, concerns about the potential negative impacts on California’s economy are proving potent. As Murphy noted, “There’s no love for billionaires… But there are severe doubts among voters about whether or not this measure will deliver what it promises.”
The initiative, spearheaded by the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West, aims to fund healthcare shortfalls exacerbated by federal funding cuts. The union estimates that approximately 200 individuals would be subject to the tax. However, the poll highlights significant voter apprehension regarding the actual revenue that could be generated. A substantial 69% of respondents believe it is highly probable that billionaires will employ legal and financial strategies to evade the tax, potentially leading to revenue collection falling far short of projections.
Furthermore, a pervasive concern is that the tax could trigger an exodus of high-net-worth individuals and their businesses from the state, thereby harming California’s economic base. Nearly half of those polled consider it almost certain or very likely that the initiative will face prolonged legal challenges. This sentiment is coupled with the fear that wealthy taxpayers, who already contribute significantly to the state’s tax revenue, might relocate to jurisdictions with more favorable tax environments.
The Mellman Group concluded, “This data paints a clear picture that this initiative faces an uphill battle. Initiatives are in trouble when voters think negative outcomes are significantly more likely than positive outcomes to occur if it passes.” A key challenge for proponents will be to counter the perception that the promised benefits for healthcare funding are less likely to materialize than the potential economic downsides.
The proposed tax has already ignited significant debate within the tech industry, a cornerstone of California’s economy. Prominent venture capitalists and tech leaders have voiced strong opposition. David Sacks, a venture investor and advisor, has been a vocal critic, joined by figures such as Chamath Palihapitiya, Vinod Khosla, and Garry Tan. Reports suggest that Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have departed the state due to the proposal, and Peter Thiel has significantly increased his presence in Miami.
Even within the Democratic party, the measure faces opposition. Governor Gavin Newsom has expressed strong disapproval, as has San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan.
However, not all industry leaders are opposed. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, whose net worth is estimated to exceed $150 billion, has stated he is “perfectly fine with it.” Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky has also indicated his intention to remain in California. Meanwhile, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei described the tax as “poorly designed” during discussions at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
The poll also revealed skepticism regarding the effectiveness of the proposed tax revenue in addressing California’s complex healthcare issues. Michael Bloomfield, managing director of the Mellman Group, noted that messaging centered on safeguarding the budget from federal healthcare cuts was the “least convincing” aspect for respondents. This suggests that proponents will need to develop more compelling narratives that resonate with voters’ concerns about both economic stability and the practical solutions to healthcare challenges.
Original article, Author: Tobias. If you wish to reprint this article, please indicate the source:https://aicnbc.com/16368.html
