461 California’s New Life Savings Tax Hiding in the “Billionaire Tax” with Hoover Institute Top Gun Benjamin Jaros

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:24:03 — 57.7MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Pandora | RSS | More

California’s November 2026 ballot carries one of the most consequential financial decisions in the state’s history. Marketed as a one-time 5% billionaire tax, Proposition 40 has drawn serious scrutiny from economists and policy researchers. Among those leading the charge in examining its true implications is Benjamin Jaros, a PhD economist and research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution who specializes in public finance, financial economics, and economic history.

On this episode of Christopher Lochhead: Follow Your Different, Benjamin Jaros broke down the realities of this proposed tax in ways that challenge the official narrative being sold to California voters. His research, along with that of his colleagues at Hoover, reveals a far more sweeping and dangerous policy than what is being advertised to the public.

You’re listening to Christopher Lochhead: Follow Your Different. We are the real dialogue podcast for people with a different mind. So get your mind in a different place, and hey ho, let’s go.

 

Benjamin Jaros Explains Why This Is America’s First True Net Worth Tax

Benjamin Jaros was careful to draw an important distinction when discussing the historical context of wealth taxation in America. While critics on the left point to 19th-century general property taxes as precedent, Jaros clarified that those taxes targeted tangible assets tied to land and physical structures. They ultimately failed to capture intangible assets as corporate incorporation rose in the early 20th century.

What Prop 40 proposes is fundamentally different. It would tax an individual’s total net worth, meaning the value of everything you own, whether or not you have sold anything or received any financial gain. This makes it, as Jaros confirmed, the first true net worth tax in American history, a distinction that carries enormous consequences for how assets are legally treated in California.

 

The Constitutional Vulnerabilities Hidden Inside Prop 40

One of the most revealing parts of Benjamin Jaros’s research involves the serious constitutional challenges that Prop 40 is likely to face if passed. He identified multiple legal fault lines, starting with the retroactive residency clause, which would make the tax effective from January 1st of the previous year, even though voters would not approve it until November. Jaros noted that the bill’s own drafters included severability clauses, signaling they already knew this was a legal vulnerability.

Beyond retroactivity, Jaros highlighted major concerns around California’s attempt to tax worldwide assets, including those held by foreign nationals living in the state. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution limits state taxing authority to what the federal government can also reach. California cannot extend its taxing power beyond what federal law permits, which creates significant legal exposure that will almost certainly result in Supreme Court litigation.

 

Why the “One-Time Billionaire Tax” Story Does Not Hold Up

Benjamin Jaros and Christopher Lochhead both zeroed in on what may be the most critical detail buried inside Prop 40. Section 510 of the Billionaire Tax Act allows the California legislature to amend virtually any part of the act with a two-thirds vote, as long as the changes are deemed to further the purposes of the act. That language is broad enough to allow changes to the rate, the threshold, and even the one-time nature of the tax itself.

This means that what is being sold as a limited, one-time measure on 200 billionaires could legally be expanded to cover far more Californians over time. Jaros pointed out that the state supreme court, which would adjudicate whether any amendments fall within the purposes of the act, is stacked with appointees who are broadly deferential to legislative decisions. The structural safeguards that voters might assume exist simply are not strong enough to prevent future expansion of this tax down to far lower wealth thresholds.

 

Bio

Benjamin Jaros is an economist and research fellow at the Hoover Institution. He specializes in public finance, financial economics, and economic history, with a focus on federal, state, and local taxation. His recent research examines wealth taxation, budget scoring, taxpayer behavioral responses to income tax changes, state corporate income tax apportionment formula reforms, and colonial-era tobacco tariffs. He produces revenue estimates and fiscal impact analyses of state and federal tax policy.

His research and commentary have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and RealClearPolitics. He has previously worked at the Tax Foundation and served as a research assistant in academic, policy, and private-sector settings. Jaros received his BS in economics, magna cum laude, from Seton Hall University and his MA and PhD in economics from Clemson University.

 

Links

Hoover Institute | Github | LinkedIn

We hope you enjoyed this episode of Christopher Lochhead: Follow Your Different™! Christopher loves hearing from his listeners. Feel free to email him, connect on Facebook, X, LinkedIn, and subscribe on Apple Podcast / Spotify!