Billionaire Palmer Luckey isn’t leaving California over the wealth tax
Palmer Luckey says he will stay in California despite opposing a proposed wealth tax on the state’s billionaires. The Anduril founder argues the measure could prompt companies and people he works with to leave, but says he still believes the state can address its problems.
Luckey said his objection is not to paying taxes, but to the proposal’s sponsor and how the money would be used; organisers say revenue would support healthcare, education and food assistance, including Medi-Cal. The measure would tax wealth that includes unsold or hard-to-sell assets, and penalties could reach 40%. A dispute also concerns how company voting control would be valued: critics say founders with super-voting shares could be taxed on a larger stake than they economically own, while the measure’s drafters dispute that interpretation.
In short
- Palmer Luckey says he is staying in California.
- He opposes the proposed billionaire wealth tax.
- The measure’s treatment of company control is disputed.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters can argue that a one-off tax on billionaire wealth would raise substantial revenue for healthcare, education and food assistance, while asking those with the greatest capacity to contribute more. They may see taxing accumulated wealth as fairer than relying mainly on wages and ordinary income, and regard public investment as a way to address California’s problems.
The case against
Opponents can argue that taxing assets which have not been sold, or are difficult to value or liquidate, could force founders to sell shares or divert resources from their companies. They may also be concerned that uncertain valuation rules and steep penalties could drive investment and people out of California, while disputing whether the proposal’s revenue would be used effectively.
Explained simply
Palmer Luckey is a technology entrepreneur who founded Anduril, a defence technology company, and made his fortune in California. A proposed state measure would impose a one-off tax on the wealth of billionaires, with money intended for services including healthcare, education and food assistance.
The proposal raises questions about how to value wealth held in company shares, especially when those shares are difficult to sell. It also draws attention to the difference between having voting control of a company and owning an equivalent share of its economic value.
The debate matters because the tax could affect how wealthy residents and businesses plan their finances, as well as how California funds public services. Its supporters and critics disagree over how it would work and what effects it could have.