Some rich Californians are giving away cash to skirt the state's proposed billionaire tax 45%

By Kristen Altus95%

6/15/2026, 1:00:17 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Biased Writer Voice, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 24.3% saturation with 130 hits. Analysis detected 1,365 faulty-reasoning hits from 535 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.2% and a BS Rank of 45% (12,346 of 22,405 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.10% of the article peer group.

Rather than hand over their fortunes to the California state government, wealthy Californians are finding creative, tax-efficient ways to minimize potential billionaire-tax impact  including giving their money away. 
Some high-net-worth residents in the Golden State are intentionally reducing their balance sheets through philanthropy or real estate strategies because they do not trust Sacramento to spend their tax dollars effectively, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report. 
"People take steps to take advantage of the tax law before it changes all the time. 
This is just another example of that," HCVT partner and advisor Andrew Katzenstein told The Journal, adding that he is working with multiple clients to help them navigate the proposed wealth tax. 
In April, the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) said it had collected more than 1.55 million signatures, according to a press release  nearly double the 875,000-signature requirement  to put a one-time tax on billionaire assets on the California ballot. 
FLEEING FOR THEIR FUTURES, A CALIFORNIA EXODUS UNLEASHES A FLORIDA ‘GOLD RUSH’ 
The California Billionaire Tax Act would target the net worth of roughly 200 residents and impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California residents with assets exceeding $1 billion. 
The tax would be due in 2027, and taxpayers could spread payments over five years, with interest, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. 
If the measure is approved by voters in November, anyone who was a California resident on Jan. 1, 2026, would owe the tax. 
For those who did not move their primary residence by that deadline, they and their financial teams are working to reduce client valuations below the $1 billion mark, including by ramping up charitable donations, as clients would "rather their money go to charities that… do good work than to California’s government, which [they don’t] trust to use the funds effectively," The Journal wrote. 
Other methods aimed at minimizing the tax burden include restructuring balance sheets entirely, delaying private funding rounds and pulling real estate holdings out of corporate LLCs and placing them directly under personal names or revocable trusts to legally shield their property. 
Wealthy residents are also considering purchasing expensive tangible assets, such as art and yachts, while keeping them outside California for at least 270 days per year to legally avoid the tax. 
"I like to tell my students this maxim of tax-planning: Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered," University of Missouri law professor David Gamage told The Journal. 
"You can often get away with some amount of restructuring affairs, but if you go too far and get too greedy, you can get in trouble." 
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE 
Some of the public figures who moved their residences or businesses out of California before Jan. 1, 2026, include Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, Steven Spielberg, Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick and car loan magnate Don Hankey. 
The majority of California voters  about 54%  generally support the billionaire tax, according to a May poll by the Public Policy Institute of California. 
READ MORE FROM FOX BUSINESS 
Confirmation Bias
6%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
19.1%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
24.3%
Loss Aversion
13.1%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
4.9%
Negativity Bias
14.4%
Self-Serving Bias
11.8%
Fundamental Attribution Error
19.1%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
13.1%
Primacy Effect
4.3%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
18.1%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
8.2%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
13.1%
Appeal to Emotion
2.2%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
23.9%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
4.9%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
13.5%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
11.8%
Quote-first Misdirection
4.9%
Biased Writer Voice
22.1%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
2.6%

535 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.