“Tax the rich” has moved from a campaign slogan to a governing idea. In California, it now appears in proposals aimed at billionaires, high-income earners, large employers, and owners of high-value real estate, all wrapped in a broader argument about fairness, affordability, and who should finance the public sector in an era of strain. 1,2

That message resonates because it is simple, morally intuitive, and politically useful. When voters are worried about rents, gas prices, insurance, homelessness, school funding, and the price of everyday life, a tax aimed at the wealthy can sound less like a policy change than a corrective. 2,10

The Many Shapes of the Idea

The phrase “tax the rich” hides a wide range of tax designs. Some proposals focus on net worth, some on annual income, some on corporate payroll or executive compensation, and some on the sale of expensive real estate. 11

The common versions now in circulation include:

• One-time wealth taxes on billionaires or ultra-high-net-worth households. 9
• Higher income taxes on people earning above $1 million. 2
• Business taxes tied to CEO compensation or other signs of extreme corporate wealth. 1
• Transfer taxes on high-value property sales, often called mansion taxes. 11

For apartment owners, transfer taxes matter most because they strike at the moment of sale. That means they directly affect deal economics, net proceeds, and timing, rather than simply operating as another annual cost of ownership. 3

California’s Statewide Billionaire Tax Push

California’s most prominent current proposal is the billionaire-tax initiative being advanced for the November 2026 ballot. The Legislative Analyst’s Office describes it as a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of California billionaires, with the tax obligation date tied to January 1, 2026. Supporters say the proceeds would support health care, education, and food assistance. 1,9

The proposal has attracted both enthusiasm and alarm. CNBC reported that early polling showed support weakening once voters were exposed to concerns about avoidance, litigation, and wealthy residents leaving the state. The Los Angeles Times and CalMatters both noted that this broader “tax the rich” surge is occurring just as California faces a serious budget problem, making the political appeal obvious but the fiscal outcome uncertain. 2,9

There is also a legal and practical wrinkle: Congressman Kevin Kiley introduced federal legislation aimed at blocking retroactive state wealth taxes on former residents, a direct response to California’s billionaire-tax design. That move reflects one of the biggest criticisms of these proposals — that they are as much about symbolic targeting as they are about durable revenue. 10

What Supporters Say, and What Critics Fear

Supporters argue that California’s highest earners have done extraordinarily well and should contribute more to prevent cuts to essential programs. They also argue that a one-time tax is easier to justify politically than an ongoing levy and that the public accepts the idea of asking the state’s richest residents to shoulder a crisis period. 1,2,9

Critics counter that wealth taxes are difficult to administer, vulnerable to litigation, and likely to distort taxpayer behavior. CNBC highlighted concerns that billionaires may use lawyers, accountants, and residency planning to reduce the expected yield, while Ballotpedia reported that the initiative still must clear the signature-qualification hurdle before reaching the ballot. 9,10

Los Angeles: The Transfer-Tax Model

Los Angeles has already put a local “tax the rich” theory into practice with Measure ULA, the city’s additional real property transfer tax. The city’s Finance Department states that the tax applies to high-value property transfers and layers on top of the existing transfer tax system. Hanson Bridgett’s update explains that the ordinance remains a major fixture in Los Angeles real estate taxation and continues to shape deal structure and transaction planning.

For apartment owners, the practical effect is easy to understand. The tax is triggered when a property changes hands, so it immediately changes the economics of selling a multifamily building. That can affect whether an owner lists now, waits for a better market, or explores an off-market transaction.11

Los Angeles politics are not one-dimensional, however. A separate campaign has sought to repeal the city’s gross receipts business tax, showing that even in a high-tax environment, resistance to revenue measures can be just as active as support for them. The city is not merely taxing wealth; it is also debating how much tax is enough, and on whom.

Santa Monica’s Version of the Same Theme

Santa Monica has its own high-value transfer-tax structure through Measure GS. The city’s official transfer-tax page shows a higher documentary transfer-tax tier for property sales of $8 million and above, while Hanson Bridgett’s analysis explains how Measure GS added a third tier in a way that substantially increased the cost of selling top-end real estate. 3

For apartment owners, this is especially relevant because Santa Monica’s multifamily market often trades at prices where the highest tier becomes meaningful in real dollars. Like Measure ULA in Los Angeles, the tax does not operate as an annual holding cost; it is a transaction tax, which means it shapes liquidity, exit strategy, and the pricing conversation long before a deed is recorded. 11,3

Why Apartment Owners Should Care

Apartment owners do not need to be billionaires to feel the effect of “tax the rich” politics. In California, those politics already show up in transfer taxes, local business taxes, and ballot initiatives that can change investor behavior in high-value markets. 11

The real issue is not the slogan but the mechanism. A tax that sounds aimed at the ultra-wealthy can still alter pricing, reduce seller proceeds, and make transactions harder to close. In markets like Los Angeles and Santa Monica, that is not an abstract debate — it is a line item that can materially change the economics of ownership. 3,11

The broader lesson is that “tax the rich” is spreading because it now serves three purposes at once: it raises revenue, sends a political message, and offers a ready-made explanation for public spending pressure. For apartment owners, that makes it impossible to ignore. 1,2\

A person standing in front of a business card

Description automatically generated

Footnotes 1. Legislative Analyst’s Office, “New tax on the wealth of billionaires,” Dec. 10, 2025. The LAO describes the proposed one-time 5% tax, the timing rules, and the general structure of the statewide measure. 2. Los Angeles Times, “Amid rising costs, California and L.A. initiatives aim to tax the ultra-rich,” Jan. 17, 2026. The article explains the broader political push in California and Los Angeles to tax high earners and wealthy households. 3. CalMatters, “California’s tax the rich frenzy could hurt state’s budget problem,” Apr. 13, 2026. The piece discusses the budget context and the political appeal of “tax the rich” proposals. 4. Hoover Institution, “California’s Proposed Billionaire Tax Will Cost the State an Estimated $25 Billion,” Mar. 4, 2026. The analysis discusses the expected revenue and potential economic downsides. 5. City of Los Angeles Finance Department, “Real Property Transfer Tax and Measure ULA FAQ.” The city explains the Measure ULA transfer-tax structure and the applicable higher-value transfer rates. 6. Hanson Bridgett LLP, “The ULA Ordinance and Recent Updates,” Feb. 11, 2026. This update explains the ordinance’s continuing impact on Los Angeles property transfers. 7. City of Santa Monica, “Documentary Transfer Tax (Real Property Transfer Tax).” The city’s page outlines Santa Monica’s documentary transfer-tax tiers, including the highest-value tier. 8. Los Angeles Times, “Group launches bid to repeal L.A.’s $800-million business tax,” July 23, 2025. The article describes the campaign to repeal Los Angeles’s gross receipts tax. 9.

CNBC, “California billionaire tax faces uphill battle, new poll finds,” Jan. 20, 2026. CNBC reports on polling, voter concerns, and the mechanics of the billionaire-tax proposal. 10. Kevin Kiley House Office, “Rep. Kevin Kiley Introduces Bill to Fight California’s Wealth Tax,” Feb. 17, 2026. The office release explains the federal response to California’s proposed retroactive wealth tax. 11. Ballotpedia News, “Campaign behind California’s wealth tax initiative reports collecting 25% of the required signatures,” Mar. 1, 2026. The update covers qualification status and signature-gathering progress. 12. Hanson Bridgett LLP, “Santa Monica’s Measure GS And Why It Is Important,” Mar. 1, 2023. This article explains the structure and significance of Measure GS’s transfer-tax tier.