By John Q. Hosedrinker 
California Governor Gavin Newsom is opposing a proposed tax on billionaires designed to fund healthcare services and schools, which could raise approximately $100 billion over five years. The tax, known as the “2026 Billionaire Tax Act,” would impose a one-time 5% tax on individuals worth over $1 billion, potentially affecting tech leaders like Mark Zuckerberg and Jensen Huang. Newsom’s opposition is a setback for progressives and labor groups supporting the initiative, though its backers, including SEIU United Healthcare Workers West, believe he will ultimately support it. As Newsom eyes a potential 2028 presidential bid, he has received significant campaign contributions from billionaires, and may need to continue to garner support from wealthy donors.
Read the original article here
Gavin Newsom is finding himself in the crosshairs, and it’s not because of a political gaffe. It’s the looming prospect of a 2028 White House bid that’s casting a shadow on his current position. The issue? His apparent opposition to a California “billionaire tax.” The whispers are already starting, the scrutiny intensifying.
It seems the core of the debate revolves around a proposed one-time tax of 5% on roughly 200 Californians with fortunes exceeding $1 billion. This tax, designed to generate revenue and protect essential services, is the hill some think Newsom is choosing to die on. The narrative quickly forming is that Newsom’s stance on this “billionaire tax” is out of touch. The feeling is that he’s prioritizing the protection of the wealthy while the rest of Californians grapple with rising costs.
One common thread in the discussion is the frustration over income inequality. People are weary of the wealthiest individuals seemingly enjoying tax advantages while the rest of society struggles. Many feel a leader should embrace solutions that would bring in the desperately needed revenue, instead of protecting those who already have every advantage. This sentiment isn’t new; it’s a reflection of broader dissatisfaction with a system perceived as favoring the elite.
The opposition extends beyond just this specific tax proposal. The core of the issue boils down to the question of whether Newsom is truly representative of the average person’s needs. The implication is that his actions, specifically his stance on wealth taxation, align him with an establishment that is more comfortable with the status quo than with systemic change. This perspective, of course, raises questions about his suitability for a presidential run. Some feel the move to block a billionaire tax means he is not one of them.
Critics see his actions as a betrayal of progressive values. They believe he is catering to wealthy donors and the political establishment, rather than advocating for policies that would benefit the working class. This perception is especially potent in a political climate where economic disparities are widening, and the demand for social justice is growing.
The concern for some is that Newsom is becoming a symbol of the “establishment Democrat”. These critics fear that he embodies a brand of centrist politics that prioritizes incremental change and compromise over bold, transformative action. The fear is a repeat of past political cycles, where the Democrats fail to bring real change or help.
Of course, the debate is not solely about ideology. Many believe that the tax proposal itself is flawed, calling it a “one-time heist,” a poor solution that won’t achieve the intended results. They argue that it doesn’t address the core issues of economic inequality.
The discussion also turns to potential political consequences. The concern is that Newsom’s stance could alienate key segments of the Democratic base. If he cannot support even a very limited tax on billionaires, the fear is it will make it difficult to win in 2028. It feeds the narrative that he’s out of touch with the struggles of the average voter.
It’s clear that Newsom’s position has the potential to become a defining issue in his future political endeavors. It forces a conversation about values, priorities, and his vision for the country. And, like it or not, his decision is now under a microscope.