Jan. 7, 2026 5 AM PT <\/p>\n
To the editor: The debate over the proposed wealth tax on California\u2019s billionaires captures deep frustrations about healthcare-funding shortfalls (\u201cBillionaire tax proposal sparks soul-searching for Californians,\u201d<\/a> Jan. 2). Supporters see it as a path to shore up Medi-Cal, while critics warn it could disrupt innovation and drive talent away. I share the goal of sustainable healthcare support, but a billionaire-only tax faces legal uncertainty and revenue volatility and risks capital flight.<\/p>\n As the K-shaped economy has benefited higher earners, many working Californians can no longer afford healthcare. Through hard work but also unearned advantages, I\u2019ve benefited from that divide.<\/p>\n As an alternative to the proposed billionaire tax, a 0.25% state income surtax on earnings above $400,000 could raise comparable funds while spreading responsibility across approximately 700,000 households<\/a>. Someone earning $500,000 would contribute $250 annually \u2014 less than many monthly car payments.<\/p>\n Medi-Cal\u2019s sustainability depends on reliable revenue and broad civic support. True solidarity means those who\u2019ve prospered contribute proportionally, not pitting groups against one another. A shared base strengthens both funding stability and public trust.<\/p>\n Thomas Klitzner, Culver City<\/p>\n ..<\/p>\n To the editor: It\u2019s hard to read the whining from billionaires opposed to a one-time tax that would help provide healthcare to the state\u2019s most vulnerable populations. Billionaires are threatening to take their riches out of state if this were to pass. We are talking about approximately 200 people with more than they could spend in a lifetime. What\u2019s particularly galling to me is that I never hear any billionaires complain about the many tax breaks President Trump has given them.<\/p>\n The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is only beautiful for the rich. According to an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation<\/a>, under the act, an average household making less than $15,000 per year will see a tax increase of more than 9% in 2027. Meanwhile, people making more than $1 million a year will see their taxes go down by $97,000.<\/a> Again, I haven\u2019t personally read about or heard anyone making more than $1 million expressing opposition to their own tax break. And with this new proposal, only billionaires will be affected.<\/p>\n The ultra-rich Californians say they are tired of \u201cfeeling targeted.\u201d What about the residents working two jobs a day to afford food, child care and healthcare while the government cuts SNAP benefits and Affordable Care Act subsidies? Where is the compassion? Where is the humanity?<\/p>\n Peggy Jo Abraham, Santa Monica<\/p>\n ..<\/p>\n To the editor: Cities, states and countries that levy massive taxes on the rich drive their millionaires and billionaires to tax havens. The city of Los Angeles put a \u201cmansion tax\u201d on its luxury homes. What followed was luxury homeowners like Brad Pitt and Mark Wahlberg selling their homes in L.A.<\/a> right before the tax took effect. Slowly but surely, the rich L.A. folks are moving to cities like Calabasas or to beach cities.<\/p>\n Now, the state wants to tax billionaires to the tune of 5% to prop up Medi-Cal. Now more than ever, states like Texas and Florida, which have no state income taxes<\/a>, are looking good to California billionaires who don\u2019t want to pay tens of millions to bolster their state\u2019s economy. As I see it, the billionaires employ tens of thousands of people in California, so the politicians should stop incentivizing some of their best employers to leave the state.<\/p>\n Mark Walker, Yorba Linda<\/p>\n ..<\/p>\n