(The Center Square) \u2013 In the days after a union-backed measure to tax California\u2019s billionaires surpassed more than 1 million signatures, a millionaire from the Golden State spoke out in favor of the initiative.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a very important step in the right direction,\u201d Scott Ellis, a Silicon Valley millionaire and former Hewlett-Packard executive, told The Center Square in an exclusive interview. \u201cI really think our society is thinking and talking about wealth wrong, and has been for decades, so I think we need to reframe the conversation starting with how much wealth is enough.\u201d<\/p>\n
As Californians get closer to the Nov. 3 ballot measure on the billionaire tax, it’s important to ask how much wealth is enough or too much and what happens when people are too rich, Ellis said. He noted questions include defining financial success.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s why I\u2019m very happy to see real measures making it to the ballot to explore this issue,\u201d Ellis said.<\/p>\n
As the wealthiest people in society accumulate increasing amounts of money, Ellis said, not enough people are looking at the high end of the wealth spectrum. He said that leaves many on the lower end struggling.<\/p>\n
\u201cI really feel like we\u2019re missing the right starting point,\u201d Ellis said. \u201cI think the starting point really should be \u2018What does financial success look like?\u2019 I would like a society where those who are struggling are taken care of and doing well. I would like a society where people have opportunity to innovate and work hard, and I want a world where people have the opportunity for financial success, to pursue a better life for themselves and their families.\u201d<\/p>\n
Financial success could look like earning enough money to not have to work, Ellis said. He noted two nice homes that are paid in full, end-of-life expenses that are covered and having a fairly luxurious existence could all be indicators of financial success.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you just do the cash flow forecasts, $30 million gives you that,\u201d Ellis said.<\/p>\n
However, not everyone buys the argument that $30 million is the most money any one person should have.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf they wanted to give more money, they should just give more of their own dollars,\u201d Assemblymember David Tangipa, R-Fresno, told The Center Square. \u201cThis is where when people are providing value to society. Now it\u2019s saying that they\u2019ve provided too much value, so therefore, we must take from you. I don\u2019t think that\u2019s a good position to be in.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/69d440b46a086.image.png\")
<\/p>\n
California Assemblymember David Tangipa, R-Fresno, talks to the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee about his bill to help home buyers, April 6, 2026. Photo:\u00a0Madeline Shannon \/ The Center Square<\/p>\n
Tangipa also said he sees the tax on billionaires as just another example of government coming in and trying to take assets of those who have accumulated wealth.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the state of California, where we have a sales tax, income tax, property tax and tax on everything that you have, it is an insatiable hunger for other people\u2019s resources,\u201d Tangipa said.<\/p>\n
Ellis\u2019 and Tangipa\u2019s remarks followed the submission of 1.5 million signatures for the California Billionaire Tax Act, a measure that the Golden State\u2019s voters will consider on the Nov. 3 ballot. The union backing the measure, the Service Employees International Union \u2013 United Healthcare Workers West, submitted the signatures on April 27. If passed, the measure would levy a one-time 5% tax on residents with more than $1 billion in wealth. Assets like stocks, bonds and artwork would be subject to the tax, according to previous reporting<\/a> by The Center Square.<\/p>\n The union wants to use the roughly $100 billion the tax could generate to help shore up funding for K-12 schools and public healthcare programs. Both have experienced significant federal budget cuts in the last year.<\/p>\n