Greer Dove’s days are packed with studying business and finance, as well as doing administrative work at college, along with caring for her eight-year-old daughter with special needs. But once a week, Dove, a single mother, makes sure to drop in at the food bank in California’s Marin County to pick up vegetables, fruit and other food. Along with the federal government’s food benefits, they keep her housing running. “We need this so we can keep functioning at a high level,” she says. “She loves fruit, so I make sure to get it,” she says of her daughter.
Dove, who is also looking for a full-time job, has worked in restaurants, event management, retail, television shows, office administration and payroll over the years. But she has been on the federal government’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) for six years, and with the food bank, for more than three years. Before she got food benefits, Dove fed her daughter all she had and skipped meals or looked around for snacks in the offices she worked at to get her through the day.
They will tax the wealth, not the income which is legally zero because they borrow money against it.
From https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathangoldman/2025/11/14/can-a-5-wealth-tax-on-200-billionaires-save-or-sink-california/
In addition to concerns surrounding capital flight, there are numerous other concerns with imposing a wealth tax. For starters, it can be very difficult to value a taxpayer’s wealth. Naturally, a stock and securities portfolio maintains accurate valuations on a regular basis. However, real estate assets have much looser valuations, and some assets like artwork require professional assessments. When considering the entire portfolio of assets for California’s billionaires, it remains unclear as to how expensive it might be to value a taxpayer’s wealth accurately, not to mention how long it will be litigated once that taxpayer inevitably argues the valuation. Additionally, enforcing a wealth tax can create liquidity problems for taxpayers as they might have to sell assets to meet the tax liabilities, and it could lead to substantial tax planning that results in the taxpayers gaming the system, and thus, the proposal would not have the intended effect.