Steven Spielberg, one of Hollywood's most celebrated liberal voices, has moved from California to Manhattan. His spokeswoman, Terry Press, insisted the timing is purely coincidental.
"Both long-planned and driven purely by his and Kate Capshaw's desire to be closer to their New York-based children and grandchildren."
That's the official line. Press did not respond to questions about Spielberg's views on the proposed wealth tax that California voters may soon consider. The silence is its own kind of statement.
The proposed 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, sponsored by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time levy on California residents worth more than $1 billion, taxing the equivalent of 5% of their assets. Supporters claim it could generate about $100 billion in revenue, with at least 90% earmarked for public healthcare services and the remainder funding administration, education, and food assistance.
And Spielberg isn't the only one heading for the exits.
According to NewsMax, Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page have been exploring homes in Miami, Mark Zuckerberg has been looking at options in Florida, and venture capitalists Peter Thiel and David Sacks have been cited in reports about wealthy residents leaving the state entirely.
None have publicly said a possible move is being driven by the ballot measure. Of course they haven't. Nobody wants to be the face of billionaire tax avoidance in a populist moment. But the pattern is unmistakable. California proposes a confiscatory wealth tax, and its wealthiest residents start shopping for real estate in states that don't punish success.
Brin has even funded an organized campaign against the proposed wealth tax. That's not the behavior of someone unbothered by the prospect.
Here's the detail that makes this proposal especially aggressive: if approved, the tax would apply retroactively to anyone who lived in California as of Jan. 1, 2026. The only way to avoid the levy would have been to leave California before Dec. 31, 2025. Residents who stayed past that date would be on the hook, with five years to pay the one-time tax.
Retroactive taxation is not a minor policy detail. It is the government changing the rules after the game has already been played. You made financial decisions, structured your life, stayed in your home, and Sacramento wants to reach backward in time to claim a piece of what you built. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., has introduced a bill in Congress to prohibit retroactive taxes, recognizing the obvious: this sets a precedent that should alarm anyone with assets, not just billionaires.
Kiley put it plainly:
"So, they are saying it's just for billionaires. But of course it starts with billionaires, and then they continue to lower the threshold, ensnaring more and more people."
He's right, and recent history proves it. A similar 1.5% tax on billionaires failed in the Legislature last year, with even Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, opposing the measure on the grounds that it could push wealthy residents to leave California and shrink the tax base. Newsom understood the math, even if his party's activist wing doesn't.
So the union backers went bigger. Failed at 1.5%? Try 5%. Failed in the Legislature? Take it directly to the ballot. The escalation tells you everything about the ideology driving this.
Sen. Bernie Sanders has campaigned for the proposal and held a rally on Wednesday in Los Angeles, where he told the crowd:
"Starting right here in California, these billionaires are going to learn we are still living in a democratic society where the people have the power."
He also condemned the conduct of the ultra-wealthy:
"Never before in American history have we seen the kind of greed, arrogance, and moral turpitude."
This is Sanders doing what Sanders does: framing wealth as a moral failing and confiscation as justice. But notice the contradiction embedded in his own rally. He's standing in Los Angeles, cheering a tax designed to extract wealth from people who live in California, while those very people pack their bags for Miami and Manhattan. The democratic society he's celebrating is voting with its feet, and the vote is going against him.
Supporters claim the tax would raise tens of billions of dollars. That number assumes the billionaires stay. Every Spielberg who relocates, every Brin who decamps to Florida, every Zuckerberg who finds a friendlier zip code is a line item that vanishes from the progressive spreadsheet.
California doesn't just lose the one-time wealth tax revenue. It loses ongoing income tax revenue, capital gains revenue, property tax revenue, philanthropic spending, and the economic activity that surrounds extremely wealthy individuals and their enterprises. The state trades a fantasized windfall for a real and permanent reduction in its tax base.
Newsom understood this. His own party ignored him.
The proposal still needs to gather enough signatures to reach the state ballot in November, then win voter approval. Those are real hurdles. But the damage is already being done. The mere prospect of a 5% retroactive asset seizure has triggered a wealth migration that no ballot outcome can reverse. Spielberg is already in Manhattan. Brin is already looking at condos in Miami. You don't unring that bell.
California's progressives built a state so expensive, so regulated, and so hostile to wealth creation that even their most loyal cultural allies are leaving. Steven Spielberg didn't just direct the exit. He's living it.