As The Wealthy Take Flight, What Can We Do?
Taxing Away Success Has Become a Proven Failure
We are witnessing a troubling migration—a flight of capital and talent from states that have adopted increasingly aggressive tax policies. Elon Musk moved Tesla and X from California to Texas; Palantir relocated to Colorado. High-profile individuals and corporations are pulling up stakes and relocating to states with more favorable tax policies.
A casual observer might interpret such migrations as a strategic response to changing cost structures. But that framing misses the deeper issue. These departures are not just about lowering costs; they reflect an effort to exit a system that has decidedly turned against them.
These defections are driven by policies that specifically target the wealthy. In California, for example, public sector union activists have bypassed the legislative process to place a “billionaire’s wealth tax” directly on the November 2026 ballot. The state has also made a previously temporary high-income tax tier permanent. Meanwhile, the New York City mayor is pursuing similar goals through proposed levies on second homes.
The Administrative Breakdown
Such tax policy shifts constitute a hostile attack on success itself. For decades, tax policy was based on the idea that the wealthy should contribute more. Regardless of one’s view on progressive taxation, the system operated on an assumption of fairness: you paid into the system, and in return, the system secured the environment in which you could operate freely.
Today, this arrangement has become decidedly one-sided.
Why is this happening now? Why have states like California and cities like New York become so draconian? Their predation is the inevitable consequence of a government that lacks institutional discipline. When leaders fail to define the scope of their organizations, the result is systemic expansion. Public agencies now claim responsibility for everything from social engineering and geopolitical posturing to ensuring equitable outcomes. Because this growth is untethered from both revenue and reality, expenses begin to outpace collections, forcing the state into a perpetual, desperate hunt for new funds.
Behind this fiscal desperation lies a public agency culture resistant to modernization. Public sector unions use their influence to protect entrenched staffing and legacy operations. They also resist attempts to streamline top-heavy organizational charts. Unable to implement cost-saving improvements, government leaders have limited room to maneuver. Instead, they extract more from their existing tax base to maintain the bureaucracy. These agencies are no longer taxing to fund services; they are harvesting their producers to sustain a bureaucratic machine that refuses to evolve.
Historically, the state’s legitimacy was tied to its role as a guarantor of individual rights and private property. It was created to be the institution that secured the conditions under which one could pursue their values. When the state’s scope expands beyond this, the relationship inverts: it begins to view its most successful citizens not as sovereign individuals, but as resources to be tapped for its own ends.
Whether it is California’s Franchise Tax Board or New York’s Department of Taxation and Finance, the state does not bid you a fond farewell when you leave. Instead, the state treats departure as an act of defiance, subjecting you to an investigation that frames your exit as a crime scene. Auditors track your cell phone pings, examine your credit card swipes, and, in the most egregious cases, dig through your veterinary bills or personal calendars to prove where your pets—and your life—are actually living. You have the right to move, but they ensure that the exit comes with a price tag: a granular, intrusive investigation designed to squeeze every last dollar before you go. By doing so, the state effectively frames the taxpayer as a captured asset, rather than an individual with the right to relocate.
The victims of this predation fail to resist effectively because they adopt the predator’s rules and language. When squeezed, tech billionaires and CEOs often cite their existing contributions—job creation, taxes paid—as a defensive shield, hoping to deflect the mob’s outrage. Some, like Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, proudly submit, declaring that they are happy to pay their “fair share.”
The Concession Trap
Such an approach constitutes hostage bargaining. In doing so, these producers aren’t defending their property; they are negotiating the terms of its seizure. They concede the state’s fundamental premise: that the wealth they created is a public resource, rather than the product of their efforts. They think they are bargaining for a reasonable tax rate, but they are actually bargaining for the terms of their own surrender. You cannot negotiate your way out of a system that views your productivity not as a right, but as a harvestable asset.
We as human beings possess agency; we have a right to our lives and the fruits of our labor. We and the products of our labor are not assets to be managed by a state legislature or a hungry union. Production is not a debt owed to society for the crime of succeeding.
When the most successful among us choose to validate the state’s predatory logic, they do not merely surrender their own sovereignty; they erode the moral foundation upon which the freedom of every other individual depends.
This is the central flaw in the current flight of capital. High-profile departures—like Musk moving Tesla to Texas or Palantir relocating to Colorado—are a necessary retreat, but they are an insufficient defense. Moving across state lines buys time, but it does not stop the encroachment. As long as California and New York are permitted to normalize this predation without a principled challenge, they are writing the playbook for every other state. Success will be a target wherever it lands, because the doctrine of the resident and business owners as fodder can be exported to every jurisdiction that faces a budget shortfall. Until producers stop negotiating their surrender and start advocating for clearly defined limits on government, the predator-state will simply ensure there is nowhere left to hide.
Well said!
Very good points, Mark. And to answer your question: all we can do is live the best life we can, dodging and weaving the obstacles put in our way and never, ever renounce or compromise on our principles.