As the November 4th off-year elections are now just days away, New York City voters appear likely to elect a young, charismatic Democratic socialist vowing to raise taxes on the wealthy as their new Mayor. But, as discussed on today’s BradCast, that’s not the only place where voters may finally have a chance to begin to even the score against the runaway wealth gap between the rich and…everyone else. [Audio link to full show follows this summary.]
FIRST… A few quick news items today, including…
- Hurricane Melissa‘s record-shattering path of destruction through the Caribbean — including Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti and The Bahamas — and now on toward the Canadian Atlantic coast (with effects likely to be felt across much of the U.S. Northeastern Seaboard this weekend.)
- Breaking news on Donald Trump firing all six members of one of the federal commissions that was otherwise set to review the building plans for his threatened, privately-funded 90,000 square foot ballroom at the White House — for which he has already demolished the East Wing with neither approval nor permission from anyone — and a giant “Arc d’Trump” that he wants to build somewhere on the National Mall in D.C.
THEN… Just days from Tuesday’s off-year Election Day, New York City‘s Democratic candidate for Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, appears to be well ahead in pre-election polling. If those polls are correct, it seems that NYC voters are offering enthusiastic support for the “Affordability Agenda” on which Mamdani’s remarkable campaign has been built, including promises for a rent freeze, universal child care, free buses and for city-owned grocery stores in food deserts across the city’s five Boroughs. Some of those programs, according to the candidate, will be paid for by a small surcharge on the income taxes of those earning more than $1 million per year. Though, even if he wins next week, many of those programs — including the new surcharge on millionaires — would need approval from the City Council and/or State Legislature before implementation.
Meanwhile, out here in California, some progressives are already looking toward a straight-on wealth tax for the state’s 200 billionaires that voters would need to approve in 2026. But there are some unique elements to this ballot proposal that may distinguish it from other such programs forwarded by progressives in the past.
Last week, one of the state’s largest unions, SEIU’s United Healthcare Workers West, along with U.C. Berkley economist Emmanuel Saez and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, unveiled what our guest today, HAROLD MEYERSON of The American Prospect, described last week as “The First Politically Viable Wealth Tax” in the nation.
The proposal, which its proponents are hoping to place onto next year’s statewide ballot, would levy a one-time, 5% tax on the state’s billionaires to help fund California’s Medicaid program (known as Medi-Cal) following the massive, historic, trillion dollar cuts to the program enacted by Trump and Congressional Republicans in their so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” this past summer.
Meyerson is careful to delineate between Mamdani’s income tax proposal of the wealthy (which he also supports), and the one in CA which would tax wealth itself, including assets owned such as stocks, etc. So, why does he see this one as the “first politically viable” such tax? For one reason, one of the well-worn critiques of such programs is that it would lead wealthy residents to flee or deter other wealthy people from moving in. In fact, Mamdani’s main opponent in the NYC mayoral race, former state Gov. Andrew Cuomo, running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary, has repeatedly made that case against Mamdani’s plan.
But, whether Cuomo’s attack is true or not (Mamdani calls it exaggerated), the CA proposal introduced last week undercuts the critique entirely.
“First, it only applies to the wealth of people from this year, calendar 2025,” explains Meyerson. And the “5% tax on wealth can be paid, spread out, over the next five years. It takes effect [if adopted by voters next year] in 2027. If you move into the state and you’re ridiculously wealthy anytime after the end of this year, this doesn’t apply to you. It only applies to the wealth of this year. If you move out of the state, you’re still liable, under the terms of this tax, for paying it. So it is structured in such a way that it eliminates the argument that it will cause billionaires to move out — because it only applies to billionaires in the state as of this year — and that it will keep billionaires from moving in because, assuming they move in after Dec. 31st of this year, it doesn’t apply to them.”
That element alone of this proposal is likely to take the wind out of the sails of many of those who will certainly oppose the measure next year, if it qualifies for the ballot (supporters have until June to gather enough signatures). Meyerson believes that, especially in this blue-leaning state, the idea will be so popular that even conservative billionaire (and former Republican turned Democrat) Rick Caruso, who is likely to run for Governor, would have little choice but to support it. “It would look awfully self-interested, and against the interests of those Californians — of whom there are gazillions — reliant upon Medi-Cal, if he were to oppose it, or not take a stance on it,” Meyerson tells me. “The optics would look pretty damn bad.”
But there are other critiques that wealthy opponents will try to levee as well. Socialism! If it passes, Dems will just want to make it permanent! etc. etc. Meyerson speaks to all of those and offers his insights into the NYC election next week (and establishment Dems such as Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, who have remarkably failed to back the city’s Democratic candidate for Mayor), the Prop 50 redistricting referendum in CA, and the gubernatorial contests in both New Jersey and Virginia…
(Comments are now closed.)