Some rich Californians are giving away cash to skirt the state's proposed billionaire tax ⁠44%

By Kristen Altus⁠95%

6/15/2026, 8:00:17 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Biased Writer Voice, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 24.3% saturation with 130 hits. Analysis detected 1,365 faulty-reasoning hits from 535 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠44% (11,921 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.20% of the article peer group.

Rather than hand over their fortunes to the California state government, wealthy Californians are finding creative, tax-efficient ways to minimize potential billionaire-tax impact — including giving their money away. 
Some high-net-worth residents in the Golden State are intentionally reducing their balance sheets through philanthropy or real estate strategies because they do not trust Sacramento to spend their tax dollars effectively, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report. 
"People take steps to take advantage of the tax law before it changes all the time. 
This is just another example of that," HCVT partner and advisor Andrew Katzenstein told The Journal, adding that he is working with multiple clients to help them navigate the proposed wealth tax. 
In April, the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) said it had collected more than 1.55 million signatures, according to a press release — nearly double the 875,000-signature requirement — to put a one-time tax on billionaire assets on the California ballot. 
FLEEING FOR THEIR FUTURES, A CALIFORNIA EXODUS UNLEASHES A FLORIDA ‘GOLD RUSH’ 
The California Billionaire Tax Act would target the net worth of roughly 200 residents and impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California residents with assets exceeding $1 billion. 
The tax would be due in 2027, and taxpayers could spread payments over five years, with interest, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. 
If the measure is approved by voters in November, anyone who was a California resident on Jan. 1, 2026, would owe the tax. 
For those who did not move their primary residence by that deadline, they and their financial teams are working to reduce client valuations below the $1 billion mark, including by ramping up charitable donations, as clients would "rather their money go to charities that… do good work than to California’s government, which [they don’t] trust to use the funds effectively," The Journal wrote. 
Other methods aimed at minimizing the tax burden include restructuring balance sheets entirely, delaying private funding rounds and pulling real estate holdings out of corporate LLCs and placing them directly under personal names or revocable trusts to legally shield their property. 
Wealthy residents are also considering purchasing expensive tangible assets, such as art and yachts, while keeping them outside California for at least 270 days per year to legally avoid the tax. 
"I like to tell my students this maxim of tax-planning: Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered," University of Missouri law professor David Gamage told The Journal. 
"You can often get away with some amount of restructuring affairs, but if you go too far and get too greedy, you can get in trouble." 
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE 
Some of the public figures who moved their residences or businesses out of California before Jan. 1, 2026, include Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, Steven Spielberg, Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick and car loan magnate Don Hankey. 
The majority of California voters — about 54% — generally support the billionaire tax, according to a May poll by the Public Policy Institute of California. 
READ MORE FROM FOX BUSINESS 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.0%Kristen Altus: 7.7%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 3.9%FoxBusiness: 3.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.1%Kristen Altus: 6.1%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic19.1%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 1.5%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 5.1%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 24.3%Kristen Altus: 17.1%FoxBusiness: 13.0%Framing Effect24.3%This article: 13.1%Kristen Altus: 2.2%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion13.1%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 12.6%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Kristen Altus: 2.9%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias4.9%This article: 14.4%Kristen Altus: 9.3%FoxBusiness: 7.8%Negativity Bias14.4%This article: 11.8%Kristen Altus: 6.4%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias11.8%This article: 19.1%Kristen Altus: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error19.1%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 2.9%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 4.2%FoxBusiness: 3.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.1%Kristen Altus: 2.4%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias13.1%This article: 4.3%Kristen Altus: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.3%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.1%Kristen Altus: 8.1%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority18.1%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 2.9%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 2.2%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.2%Kristen Altus: 12.3%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization8.2%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 13.1%Kristen Altus: 2.3%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon13.1%This article: 2.2%Kristen Altus: 8.3%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion2.2%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 2.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 5.5%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 23.9%Kristen Altus: 5.9%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal23.9%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.9%Kristen Altus: 2.4%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.9%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 13.5%Kristen Altus: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading13.5%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.8%Kristen Altus: 1.9%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote11.8%This article: 4.9%Kristen Altus: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection4.9%This article: 22.1%Kristen Altus: 6.0%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice22.1%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 1.5%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Altus: 4.4%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Kristen Altus: 4.1%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.6%

535 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers33%attributed speech358writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Katzenstein • 32 words • 0.0% coverageService Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageLegislative Analyst’s Office • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 63 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Gamage • 26 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Gamage • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coveragePublic Policy Institute of California • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

David Gamage

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words29% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Quote-first Misdirection+50.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%David Gamage: 50.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-33.0 ptsWriter: 33.0%David Gamage: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-17.6 ptsWriter: 17.6%David Gamage: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%David Gamage: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.