Greater taxes on income are well-intentioned but largely ineffective given that the truly rich don't have an income. They have unrealized capital gains that the

Greater taxes on income are well-intentioned but largely ineffective given that the truly rich don't have an income. They have unrealized capital gains that they borrow against. What California should do is repeal the great disaster that was (and still is) Prop 13. The article glosses over it (calling it a "fiscal toll" without saying much else). This is one of those rare situations where California should be more like Texas, namely: 1. Commercial property should be reassed and taxed accordingly at least every 5 years if not every year. Currently the tax rate that Disney pays in Anaheim was set in the 1960s and hasn't changed. A lot of commercial property is this way because it's passed around in LLCs so it doesn't trigger a reassessment because there is no transfer; 2. "Kicking old people out of their homes" is used as an argument against this. You can achieve this goal, if it's one you want, without giving billionaires generational preferential tax treatment. In Texas, for example, the state can defer pdroperty taxes until the sale of the house for the elderly. This gives you the choice of downsizing to save money or staying put until after you die; 3. Stop the inheritance of preferential tax rates (which happens now); 4. Make property tax relatively high percentage wise while essentially eliminating state income tax on those earning less than $100,000 such that those earning less than $100,000 are net better off under the new system; and 5. Make propety tax largely based on land use. This means a $2 million apartment will attract a lower tax rate than a $2 million single family house. I actually think the tides have turned and this may actually pass with voters.