However, I didn’t give enough thought to the constitutional implications of such a tax, something that may prevent California (or heaven forbid, Congress) from being able to impose upon taxpayers. But someone else did.
From the comments to this GraniteGrok post comes this analysis of those constitutional implications:
Isn't this the same thing the Bottomless Pit of Sacramento wants to do with its subjects...er...citizens? California wants to tax "the rich" a portion of all of their assets, including unrealized gains. Worse, they want to continue to do so for ten years after "the rich" depart from the Pyrite State. After all, 'The State' has better use for their assets than those who own them, earned them, made them, right?This is something I think SCOTUS will find compelling should California do something this stupid. Then again, California has been doing increasingly stupid things that is driving out more people, businesses, and the money that goes with them.
Too bad there will be constitutional restrictions - primarily under the Fifth Amendment's "Not be deprived of...property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." They aren't taxing income or sales. They want to confiscate private property for public use, but not compensate the owners for the property taken by the state.