Key Takeaways

A wealth tax hits what you own, not what you earn. Casey stresses that unlike income tax, a wealth tax applies to global net worth whether or not any asset was sold, which he considers "far more insidious and onerous."

Exit taxes tend to travel with wealth taxes. Because a wealth tax gives people a reason to move, Casey argues states will increasingly pair it with an exit tax, since "you have to have an exit tax if you're going to have a wealth tax."

The proposals are spreading beyond California. He points to a California ballot measure, a Minnesota millionaire's-tax proposal, a New York real estate levy, and a federal push, as evidence the idea is gaining ground.

Casey argues the math backfires. He contends that when high earners leave, states lose both a chunk of the expected revenue and those residents' future income taxes, so the policy undercuts itself even before the ethics.

The bigger warning is scope creep. Casey's core message is that thresholds expand and one-time taxes become recurring, so "eventually this is going to hurt everybody," not just the ultra-wealthy.

Key Moments

00:23 - What is financial repression? Casey frames the five tax measures he groups under the term.

00:50 - Exit taxes: could you be taxed for leaving a state? What an exit tax is, and where one already exists.

02:16 - How wealth taxes could work Why a wealth tax is different from a higher income or capital gains rate.

02:34 - California's proposed wealth tax explained The one-time levy Casey describes and who it targets.

03:37 - Are wealth taxes spreading to other states? Minnesota, a retroactive provision, and a federal proposal.

04:40 - Do wealth taxes actually work? Casey's argument that the revenue math undermines itself.

06:08 - How wealth taxes could hit real estate Unrealized gains and the New York pied-a-terre levy.

08:02 - "Eventually this is going to hurt everybody" Why Casey expects these taxes to reach beyond the wealthy.

What Is a Wealth Tax? Why Chris Casey Says Wealth and Exit Taxes Are Spreading

A wealth tax is a levy on the total value of what a person owns, rather than on the income they earn in a year. Chris Casey, founder and managing director of Windrock Wealth Management, told Wealthion in August 2026 that a wave of such measures, along with exit taxes and new real estate levies, is spreading as debt-strained states search for revenue. He walks through what each one is, why he thinks they backfire, and why he expects them to reach well beyond the ultra-wealthy. This piece pairs with Casey's related conversation on why your 401(k) may not be as safe as you think.

What is a wealth tax?

Casey's key distinction is that a wealth tax targets what you possess, not what you earn. He calls it "far more insidious and onerous" than income tax because "they're taxing people for the wealth they possess," global net worth, whether or not any transaction has occurred. His illustration is a California ballot measure he describes as a one-time 5% tax on net worth for those worth more than a billion dollars, which he says would apply to only around 200 to 250 people, fewer now that some have already moved. He notes it was favored in polling at the time of the interview. (These are Casey's descriptions of a proposed measure and should be verified against the final ballot language before publication.)

What is an exit tax, and can a state tax you for leaving?

An exit tax, Casey explains, is "basically taxes when you leave a given territory," in this context moving from one state to another. He says no state currently imposes one, though California has proposed versions over the years without them advancing. A federal version effectively exists: renounce US citizenship, he notes, and the government treats you as having sold all your assets that day and taxes the unrealized gains. His argument is that exit taxes and wealth taxes go together, because "you have to have an exit tax if you're going to have a wealth tax" to stop residents from voting with their feet. He calls the idea constitutionally dubious but expects states to pursue it more often.

Are wealth and exit taxes spreading?

Casey says the trend is broadening beyond California. He points to Minnesota reportedly considering a 1% tax on wealth above $10 million, and to a "backdoor" element of the California proposal that he says would reach back to January 1 of that year, so someone leaving before a vote could still owe the tax. He also cites a federal push, noting that Representative Ro Khanna of California has advocated a wealth tax at the national level. Because these are specific, fast-moving legislative claims, they are attributed to Casey and flagged for verification rather than stated as established fact.

Do wealth taxes actually work?

Here the interview gives both sides. The host notes the backdrop that drives these proposals: an economy that many feel is not working for them, with health care and college costs out of reach, which makes taxing the very wealthy politically appealing. Casey does not dispute that appeal, but argues the math undercuts itself. When even a few of the roughly 200 to 250 targets leave, he says, a state can lose 30% to 40% of the revenue the tax was supposed to raise, and it permanently loses those residents' future income taxes, which in California he pegs at a 13% top marginal rate. Beyond the practical critique, Casey objects on principle, calling wealth taxes ethically indefensible in his view, and questions whether the goal is revenue or a broader aim to penalize the wealthy. Supporters, by contrast, frame them as a matter of fairness and a way to fund public services; the page presents both so readers can weigh the trade-off.

How could these taxes hit real estate and homeowners?

Two of the five measures, Casey says, land directly on property. The first is taxing unrealized gains: because a wealth tax assesses what you own, real estate you have no intention of selling still gets captured, effectively taxing paper gains. The second is the pied-a-terre tax, which he says became law in New York in 2026 and applies to homes, condos and residences that are not rented out long-term (a property rented for less than a year still counts). Unlike California's proposed one-time levy, he stresses, the New York tax is annual, in a range he puts at roughly 1% to 7%, with condos taxed heavily. He calls this evidence that "real estate is definitely under attack." (The New York levy's status and rates are Casey's characterization and should be confirmed before publication.)

Will this stay limited to the ultra-wealthy?

Casey's answer, and the heart of his warning, is no. He argues that once such taxes exist they tend to expand, thresholds drift lower and one-time levies become recurring, so a policy sold as targeting only billionaires does not stay there. His closing line is the takeaway: real estate and the wealthy may be first, but "eventually this is going to hurt everybody." As always on Wealthion, this is Casey's attributed view, not tax or legal advice.

What Investors Should Watch

• The California ballot measure: whether the proposed wealth tax passes, and its final terms, which Casey says were favored in polling.
• State-level proposals elsewhere: Minnesota's reported millionaire's-tax idea and any similar moves, as signs the trend is spreading.
• Retroactive and exit provisions: look-back dates and any state exit taxes, which Casey argues must accompany a wealth tax.
• Real estate levies: the New York pied-a-terre tax and any expansion to other jurisdictions.
• Federal proposals: advocacy for a national wealth tax, which Casey flags as the longer-term risk.

FAQ

What is a wealth tax? A wealth tax is a levy on a person's total net worth, rather than on their income. Chris Casey stresses it applies to what you own whether or not you sell anything, which he considers more onerous than income tax. He cites a proposed California measure of a one-time 5% tax on net worth above a billion dollars.

What is an exit tax, and can a state tax you for leaving? Casey defines an exit tax as a tax imposed when you leave a territory, such as moving between states. He says no state currently has one, though California has proposed versions, and notes a federal version applies when someone renounces US citizenship.

Are wealth taxes spreading to other states? According to Casey, yes. Beyond California he points to Minnesota reportedly weighing a 1% tax on wealth above $10 million, a California provision that would reach back to the start of the year, and federal advocacy for a national wealth tax. These specifics are his and warrant verification.

Do wealth taxes actually work? Casey argues they backfire: when high earners leave, states lose both a large share of the projected revenue and those residents' future income taxes. Supporters counter that wealth taxes address inequality and fund services, a rationale the interview also acknowledges.

How could wealth taxes affect real estate? Casey describes two effects: taxing unrealized gains captures property owners have no plan to sell, and New York's pied-a-terre tax, which he says applies annually to non-primary residences. He argues real estate is a primary target.

Full Transcript

Speakers: Maggie Lake (Wealthion host) and Chris Casey (founder and managing director, Windrock Wealth Management). ASR errors corrected and filler removed; meaning preserved.

Chris Casey (cold open): Real estate is definitely under attack, but eventually this is going to hurt everybody. A wealth tax is far more insidious and onerous, because they're taxing people for the wealth they possess. Exit taxes are basically taxes when you leave a given territory, and they're not going to accomplish what they want, because people are just going to leave.

Maggie Lake: We'll come back to the 401(k)-versus-taxable question in a moment, because that's hard to wrap your head around. But let's talk about what you're seeing, so people recognize this as part of the financial repression you're concerned about. Start with exit taxes. What are they?

Chris Casey: Exit taxes are basically taxes imposed when you leave a given territory, in this case moving from state to state. That's not law right now. The only place I'm aware of that has proposed this kind of exit tax is California, several times over the years, but it never really got out of committee or gained traction. The United States effectively has one at the federal level: if you renounce your citizenship and leave, they treat you as if you sold all your assets that day, and you file a return and are taxed on the unrealized gains. States will look at that increasingly, because you have to have an exit tax if you're going to have a wealth tax; you have to prevent people from moving with their feet as much as possible. It's constitutionally dubious on a number of grounds, but I could see it happening more frequently over the years.

Maggie Lake: That's interesting. I'm up in the tri-state area, and we've seen a lot of people, especially in the financial sector, move to Florida, out of income-tax states into friendlier ones. You mentioned Ken Griffin as one. So this would be a way for states to stop that. What does a wealth tax look like, a higher income tax, a higher capital gains tax, or something else?

Chris Casey: It's far more insidious and onerous, because they're taxing people for the wealth they possess, the global wealth they hold, whether or not there's been a transaction. Right now in California there's a measure on the ballot to tax anyone with over a billion dollars of net worth with a one-time 5% tax on their net worth. That targets only around 200 to 250 people, fewer today because a number have already moved. It's short-sighted, because if it passes, those people have already left, and once a few leave you lose about 30% to 40% of what the tax was supposed to bring in. On top of that you permanently lose their income taxes going forward, and with California's roughly 13% top marginal rate, that's a lot of money. California is the one pushing this hardest right now; we'll see in November, but it was favored in the polls, so it may well become law. And we've seen versions elsewhere. Minnesota has been weighing a 1% so-called millionaire's tax on wealth above $10 million, so it's not just California. California also has a kind of backdoor exit tax: because tax law can be made fairly retroactive, this measure would reach back to January 1 of this year, so if you try to leave between now and then and it passes, you'd still owe the 5%. And thanks to California, there are moves to look at this federally: Representative Ro Khanna of California published a long piece advocating it at the national level. Wealth taxes are problematic to implement for several reasons, and in my view ethically indefensible, and they won't accomplish what they intend, because people simply leave. But we're seeing them on the rise across a number of states.

Maggie Lake: We all understand the backdrop: an economy that isn't working for everyone, health care costs, college becoming unattainable. So you can see why these proposals come up. But the math doesn't seem to work if you're gutting your income-tax base. Is there a real chance these pass into law, or is it mostly political rhetoric that sounds good to voters?

Chris Casey: I think there's a real chance, because when these philosophical views permeate the population, and you see a lot of younger people especially embracing them, it's a matter of time before they become policy. It's not all maneuvering; there are genuine efforts to enact this. You're right that it doesn't accomplish what it purports to. So either the proponents are mistaken about the economics, and I could argue that, or there's an aim to penalize the wealthy on ethical grounds, and I suspect that's part of it too.

Maggie Lake: Are there real estate implications to this as well?

Chris Casey: Yes, from a couple of angles. Of the five initiatives, wealth tax, exit tax, income surcharges, and two others, two directly affect real estate. One is taxing unrealized gains. We haven't seen that come out explicitly, but implicitly, a California-style wealth tax would tax unrealized gains: your business might not be making money, but if it's worth $10 million, you're assessed 5% of it right off the top. The same applies to property. A lot of people own real estate they have no intention of selling, and under any wealth tax that gets captured, effectively taxing unrealized gains. The other is what we've seen in New York, which is actually law as of 2026, the so-called pied-a-terre tax. It taxes single-family homes, condos and residences that aren't rented out long-term; even if a place is rented, if it's for less than a year you're still taxed. It's fairly draconian, roughly 1% to 7%, with condos taxed heavily, and it's annual. That's what's really striking: the California wealth tax is reportedly a one-time 5%, though I'm sure it would be expanded, but the New York tax is an annual tax on property. So real estate is definitely under attack, under the mistaken belief that only the wealthy own it, but eventually this is going to hurt everybody.

If you want a professional read on how your investments, you can request a free portfolio review from an advisor who understands real assets at https://www.wealthion.com/advisors/.

This article is educational and is not investment, tax, or legal advice. It does not recommend any security. Advisory services are provided by Greylock Peak Investments, LLC, a subsidiary of Wealthion. Wealthion is compensated for advisor introductions; see the Solicitor's Disclosure Document, ADV Part 2A and Form CRS. That arrangement does not influence editorial coverage.