This is not a very good point, and it doesn't advance the discussion at all. There is an enormous burden of proof on you to argue that giving additional dollars to California is net beneficial, whereas the equity and bond markets' willingness to finance an expensive AI buildout provides ample evidence that people who know what they're talking about believe that dollars in the hands of these tech executives will produce something of value. Maybe you're smarter than all of them, but the way you advocate this wealth tax implies that you're going to great lengths to disguise this. Further, your point about the cyclicality of this tax revenue accidentally raises another point that is very damaging to your campaign. California's tax system is already cyclical! They're already overreliant on a small number of taxpayers compared to other states (different ones each year, but for CA to work it really needs to be the place where successful tech executives want to realize liquidity). The top 1% paid half the state's income taxes in 2021—then 40% less a year later, because tech stocks went down. A one-time wealth tax theoretically avoids this, because you just levy it when assets are expensive. But as far as I can tell, the plan is to spend the money in five years and hope somebody else has solve the state's budget problems by then. This is not what people conventionally refer to as a "plan." So I take Zucman at his word (iffy proposition!) when he says he wants it to be a regular thing. If we're going to tax a form of wealth, I have an idea should really tickle you as an economist, or at least as a guy who probably hangs out with them from time to time: tax the land! It's a broader tax base, land values are far more stable than equity, and land, of course, cannot hop on its private jet and head to Miami. This also has a salutary effect on California politics, by sending every homeowner in the state a shocking bill from time to time. This will get voters asking themselves the same question you refuse to answer: what good is the state doing with all of that money? I still find it puzzling that you're making such unsophisticated arguments, here. Surely, you can do better, and can explain what it is that the government California will do with another few billion dollars that it hasn't accomplished with the first $350bn or so. As I've shown you a few times now, it's entirely possible to have a well-informed, reasonable argument about the proposed wealth tax. All you have to do is switch sides.