View this post on the web at [link removed]

⏱️ 8 min read
An Insider Briefing on the Billionaire Tax Poll
Political strategist and consultant Mike Murphy, someone I have known for decades, recently shared topline findings from a new statewide survey examining the proposed California “billionaire tax.” The polling was conducted by The Mellman Group, a firm with a long history in public-opinion research, and it provides a useful snapshot of how voters respond to this proposal once they are exposed to its details.
I’ve reviewed the deck, and while access to full toplines and crosstabs might add nuance, the data presented here tells a fairly consistent and politically significant story.
By way of background, the proposal would impose a one-time wealth tax of up to five percent on individuals and trusts with assets over $1 billion, directing roughly 90 percent of the revenue to healthcare and the remaining 10 percent to food assistance or education-related programs. I view this as a legally vulnerable and economically risky idea that is unlikely to raise anything close to what its supporters promise.
I laid out that case in more detail in an earlier column, which you can read here [ [link removed] ]
One caveat before going further. This survey was prepared as an analysis for private clients and presented through a briefing deck rather than full toplines or crosstabs. That does not make the data inaccurate, but it does mean we are seeing the findings the sponsors chose to highlight. There may be results more favorable to the measure that are not included.
With that said, what is included is telling.
The Measure Starts Below 50% — and Gets Weaker
On the official title and summary language voters would see on the ballot, the initiative starts in a precarious position. Forty-eight percent say they would vote yes, 38 percent say no, and 14 percent are undecided. Measures that begin below 50 percent rarely have an easy path to passage.
What happens next compounds the problem. After voters hear arguments from both sides, support slips to 46 percent while opposition rises to 44 percent. Exposure to more information moves voters away from the measure, not toward it.
That erosion is concentrated among persuadable groups. Support drops seven points among Republicans, seven points among weak liberals, six points among college-educated voters, and eight points among Asian voters. Even among Democrats, support dips slightly once messaging is introduced. Initiatives that lose ground at this stage almost never regain it.
A Core Problem: Voters Don’t Believe the Money Shows Up
The most important takeaway is not ideological resistance to taxing billionaires. Many voters are open to that idea. The real problem is that they do not believe this proposal would actually work.
Sixty-nine percent say it is very likely or almost certain that billionaires would hire lawyers and accountants to avoid the tax, leading the state to collect far less revenue than projected. Roughly half believe the measure would be tied up in court for years. Forty-nine percent think billionaires would leave California for seven months a year to avoid paying taxes, and 46 percent believe jobs would leave with them.
By contrast, only 28 percent believe it is very likely the measure would prevent a collapse in California’s healthcare system. The same share believes it would help Californians who are losing access to healthcare due to federal cuts. Just 25 percent believe it would ensure billionaires pay their fair share.
That gap between anticipated downsides and promised benefits sits at the center of the measure’s weakness.
Healthcare Messaging Doesn’t Overcome the Doubts
Supporters lean heavily on healthcare as the moral justification for the tax, but the data show that message is not persuading voters.
In a direct contrast test, 47 percent say the initiative will fail because billionaires will leave the state, taking revenue and job-creating businesses with them. Only 41 percent believe it will protect California from federal healthcare cuts. Even invoking Donald Trump does not materially improve confidence in the proposal.
When voters are forced to choose between outcomes, skepticism prevails.
Even the Revenue Split Raises Red Flags
Another underappreciated problem appears in how voters view the allocation of funds. 44% say dedicating 90% of revenue to healthcare is too much because it shortchanges education, compared with 31% who say the split is appropriate.
This concern crosses party lines. Thirty-nine percent of Democrats, 39 percent of independents, and 40 percent of moderates say the healthcare allocation goes too far. Instead of reinforcing confidence, the measure's structure raises further doubts.
The Arguments Against the Measure Are More Persuasive
When individual messages are tested, the imbalance is clear. The most convincing pro-tax argument — that it affects only about 200 billionaires — is found very convincing by 35 percent of voters. Several arguments against the measure perform better, including claims that it will drive businesses out of the state (38 percent very convincing), allow billionaires to avoid the tax by leaving the state for seven months a year (37 percent), and create costly new bureaucracies and legal battles (36 percent).
The arguments against the proposal simply sound more believable to more voters.
So, Does It Matter?
What stands out most in this survey is not hostility toward taxing the ultra-wealthy, but the depth of cynicism about whether this proposal would actually deliver what it promises. Many voters — including those inclined to support higher taxes on billionaires — assume the revenue never materializes once avoidance, litigation, and relocation begin.
A measure that starts below 50 percent, loses support as voters learn more, and cannot persuade voters that it will work, faces a steep uphill climb in California.
For paid subscribers: the full polling deck from The Mellman Group is available below the paywall. It’s a pretty extensive deck with a lot of insights, and a polling memo as well...

Unsubscribe [link removed]?