The Changing WaPo

The recent Washington Post editorial is a fine example of how much the Post has changed in just two years. It is a critique of Gavin Newsom. Here’s a snippet.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called for a national wealth tax on Friday while opposing a ballot measure that would impose one in his own state. If it’s bad for the Golden State, it’s worse for America.

The Service Employees International Union got a measure onto the November ballot that would take 5 percent of all assets from every billionaire living in California. This supposedly one-time wealth tax would fund health care programs that employ SEIU members. The union offered to reduce the tax to 2 percent if the governor would get on board, but he said no.

Newsom says he opposes a California wealth tax because the money shouldn’t just go to health care, and he’s concerned about the continuing exodus of affluent residents to lower-tax states. He reasons that a federal version would be harder to escape.

Like most calls for taxing the super-rich, Newsom immediately broadens his pitch. In a social media video promoting his idea, he begins by saying, “It’s time for a national billionaire’s tax.” Then, in the very next sentence, he says, “Ten percent of people in this country own two-thirds of the wealth.”

The top 10 percent of income earners includes people earning roughly $140,000 annually, so Newsom has shifted from talking about billionaires to talking about a much broader segment of the population. There is a legitimate point to be made about the concentration of wealth. Fifty-five years ago, the top 70 percent of income earners owned roughly 70 percent of the nation’s wealth. Today, wealth is concentrated in far fewer hands. But that is a different argument from taxing billionaires, and Newsom appears to move from one to the other without acknowledging the distinction.

The editors then make economic and legal arguments against a wealth tax. Their strongest point is that wealth taxes have generally failed to achieve their stated objectives.

Other countries have tried out wealth taxes and found them wanting. As many as 12 OECD countries had a wealth tax in the 1990s. Today, only four do. Experience has shown that wealth taxes don’t raise as much money as proponents promise, and they are tremendously complicated to administer.

The OECD is hardly run by anti-tax libertarians, and even its researchers have found that wealth taxes aren’t a good idea. In a 2018 paper that argues tax codes should be used to reduce wealth inequality, OECD economists still find that wealth taxes are not an effective way to do so.

I would add another consideration. The “friction” involved in leaving the United States is far lower than it once was. Modern transportation, communications, and financial systems make it easier for wealthy individuals to relocate than in previous generations. In 2025 alone, roughly 5,000 Americans renounced their citizenship, many citing tax considerations among their reasons.

All of this reinforces a point I’ve made many times before: governments, like households, should strive to live within their means. Borrowing can postpone difficult choices, but it does not eliminate them. Eventually the bill comes due, often for people who had no role in creating it.

In a future post I’ll document how the editorial policy of the Washington Post has changed over the last two years. That won’t prove the case by itself, but it will at least provide evidence that the paper’s editorial direction has shifted.