On Corporate Flight, Exit Taxes, and the Philosophical Rot Beneath
There is a question no California legislator will answer, because the answer condemns them. The question is this: On what basis does a state claim perpetual title to the wealth of a man’s business who has left it?
This is not a rhetorical question; it is a legal one. And a philosophical one. And, finally, a moral one, which means it is the most important one.
In 2020, California proposed Assembly Bill 2088. The bill would have imposed an annual 0.40 percent tax on worldwide net worth exceeding thirty million dollars, and, crucially, would have followed the taxpayer out of the state for ten years after departure on a sliding scale amounting to a 1.80 percent exit toll. You could leave California. You could establish residency in Texas, in Tennessee, in any free air you could find. It did not matter. Sacramento would follow you like a creditor who had never agreed to your terms but had decided, unilaterally, that you owed them.
Thank God that bill died. But the intention did not. It returned as Proposition 40, now on California’s November 3, 2026 ballot. The measure would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on covered wealth exceeding $1 billion. More remarkably, it reaches backward: liability turns on California residency as of January 1, 2026, months before voters will decide whether the tax should exist at all. The mechanism is new, but the premise is not. The state believes it owns you and your business. It is merely negotiating the price of your release.
Call this what it is: theft, not bureaucratic policy or taxation, in any legitimate philosophical sense. This is conscription of capital, the forced indenture of productive achievement to a government that produced none of it.
Let’s look at how Aristotle viewed this. He understood justice as proportional exchange. In the Nicomachean Ethics, he distinguishes between distributive justice, the proportional allocation of goods according to merit, and corrective justice, which restores balance after a wrong. What California’s exit tax proposes is neither of these things. It is not distribution; no service is rendered in exchange for ten years of post-departure tribute. It is not correction; no wrong has been committed by a man who built something, paid his taxes while resident, and then chose to leave. It is a third category Aristotle would have recognized immediately: pleonexia, the grasping desire to take more than one’s due. He called it the root of injustice. Sacramento has made it into a revenue model.
Aquinas, following Aristotle through the lens of natural law, held that unjust law is no law at all: lex iniusta non est lex. His argument was ontological. A law that violates the rational ordering of human goods, that inverts the relationship between the state and the person, making the person an instrument of the state’s ends rather than the state an instrument of the person’s flourishing, has already failed at the level of being. It does not merely wrong the taxpayer. It corrupts the lawgiver. The National Taxpayers Union, the California Chamber of Commerce, and constitutional scholars across the political spectrum noted that the exit tax’s ten-year trailing nexus would violate the right to interstate travel, impermissibly burden commerce, and likely constitute a bill of attainder targeting a specific, nameable class of individuals, approximately two hundred billionaires, without due process. Aquinas would not have been surprised. A law built on pleonexia produces pleonexia all the way down to its core.
Now let’s consider what these business owners built.
Since 2018, 561 companies have relocated their headquarters out of blue-state strongholds, according to CBRE. The San Francisco Bay Area lost 156 corporate headquarters over that period. Greater Los Angeles lost 106. Tesla moved from Palo Alto to Austin. SpaceX and X followed. Oracle left California for Texas, then Tennessee. Chevron departed San Ramon, where it has been headquartered since 1879, for Houston. In-N-Out Burger, born in Baldwin Park, is going to Tennessee. Its president, Lynsi Snyder, cited the difficulty of raising a family and running a business in California. Note that she did not say taxes first. She said family. There is a civilization argument buried in that word.
Two hundred major companies have moved to Texas alone since 2020. Dallas-Fort Worth captured 100 headquarters relocations, the most of any metro in the country. Texas has no state income tax. Tennessee has no state income tax. Florida has no state income tax. The three states ranked first, second, and third in Chief Executive Magazine’s Best States for Business in 2025 have this in common. California ranked fiftieth, for the fourteenth consecutive year.
Meanwhile, California faces a projected deficit of $50–$70 billion for 2025–2026, a reversal from a $97 billion surplus in 2021–2022. The Tax Foundation explains the mathematics with brutal simplicity: California’s revenue depends disproportionately on the income and capital gains of high earners. When those earners leave, the revenue collapses, and the state, rather than examining the policies that drove them out, reaches after them with a ten-year tax lien.
This is not moral governance. This is the logic of the trap.
A man who produces does not owe his production to those who did not produce it. This is not a hard principle to understand. It is the foundation of every honest exchange, every legitimate contract, every working civilization. The Kantian error, and it is a catastrophic one, is to sever duty from reality, to insist that obligation exists prior to and independent of any rational accounting of what is owed and why. California’s exit tax is Kantian governance in its purest form: you owe us because it is your duty to owe us. The claim needs no justification beyond its own assertion.
Reject this because it is false. Duty follows from nature. Nature has a telos. Wealth has a cause: the mind of the man or woman who created it from an idea to a reality, the risk taken, the years invested, the vision held against derision and doubt. The state that claims ownership of that wealth without having contributed to its creation has made a metaphysical claim it can never sustain. It has confused proximity with causation. Because the factory sat in California, California believes it built the factory. It did not. A man built it. California paved a road nearby that the man paid for.
Here is the theological bottom line. Christ is the Logos, the rational ordering principle through Whom and for Whom all things were made. All things hold together in Him, and He is not served by theft. The productive capacity of the human person, made in the image of the Creator, is not raw material to be seized by the state at the moment of departure. The imago Dei is not a taxable event. The state that mistakes itself for the source of wealth has committed an idolatry. It has installed itself in the place of the One in Whom all things hold together, and it has written the tribute to itself.
This is not merely hyperbole; it is the precise logic of what a ten-year exit tax claims: you cannot leave us, because we made you. But they did not make you. God made you. Your mind made the company. The state collected the tax while you were present and rendered certain services in return: roads, courts, the infrastructure of civil society. That is a legitimate exchange. The moment you leave, the exchange ends. Period. To follow you across state lines for a decade, taxing wealth you are building elsewhere, is to claim a sovereignty that belongs to no government under heaven.
The companies leaving California are not fleeing success. They are fleeing a government that has confused taxation with ownership, regulation with authority, and the productivity of its citizens with a debt to the state that can never be fully discharged.
In the end, the exit tax tells you everything you need to know about the philosophy behind it. A government confident in its value need not tax departure. Only a government that knows, at some unspoken level, that it has driven people away must reach after them as they go, hoping to grasp in tribute what it could no longer earn in trust. These are Christless men behind it.
Leave a Reply