As I do most election cycles, let’s take a look at a few key ballot initiatives.

We’ll start with California’s suicidal proposal for a (supposedly) one-time confiscation of billionaire wealth. I have a five-part series on this class-warfare initiative (available here, here, here, here, and here), but I’ll add one more bit of evidence.

Here’s a chart showing the probable impact on state tax revenue based on how many rich people leave the state and the concomitant loss of jobs and investment. The red bars mean a loss of revenue.

The chart comes from a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Here are some excerpts from the study, which was authored by scholars from Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

This paper examines the revenue and migration impact of the 2026 California Billionaire Tax Act, a one-time 5 percent tax on the worldwide net worth of individuals exceeding $1 billion. …we estimate collections of approximately $30 billion (range $28-36 billion). Seven publicly confirmed departures already eliminated nearly 30% of the wealth tax base before signatures were collected. California’s billionaires contribute an estimated $3.3–5.8 billion annually in state income taxes, and the present value of those lost collections more than offsets the one-time wealth tax revenue under midpoint assumptions. Across 100,000 draws from the plausible parameter space, 85% of outcomes yield a negative net present value, with a mean NPV of −$38.9 billion. Even in 15% of the simulated scenarios in which NPV is positive, the amount of present value revenue would still be relatively small. Policies that distort behavior but generate little or no net revenue gain may nonetheless impose substantial costs on residents through reduced employment, investment, and income. Billionaire departures, and the fact that new founders would think twice about locating in California, have significant potential economic effects if the location of jobs and innovation shifts elsewhere. These findings suggest that the Billionaire Tax Act will not fulfill the primary functions for which it was designed. Although the Act was designed to raise revenue, behavioral response prior to voting has eroded most of the projected tax base. …Even in the minority of scenarios where the net present value is positive, the gains are modest, while the distortions to employment, investment, and the location decisions of future founders are not.

My only comment is that left-wing voters will learn a very painful lesson about the Laffer Curve if the initiative is approved.

Another very important referendum will take place in Colorado. The pro-spending lobbies are once again trying to cripple the state’s best-in-the-nation fiscal structure (a spending cap combined with a flat tax).

The Wall Street Journal opined on the implications two days ago. Here are some excerpts.

Colorado remains a relatively low-tax oasis. Progressives are seeking to change that with two measures on the November ballot that would gut the state’s spending limit and establish a steeply progressive income tax. Democrats and their union friends have long wanted to eliminate Colorado’s 1992 Taxpayer Bill of Rights (aka Tabor). With progressive enthusiasm running high, they see this year as their chance. Tabor limits annual spending growth to the rate of population growth plus inflation. Revenue that exceeds the limit must be returned to taxpayers. …Colorado’s 4.4% flat income tax is lower than the rate in most of its neighbors, including Utah (4.45%), Oklahoma (4.5%), Nebraska (4.55%) and New Mexico (5.9%). This has made it a more attractive place to live, work and grow a business. Maybe not for long. Progressives are pushing a measure (Amendment 87) that would replace the state’s 4.4% flat tax with a graduated income tax that tops out at 8.4%… Under Tabor, lawmakers would ordinarily have to refund to taxpayers revenue that new taxes generate above the spending cap. But additional revenue from the progressive tax would be exempt from the cap. …Let’s hope Colorado voters realize the benefits of their long-time checks on the insatiable appetites of public unions and their politically kept men and women.

There are three other initiatives that I will closely follow.

In the state of Washington, voters are trying to repeal the newly enacted class-warfare income tax.

In North Carolina, voters will choose whether to amend the state constitution to cap income tax rates at 3.5 percent.

In Iowa, voters will be deciding whether to impose a supermajority requirement to increase taxes.

Unfortunately, I’m generally not optimistic about the outcome of these initiatives.

Voters are not happy with the Trump economy (gee, protectionism backfired, what a surprise!) and Democratic voters are much more motivated this election cycle. And I’m guessing they’ll likely vote for the initiatives I don’t like and against the ones I do like.

The only exception is the California wealth tax. I’m guessing that will fail because a sufficient share of leftists (like Paul Krugman) actually understand the Laffer Curve. As captured by this cartoon, they realize that parasites need a healthy host.