California Proposes a New Bill to Steal Private Property

The article seems quite manipulative so I will point out the weaknesses.
First, private property is tangible. It is land, homes equipment etc. There is a clause in the 5th Amendment "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

So let's reword to California taking wealth. Yes, governments require taxes and liberal states often take more. Yes, too the taxes are progressive, that the wealthier do pay more. The article cites that these wealthy individuals pay 23% of the total income and capital gains taxes. To me this always is a weird argument. First, if they paid 100% of the tax and had all the wealth in the state, would they be better or worse off? I would think far better. And so at 23% they still better off. It is true that those with less wealth could pay more. but inequality is near an all time American high so that seems ridiculous.

Now for the two moral arguments. First, is it theft? Is California stealing? No, not if it is passed into law which would seem to be the case.

The larger moral argument though comes from the likes the reformist Martin Luther. Luther believed that a moral business owner would restrict their profits for the sake of others. Amazing huh. "Also, Luther’s criticism of capitalism included far more than exorbitant interest rates. Social need always stood above personal gain. “ . . . In a well-arranged commonwealth the debts of the poor who are in need ought to be cancelled, and they ought to be helped; hence the action of collecting has its place only against the lazy and the ne’er-do-well” (“Lectures on Deuteronomy”). Source: https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/luther-on-the-use-of-money

I do not advocate going as far as Luther but I would suggest that 5% is not excessive as a one time wealth tax. Rather than focus though on the amount of taxes and who is paying them, the other side of the coin should be examined. That side is overall spending. All levels of government should be scrutinized for their spending. Still, it is not immoral to want the government to provide services. Government monies going to medical, education and welfare are not immoral in themselves. Voters choose various policies through their elected leaders. If one prefers different policies, billionaires and anyone else with even few resources can "vote with their feet."

Lastly and argument could be made that the many taxes benefit the wealthy. For example the Tesla tax credits, the no taxes on internet that lifted Amazon and other online sellers for many years, the massive tax credits that are sometimes offered to new corporations. Ask ai how much they estimate that corporate welfare costs California.

Lastly, there is an argument from the article that suggests these individuals may lack the ability to pay the 5%. Now that is amusing.