It's probably a lower number still. The only thing this would apply to is income generated in California that is documented on tax records as well as assets physically located in California, both real and personal. Most rich people are smart enough to park their bank accounts, homes and assets outside of the state already, such as Nevada, to avoid such taxation attachments. So whoever came up with the new tax estimate probably didn't account for tax planning behavior already in place. As for the world wide asset figure, that's a hard legal climb to make. While you might have jurisdiction of the person in-state, federal tax law trumps and is well established how international assets are treated and taxed. CA tax laws have historically followed the same, so a federal court will likely throw out the attempt via lack of jurisdiction on assets and encroachment of state law into federal law territory.
It's probably a lower number still. The only thing this would apply to is income generated in California that is documented on tax records as well as assets physically located in California, both real and personal. Most rich people are smart enough to park their bank accounts, homes and assets outside of the state already, such as Nevada, to avoid such taxation attachments. So whoever came up with the new tax estimate probably didn't account for tax planning behavior already in place. As for the world wide asset figure, that's a hard legal climb to make. While you might have jurisdiction of the person in-state, federal tax law trumps and is well established how international assets are treated and taxed. CA tax laws have historically followed the same, so a federal court will likely throw out the attempt via lack of jurisdiction on assets and encroachment of state law into federal law territory.