An AI startup founder says he is organizing a March for Billionaires in San Francisco to protest California’s proposed wealth tax, escalating a tech-versus-Tax Board drama that has been simmering for months. The stunt-like name sparked disbelief online, but the organizer insists the event is real and aimed at spotlighting what he calls fatal flaws in the state’s Billionaire Tax Act.
Who Is Behind the March and Why It Matters
The organizer is Derik Kaufmann, founder of the AI startup RunRL and a graduate of Y Combinator’s accelerator. He told local media the march is self-organized, not bankrolled by trade groups or corporate interests. While the branding invites ridicule, it underscores a genuine fight within California’s startup economy over how to tax extreme wealth without kneecapping founders whose net worth is largely tied up in illiquid private shares.
Early reaction on social platforms ranged from skepticism to sarcasm—many doubted actual billionaires would show up. Kaufmann himself has signaled expectations are modest, saying attendance could be limited to a few dozen supporters.
What the Proposed California Billionaire Tax Would Do
The Billionaire Tax Act would impose a one-time 5% levy on Californians with personal wealth above $1 billion. Backed by the Service Employees International Union, the measure’s supporters argue it could fill budget gaps and bolster public services following federal funding declines. California hosts the largest concentration of billionaires in the United States, according to Forbes, making the state a focal point for wealth-tax debates.
The proposal faces a steep climb. Beyond intense industry lobbying, Governor Gavin Newsom has indicated he would veto the measure if it reached his desk, a political reality that has not cooled the rhetoric from either side.
Why Startup Founders Say They’re Alarmed by the Tax
Tech founders argue the bill conflates “on paper” valuation with spendable wealth. A founder with a $1.2 billion stake in a private company might owe roughly $60 million under a 5% levy—cash that often does not exist unless shares are sold. Forced sales could trigger additional federal and state taxes, dilute control, and create adverse signals for investors. The mechanics of valuing private companies—409A appraisals, secondary-market marks, and changing investor terms—add layers of complexity that can swing liabilities by tens of millions of dollars year to year.
California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office has previously noted the administrative challenges of wealth taxation, including valuation disputes, migration risks, and revenue volatility. Economists also point to Europe’s experience: France scrapped its broad wealth tax in 2017 after evidence of capital flight, while Sweden abandoned its wealth tax in 2007 as policymakers worried it penalized entrepreneurship. Supporters counter that well-designed taxes with robust valuation rules and anti-avoidance provisions can raise revenue efficiently and equitably.
Optics, Strategy, and the Policy Backdrop
Branding a demonstration as a March for Billionaires is a high-risk PR move in a state grappling with housing shortages, a budget deficit, and visible inequality. But it’s also an attempt to shift the frame: from “tax the rich” to “don’t undermine builders of high-growth companies.” In private, many investors and founders say they fear a precedent that begins with billionaires but eventually reaches earlier-stage entrepreneurs and top earners critical to the startup ecosystem.
Labor groups and progressive policy advocates argue the opposite: extreme concentration of wealth and unrealized gains should contribute more to the public goods that make innovation possible—world-class universities, infrastructure, and a safety net that supports risk-taking. SEIU and allied researchers say a one-time levy could stabilize essential services without harming long-term growth, especially if paired with targeted incentives for early-stage companies.
How This Debate Could Play Out in California
Even with a likely gubernatorial veto, the political theater matters. The march keeps pressure on Sacramento as lawmakers weigh alternative revenue measures, and it broadcasts a message to founders who are already fielding offers to relocate to states with lower tax burdens. Any broader wealth-tax push—federal or state—will hinge on solving valuation, liquidity, and enforcement challenges that have stymied earlier attempts.
If the goal of the March for Billionaires is to provoke debate, it is already succeeding. Whether it changes minds in the Capitol may depend less on memes and more on credible proposals that reconcile fairness with the messy details of taxing assets that don’t trade on a public exchange.
