Do you support or oppose California’s new proposal to impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires?

Support (45%) – "It is merely one step in the right direction. Enacting progressive and fair-share taxation on both individuals and corporations at the state and federal levels are another step. As long as billionaires can continue to unduly influence elections, write their own tax code and buy senators & representatives - the national debt will continue to spiral out of control."

• "The amount they will have to pay compared to their wealth is SO negligible while they continue to reap more benefits of our system whereas the money it will garner can support programs to help those who actually need it, those whom even a small amount of financial support goes an extremely long way."

"Though this likely will not pass, the idea of having the highest earners pay a tax rate comparable to the average middle class earner is more than logical. The root cause is not so much the tax rates in the tax code, but the limitless number of tax avoidance clauses that are available to the highest earners. (See Peter Theil and Roth IRA's). No matter what route that elected officials may take, the amount of money that lobbyist and "big money" will throw at it towards defeat of any action, will be staggering. Again, the most equitable path forward is to strip the tax code of "elite only" tax avoidance provisions."

• "The largest earners typically pay the lowest taxes out of anyone, even those who make very little. It's only reasonable that billionaires who have taken advantage of tax loopholes for decades pay their fair share for once."

"As an inhabitant of CA I support the idea of having elite earners prop up the needs of the many. They live here for the same reason I do, the climate. I pay my dues and don't have access to loopholes as they do. This measure is simply to assist in the coverage of services and it won't hurt them one iota."

Oppose (39%) – "We all are next. Taxing on government valuations of assets that you own - not selling but own - is horrible precedent and if implemented will feed the greedy government machine to do it for all. This is exactly how income tax started, “just 1% and will be temporary,” we know how that went."

• "If they are willing to tax billionaires, what’s to stop them from trickling that tax idea down to the normal people and adding another 5% on top of what people are already paying. Once a precedent is set, it’s hard to turn back."

"Economics 101. There is no border wall keeping millionaires and billionaires tied to California. They will pack up and move elsewhere, and they already pay the majority of the taxes California uses for fraud and waste. When they leave, CA will face an even larger deficit and the only taxpayers remaining to pay will be the middle class and small businesses. Not to mention the mentality of punishing success by levying higher taxes. How many jobs have these businesses and individuals employed, who then pay taxes and buy goods. The alternative and default position of deficits should be cutting spending and eliminating fraud and waste."

• "In light of recent findings of fraud throughout CA government run agencies they should not be allowed to create new taxes until they have their current budgets under wraps. Fraud, Waste & Abuse needs to be their #1 priority. Once they stop spending most of their budget on fraud it may reveal that new taxes are not needed."

Unsure/other (16%) – "In theory, I support this but understand the concerns of the Governor who worries that this will drive industries out of the state, especially in Silicon Valley. Instead, I wish they would alter the federal income tax to account for this so that all states are treated equally here. If they did that, there also would have to be some assurance by the federal government that the additional money would go back to the states."

• "I agree that taxing the wealthy is a good idea. A very good idea. But a one time tax? No. Everyone else pays taxes all the time so why shouldn't the wealthy?"