Taxing Tuesday: Steven Spielberg, New Yorker
Escaping before a California Wealth Tax hits... let's make a list
In a self-indulgent NYT piece, an important piece of info drops in the opening sentence:
7 June 2026, NYT Magazine, Wes Morris: What Steven Spielberg Taught Me About Fear, Catharsis, and Being Human
On Jan. 1, something amazing happened. Steven Spielberg, a longtime Angeleno and most people’s dictionary definition of “Hollywood director,” became a New York City resident. On the one hand, this is a significant event. What classic Spielberg location requires a 212 or 718 or 646 to phone home? On the other hand, he has made five of his last six movies in New York State, including his exuberant, ominous reconsideration of “West Side Story.” Plus, for decades, Spielberg has kept a place on the Upper West Side. Five of his seven children live here, and all six of his grandchildren. So yeah: no big whoop. It was simply time. But to a New Yorker, this is a meaningful move: as if Magic Johnson had spent the rest of his career playing at the Garden.
The full piece is supposedly an interview between Morris and Spielberg, but as I said, it’s awfully self-indulgent of the author… a mere critic (cough cough).
Now, Spielberg’s move isn’t new news. As noted, he’s owned a place in NYC for decades. But he officially established residence as of Jan 2026 — and if you’re going to establish residence, especially tied to a particular time, it helps to make it really public:
20 Feb 2026, Fox Business: Steven Spielberg leaves California for New York as wealth tax push spurs political battle
One of the most acclaimed and successful American filmmakers in history has left California for New York.
Steven Spielberg and his wife, Kate Capshaw, officially became New York residents on Jan. 1, according to a report by the Los Angeles Times. The couple relocated to the San Remo co-op on Central Park West in Manhattan, which has previously housed celebrities including Bono, Mick Jagger, Warren Beatty and Tiger Woods.
On the same day that Spielberg reportedly established residency, his production company Amblin Entertainment opened an office in New York City, marking a notable transition away from Hollywood.
Spielberg has owned homes on both the East and West coasts since at least the mid-1990s.
Speculation around the timing of the move can be linked to a proposed one-time 5% wealth tax on California residents worth $1 billion or more. While it has not yet qualified [in February] for the November ballot, the proposal — backed by the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West — would take effect in 2027, and taxpayers could spread payments over five years, with additional costs, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Doing a quick look up on Spielberg — while he was born in Ohio, he lived in New Jersey for a few years as a child, and then his family moved out to Arizona. He got hooked on movies and Hollywood, and moved to California to learn film, and was very, very West, in terms of the U.S.
Sure, he got a pied-a-terre in NYC at some point when he made bank, but he was always very California… up until this year.
When it could have cost him a pretty penny, given his estimated over-$7B fortune:
I do find it interesting that he thinks New York is a safer harbor (more on that in a bit).
Comments in the New York Times on Wealth Taxes
Joshua Rauh on the wealth tax: [emphasis added]
To the Editor:
Saez and Zucman write that Google founders Brin and Page are “making moves to leave the state” while also claiming it is “improbable” that a significant number of billionaires left in time. But the number need not be large. Even if only those two departed, the ceiling on collections drops by 30%.
The essay also argues that even losing all billionaire income tax revenue would be a good trade, as it would take 25 years of lost taxes at $4 billion to equal a one-time $100 billion windfall. But the income tax losses grow over time and continue indefinitely. The long-run loss of the growing perpetuity could easily exceed the upfront gain, as any first- year finance student can explain.
Most remarkable is the assumption that California could lose many of its wealthiest founders without broader economic consequences for jobs, business expansion, and the future tax base those activities generate.
Joshua Rauh is a Senior Fellow and Benjamin Jaros is a Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution
I am familiar with Joshua Rauh from my long-time interest in public pensions and public finance — here are my various posts where I’ve linked to his work: [not exhaustive]
April 2014: Public Finances: Governments Desperate for Cold Hard Cash
March 2016: Pensions Puzzle: What Happens When the Money Runs Out? When Does it Run Out?
April 2016: Public Pensions and Finance Round-up: Tuesday April 12 - Money is Mobile and Not Coming in Fast Enough
May 2017: Around the Pension-o-sphere: California, Chicago, and Valuation!
Aug 2017: Public Pensions: On Accounting For Assets and Liabilities and REALLY BAD IDEAS
April 2020: Non-Taxing Non-Tuesday: A Hit to State Tax Revenues
July 2020: Classic STUMP: Public Pensions Primer--How Discount Rates Work [has a video of Rauh]
Alas for poor Prof. Rauh, given he’s a professor for Stanford… he’s kinda stuck with California for now.
(There, there, Prof. Rauh. I’m stuck with New York, through my own choice, I get it.)
NYT Archives: Wealth Taxes!
So I cannot get at the particular article Rauh is responding to, but hey! I have access to many years of NYT archives, and I find that Zucman loves wealth taxes!
Of course, if it’s based in the ages when wealth was real assets (as opposed to intangibles, like partial ownership in a privately-held business).
July 2013, NYT, Tyler Cowen: Wealth Taxes: A Future Battleground
IF you’d like to know where American political debates are headed, the data suggest a simple answer. The next major struggle -- in economic terms at least -- will be over whether taxes on personal wealth should rise -- and by how much.
The mathematical reality is that wealth is becoming more important, relative to income. In a new paper, “Capital Is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries 1700-2010,” Professors Thomas Piketty and Gabriel Zucman of the Paris School of Economics have performed the heroic task of measuring wealth for eight leading economies: the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Australia.
Their estimates reveal some striking trends. For instance, wealth accumulation in these eight countries has risen relative to yearly production. Wealth-to-income ratios in these nations climbed from a range of 200 to 300 percent in 1970 to a range of 400 to 600 percent in 2010. Behind the changing ratios is some bad news, namely that slow productivity growth and slow population growth have depressed income growth, but also some good news -- that relative peace and capital gains have preserved wealth.
I wonder if this was the work that had the spreadsheet problem.
The coming battles over wealth taxation may prove especially bitter and polarizing. Most wealth has already been subjected to income and other taxes, perhaps multiple times. It doesn’t seem fair to the holders of that wealth to suddenly pay additional taxes on assets that they thought were in the clear, and such taxes would signal that previous policy has failed.
Higher wealth in a nation means that there is more to take, and growing inequality means there are more problems that its government might seek to remedy. At the same time, however, this new economic configuration will mean greater political influence for the holders of that wealth, and that will make higher wealth taxes harder to achieve.
Historically, economists -- including me -- have generally favored taxes on consumption, on the grounds that they would do the least damage to long-term savings, investment and economic growth. Yet in some eyes, rising wealth will become a tempting target for short-term political gain. And note that while most Republicans currently oppose consumption taxes, they may dislike the relevant alternative, namely wealth taxes, even more.
The point is: where do you want to hit with taxes?
Cash flows?
Income statement? (note: not the same as cash flows)
Balance sheet (and note: wealth taxes… are we going with net worth…. or just the positive bits?)
Billionaire Exit Table
In this prior podcast episode:
The Return of Wealth Taxes: California and The Netherlands
Getting back into podcasting by looking at the recent wealth tax proposals in California and the Netherlands. The Box 3 “reforms” have already passed in The Netherlands and to go into effect in 2028, and in California, the wealth tax is likely to be a ballot proposal to be put in front of voters this fall in 2026, but backdated to January 2026. I look a…
I started a table of which billionaires have left California publicly, and I want to continue aggregating this table.
The above is an underestimate of the impact.
That’s assuming the impact of the single move of the individual.
OH! Alas! We couldn’t tax that one single EEEEEEEVIL RICH MAN!
And ignoring the entire productive enterprise that surrounds each person.
When Steven Spielberg re-domiciled to NYC, he also moved Amblin, his film production company.
GUESS WHAT CALIFORNIA NO LONGER CAN TAX?
One of the stupid things re: wealth and corporate taxes, even, people forget that there are more than a single individual involved.
In trying to harpoon that great white whale… you may miss the revenue you really need.
Because you are consumed by your personal envy.
I am with you on wealth taxes being a particularly bad idea, especially for the state that levies them since moving among the fifty states is easy.