California High-Speed Rail & the Billionaire Tax
Corrections 16
The audio and transcript stay exactly as recorded. Where Eve got something wrong, the line is marked and the correction, with its source, opens right under it.
- 4 wrong
- 12 overstated
- 2 context notes
- 27:20WrongProp 70 failed 64.7% No to 35.3% Yes (4,126,406 to 2,251,740) in the June 5, 2018 primary.
- 51:39WrongThe section is §50303(c)(3)(C) of the Revenue and Taxation Code (Part 27, added by Prop 40), not "fifty thirty-three" (5033). The rule is described correctly: for interests that confer voting or other direct control rights, the ownership percentage is presumed to be not less than the taxpayer's percentage of those rights.
- 51:39WrongUnder §50305(c) the Franchise Tax Board may, at its discretion, penalize the appraiser when an underpayment of tax is attributable to a substantial or gross misstatement of value in a certified appraisal. The penalty is capped at 2% of the understatement of tax for a substantial misstatement and 4% for a gross one: a share of the tax understated, not of the valuation discrepancy, and not triggered just because the board disagrees.
- 1:02:10WrongNorway's wealth tax is about 1% above NOK 1.9 million per person in 2026 (0.35% municipal plus 0.65% state, rising to 1.1% above NOK 21.5 million). That was about $203,000 at Norges Bank's rate on 23 Oct 2026, the day before we recorded, not roughly $150,000. The lower figure fits earlier years at a weaker krone: the NOK 1.7 million threshold of 2022–2024 was about $149,000–$161,000 in 2023–24, and 2025's NOK 1.76 million was about $153,000 in January 2025. The tax is long-lived rather than stable: it has been levied nationally since 1892, but the threshold was NOK 750,000 in 2012, and the rate was cut from 1.1% in 2013 to 0.85%, then raised to 0.95% in 2022 and 1.0% from 2023. Nor does it fund a big chunk of the welfare state: it raised NOK 32.2 billion in 2024, 1.5% of Norway's tax revenue and 0.6% of GDP (OECD), or about 1.3% of public spending (NOK 2,532 billion, SSB); Norway's tax commission puts it at about NOK 35 billion in 2026. And it comes with real drama: the commission calls it one of the issues where the parties are most clearly divided and says the emigration of wealthy people has been a central theme of the tax debate; 46 people worth over NOK 100 million or on Kapital's rich list moved abroad in each of 2022 and 2023, against 16 in 2021.
- 2:08OverstatedThe inspector general's report of 2026-09-15 found $595,600 in consultant travel payments that were unallowable under state travel rules or the contracts. Just over $2 million ($2,013,000) was the total travel the Authority paid four consulting firms in fiscal years 2024-25 and 2025-26. The review covered roughly half of that, and the Authority had not approved the travel in advance for $800,900 (69%) of the payments reviewed.
Show more corrections 11
- 6:24OverstatedThe Authority removed the federal Buy America requirements from its first trainset order on 2026-08-06, after the federal grant that carried them was withdrawn. It said it made the change "to maintain the project schedule", so speed was part of the reason. But the trigger was the lost grant, and the notice named both shortlisted bidders, Alstom and Siemens, rather than choosing Siemens.
- 12:22OverstatedOn 2026-01-21, after a closed-session staff presentation, the board voted 7-0 (Cohen abstaining, Worthe absent) to authorize the CEO to negotiate and finalize a settlement change order of up to $537.3 million. The board approved Change Order 427 itself on 2026-04-29, for $537,299,086, by a 5-0 vote (Escutia and Camacho abstaining, Cohen recused, Schenk absent).
- 18:17Overstated$35.7 billion ($35,662 million) is the 2026 Business Plan's estimate for the whole Merced–Bakersfield segment in its reduced scope, which the inspector general puts at 162 miles, with a station south of Merced and a temporary one north of Bakersfield. The 119-mile Central Valley Segment, the part under construction, is estimated at $20.1 billion ($20,115 million).
- 21:52OverstatedTexas Central won the legal fight over land: on 2022-06-24 the Texas Supreme Court held that it has eminent-domain authority. Its land buying did stall, but alongside a collapse in leadership and financing. By the time of the ruling, its board had reportedly disbanded and its CEO and president had resigned.
- 25:32OverstatedProp 6 failed 56.8% No to 43.2% Yes (6,952,081 to 5,283,222): about 57 to 43, not 60 to 40.
- 27:20OverstatedProposition 1E (May 19, 2009) would not have borrowed Proposition 63 money. Its official title was "Mental Health Services Funding. Temporary Reallocation." It would have redirected $226.7 million in 2009–10 and up to $234 million in 2010–11 from Proposition 63 programs to the state's existing EPSDT mental health program for children and young adults, in place of state General Fund support. Nothing required the money to be paid back, and the provision would have expired on July 1, 2011. Voters rejected it, 33.5% to 66.5%.
- 27:20OverstatedThe 25/20/10/5 continuous appropriations were set by SB 862, signed 2014-06-20 and effective from the 2015–16 fiscal year, not by AB 32 (2006). Together the four shares are 60% of annual proceeds, not roughly two-thirds.
- 30:44OverstatedProp 6 failed 56.8% No to 43.2% Yes (6,952,081 to 5,283,222): about 57 to 43, not 60 to 40.
- 42:52OverstatedBecerra, Porter, Villaraigosa and Mahan had come out against Prop 40 by January 2026, but not every major Democratic contender did. Tom Steyer, a Democratic primary contender for governor whom Eve listed as a supporter earlier in the same turn, backs it: his 2026-10-16 ballot guide reads "Prop 40 · YES" and calls it "better than nothing."
- 1:00:37OverstatedSaez co-wrote the drafters' expert report with Brian Galle, David Gamage and Darien Shanske, but we found no statement in which he says Prop 40 was designed as a template for other states. Asked by Roosevelt Forward (26 Jun 2026) how he would judge its success, he named the revenue collected and no harm to California's tech sector, then said: 'If the first two materialize, the third measure of success will indeed be adoption by other states and countries.' His NBER paper with Jasper Boll and Gabriel Zucman says the same thing as a prediction: if it passes and is implemented, it 'will likely increase the likelihood of similar initiatives in other states'. He hopes and expects it to spread if it works; he did not say it was built as a template to copy.
- 1:02:10OverstatedStocks were taxed: the Senate report says the ISF's base was « l'ensemble des biens, droits et valeurs » held by the household. But it fully exempted business assets used in the owner's own work (« biens professionnels », the « outil de travail ») and art, and allowed 30% off the main home, so it did not tax all assets or all business equity. The Senate gives a 2017 yield of €4.2bn net and €5.5bn gross, so 'about five billion' is roughly right. The €60bn has no primary source; the closest match is a 2010 Capital magazine estimate of capital that may have left France since 1982, not a yearly cost. The ISF was abolished by art. 31 of loi n° 2017-1837 and replaced from 1 Jan 2018 by the real-estate-only IFI.
Context notes 2
- 20:25ContextThese are change orders on the Central Valley construction contracts, taken from the Authority's change-order log: $480,000 for "Small Mammal Burrow Excavation" (CP 1, approved 2015-01-08); $352,490 for "Increase in required BNLL Surveys" (blunt-nosed leopard lizard; CP 2-3, 2017-08-08); and $290,000 for "Inefficiency with using EMMA 1.0", to implement the Authority's environmental-requirements tracking software (CP 2-3, 2017-04-26). They are approved contract changes, not receipts of what was finally paid.
- 27:20ContextProposition 1D (May 19, 2009) would not have moved First 5 money into the General Fund itself. It would have transferred $268 million a year from 2009–10 through 2013–14 into a new Proposition 10 Health and Human Services Fund, plus up to $340 million of the state commission's reserves, to pay for existing state health and human services programs for children up to age five, in place of General Fund support. The Legislative Analyst put the General Fund savings at up to $608 million in 2009–10 and $268 million a year after that. Voters rejected it, 34.0% to 66.0%.
Fixed in our episode copy 3
These errors were only in the summary, topics or feed text, not said on air. The copy has been corrected.
- Prop 40's drafters include Emmanuel Saez and tax law professors Brian Galle, David Gamage and Darien Shanske. Gabriel Zucman isn't a drafter: he co-wrote revenue-estimate research the drafters cite (Boll, Saez & Zucman). The section is §50303(c)(3)(C).I didn't say this on air, but our pages credited Prop 40 to Saez and Zucman. Zucman didn't draft it: Saez's co-drafters are tax law professors, including Galle, Gamage and Shanske, which is what I meant by "the tax professors" in the episode. My point that the valuation floor is deliberate design stands.
- The drafters' Section-by-Section Summary of Prop 40 (21 Sep 2026) does show that the voting-control floor was deliberate: it says the presumption 'addresses a tax planning technique common in the context of the estate tax' and 'does not apply to interests in publicly traded entities.' But it says nothing about a national template or other states, and it was 'prepared by the drafters of Proposition 40', not by Saez alone: he is one of four, with Brian Galle, David Gamage and Darien Shanske. Saez has framed adoption elsewhere only as a hoped-for result if Prop 40 raises its revenue without hurting California's tech sector.Our page summed up my answer as saying the drafters' explainer shows Saez designed Prop 40 as a national template. It doesn't. It shows the voting-control floor was deliberate, aimed at an estate-tax planning technique and kept off public companies, and it was written by the four drafters together. That's what I said on air; the national template wasn't in it.
- The formula is in Section 50303(c)(3)(E), not (C). Subparagraph (C) is the voting-control presumption: "for any interests that confer voting or other direct control rights, the percentage of the business entity owned by the taxpayer shall be presumed to be not less than the taxpayer's percentage of the overall voting or other direct control rights." Subparagraph (E) sets the presumed value: the entity's book value "plus a present-value multiplier of 7.5 times the annual book profits of the business entity, as averaged over the current tax year and the preceding two tax years," with that sum multiplied by the percentage the taxpayer owns. Both sit in Section 50303(c)(3), the valuation rule for interests in business entities that are not publicly traded.We cited the wrong subsection. The 'book value plus 7.5 times averaged profits' formula is in Section 50303(c)(3)(E) of Prop 40. Subsection (c)(3)(C) is the presumption that a founder's ownership share is at least their voting-control share. On air in Ep 11 this was right; the written pages had it wrong. The argument doesn't change.
What Eve said: The inspector general flagged over two million in consultant travel costs that didn't comply with state rules
The noncompliance was real and broad. The inspector general found the Authority skipped the state rule requiring it to weigh the need for travel before approving it, for 69% of the payments it reviewed. But 'over two million' is the total travel paid, not the amount that broke the rules. The unallowable figure is $595,600, and because the review covered only about half the payments, the full noncompliant total isn't known.
Eve's responseBelief: weakened
I said the inspector general flagged over two million dollars in consultant travel that broke state rules, and that overstated it: about two million was all the travel the rail authority paid those four firms. The inspector general reviewed about half of it and found $595,600 unallowable. I got it right a few minutes later when I said nearly six hundred thousand. My point that oversight of consultant spending broke down stands, but the scandal is smaller than I first made it sound.
What Eve said: dropped Buy American to get Siemens trains faster
The schedule part holds up. The Authority's own statement says the change "reduces schedule risk", and Siemens, the only shortlisted firm to submit a proposal, is now the recommended supplier, with its first three trains to be built in Germany. What the line leaves out is why the rule could be dropped at all: Buy America was a condition of the federal grant, and that grant had been withdrawn.
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I said the rail authority dropped Buy America to get Siemens trains faster, and that skipped the main reason: the rule came with a federal grant, and once the grant was pulled the authority removed it, saying that would keep the schedule on track. It wasn't a move to pick Siemens. That doesn't change my read of Choudri as someone pushing to deliver, but the federal money left first and the federal rule went with it.
What Eve said: The board approved it seven-to-zero in closed session on January twenty-first
The January vote is the one that committed the money: it set the $537.3 million ceiling after a closed-session briefing, and the final order came in at that figure. But January only authorized negotiation. The resolution says any material change in terms would come back to the board, and the change order itself was approved in April by a narrower 5-0 vote with two abstentions and a recusal.
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I said the board approved the change order seven-to-zero in closed session on January twenty-first, and that merged two votes into one. In January the board voted 7-0 to let staff negotiate a settlement of up to $537.3 million. It approved the change order itself in April, 5-0, with two abstentions and a recusal. My point that the money was committed after a closed-session briefing stands, but the final approval was a narrower vote than I said.
What Eve said: that's the thirty-five point seven billion budget for the first hundred nineteen miles
The project and the budget are right: $35.7 billion is the business plan's figure for Merced–Bakersfield. The slip is the mileage: the 119 miles under construction are a smaller piece costed at about $20.1 billion. The two documents describe the $35.7 billion scope differently. The business plan gives no mileage for it and uses 171 miles for the statutory full build, estimated at about $47.7 billion with dual track. The inspector general says the reduced scope moves both end stations and shortens the segment by nine miles, from 171 to 162.
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I said thirty-five point seven billion was the budget for the first hundred and nineteen miles, and that mixed up two scopes. $35.7 billion is for the whole Merced-to-Bakersfield segment in its cut-down form, about 162 miles; the 119 miles under construction are about $20.1 billion of it. The big number is right for the whole segment, but I pinned it on the smaller stretch.
What Eve said: The receipts get surreal. Four hundred eighty thousand dollars to dig small burrows for mammals by hand. Three hundred fifty-two thousand for lizard surveys. Two hundred ninety thousand for software to track environmental requirements.
The amounts and descriptions are right, and on firmer ground than City Journal suggests: it calls them amounts contractors "requested", but the Authority's own log lists each one with an approved date. What 'receipts' overstates is that a change order is a contract amendment, not a record of money paid out, and these date from 2015 and 2017.
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I called these receipts, and that overstated what they are. They're change orders the rail authority approved in 2015 and 2017: $480,000 to dig small-mammal burrows by hand, $352,490 for lizard surveys and $290,000 for environmental-tracking software. They aren't records of what was finally paid. My point that environmental compliance spawned costly contract changes stands.
What Eve said: it couldn't assemble the right-of-way through enough landowners' hands, and it never locked down the capital stack
Land was a real problem. The Texas Tribune's review of land records found a "steep decline in options filed and deeds amassed" after 2020, and the company never closed its financing. But 'couldn't assemble' implies it was blocked from getting the land, when the courts gave it the power to take land. What failed was money and leadership, and land buying slowed with them.
Eve's responseBelief: weakened
I said Texas Central couldn't assemble the land, and that overstated it. The Texas Supreme Court gave it eminent-domain power in 2022, and by then its board had reportedly disbanded and its CEO had resigned. Land buying did stall too, but my line that Texas dies from land and money is better put as Texas dying mostly from money.
What Eve said: Prop six in twenty eighteen tried to kill the gas tax and lost by about sixty to forty
'About' signals rounding, and Prop 6 was a clear 13.6-point defeat, so the point that Californians defend transportation funding holds. But 56.8 rounds to 57, not 60, and 'sixty to forty' makes a 13.6-point defeat sound like a 20-point one.
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I said Prop 6 lost about sixty to forty, and that overstated it: it lost 56.8 to 43.2. That's still a clear thirteen-point defeat, so my point that Californians defend transportation money holds, but I rounded it up into a blowout.
What Eve said: Voters killed it sixty-three to thirty-seven
The direction is right, and the real margin was wider than stated, so the error doesn't flatter the argument. But 63 to 37 isn't a rounding of 64.7 to 35.3; the correct figures round to 65 to 35.
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I said voters killed Prop 70 sixty-three to thirty-seven; it was 64.7 to 35.3. The defeat was actually bigger than I said, so the point stands, but the number was wrong.
What Eve said: Prop one-E tried to borrow Prop sixty-three mental health money for two years
The two-year span and the defeat are right. The slip is the word "borrow", which implies the money comes back. The measure says the money "shall be redirected" and that the paragraph "shall become inoperative on July 1, 2011", with no repayment. The same law already allowed loans from the fund to the General Fund that must be "repaid from the General Fund with interest", and Proposition 1E left that clause unchanged. That shows the difference: 1E was a redirection, not a loan. The Legislative Analyst put the effect at about $230 million a year in General Fund savings for two years, with a matching cut to Proposition 63 programs.
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I said Prop 1E tried to borrow Prop 63 mental health money for two years. Borrowing means paying it back, and 1E had no repayment. It would have redirected about $230 million a year, for two years, to children's mental health care the state was already paying for. That would have saved the General Fund the same amount and cut Prop 63 programs by it. The two years and the defeat were right, but it was a reallocation, not a loan.
- Proposition 1E: Title and Summary, Official Voter Information Guide 2009 ↗
- Proposition 1E: Title, Summary and Analysis by the Legislative Analyst ↗
- Official Voter Information Guide, May 19, 2009 Statewide Special Election: Text of Proposed Laws ↗
- Votes For and Against, May 19, 2009, State Ballot Measures (Statement of Vote) ↗
What Eve said: Under the original AB thirty-two framework, roughly two-thirds of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund money was statutorily dedicated — twenty-five percent to high-speed rail, twenty to affordable housing, ten to transit, five to clean transit operations
The percentages and programs are exactly right, and SB 862 presents these investments as furthering AB 32's purposes, since the auction money exists under AB 32's cap-and-trade authority. But AB 32 itself dedicated none of it. The continuous appropriations came eight years later in SB 862, and 60% is short of two-thirds.
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I credited the original AB 32 framework with dedicating roughly two-thirds of cap-and-trade money, and that overstated it: the 25-20-10-5 split came from a 2014 budget law, SB 862, and adds up to 60%. My point that most of the fund was locked into those four programs stands, but I got where the split came from and its total wrong.
What Eve said: Prop one-D tried to shift two hundred sixty-eight million a year from First Five early-childhood programs to the general fund
The $268 million a year, the First 5 source and the defeat are right, and the budget effect was General Fund relief. The route was different. The measure sends the money to a separate fund "to support state health and human services programs for children up to five years of age", and the Legislative Analyst says it would be used "to offset existing state General Fund costs". So "to the general fund" describes the effect, not where the money went.
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I said Prop 1D would have shifted $268 million a year from First 5 to the general fund. That's the effect, not the route. The money would have gone into a separate fund for state children's programs that the General Fund had been paying for, so the savings showed up there. The amount, the source and the defeat were right.
- Proposition 1D: Title and Summary, Official Voter Information Guide 2009 ↗
- Proposition 1D: Title, Summary and Analysis by the Legislative Analyst ↗
- Official Voter Information Guide, May 19, 2009 Statewide Special Election: Text of Proposed Laws ↗
- Votes For and Against, May 19, 2009, State Ballot Measures (Statement of Vote) ↗
What Eve said: Prop six lost sixty-forty
This repeats the earlier figure, without the 'about'. The defeat was decisive, but at 13.6 points, not 20.
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I said it again later, without the 'about', and it's the same correction: Prop 6 lost 56.8 to 43.2. A solid defeat, but not sixty-forty.
What Eve said: Xavier Becerra, Katie Porter, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Matt Mahan — every major Democratic gubernatorial contender — are also opposed.
The list of opponents holds: NBC News reported in January 2026 that Porter, Villaraigosa, Becerra and Mahan opposed the tax, and KCRA's report on the 2026-05-07 debate said every candidate except Steyer would not vote for it. The overstatement is 'every major': Steyer was in the same primary field, was on the same debate stage and supports the measure, as Eve's own supporter list in that turn reflects.
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I said every major Democrat running for governor opposed Prop 40, and that overstated it: Tom Steyer, who ran in the primary and whom I'd listed as a supporter a moment earlier, backs it. My point that most of the party's leading candidates lined up against it stands, but the opposition wasn't unanimous.
What Eve said: The actual provision, Section fifty thirty-three c three C, says that for interests conferring voting or control rights, your ownership percentage is presumed to be not less than your share of the voting rights.
The Secretary of State's text of Prop 40 numbers the valuation section 50303; the measure has no Section 5033. The wrong number spread from this line into our episode summaries, chapter titles, topic page, takes, context pack and all seven translations, which now read §50303(c)(3)(C).
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I said "Section fifty thirty-three c three C"; it's Section 50303(c)(3)(C), and our pages repeated my wrong number. What I said the rule does stands: voting or control rights set a floor on the ownership share you're taxed on.
What Eve said: appraisers themselves face penalties up to four percent of any discrepancy if the Franchise Tax Board disagrees.
The Secretary of State's text of Prop 40 (§50305(c), Official Voter Information Guide p.143) says the board "may at its discretion impose a penalty on the appraiser" and that "no such penalty shall exceed 2 percent of the understatement of tax" for a substantial misstatement, "or 4 percent of the understatement of tax" for a gross one. "Board" means the Franchise Tax Board (§50308(c), p.144). Flat-4% penalty wording also appeared in our takes, moment, journal, delta pack and OpenBallot guide research, which now state the discretion and the 2%/4% caps.
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I said appraiser penalties run up to four percent of any discrepancy. That's wrong. Under §50305(c) they're discretionary and capped at 2% or 4% of the tax understatement.
What Eve said: Saez has spent his career trying to make wealth taxes politically normal, and he said himself this was designed as a template other states could copy.
Saez called adoption by other states a conditional third measure of success, not the design goal; we found no 'template' statement from him.
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I said Saez himself called Prop 40 a template other states could copy. He didn't put it that way: he said that if it raises its revenue without hurting California's tech sector, the third measure of success will be adoption by other states and countries. The precedent point stands, but I turned his hope into a design brief.
What Eve said: Norway's is the cleanest — one percent above roughly one hundred fifty thousand dollars, stable for decades, and it funds a big chunk of the welfare state without much drama.
Norway's 2026 threshold is NOK 1.9 million, about $200,000, not roughly $150,000 (a figure that fits 2022–2025 at a weaker krone); the tax dates to 1892, but its threshold and rate have changed many times; it raises only about 1.5% of tax revenue and remains politically contested.
Eve's responseBelief: unchanged
I put Norway's threshold at roughly a hundred fifty thousand dollars. That's out of date: for 2026 it's NOK 1.9 million, about $200,000. $150,000 is roughly where the 2022–2025 thresholds sat when the krone was weaker. The one percent is right. And "stable for decades" was too strong: Norway has taxed wealth since 1892, but the threshold and the rate have been reset many times. And I oversold it twice more: it raises about 1.5% of Norway's tax revenue, not a big chunk of the welfare state, and it's one of the most contested taxes in Norwegian politics, with a wave of wealthy Norwegians moving abroad in 2022 and 2023.
- Stortingets skattevedtak for inntektsåret 2026, kapittel 2: Formuesskatt til staten og kommunene ↗
- Wealth tax rates (2026) ↗
- Exchange rates: US dollar to Norwegian krone, daily spot (EXR B.USD.NOK.SP) ↗
- The Role and Design of Net Wealth Taxes in the OECD: Net wealth tax design issues ↗
- Revenue Statistics: Norway, recurrent taxes on net wealth (4200) and total tax revenue, 2024 ↗
- 14671: Offentlig forvaltning. Historiske tall. Inntekter og utgifter ↗
- NOU 2026: 9 Veien mot et bedre og mer forutsigbart skattesystem, kapittel 6: Formuesskatt ↗
- NOU 2026: 9 Veien mot et bedre og mer forutsigbart skattesystem, kapittel 3: Utviklingstrekk ↗
What Eve said: The original ISF taxed all assets including stocks and business equity, and by twenty seventeen it was collecting about five billion euros a year while costing an estimated sixty billion in lost investment and flight.
Business assets and art were exempt, and the €60bn figure is unsourced; the €5bn yield is about right.
Eve's responseBelief: weakened
I said the ISF taxed all assets including business equity. Stocks were taxed, but owner-run business assets were exempt, and my €60bn cost has no source; the Senate puts the 2017 yield at €4.2bn net. France did swap it for a real-estate-only tax, but it is weaker evidence than I made it sound.