Too Big To Tax | 2026 Midterms

Results as of Nov 4–5, 2026. Some races and ballot counts are still being finalized. Every fact below links to its source. Lines marked Opinion are commentary, not reporting.

Who won

According to Associated Press race calls reported by NPR, six candidates endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America won U.S. House seats: Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez (New York), Melat Kiros (Colorado), Angela Gonzales-Torres (California), Donavan McKinney (Michigan), and Chris Rabb (Pennsylvania).^[1] NPR reports that DSA’s House membership will grow fourfold from today’s two members, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.^[1]

DSA itself claims it is “poised to win at least 105 seats in elected office and ballot measures.”^[3] Axios notes the House wins came in deep-blue districts and “were not a surprise.”^[2]

Opinion: A larger socialist bloc does not need a surprise wave in purple America to matter. It needs leverage—and deep-blue seats are enough to demand that other people’s earnings be treated as a public piggy bank.

The agenda

NPR reports that these candidates campaigned on universal healthcare and childcare.^[1] DSA’s national statement lists Medicare for All among its priorities.^[3] Public reporting cited here does not show a costed federal tax bill from the six new DSA House winners.

Opinion: “Free” programs are never free. When politicians promise universal benefits without naming who pays, they are selling redistribution first and arithmetic later—what this site calls legalized theft dressed up as compassion.

Proposal: California’s billionaire tax (Prop. 40)

What it was: a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of individuals worth more than $1 billion. California DSA campaigned for it under the slogan “tax the rich.”^[4]

Claimed impact: SEIU-UHW, the union behind the measure, estimated $100 billion over five years. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office projected only “tens of billions,” and warned that billionaires leaving the state could reduce income tax revenue by less than $1 billion a year.^[5]

Result: voters rejected it, 55.6% No to 44.4% Yes, in early unofficial returns.^[5] Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, opposed it, arguing that it would drive wealthy residents out of the state.^[5]

Opinion: Even California’s Democratic governor saw the wealth tax as a way to chase away the people who already fund the state. Confiscating assets people already own is not “fair share”—it is a one-time raid on capital.

Proposal: Extending California’s top-earner income tax (Prop. 3)

California DSA also backed Prop. 3, the Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act, to make permanent the “temporary” income tax on the top 2% of earners from Prop. 55 (2016).^[4] CA DSA’s campaign page says that tax raised $14 billion last year.^[4] An earlier CA DSA resolution described the measure as raising between $5 billion and $12 billion a year.^[6]

Result: CalMatters reports Prop. 3 passed, with nearly 59% of voters in favor in early returns.^[7] San Jose Inside’s early unofficial table showed 58.7% Yes to 41.3% No.^[5]

Opinion: This is the familiar pattern: a temporary tax that never quite goes away. Voters who reject a flashy wealth grab can still lock in permanent higher rates—redistribution by installment plan.

Elsewhere: Washington’s “millionaires tax”

Washington’s Legislature enacted a 9.9% tax on individual income above $1 million, set to take effect in 2028 with first payments in 2029.^[8] Initiative 645 sought to repeal it. KNKX reports that as of Wednesday evening (Nov. 4, 2026), nearly 58% of votes counted were against repeal, so the tax remains intact in early returns.^[8] The state Office of Financial Management has estimated it will collect more than $11 billion over its first three years.^[8]

Opinion: California voters swatted down a wealth tax; Washington voters, so far, have kept a new high-earner income tax. Different tools, same theory: take more from a minority of earners and call it justice.

What it means for taxpayers