Imagine this logic applied to public debt.
California defaults on its debt, just this once, and promises never to do it again. Proponents say it will keep borrowing at the same rate as before.
Rauh would say: "No. Lenders won't believe you, so you'll pay a higher rate on everything you borrow from now on. That will cost us dearly in the long run."
Zucman would reply: "Fallacy. Why would lenders charge more unless you default again? And if you default again, you save money again... by virtue of, well, defaulting."
The key problem is this:
Why would billionaires permanently leave California in response to a one-time tax owed if they lived there on January 1, 2026?
It would only make sense for them to leave if the tax becomes annual.
But if the tax becomes annual, it would also generate revenue annually — by virtue of, well, being annual.