News
“Elon Musk provision:” CA ponders wealth tax–even for those who moved out of state
California legislators are advocating for legislation that would introduce a new tax on the state’s wealthiest residents, even if they have already relocated to another area of the country. The bill was introduced by Assemblyman Alex Lee, a progressive Democrat in the California State Legislature.
Lee’s bill would impose an additional annual 1.5% tax on individuals with a “worldwide net worth” over $1 billion, beginning as early as January 2024. As early as 2026, the bill’s threshold would drop, as individuals with a worldwide net worth over $50 million would also be hit with a 1% annual tax on wealth. Lee estimates that the proposal could raise about $22 billion in new revenue for the state.
In a post on Twitter, Lee noted that the bill is a way for the ultra-rich to pay their fair share. “The working class has shouldered the tax burden for too long. In CA, we’ve introduced #ACA3 + #AB259 to tax the ultra rich & invest in all Californians. The ultra rich are paying little to nothing by hoarding their wealth through assets. Time to end that,” Lee wrote in a post.
While exit taxes are not new in California, the bill includes provisions to create contractual claims tied to the assets of wealthy taxpayers who are unable to pay their annual wealth tax bill because the majority of their assets are not easily converted to cash. The bill would then require annual filings with the California Franchise Tax Board so the individuals can pay the wealth taxes they owe, even if they have already relocated to another state.
Steve Boultbee, a tax partner at Marcum LLP in San Francisco, told the San Francisco Business Times that the proposed tax appears to be a way to discourage residents of California from relocating to another state, especially before an initial public offering or other liquidity events. Boultbee noted that individuals such as Tesla CEO Elon Musk could be affected by the bill.
“You’re gonna have to have left four years before, or they’re going to conceivably get you for something. My first thought is that this could be an ‘Elon Musk provision’ since he moved to Texas,” the tax partner said.
Supporters of the legislation have argued that the funds it could collect from the state’s wealthiest could provide funding for key programs, such as schools, housing, and other social initiatives. Experts, however, have argued against the bill. Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at Tax Foundation, noted in a statement to Fox News Digital that the bill would actually damage the state’s economy.
“The proposed California wealth tax would be economically destructive, challenging to administer, and would drive many wealthy residents — and all their current tax payments — out of state. The bill sets aside as much as $660 million per year just for administrative costs, more than $40,000 per prospective taxpayer, giving an idea of how difficult such a tax would be to administer.
“A wealth tax could be particularly destructive in California, home to so many tech startups, because the owners of promising businesses could be taxed on hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of estimated business value that never actually materializes. Very few taxpayers would remit wealth taxes, but many taxpayers would pay the price,” Walczak added.
Patrick Gleason, vice president of state affairs at Americans for Tax Reform, also told the publication that the bill’s system to “get around” the problem of the wealthy leaving California by trying to “tax people even after they leave the state” is questionable at best, or unconstitutional at worst. It should be noted that previous studies have demonstrated that the top 1% of taxpayers in states such as New York and California actually contribute approximately 50% of state income taxes, just as highlighted by individuals such as Elon Musk in the past.
According to Forbes’ 2022 World’s Billionaires list, California remains home to the most billionaires in the country, with 186 living in the state. This is a decrease from the previous year’s count of 189. Despite this, several companies, such as McKesson, Oracle, Tesla, and Charles Schwab, have relocated their headquarters to Texas in recent years.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
News
Tesla to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report
Tesla has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.
Tesla is reportedly discussing an expansion of its next-generation AI chip supply deal with Samsung Electronics.
As per a report from Korean industry outlet The Elec, Tesla purchasing executives are reportedly scheduled to meet Samsung officials this week to negotiate additional production volume for the company’s upcoming AI6 chip.
Industry sources cited in the report stated that Tesla is pushing to increase the production volume of its AI6 chip, which will be manufactured using Samsung’s 2-nanometer process.
Tesla previously signed a long-term foundry agreement with Samsung covering AI6 production through December 31, 2033. The deal was reportedly valued at about 22.8 trillion won (roughly $16–17 billion).
Under the existing agreement, Tesla secured approximately 16,000 wafers per month from the facility. The company has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.
Tesla purchasing executives are expected to discuss detailed supply terms during their visit to Samsung this week.
The AI6 chip is expected to support several Tesla technologies. Industry sources stated that the chip could be used for the company’s Full Self-Driving system, the Optimus humanoid robot, and Tesla’s internal AI data centers.
The report also indicated that AI6 clusters could replace the role previously planned for Tesla’s Dojo AI supercomputer. Instead of a single system, multiple AI6 chips would be combined into server-level clusters.
Tesla’s semiconductor collaboration with Samsung dates back several years. Samsung participated in the design of Tesla’s HW3 (AI3) chip and manufactured it using a 14-nanometer process. The HW4 chip currently used in Tesla vehicles was also produced by Samsung using a 5-nanometer node.
Tesla previously planned to split production of its AI5 chip between Samsung and TSMC. However, the company reportedly chose Samsung as the primary partner for the newer AI6 chip.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk: Tesla could be first to build AGI in humanoid form
Musk’s statement was shared in a post on social media platform X.
Elon Musk predicted that Tesla could become one of the developers of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in humanoid form. Musk’s statement was shared in a post on social media platform X.
In his post, Musk stated that “Tesla will be one of the companies to make AGI and probably the first to make it in humanoid/atom-shaping form.”
The comment comes as Tesla expands development of its Optimus humanoid robot.
During Tesla’s Q4 earnings report, Elon Musk stated that production of the Model S and Model X would be phased out at its Fremont, California, facility. The vehicles’ production line will then be converted to a pilot line for Optimus. Tesla is looking to produce 1 million units of the humanoid robots annually to start.
Musk has previously stated that Optimus could eventually function as a von Neumann probe. The concept, proposed by mathematician John von Neumann, describes a machine capable of replicating itself using planetary resources and sending those replicas to other worlds.
Optimus would likely only be able to achieve this potential if it manages to achieve Artificial General Intelligence.
Other leaders in the AI sector have also expressed strong expectations about AGI’s potential. Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, recently spoke about the technology at the India AI Impact Summit 2026, as noted in a Benzinga report.
“It’s going to be something like ten times the impact of the Industrial Revolution, but happening at ten times the speed,” Hassabis said.
Elon Musk’s recent comments about Tesla producing a product with AGI could hint at further collaboration among his companies. So far, Tesla is actively pursuing autonomous driving, but it is xAI that is pursuing AGI with its Grok program.
Considering that Elon Musk mentioned a Tesla humanoid product with AGI, it appears that an Optimus robot running xAI’s AI models could become a reality.
xAI had recently merged with SpaceX, though reports suggest that Elon Musk is also considering an even bigger merger for all his companies, including Tesla.
News
Tesla influencers argue company’s polarizing Full Self-Driving transfer decision
Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”
Tesla’s decision to tighten its Full Self-Driving (FSD) transfer promotion has ignited fierce debate among owners and enthusiasts.
The company quietly updated its terms in late February 2026, changing the eligibility from “order by March 31, 2026” to “take delivery by March 31, 2026.”
What began as a flexible incentive to boost sales, allowing buyers to transfer their paid FSD (Supervised) to a new vehicle, now excludes many, particularly Cybertruck owners facing delivery delays into summer or later.
Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”
The reversal has polarized the Tesla community, with accusations of a “bait-and-switch” clashing against defenses of corporate pragmatism. Many owners who placed orders under the original wording feel betrayed, especially as production backlogs and new unsupervised FSD rollout complicate timelines.
However, Tesla has allowed them to cancel their orders and receive a refund.
Critics of the decision argue that the change disadvantages loyal customers who helped fund FSD development, calling it poor communication and a revenue grab as Tesla pivots toward subscriptions.
Popular influencers have amplified the divide. Whole Mars Catalog struck a measured but firm tone, acknowledging the original “order by” language but emphasizing Tesla’s right to adjust terms. He has continued to defend Tesla in this particular issue:
Sad to see so many fans trashing Tesla with such extreme language.
LIARS!!! PATHETIC!!! And if you aren’t as furious and angry as they are they are you’re “worshipping” and saying “they can do no wrong”.
Let’s get real here. They’re not liars. They offered FSD transfer to us… https://t.co/3Ay7vGaVR6
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 3, 2026
He criticized extreme backlash as “dramatization” and “spoiled kids,” noting the unsupervised FSD era and broader sales challenges make blanket transfers financially risky. Whole Mars advocated for polite outreach to CEO Elon Musk over the issue.
Rather than “calling them out”, I would simply say “Hey Elon, really hoped to be able to do FSD transfer on my cybertruck but the terms changed. Would really appreciate if Tesla could extend this to everyone who ordered before the terms changes”
that would probably work
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 3, 2026
In a contrasting perspective, Dirty TesLA voiced sharper frustration, posting that blocking transfers feels “crazy” and distancing himself from “people that want to worship a corporation and say they can do no wrong.” His stance resonated with owners who view the policy flip as disrespectful to early adopters.
Popular Tesla influencer Sawyer Merritt captured the frustration felt by thousands. In a widely shared thread viewed over 700,000 times, Merritt detailed how pre-change Cybertruck orders now risk losing FSD eligibility unless their initial delivery window falls before March 31.
It’s not a contradiction, it’s a change in policy that Tesla just made an hour ago. I am trying to check if the change is retroactive to all existing orders, including Cybertruck AWD orders, because if it is, that sucks big time.
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 28, 2026
The controversy underscores deeper tensions—between Tesla’s need for revenue discipline and owners’ expectations of goodwill. As FSD evolves toward unsupervised capability, the community remains split: some see the change as necessary business, others as a broken promise. Whether Tesla reconsiders under pressure or holds firm remains to be seen, but it does not appear they are planning to budge.
Tesla to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report
Elon Musk: Tesla could be first to build AGI in humanoid form
