The BC Green Pary apparently wants to turn British Columbia into its own version of the Eagles’ Hotel California. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. That’s the subject of my weekly @financialpost column which I examine the B.C. Greens’ astonishing wealth tax proposals, including a proposed exit tax for wealthy residents who decide they’ve had enough and want to leave the province. The Greens are proposing a supposedly “one-time” wealth tax of up to 20% on net wealth above $1 billion, which they estimate would raise $22.2 billion. But that’s just the opening act. They also want an annual wealth tax of up to 5%, which they estimate would raise another $5.4 billion every year. And if wealthy British Columbians decide to move elsewhere to escape these punitive taxes? The Greens propose an exit tax, along with retroactive application of their one-time levy. Apparently, simply moving from Vancouver to Calgary shouldn’t be enough to escape the tax collector. There are some rather significant problems with this proposal, including serious constitutional questions about a provincial exit tax, valuation issues for illiquid assets and the economic consequences of taxing wealth rather than income. Consider this simple example: a 5% annual wealth tax on an asset generating a 5% return would consume 100% of that return before income taxes or inflation. And the tax would still be payable even if the asset declined in value. How exactly does that encourage investment, entrepreneurship and job creation? History also provides some useful lessons. In 1990, 12 OECD countries imposed net wealth taxes. By 2017, only four did. France abandoned its tax, while Norway’s experience with higher wealth taxes has demonstrated just how mobile wealthy taxpayers can be. And here’s the irony: the Greens dismiss capital flight as a “mostly-empty threat,” yet their own proposal includes measures designed to prevent wealthy taxpayers from escaping. You don’t lock the doors against an empty threat. Why should anyone pay attention to a party polling in single digits? Because in a closely contested election, smaller parties can exercise influence well beyond their electoral support, particularly if they hold the balance of power. I’ve been debating whether to see the Eagles one last time at the Sphere in Las Vegas. Don Henley once famously said the band would reunite when hell freezes over. They did, of course, in 1994. At least the Eagles eventually knew how to make a comeback. The Greens’ supposedly “one-time” wealth tax already has an annual sequel planned. That’s not sound tax policy. It’s simple resentment. B.C. residents - you have a tremendous opportunity to bring back common sense this week. I hope you do. financialpost.com/personal-f…