A new push by states to tax the real estate of the wealthy has sparked a backlash among brokers and potential buyers, who say the taxes punish the most important local spenders.

From tax hikes on pricey second homes in Rhode Island and Montana to Cape Cod’s proposed transfer tax on homes over $2 million and the L.A. mansion tax, state and local governments see a revenue gold mine in the pricey properties of the wealthy.

“It’s a smack in the face to people who just spend money here,” said Donna Krueger-Simmons, sales agent with Mott & Chace Sotheby’s International in Watch Hill, Rhode Island.

The tax hikes are being driven by tighter state budgets and populist anger over housing costs. States are looking to offset budget cuts expected from the new tax and spending bill in Washington. At the same time, the housing market has become a tale of two buyers, with the middle class and younger families struggling to afford homes while the luxury housing market thrives from wealthy all-cash buyers.

The solution for many states: tax the homes of the rich.

Rhode Island’s new levy, nicknamed “The Taylor Swift Tax,” is among the most extreme. The popstar bought a beach house in the state’s elite Watch Hill community in 2013.

The measure imposes a new surcharge on second homes valued at more than $1 million. For non-primary residences, or those not occupied for more than 182 days a year, the state will charge $2.50 for every $500 in assessed value above the first $1 million. That charge is on top of existing property taxes and will add up to big increases for luxury homes in Newport, Watch Hill and other well-heeled, summer communities in the state.

A version of this article appeared in CNBC’s Inside Wealth newsletter with Robert Frank, a weekly guide to the high-net-worth investor and consumer. Sign up to receive future editions, straight to your inbox.

Swift’s house, for instance, is assessed at around $28 million, according to local real estate records. Her current property taxes are estimated at around $201,000 a year. The new charges will add another $136,442 to her annual taxes, bringing her yearly total to $337,442 — even though locals say she rarely visits.

Real estate brokers say the increase targets the very taxpayers who already contribute the most. Wealthy second-homeowners pay hefty property taxes but don’t use many local services, since their primary residences are in New York; Boston; Palm Beach, Florida; or other locales. Their kids typically don’t attend the local schools, and they’re infrequent users of the police, fire, water and other municipal services since most stay for only 10 to 12 weeks out of the year.

“These are people who just come here for the summer, spend their money and pay their fair share of taxes,” said Krueger-Simmons. “They’re getting penalized just because they also live somewhere else.”

Brokers and longtime residents say the summer residents of Newport, Watch Hill and other seasonal beach towns are the economic engines for local businesses, restaurants and hotels.

“You’re just hurting the people who support small business,” said Lori Joyal, of the Lila Delman Compass office in Watch Hill. “You’re chasing away the people who spend most of the money in these towns.”

Rhode Island is also hiking its conveyance tax on luxury real estate starting in October. The tax on real estate sales will be an additional $3.75 for each $500 paid above $800,000 for a real estate purchase. At the same time, the state’s steep estate tax deters many of the ultra-wealthy from living there full-time.

Brokers say some second-home owners are considering selling and many would-be buyers are pausing their purchases. While the tax hike alone isn’t expected to lead to any significant wealth flight, Joyal said potential buyers in Rhode Island are already looking at coastal towns in Connecticut as alternatives.

“It’s always about choices,” she said. “At the end of the day it’s about how they can choose to spend their discretionary dollars. Connecticut has some beautiful coastal towns without some of these other high taxes.”

Montana has passed a similar tax. The influx of Californians and other affluent newcomers who poured into the state during Covid has led to soaring home prices and growing resentment over gentrification. Meanwhile, the state’s low income tax rate and lack of a sales tax has left it little room for revenue increases to handle the necessary increase in services.

In May, the state passed a two-tier property tax plan, lowering rates for full-time residents and raising taxes on second homes and short-term rentals. For primary residences and long-term rentals valued at or below the state’s median home price, the tax rate will be 0.76%. Homes worth more than that will face a tiered-rate system of up to 1.9% on any value over four times the median price.

The Montana Department of Revenue expects the changes, which will start next year, will hike second-home taxes by an average of 68%. Brokers say some buyers are waiting to see the tax bills next year before making any decisions about whether to buy or sell.

“I’ve heard about some buyers who have put on the brakes to wait for the dust to settle and see what happens,” said Valerie Johnson, with PureWest Christie’s International Real Estate in Bozeman, Montana.

Johnson said that while the tax was touted by legislators as hitting wealthy second-home owners, it will also hit longtime locals who own investment homes and rent them out for income.

“These are small businesses for many people,” she said.

Manish Bhatt, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, said tax hikes aimed at wealthy second-home owners may be popular politically, but they rarely make for successful or efficient tax policy. Real property tax reform should be broad based, rather than focused on taxpayers who are singled out just because they don’t live in a community full-time, he said.

“There is a grab to find revenue right now,” he said. “But taxing second-home owners could have the opposite impact — dissuading people from owning a second home or continue to own in those communities.”

While the new taxes alone might not drive out the wealthy, “we do know that taxes are important to businesses and individuals and could cause people to make a decision to buy in another nearby state,” Bhatt said.

The projected revenue from the new taxes may also disappoint. When Los Angeles passed its so-called “mansion tax” in 2022, proponents touted revenue projections of between $600 million to $1.1 billion a year. The tax, imposed on real estate sales over $5 million, has only raised $785 million after more than two years, according to the Los Angeles Housing Department.

Higher interest rates that hurt the housing market have played a role, experts say. Yet Michael Manville, professor of urban planning at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, said wealthy buyers and sellers also reduced transactions in response to the tax.

“The lower revenue is a reason to be concerned because it suggests that the tax might actually be reducing transactions, which in turn can reduce housing production and property tax revenue,” he said.

Kraft Heinz will split into two companies, reversing much of the blockbuster $46 billion merger from a decade ago that created one of the biggest food companies in the world.

The first of the two new companies, which are not yet named, will primarily include shelf-stable meals and will be home to brands such as Heinz, Philadelphia and Kraft mac and cheese. Kraft Heinz said that company on its own would have $15.4 billion in 2024 net sales, and approximately 75% of those sales would come from sauces, spreads and seasonings.

Kraft Heinz said the second new company would be a “scaled portfolio of North America staples” and would include items such as Oscar Mayer, Kraft singles and Lunchables. That company will have approximately $10.4 billion in 2024 net sales.

“Kraft Heinz’s brands are iconic and beloved, but the complexity of our current structure makes it challenging to allocate capital effectively, prioritize initiatives and drive scale in our most promising areas,” said Miguel Patricio, executive chair of the board for Kraft Heinz. “By separating into two companies, we can allocate the right level of attention and resources to unlock the potential of each brand to drive better performance and the creation of long-term shareholder value.”

The deal that created Kraft Heinz in 2015 was the brainchild of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and private equity firm 3G Capital. While investors originally cheered the merger, the luster began to fade as the combined company’s U.S. sales faltered.

Then came a disclosure in February 2019 that Kraft Heinz had received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission related to its accounting policies and internal controls. The company also slashed its dividend by 36% and took a $15.4 billion write-down on Kraft and Oscar Mayer, two of its biggest brands. Days later, Buffett told CNBC that Berkshire Hathaway had overpaid for Kraft.

A leadership shakeup and more write-downs of iconic brands, like Maxwell House and Velveeta, followed. Kraft Heinz also began divesting some of its businesses, selling off most of its cheese unit to French dairy giant Lactalis and its nuts division, including the Planters brand, to Hormel.

In recent quarters, the company has invested in boosting some of its brands, like Lunchables and Capri Sun. Despite turnaround efforts, shares of Kraft Heinz have slid roughly 60% since the merger closed in 2015.

The split comes as more big food companies pursue breakups to divest from slower-growth categories and impress investors again.

In August, Keurig Dr Pepper announced that it will undo the 2018 deal that merged a coffee company with the 7 Up owner. Keurig Dr Pepper plans to separate after it closes its $18 billion acquisition of Dutch coffee company JDE Peet’s. And two years ago, Kellogg spun off its snacks business into Kellanova and renamed itself as WK Kellogg.

Alphabet’s Google must share data with rivals to open up competition in online search, a judge in Washington ruled on Tuesday, while rejecting prosecutors’ bid to make the internet giant sell off its popular Chrome browser and Android operating system.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai expressed concerns at trial in the case in April that the data-sharing measures sought by the U.S. Department of Justice could enable Google‘s rivals to reverse-engineer its technology.

Google has said previously that it plans to file an appeal, which means it could take years before the company is required to act on the ruling.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta also barred Google from entering into exclusive agreements that would prohibit device makers from preinstalling rival products on new devices.

Google had argued that loosening its agreements with device makers, browser developers and mobile network operators was the only appropriate remedy in the case. Its most recent deals with device makers Samsung Electronics and Motorola and wireless carriers AT&T and Verizon allow them to load rival search offerings, according to documents shown at trial in April.

The ruling results from a five-year legal battle between one of the world’s most profitable companies and its home country, the U.S., where Mehta ruled last year that the company holds an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising.

At a trial in April, prosecutors argued for far-reaching remedies to restore competition and prevent Google from extending its dominance in search to artificial intelligence.

Google said the proposals would go far beyond what is legally justified and would give away its technology to competitors.

In addition to the case over search, Google is embroiled in litigation over its dominance in other markets.

The company recently said it will continue to fight a ruling requiring it to revamp its app store in a lawsuit won by “Fortnite” maker Epic Games.

And Google is scheduled to go to trial in September to determine remedies in a separate case brought by the Justice Department where a judge found the company holds illegal monopolies in online advertising technology.

The Justice Department’s two cases against Google are part of a larger bipartisan crackdown by the U.S. on Big Tech firms, which began during President Donald Trump’s first term and includes cases against Meta Platforms, Amazon and Apple.

Spirit Airlines on Friday filed for bankruptcy protection, just months after the budget carrier failed to secure better financial footing when it came out of Chapter 11 protection in March.

The Dania Beach, Florida-based airline said under this bankruptcy, it will reduce its network and shrink its fleet, cuts that it said will reduce costs by “hundreds of millions of dollars” a year.

In a release, Spirit said guests can continue to book, travel and use tickets, credits and loyalty points. Wages and benefits will continue to be paid and honored, including contractors, it said. Spirit intends to pay vendors and suppliers for goods and services provided on or after the filing date in the ordinary course.

“Since emerging from our previous restructuring, which was targeted exclusively on reducing Spirit’s funded debt and raising equity capital, it has become clear that there is much more work to be done and many more tools are available to best position Spirit for the future,” Spirit CEO Dave Davis said in a news release on Friday.

Spirit had just gotten out of bankruptcy in March after four months, only to be dragged down by continued high costs and weaker U.S. domestic demand. The carrier had struggled for years as it dealt with a glut of U.S. flights, a Pratt & Whitney engine recall and a failed takeover by JetBlue Airways, a deal that was blocked in court.

Firms that used Spirit’s aircrafts had reached out to rival airlines in recent weeks to gauge executives’ interest in some of the carrier’s planes, according to people familiar with the matter.

Spirit is the United States’ largest budget airline, followed closely by rival Frontier Airlines which has tried and failed to merge with Spirit repeatedly since 2022. Frontier on Tuesday announced 20 new routes that compete with Spirit to win over its struggling competitor’s customers.

It’s been a busy week for Cracker Barrel Old Country Store’s marketing team.

The restaurant chain announced a rebrand and new logo last week, faced widespread criticism from social media users, including President Donald Trump, and proceeded to walk back its plan to change the logo.

In that span of time, the company lost and regained almost $100 million in market value, bringing it about back to where it started. The stock gained 8% on Wednesday.

The Cracker Barrel saga is just the latest example of a consumer-facing company making big branding decisions, then pulling back after alienating its customer base.

“It’s very tricky to be a brand for everyone today,” Carreen Winters, president of reputation at the global public relations firm MikeWorldWide, said in an interview. “Legacy brands are particularly tricky, because you have to figure out what is cherished and authentic from the old and marry it with the new.

“In Cracker Barrel’s case, they’re trying to attract a new, younger customer [which] is no longer sufficient,” she continued. “You need to actually think about all of your stakeholders and how they will react, respond, feel about what you’re doing or the direction you’re taking. And you need to be sure that what you’re doing is consistent with shared values.”

Rebranding failures are not a new phenomenon. One of the most famous marketing blunders of all time happened in 1985 when the Coca-Cola company introduced “New Coke” with a new formula. After a firestorm of outrage from its customers, the company returned to its classic formula a few months later.

But social media has made backlash from consumers faster and more widespread, meaning businesses are usually quicker to walk back on their branding failures.

In 2010, retailer Gap ditched its decades-old blue box logo for a more minimalist design. It faced intense backlash on social media through thousands of engagements and, within less than a week, the company said it was reverting to its original logo.

More recently in May, Warner Bros. Discovery announced its streaming platform would undergo another name change, after switching from HBO to HBO Max to Max and then back again to HBO Max.

Major rebrands don’t always go awry. For example, Kentucky Fried Chicken successfully rebranded to KFC in 1991. Its customers already used the acronym and the rebrand signified that the restaurant chain offers more than just fried chicken.

Dunkin’ Donuts also successfully underwent its name change to Dunkin’ in 2019. It did face some criticism from its loyal customers at the time, but Winters said today the “Dunkin’” name and branding are widely accepted over its original name.

“Dunkin’ rebranded in accordance with the behavior that the customer created,” she said. “It aligned with their strategy of being more than Donuts and really building their coffee business.”

She also mentioned IHOP as an example of a brand that has been able to freshen up its look and stay relevant in culture. She said IHOP’s change has been an “evolution, not a revolution.”

Beth LaGuardia Cooper, chief marketing officer at Advantage, The Authority Company, added during an interview that Starbucks had subtle changes to its logo over time, which allowed it to hold the base of its identity close.

While some social media users disliked Cracker Barrel’s new branding simply because they said it lacked substance and was too “sterile” or “soulless,” others, especially conservatives, claimed the new logo leaned into “wokeness” and diversity efforts.

Cracker Barrel is widely considered a classic American restaurant chain. It began in Tennessee in 1969 and its branding evokes Southern charm and nostalgia for its consumer base.

Eric Schiffer, chairman of the firm Reputation Management Consultants, said the new branding, without the iconic “Uncle Herschel” figure, suggested to conservatives that having a white man featured on the logo was wrong or politically incorrect.

He said that pushback represents a larger trend where conservatives are feeling under attack by diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

“I think the perspective of conservatives is, don’t ruin Cracker Barrel with the Bud Light meets Jaguar marketing playbook,” said Schiffer, adding that those brands “attempted to disrupt positively and what they did was they nuked brand sentiment and shareholder confidence.”

In November, Tata Motors-owned Jaguar Land Rover announced a rebrand that removed its “leaper” big cat imagery from its logo and changed the brand’s font. Its new promotional materials included brightly dressed models, but no cars. The brand faced significant pushback, including tens of thousands of responses on social media.

Elon Musk criticized the company on X at the time, asking Jaguar’s official account: “Do you sell cars?”

Earlier this month, Trump piped in with his insults, calling Jaguar’s ad campaign “stupid” and “seriously WOKE.”

The Telegraph reported in May that Jaguar was searching for a new advertising agency after the public backlash.

Similarly, Anheuser-Busch InBev’s Bud Light faced heavy criticism from conservatives in 2023 after a collaboration between the beer brand and social influencer Dylan Mulvaney, who is transgender.

“If you’re trying to be a tough, male-focused, football fan-oriented beer, the last thing you want to do is put the wrong spokesperson in front of the brand,” Schiffer said. “It will turn off that audience and it allows competitors to capture that market share.”

“The throughline in all of this is, don’t rip apart and disrespect audiences that brought you to the dance,” Schiffer said. “Find a way, if you’re going to want to expand, do it in a way that doesn’t cut at the core of what the brand stands for — and in the process, create cognitive dissonance and blow up market cap.”

Branding experts told CNBC that at the end of the day, people are talking about Cracker Barrel, which is a win for the company by itself.

“Everybody loves a comeback in America,” LaGuardia Cooper said. “So I would root for them to make this happen, make something good out of it.”