Californians approved an increase in tax rates for the top 2% of income earners in 2012 and extended those higher rates in 2016, generating roughly $10 billion a year. The tax hike applies to individuals making around $371,000 and couples earning about $743,000 annually. While the higher rates are set to expire in 2031, this measure would make them permanent.
Yes Argument
These higher rates are the cornerstone of California’s progressive tax system, which places a larger income tax burden on top earners than on working-class and low-income residents. The number of Californians subject to these higher rates has more than doubled since the tax increase first passed. Now is not the time to let the tax expire and lose funding for schools and healthcare.
No Argument
In 2012, voters were told these higher rates were a temporary measure needed to get the state back on stable fiscal footing following the Great Recession. Now we are being asked to make these tax hikes permanent, even in years when the state is flush with cash — raising the risk that top income earners will leave for lower-tax states. State leaders should cut back on spending before asking Californians to continue to pay these rates.
Key Supporters
In Support
- Xavier Becerra, candidate for California governor
- California Democratic Party
- California Teachers Association
In Opposition
- California Republican Party
- California Taxpayers Association
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
More Statewide Propositions
Should California issue $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing, homebuying opportunities and veterans and homelessness programs?
Should state and local governments have the option to provide public funding for election campaigns?
Should successor elections be eliminated from recall elections of state officials?
Should California issue $25 billion in revenue bonds to create a “middle-class” homebuyer downpayment assistance program?
Should California issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research?
Should California tax the wealth of billionaires to fund health care services?
Should California require ongoing audits of programs funded by specific taxes, and make those tax revenues subject to the state’s spending limit?
Should the state prohibit new taxes on financial assets like stocks and investment accounts and prohibit most retroactive taxes?
Should local tax measures placed on the ballot by voter signature face a higher threshold if the tax will be used for a specific purpose?
Should certain nonprofit community health clinics be required to spend at least 90% of their revenue on healthcare services?
Should California speed up its environmental review process for certain projects?