The measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on individuals with assets valued over $1 billion who were California residents as of Jan. 1, 2026. Most of the money raised by the tax — 90% — would be spent on healthcare services. The other 10% is earmarked for food assistance and education-related programs. Proposition 40 could raise tens of billions of dollars but could be nullified if Proposition 41 or 42 receive more votes.
Yes Argument
Millions of Californians will lose their healthcare because of deep federal spending cuts made by Republicans in Washington. Meanwhile, billionaires’ wealth has grown exponentially compared to that of average Californians — and they pay a far lower overall tax rate because most of their wealth is tied up in stocks and other assets. This one-time tax will allow California to backfill cuts that would otherwise devastate individual Californians as well as emergency rooms, hospitals and clinics.
No Argument
This proposed tax is poorly designed and will result in California losing revenue over time because it is already prompting billionaires to move out of state. Fewer high-income taxpayers could hurt other state programs like schools. Proposition 40 is a one-time source of revenue, even though the federal healthcare cuts are permanent. It sets a dangerous precedent by taxing not only income but financial assets like stocks and retirement accounts.
Key Supporters
In Support
- Ro Khanna, U.S. representative
- Bernie Sanders, U.S. senator
- California Democratic Party
- California Nurses Association
- SEIU-UHW West
In Opposition
- Xavier Becerra, candidate for California governor
- Sergey Brin, co-founder, Google
- Steve Hilton, candidate for California governor
- Gavin Newsom, California governor
- California Teachers 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 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?