Proposition 3Constitutional amendment · Citizen initiative
Permanent high-income tax
Explain it like I'm 5
People with very high incomes already pay an extra state income tax that is scheduled to end. This would keep that tax going permanently.
Yes vote
The additional income taxes approved by Proposition 30 would continue permanently to fund education and early childhood programs.
No vote
Those additional taxes would expire under current law after their scheduled sunset.
The question to ask yourself
Should California permanently keep higher taxes on high incomes to protect education funding?
The case for
- Preserves a major, relatively stable education funding source.
- Continues a tax aimed primarily at high-income taxpayers.
- Avoids a future revenue loss that could require cuts or other funding.
Backed by: California Teachers Association, California Democratic Party, California State PTA, California Federation of Teachers
The case against
- Makes a temporary tax permanent without another sunset vote.
- High-income tax revenue can fluctuate sharply with markets and taxpayer moves.
- Permanent dedicated revenue gives lawmakers less flexibility over priorities.
Opposed by: California Republican Party, California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
- Money
- The measure is estimated to maintain about $5 billion to $15 billion in annual state income-tax revenue rather than allowing the tax to expire.
- Don't be misled
- Calling it entirely a school tax is misleading because the revenue also supports other state purposes, and the school share is not all of the proceeds.