Proposition 40Amendment and state law · Citizen initiative
One-time billionaire wealth tax
Explain it like I'm 5
Certain people and trusts with more than $1 billion in covered wealth would pay a 5% tax once. The money would go to health care, food assistance, and schools.
Yes vote
California would impose the proposed one-time 5% tax on covered wealth above the stated threshold and direct the money to health care, food assistance, and public education.
No vote
California would not impose the proposed one-time wealth tax.
The question to ask yourself
Is a large one-time tax on very wealthy taxpayers worth the valuation and possible migration risks?
The case for
- It could provide a large temporary source of money for health care, food assistance, and education.
- The tax would be focused on taxpayers with extremely large covered assets.
- Supporters say the revenue could help replace funding lost through federal health care cuts.
Backed by: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, SEIU United Healthcare Workers West
The case against
- Valuing private or illiquid assets could be difficult and lead to disputes.
- Wealthy residents could leave, reducing future income-tax revenue.
- One-time revenue could create pressure to maintain programs after the money ends.
Opposed by: California Primary Care Association, California School Boards Association, California Taxpayers Association, Building a Better California
- Money
- The state estimates temporary revenue in the tens of billions of dollars over several years, with possible ongoing income-tax losses below $1 billion annually. [Official analysis](https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=40&year=2026)
- Don't be misled
- Calling it a permanent annual wealth tax is misleading because the proposal is a one-time levy, although payments may be spread over several years.