Proposition 42Constitutional amendment · Citizen initiative
Ban new taxes on personal savings
Explain it like I'm 5
This would stop California from creating certain new taxes just for owning savings, investments, retirement holdings, or other personal assets. It is like putting a lock on a piggy bank against a future ownership tax.
Yes vote
California could not enact the specified new taxes on retirement holdings, personal assets, savings, and certain retroactive taxes.
No vote
California keeps the power to consider those types of taxes in the future.
The question to ask yourself
Should California permanently remove these future tax options, even if that limits responses to future fiscal needs?
The case for
- It would give savers and retirees more certainty about future tax rules.
- It would limit retroactive taxes that reach back to earlier ownership or activity.
- Supporters say it would prevent wealth taxes that could encourage capital and taxpayer flight.
Backed by: California Professional Firefighters, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AMVETS Department of California, Building a Better California
The case against
- It would limit future lawmakers’ and voters’ options during budget crises.
- The broad restriction could block future taxes beyond a tax aimed at billionaires.
- It could reduce future revenue, although the amount is not estimated.
Opposed by: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, SEIU United Healthcare Workers West
- Money
- The amount of potentially forgone future revenue is not estimated; the measure would not directly change current tax collections.
- Don't be misled
- It is misleading to say this repeals ordinary taxes on wages or investment income because the proposal concerns specified ownership and accumulation taxes, not every tax involving savings.