IN MY VIEW - California voters are about to confront one of the most consequential tax ballots in years. Five statewide propositions will ask voters not simply how much Californians should pay, but who should pay, how taxes should be approved and what limits should be placed on government's power to collect and spend that money.
The five measures are:
- Proposition 3 Permanent High-Income Tax: Would make permanent the higher state income-tax rates currently imposed on high earners, with much of the revenue supporting public education.
- Proposition 40 Billionaire Wealth Tax: Would impose a one-time 5% tax on Californians with a net worth of at least $1 billion, excluding real estate and retirement accounts, with most of the proceeds directed toward public health programs.
- Proposition 41 Tax and Spending Restrictions: Would impose new restrictions involving future taxes and California's state spending limit while requiring additional analysis of programs that would be financed by future tax measures.
- Proposition 42 Wealth Tax Ban: Would prohibit California from imposing new taxes on many forms of financial assets, privately held businesses and other wealth, effectively creating a direct countermeasure to Proposition 40.
- Proposition 43 Local Tax Vote Threshold: Would require certain citizen-initiated local special taxes to receive approval from two-thirds of voters rather than a simple majority.
Five propositions. Five different approaches to taxation. And billions of dollars potentially hanging in the balance.
But underneath all five is one much simpler question: Before California asks taxpayers for more money or rewrites the rules governing how that money can be collected shouldn't government have to prove what it accomplished with the money it already has?
That is the question Sacramento would rather not put on the ballot. And it may be the most important one of all.
California Is Not Starved for Revenue
California is an economic powerhouse with an enormous state budget and one of the most complicated tax systems in America. Yet year after year, Californians hear the same warnings: schools need more money, health care needs more money, homelessness programs need more money, housing needs more money, transportation needs more money, and cities and counties need more money.
Sometimes those needs are legitimate. Government cannot provide quality schools, health care, infrastructure or public safety for free. But taxpayers are entitled to ask something in return: What did we get for the money we already spent?
That should not be considered a hostile question. It should be the first question.
Taxation is not an abstract political exercise. Every dollar collected by government comes from somewhere a paycheck, a business, an investment, a homeowner, a consumer or a family trying to make its monthly budget work. Government therefore carries an obligation greater than simply demonstrating need.
It must demonstrate results.
Proposition 40: Taxing Billionaires Is an Easy Slogan. Governing Is Harder.
Proposition 40 will probably generate the most attention. The proposal would impose a one-time 5% tax on Californians with a net worth of at least $1 billion, excluding real estate and retirement accounts. The measure could generate tens of billions of dollars, with much of the money directed toward public health programs facing significant financial pressure.
Politically, the appeal is obvious. There are relatively few billionaires and millions of voters. Telling someone worth $5 billion that they should contribute more is unlikely to generate widespread public sympathy for the billionaire.
But tax policy should not be written according to how sympathetic we find the taxpayer. It should be judged by whether it works.
Unlike an income tax, a wealth tax reaches the estimated value of assets, including investments and ownership stakes that may not have been sold. That immediately raises serious questions about valuation, enforcement, constitutionality and economic consequences.
How will difficult-to-value assets be assessed? What happens when valuations are disputed? Will the tax withstand legal challenges? Will wealthy residents restructure their assets or change residency? And, most importantly, will California actually collect what proponents promise?
Supporters deserve to make their case. Protecting health coverage for vulnerable Californians is a legitimate public concern. But a worthy destination for tax revenue does not automatically make the method of collecting it good policy.
Propositions 41 and 42: When One “Yes” Vote Can Fight Another
The ballot gets even more complicated with Propositions 41 and 42, both of which would have major implications for Proposition 40.
Proposition 41 would impose additional restrictions involving taxation and the state's spending limit while requiring greater scrutiny of programs funded through future tax measures. Proposition 42 would go further by prohibiting new taxes on many forms of wealth.
The result is remarkable: Californians could potentially vote for Proposition 40's billionaire wealth tax while simultaneously voting for measures designed to block or constrain it.
If conflicting propositions pass, their competing vote totals could ultimately determine which policy takes effect.
A ballot should empower voters. It should not require them to solve a legislative puzzle.
When tax policy becomes so complicated that citizens need a flowchart to understand whether one “yes” vote might cancel another “yes” vote, something has gone wrong.
Proposition 3: The Most Dangerous Word Is “Permanent”
Proposition 3 presents a different question.
Unlike Proposition 40, it deals with something Californians already know: higher income-tax rates on high earners. Those rates have generated billions of dollars annually, with much of the revenue supporting education.
There is a serious argument for continuing them. California's schools require stable funding, and students should not become collateral damage in an ideological battle over taxation.
But Proposition 3 asks voters to move beyond another temporary extension. It asks them to make the higher rates permanent.
That changes the conversation.
A permanent tax should require permanent accountability. Before Californians lock any tax into the state's fiscal structure indefinitely, government should provide a straightforward accounting of how much was collected, where it was spent, what outcomes improved, what failed and what reforms followed those failures.
“We need the revenue” is not enough. Neither is “the program is important.”
Government programs should be judged not merely by the nobility of their intentions, but by the quality of their outcomes.
Proposition 43: Taxation Also Requires Consent
Proposition 43 asks voters to change the approval threshold for certain citizen-initiated local special taxes, requiring two-thirds voter approval rather than a simple majority.
That debate will undoubtedly be characterized as another fight between anti-tax groups and advocates for public investment. But there is a larger democratic principle involved: How much consent should be required before taxpayers are compelled to finance a specific purpose?
Requiring greater voter agreement does not automatically mean rejecting public investment. It means recognizing that taxation requires public trust.
If a tax is necessary, its advocates should be capable of explaining why it is necessary, what it will accomplish and how taxpayers will know whether it succeeded.
Government should have to earn consent.
Stop Measuring Compassion by Spending
California has developed an unhealthy political habit. We increasingly measure commitment to a problem by how much money we are willing to spend on it.
Spend more on homelessness, and you care more about homeless people. Spend more on education, and you care more about students. Spend more on health care, and you care more about patients.
But spending is an input. Results are the outcome.
A government program does not become successful simply because its budget increased. A school system does not improve because another billion dollars appears on a spreadsheet. A homelessness strategy does not work merely because taxpayers financed it. A health program should ultimately be judged by whether people receive better care.
The moral measure of government is not how much money it spends. It is whether that money improves people's lives.
Accountability Is Not Anti-Government
Demanding accountability is not an attack on government. It is how public institutions preserve legitimacy.
Californians should want excellent public schools. We should want vulnerable residents to receive health care. We should want safe neighborhoods, functional roads, effective transportation and serious solutions to homelessness.
Those things cost money. But believing in government does not require writing government a blank check.
People who believe strongly in public programs should demand the greatest accountability of all. Every dollar wasted is a dollar that cannot reach a classroom, repair a road, provide medical treatment, house someone in crisis or improve public safety.
Waste isn't merely a fiscal problem. It has human consequences.
Don't Vote Yes Just Because Someone Else Pays
It is easy to support a tax when someone else appears to be paying it.
Billionaires today. High earners tomorrow. Businesses next year. Property owners after that. Tourists, investors or corporations somewhere down the line.
But voters should evaluate every tax as though they themselves were writing the check.
Ask whether the purpose is legitimate, whether the tax is structured fairly, whether it will actually raise the promised revenue, whether it could produce unintended economic consequences, whether meaningful safeguards against waste exist and whether taxpayers will receive transparent evidence of results.
If those answers are unclear, voters should demand better ones before surrendering more revenue.
Five Propositions. One Question.
California voters should not automatically reject Propositions 3, 40, 41, 42 and 43. Nor should they automatically approve them because a campaign advertisement, political organization, business group or labor union tells them to.
Read them. Question them. Challenge their assumptions.
California's challenge is not choosing between compassion and fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility is part of compassion.
When government wastes money, ordinary Californians ultimately pay the price — including the very people public programs were supposed to help.
That brings us back to the question Sacramento should have to answer before asking Californians for another dollar: What did you accomplish with the money we already gave you?
Show us the outcomes. Show us the audits. Show us the savings. Show us what worked. Show us what failed. Show us who was held accountable.
Then make the case for more.
Because California does not suffer from a shortage of taxes. It suffers from a shortage of proof that taxpayers are getting what they already paid for.
Before Sacramento asks Californians for another dollar, it should account for the dollars it already has.
Accountability first. Taxes second.
(Avrohom Moshe is a California-based civic affairs writer and public policy analyst focused on government accountability, fiscal responsibility, and public safety. He also writes on issues affecting the Jewish community, including combating antisemitism and advancing civic engagement.)
