Our ongoing series on the propositions facing Californians on the November 2026 ballot (links to previous posts at the bottom of this one) continues. This time through, we are looking at four propositions together, as each covers the same ground — namely, taxes. Proposition 40, officially dubbed the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, proposes a one-time (*snortyeahright*) five percent tax on the few billionaires left in California who haven’t already moved to Florida or Texas. Proposition 41 would require that, prior to any ballot initiative proposing a new state tax or increase in existing ones requiring voter approval be placed on the ballot, the State Auditor must publicly review all programs designated for funding via the proposed tax dollars in question. It would also prohibit the state from excluding any new taxes from its spending limit. Proposition 42 would prohibit any new taxes levied on personal property other than real estate, as well as on past activities, such as money in retirement funds. Finally, Proposition 43 would modify existing law by requiring that all “voter-proposed local special taxes” on any given ballot would require a two-thirds majority instead of a simple majority to pass.
Proposition 40 has, unsurprisingly, gathered the most interest of the four propositions. It has effectively split the Democrat Party, with the socialist-leaning side loving it and the more pragmatic side — all right, stop laughing — loathing it. When you have Gavin Newsom opposing a tax increase, you know it’s over the top. It warrants mention that in the same breath Newsom has said this is a problem that should be fixed at the federal level. Translation: make me President, and I’ll raise taxes across the country so millionaires and above won’t be able to dodge them by moving from state to state.
Proposition 40 carries an inherent danger in that within very broad limits, the State Legislature can modify the text of such an initiative, if passed, to say pretty much whatever its little heart desires. Oh, you said one-time billionaire's tax? You meant one-time or more tax on whichever wage-earning demographic we pick out of a hat, right? But of course Californian politicians would never do such a thing …
Propositions 41, 42, and 43 seek to nullify, or at the least mitigate, the effects of tax-happy California state and local governments. Proposition 41 would mandate that, before any new or increased taxes are levied on whichever pet project craves more feed from the public trough, the state must review and make known how said entity is spending the money it is already picking from the public’s pocket. This brings to mind Proposition 3 on the California November 2026 ballot, which begs for more money to be spent on public education even as the number of students attending public schools is steadily decreasing.
Proposition 42, among other things, would prohibit any new taxes on retirement funds. This greatly incenses the socialists, who are fiercely opposed to the notion of people in their golden years, regardless of whether they live in the Golden State, enjoying the fruits of their labors over the preceding decades by living off what they saved. Some people and their notion of personal responsibility, let me tell you.
Proposition 43 is the equivalent of an allowance. You want more money? Okay, prove you really deserve it. This should be no problem at the local level for deserving projects. However, remember this is California we are talking about, where transparency is seldom found outside of the local window shop.
And there you have it. Californians are being asked to raise taxes on billionaires, with no genuine safeguards against either said individuals pulling up stakes and changing addresses or said taxes being applied to whoever the Legislature desires. They are also being asked to force the government to justify any new taxes by publicly auditing how the old ones are being spent, make retirement funds safe from taxation, and raise the voting majority required for new local taxes. The latter three make sense. The first, not so much.
Earlier:
- Proposition 1 — California State Proposition Pledges to Help Veterans Obtain Affordable Housing, Sort Of
- Proposition 2 — A Rainy Day Fund Increase, or Making a Shell Game the State's Umbrella?
- Proposition 3 — In Shocking (or Not) Development, California Asks Voters to Make Temporary Tax Increase Permanent
- Proposition 4 — California Is Asking Voters to Approve Public Financing of Political Campaigns. What Could Go Wrong?
- Proposition 5 — California's Proposition 5 Seeks to Discourage Recall Elections
- Propositions 37 and 38 — California's Proposed Assistance for First-Time Homebuyers Has More Catches Than a Cheap Sweater
- Proposition 39 — California Lawmakers and Enforcers Are Hopping Mad They Are Being Asked to Enforce State Voting Laws