November 3, 2026 | |
One-Time Wealth Tax for State-Funded Health Care Programs Initiative |
| Elections in California |
|---|
Proposition 40, better known as the California billionaire tax or California wealth tax, is a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute that will appear on the November 3, 2026, ballot in the state of California.
If approved by voters, the state's billionaires would pay a one-time 5% tax on their accumulated wealth to fund health care programs, food assistance and public education. The initiative was sponsored by labor union SEIU United Healthcare Workers West (UHW).
The initiative was drafted by tax law professors Brian Galle of UC Berkeley, David Gamage of the University of Missouri, Darien Shanske of UC Davis, and economist Emmanuel Saez of UC Berkeley, [1] who was inspired to work on the measure after conducting research showing that billionaires paid lower effective tax rates than middle-class workers. [2] Labor union SEIU United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) filed the initiative. In December 2025, state attorney general Rob Bonta issued the official title and summary. [3] [4]
On April 26, 2026, SEIU-UHW announced that they had collected 1.6 million signatures in support of the tax, nearly double the 874,641 required to qualify for the November ballot. [5] [6] On June 17, the California secretary of state announced that the wealth tax had qualified for the ballot with 980,438 valid signatures. [7] [8]
A day later, SEIU-UHW sent a letter to California governor Gavin Newsom—an opponent of the initiative—offering to withdraw the 5% wealth tax proposal if Newsom supported a smaller 2% levy on billionaires that would be passed by the state legislature; [9] [10] [11] Newsom quickly rejected the amended proposal. [12] Negotiations stalled before the June 25 withdrawal deadline, and the initiative was certified for the November ballot. [13] [14]
The initiative would impose the Billionaire Tax Act, a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of the California residents worth over $1 billion. [15] 90% of revenue from the tax would go towards state-funded healthcare programs, [16] including Medi-Cal, while the rest would provide funding for food assistance and public education. [15]
The eligibility cut-off outlined in the initiative was January 1, 2026, meaning that if the initiative is passed by voters, billionaires who continued to hold residence in the state of California after that date will be subject to the 5% tax. [15] Six of the state's estimated 214 billionaires were reported to have left California before or around the deadline, including PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, [15] [17] [18] although they are expected to experience a residency audit to determine whether they have sufficiently severed ties with the state. [19]
Analysis by the California Legislative Analyst's Office found the wealth tax was likely to temporarily increase revenue by up to tens of billions of dollars total, collected over several years. [20] [21] The analysis also found the tax would likely decrease income tax revenue by hundreds of millions of dollars or more annually due to some billionaires leaving California. [20] [22]
SEIU-UHW, the labor union behind the initiative, estimated that the tax would generate $100 billion. [23] Revenue from the six billionaires who reportedly left the state account for an estimated $27 billion of that sum, though whether they have sufficiently severed connections to California as a matter of residency law is undetermined. [15] [19] Academic Kent Smetters cast doubt on SEIU-UHW's estimate, telling the Los Angeles Times that the union is "not accounting for the different ways that people can move or reclassify wealth". [24] UC Berkeley economics professor Enrico Moretti warned that the tax "has the potential to completely destroy California's economy", and described the revenue estimate as "way overly optimistic." [2]
The conservative-leaning Hoover Institution estimated that "permanent loss of income taxes from the departing residents indicates a high likelihood that net effect of the Billionaire Tax Act will be negative" by almost $25 billion. [25] This conclusion was criticized by one of the bill's authors, David Gamage, who contended that the group's analysis "suggests that the billionaire tax might raise more revenue than our projections even say". [26]
In a guest essay for The New York Times , Gabriel Zucman and initiative co-author Saez responded to concerns about billionaires fleeing the state, claiming that because billionaires are able to avoid income tax on most earnings, "even if all of them left the state, it would take 25 years for the loss of their tax payments... to surpass the amount the state would raise" if the initiative passes. [27]
The Tax Foundation, a center-right think tank, argued that it was possible for the effective wealth tax rate to far exceed 5% for some taxpayers due to provisions related to dual-class share structures, [28] but acknowledged that this would be unlikely in cases where valuations are clearly incorrect. [29] [30] The initiative's drafters published a report dismissing this concern as a misunderstanding. [29] [31]
Forbes cited the billionaire tax initiative as the reason for a real estate boom on Nevada's side of Lake Tahoe, noting that a number of lakefront homes were purchased by California billionaires after the proposal was announced. [32] Bill Dietz, a Lake Tahoe realtor, told the magazine that a "clear acceleration of ultra-high-net-worth buyers moving from California to Nevada" took place, driven by "tax strategy". [32]
In late 2025, Oracle founder Larry Ellison sold his San Francisco mansion for $45 million, choosing to relocate to Nevada; venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson later did the same. [33] In June 2026, former U.S. ambassador to Kenya Meg Whitman and her husband, neurosurgeon Griffith R. Harsh, sold a number of properties in California, including a $17.9 million fly fishing ranch, purportedly over fears that the billionaire tax would be approved by voters. [33]
U.S. senator Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist, has endorsed the billionaire tax. At a February 2026 Los Angeles rally in support of the tax, Sanders described billionaires as "oligarchs of the 18th century...[who] believe they have the divine right to rule". [34] Many prominent supporters have asserted that the billionaire tax is a necessary response to the Trump administration's restrictions and cuts to Medicaid, [35] including former U.S. secretary of labor Robert Reich, who described the tax as a "practical way to keep the healthcare system functioning". [35]
Emmanuel Saez, a co-author of the initiative, said that the tax will "preserve [healthcare and education] programs that are crucial for California's economy". [2]
The state branch of the Democratic Socialists of America endorsed the billionaire tax, stating that "without this funding, thousands of jobs will be lost, millions of Californians could lose coverage altogether, and care facilities across the state could be forced to close". [36] [37]
U.S. representative Ro Khanna, a progressive Democrat who represents much of the Silicon Valley, has expressed strong support for the tax. [38] Some venture capitalists from Khanna's district responded by backing his unsuccessful primary challenger, Ethan Agarwal. [39] Two 2026 Democratic gubernatorial candidates, billionaire businessman Tom Steyer and state superintendent of public instruction Tony Thurmond, endorsed the tax. [38] [40]
In response to the initiative, activists staged a pro-billionaire protest march in San Francisco on February 7, 2026. [41]
California governor Gavin Newsom has vocally opposed the tax, telling Politico that the proposal "makes no sense" and is "really damaging to the state". [42] A number of Democratic candidates who aimed to succeed Newsom in the 2026 gubernatorial election also opposed the tax, including former U.S. representative Katie Porter, former U.S. secretary of health and human services Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San Jose mayor Matt Mahan. [43] [38] Leading Republican candidates Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton expressed opposition to the tax. [44]
Robertas Bakula, an associate fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, called the tax an "immoral scam" in an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Daily News , arguing that the January 1 eligibility deadline is illegal because the United States Constitution bans retroactive laws. [45] In a February 2026 effort to curb the effects of the eligibility deadline, U.S. representative Kevin Kiley introduced a bill in Congress that would prohibit a state from levying a tax retroactively on people who no longer live in the state. [34]
In an April 27 editorial, The Wall Street Journal criticized wording in the act that would allow the state legislature to make amendments that could widen the scope of eligibility for the tax. [46] In May 2026, the editorial board of The Washington Post publicly opposed the tax, which they described as "self-destructive". [47] The board criticized SEIU-UHW and stated that the initiative "has already cost the state more in lost future revenue from income taxes than it would raise". [47]
Building a Better California, an organization co-founded by Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt that is opposed to the billionaire tax, [48] sought to introduce three questions to the November 2026 ballot, all of which were designed to curb the effects of the billionaire tax if it passes. [49] One would've required more audits of special taxes and impose more rules on how revenue from new taxes could be spent, [50] [34] another would bar new taxes from circumventing rules on education spending requirements for tax revenue, [51] [49] and a third would invalidate the tax by amending the state constitution to forbid retroactive taxation. [49] [52] The latter two measures—known as Proposition 41 and Proposition 42, respectively—qualified for the ballot. [16] Building a Better California raised over $80 million in the first quarter of 2026, primarily from intrastate billionaires. [49] [53]
In June 2026, a number of progressive organizations [54] [55] and labor unions announced their opposition to the billionaire tax. [56] [57] [58] In a joint statement, Planned Parenthood and the California Medical Association criticized the wealth tax's ambiguity and described it as a "flawed response" to health care cuts, [56] while the California Teachers Association stated that the billionaire tax "will not provide the sustainable and long-lasting funding that our schools and communities deserve". [58] That same month, several California housing advocacy groups—including California YIMBY—opposed the tax, fearing that it would discourage investment and worsen the state's housing shortage. [59]
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who would have to pay roughly $8 billion if the measure passed, stated he was "perfectly fine with it" and had "not thought about it once" when asked if he was concerned about the tax. He added that he and others "chose to live in Silicon Valley, and whatever taxes they would like to apply, so be it". [60] [61]
| Poll source | Date(s) administered | Sample size [c] | Margin of error | Phrasing | Yes | No | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goodwin Simon Strategic Research [115] [A] | June 10–15, 2026 | 607 (LV) | – | – | 47% | 43% | 10% |
| Tulchin Research (D) [117] [B] | June 8–14, 2026 | 1000 (LV) | ±3.1% | – | 41% | 47% | 12% |
| Public Policy Institute of California [118] | May 14–18, 2026 | 986 (LV) | ±4.1% | [i] | 54% | 45% | 1% |
| Berkeley IGS [120] [C] | March 9–15, 2026 | 5109 (RV) | ±2.0% | [ii] | 52% | 33% | 15% |
| UC Berkeley Citrin Center/ Politico [122] | February 25 – March 3, 2026 | 1220 (RV) | ±3.0% | [iii] | 50% | 28% | 23% |
| The Mellman Group (D) [123] [D] | January 6–12, 2026 | 800 (LV) | ±3.0% | [iv] | 48% | 38% | 14% |
| Nestpoint [124] | January 2–12, 2026 | 907 (LV) | ±3.0% | – | 60% | 24% | 16% |
| David Binder Research (D) [125] [E] | December 6–10, 2025 | 800 (LV) | ±3.5% | [v] | 55% | 39% | 6% |
Supporters say 1.6 million people have submitted signatures favoring the Billionaire Tax Act for approval, according to the Los Angeles Times. State law requires at least 874,641 registered voters to provide signatures to county elections officials by June 24, per the outlet.
A proposed billionaire tax has some of the richest Californians eyeing the exits. First they'll have to contend with the state's dogged tax collectors.
Mr. Brin and Mr. Page still have connections to California, including homes across the state. It's unclear how much time they will be spending in the state this year.
This measure would have the following major fiscal effects: • Temporary increase in state revenues from a new tax on the wealth of billionaires. These wealth tax revenues probably would add up to tens of billions of dollars spread over several years. • Likely ongoing decrease in state income tax revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars or more per year.
California's best hope for keeping its tax base is for voters to reject the ballot measure so decisively that would-be wealth-taxers are afraid to ever try it again.
Planned Parenthood is among the large progressive organizations against the proposal, arguing the initiative does not clearly lay out how the revenue would be spent.
They include progressive groups such as the California Teachers Association and Planned Parenthood, as well as housing organizations, a hospital association and unions representing construction workers and police officers.
The wealth tax, by contrast, has received just under $10 million from SEIU-UHW to date, but it picked up another major endorser in Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
On the controversial, proposed billionaire tax, Lee said he is a proud supporter. Lee has proposed wealth taxes at the Capitol over the last few years.
During the course of the two-hour debate, Wiener also didn't take a stance on a potential 5 percent tax on California billionaires that some unions are proposing, saying that he's waiting to see what tax measures make it to the ballot. Chan and Chakrabarti both said they supported the tax.
We hope this large-scale asset seizure is withdrawn. Everyone should pay their fair share, and sustainable tax policy requires that tax rates are stable, predictable, not punitive, and hard to game. Policies like a one-time asset seizure tell entrepreneurs: don't build your company here. Some billionaires have already left the state, and more are likely to follow, whether or not the seizure ultimately ends up legal or not. This will have a big negative impact on tax revenues, innovation, and the broader economy. California should focus on delivering the basics with a reasonable budget instead of chasing one-time wealth grabs that could push out the tax base we already depend on.