Public Comment

Proposition 40 would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on individuals and trusts with more than $1 billion in covered assets. Covered assets include businesses, securities, art, collectibles, and intellectual property, while real property and certain pension and retirement assets are excluded. The measure directs 90% of revenue to healthcare and 10% to food assistance or education-related programs. California’s fiscal analysis expects a temporary revenue increase but also warns that behavioral responses could reduce other state tax receipts over time. A one-time tax sounds narrower than a permanent wealth tax, but billion-dollar portfolios are mobile and difficult to value. The right question is not only how much revenue can be collected once, but what rule is administrable and what behavior it changes afterward.

Should California impose a one-time tax on covered assets above $1 billion?

Overall results

1
59% support · excluded by 4%
7

Existing income-tax machinery is easier to administer than creating a new valuation system for closely held companies, art, and intellectual property.

7

A realized-income surcharge may collect less immediately but avoids many disputes over valuing illiquid assets.

2
51% support · excluded by 2%
7

An extraordinary concentration of wealth can support extraordinary health and food needs without creating a permanent annual tax.

7

The law needs consistent valuation dates, appeal rights, trust rules, and treatment of private-company interests to prevent arbitrary assessments.

3
46% support · excluded by 8%
7

California should tax realized income rather than annually or retroactively valuing private businesses and other assets that have not been sold.

4
43% support · excluded by 12%
7

If very large fortunes should contribute more, a recurring rule is more coherent than an exceptional tax that disappears after one assessment.

About the author