Supporters have collected more than 1.5 million signatures on petitions that call for a vote on the proposed tax, according to a statement from the campaign on Sunday. The group backing the measure intends to announce on Monday when it will submit the signatures to elections officials.
The measure calls for placing a one-time 5 percent tax on the assets of California residents with at least $1.1 billion, and would dedicate most of the revenue to health care. The union leading the campaign, the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, argues that the tax is necessary to make up for cuts to Medicaid and other federal health insurance programs by the Trump administration last year.
An earlier analysis by California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office found that the proposed wealth tax was likely to increase state tax revenue by tens of billions of dollars over several years. That analysis also found that the measure would decrease income tax revenue by hundreds of millions of dollars or more annually because some billionaires would leave the state.
That it would temporarily increase healthcare revenues but drop overall tax revenue is exactly what the literature and historical record suggests. California's tax rates are already higher than...
That it would temporarily increase healthcare revenues but drop overall tax revenue is exactly what the literature and historical record suggests. California's tax rates are already higher than the US average. They'd need more broad tax increases to match the OECD average though. Countries with stronger social safety nets have broad tax bases in part because it's extremely risky to hang everything on a tiny fraction of the population...
This proposition isn’t being sponsored by some generic group of Piketty-reading leftists. It’s the project of SEIU (Service Employees International Union) a union of mostly healthcare workers.
This immediately clarifies the debate about whether it’s net negative for revenue. 90% of the revenue from the tax is earmarked for health care. So even if it’s net negative for the state, it isn’t net negative for the health care budget in particular, ie for the people who are sponsoring the measure.
But we can get even more conspiratorial. The SEIU is known in California political circles for pioneering and perfecting the art of extortion via ballot initiative. Their usual strategy goes:
Propose a ballot initiative that will sound nice to voters, but which is actually deliberately designed to ruin some industry.
Demand concessions from that industry in exchange for withdrawing the initiative.
Their first extortion attempt (as far as I know) was the 2014 Fair Healthcare Pricing Act, which would have capped the amount hospitals were allowed to charge for procedures at some unsustainable amount. The hospital association seemed to think this was an existential threat:
"If the initiatives are approved by the voters, hospitals could not operate as they do now. It would be necessary for hospitals to restructure their business model and services provided. Additionally, hospitals would be faced with unprecedented decisions — “Which services must be eliminated or cutback?”; “How can the hospital operate without departmental cross-subsidization?”; and “How can strategic planning be conducted in a world of oppression and uncertainty?”"
Although the hospitals themselves might be biased, the government’s mandatory fiscal analysis of the initiative seemed to agree, saying that “about 20 hospitals would change from having positive operating margins to having operating losses before taking into account any strategies these hospitals might implement in response to the measure.”
But “help” was on the way. The SEIU offered to withdraw its initiative in exchange for a $100 million “donation” from hospital lobby groups to one of SEIU’s pet causes, plus the right to expand their union into the affected hospitals. The hospitals caved and gave them what they wanted. The union was surprisingly frank in their celebration:
"[Union leader Dave] Regan said that the SEIU-UHW had spent $5 million on [backing the ballot initiatives], but that it paid off handsomely. “For a $5 million investment, we get an $80 million turn to pursue those things,” Regan said. He observed that the CHA would have spent as much as $100 million to defeat the initiatives."
...
One critique of capitalism argues that, although in theory it aligns incentives perfectly so that companies should produce things that people want, in practice it also incentivizes the hunt for loopholes: addictive products that can take advantage of seemingly-tiny wedges between what people will buy and what’s good for them. Cigarettes, casinos, payday loans, and social media all demonstrate that these wedges collectively form a multi-trillion dollar niche.
In the same way, SEIU seems to have found a bug in direct democracy: it incentivizes interest groups to search for the most destructive possible ballot initiative that might nevertheless get approved by low-information voters, since this gives them leverage over anyone willing to bribe them into withdrawing their poison pill. Seems like an ignominious end for California’s ballot proposition system.
By this logic aren't all jobs extortion? Grocery stores demand money from me to receive life saving food, that's also extortion. I think it stretches the definition, which is a legal one, to nonsense.
By this logic aren't all jobs extortion? Grocery stores demand money from me to receive life saving food, that's also extortion.
I think it stretches the definition, which is a legal one, to nonsense.
Extortion is a legal term and one where that definition matters. But if refusing to provide one's labor is extortion, so is refusing to provide food, housing, etc. "it just so happens that...
Extortion is a legal term and one where that definition matters. But if refusing to provide one's labor is extortion, so is refusing to provide food, housing, etc.
"it just so happens that liberals say they like labor unions"
Ok sure, I'm not interested in this style of discussion so I'm out.
It's worth reading the whole linked post if you haven't. The tax is completely unreasonable - Gavin Newsom, among others, opposes it because it's poorly designed. It also goes into more examples...
If SEIU is also using this measure as a negotiating tactic to get a more reasonable tax adopted by the legislature or more expansion of healthcare labor protections instead, yeah it's messy and icky, but maybe that's the way to get something through a legislature of 3/4 Dems who won't do it themselves
It's worth reading the whole linked post if you haven't. The tax is completely unreasonable - Gavin Newsom, among others, opposes it because it's poorly designed. It also goes into more examples than just the 2014 ballot.
It's worth reading the part you quoted, because your response indicates you misunderstood it. It says "If SEIU is also using this measure as a negotiating tactic to get a more reasonable tax...
It's worth reading the whole linked post if you haven't. The tax is completely unreasonable
It's worth reading the part you quoted, because your response indicates you misunderstood it. It says "If SEIU is also using this measure as a negotiating tactic to get a more reasonable tax adopted by the legislature or more expansion of healthcare labor protections instead" (emphasis mine). They're discussing if SEIU is pushing for this unreasonable tax as a tactic to get a different more reasonable tax adopted or other expansion of healthcare labor protections, much like how in 2014 they used an unreasonable ballot measure to get something else instead. While there's plenty of room to disagree with their opinion on this front, they aren't claiming the current ballot measure is reasonable.
Also, Gavin Newsom opposing something doesn't entail that it's a bad thing. I think the article and bits of other comments have addressed ways that the measure is poorly designed to an extent that I'm convinced it is true, but as far as convincing evidence goes, Gavin Newsom's position ain't it, given many of the other things he opposes.
I saw the other topic about Sergey Brin, but this title is more clear as to what is being talked about I don't know the acceptable archive sites nowadays, could someone please help me with an...
I saw the other topic about Sergey Brin, but this title is more clear as to what is being talked about
I don't know the acceptable archive sites nowadays, could someone please help me with an archive link?
States are too easy to move around in the US. My prediction is this backfires for California. A national level tax might work out alright, but I don’t see this as a good plan. Even at the lowest...
States are too easy to move around in the US. My prediction is this backfires for California. A national level tax might work out alright, but I don’t see this as a good plan. Even at the lowest level, it’s a cost of $50 million that can be avoided by simply “moving” to New York and flying in a private jet occasionally, which they are doing anyway with their multiple mansions. Their state of residency isn’t like yours and mine.
For the most part I agree with you but Memdani just instituted a tax on real estate that stands empty most of the time. Im not convinced that the tax seiu is sponsoring is a good idea but there...
For the most part I agree with you but Memdani just instituted a tax on real estate that stands empty most of the time. Im not convinced that the tax seiu is sponsoring is a good idea but there are ways to effectively tax the wealthy, including ways that haven't been tried yet.
I think empty homes taxes are great. They tax a thing that rich people don’t want to give up, and can’t move. And the only way for the state to lose the tax is for someone to reside in it legally...
I think empty homes taxes are great. They tax a thing that rich people don’t want to give up, and can’t move. And the only way for the state to lose the tax is for someone to reside in it legally or rent it out (win) or have it on the market so long that it drives down property values (also win).
We did them here in BC and the effects are 100% positive.
That it would temporarily increase healthcare revenues but drop overall tax revenue is exactly what the literature and historical record suggests. California's tax rates are already higher than the US average. They'd need more broad tax increases to match the OECD average though. Countries with stronger social safety nets have broad tax bases in part because it's extremely risky to hang everything on a tiny fraction of the population...
I found this discussion very interesting as well.
Isn't this basically extortion?
By this logic aren't all jobs extortion? Grocery stores demand money from me to receive life saving food, that's also extortion.
I think it stretches the definition, which is a legal one, to nonsense.
Extortion is a legal term and one where that definition matters. But if refusing to provide one's labor is extortion, so is refusing to provide food, housing, etc.
"it just so happens that liberals say they like labor unions"
Ok sure, I'm not interested in this style of discussion so I'm out.
It's worth reading the whole linked post if you haven't. The tax is completely unreasonable - Gavin Newsom, among others, opposes it because it's poorly designed. It also goes into more examples than just the 2014 ballot.
It's worth reading the part you quoted, because your response indicates you misunderstood it. It says "If SEIU is also using this measure as a negotiating tactic to get a more reasonable tax adopted by the legislature or more expansion of healthcare labor protections instead" (emphasis mine). They're discussing if SEIU is pushing for this unreasonable tax as a tactic to get a different more reasonable tax adopted or other expansion of healthcare labor protections, much like how in 2014 they used an unreasonable ballot measure to get something else instead. While there's plenty of room to disagree with their opinion on this front, they aren't claiming the current ballot measure is reasonable.
Also, Gavin Newsom opposing something doesn't entail that it's a bad thing. I think the article and bits of other comments have addressed ways that the measure is poorly designed to an extent that I'm convinced it is true, but as far as convincing evidence goes, Gavin Newsom's position ain't it, given many of the other things he opposes.
I saw the other topic about Sergey Brin, but this title is more clear as to what is being talked about
I don't know the acceptable archive sites nowadays, could someone please help me with an archive link?
https://removepaywalls.com/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/26/us/california-billionaire-tax.html
Thank you!
States are too easy to move around in the US. My prediction is this backfires for California. A national level tax might work out alright, but I don’t see this as a good plan. Even at the lowest level, it’s a cost of $50 million that can be avoided by simply “moving” to New York and flying in a private jet occasionally, which they are doing anyway with their multiple mansions. Their state of residency isn’t like yours and mine.
For the most part I agree with you but Memdani just instituted a tax on real estate that stands empty most of the time. Im not convinced that the tax seiu is sponsoring is a good idea but there are ways to effectively tax the wealthy, including ways that haven't been tried yet.
I think empty homes taxes are great. They tax a thing that rich people don’t want to give up, and can’t move. And the only way for the state to lose the tax is for someone to reside in it legally or rent it out (win) or have it on the market so long that it drives down property values (also win).
We did them here in BC and the effects are 100% positive.