In Shocking (or Not) Development, California Asks Voters to Make Temporary Tax Increase Permanent

Continuing our look at the 14 propositions on the November 2026 California ballot (Proposition 1, regarding the authorization of bonds to finance affordable housing, is here, and Proposition 2, regarding an increase of the state’s “rainy day fund,” is here), we now come to Proposition 3. Which, since this is California we’re talking about, unsurprisingly involves taxes. Not technically raising taxes, but rather making permanent a tax increase approved by voters in 2012.

 

Back in 2012 — my apologies for reminding you how that election went — California’s voters agreed to a temporary, in this case seven years in duration, state income tax increase for residents who, if single, made $250,000 a year or more and couples who made $500,000 or more. The law specified that all revenue from the income tax so acquired had to go directly to local school districts and community colleges. Because, like everything Democrats do (ask them), it’s for the CHILDREN!!! The proposition also increased California’s sales tax from 7.25 percent to 7.5 percent for four years.

In 2016, California voters approved a proposition that extended the income tax increase from its original seven-year duration to 12 years. The sales tax increase expired; the rate returned to 7.25 percent, where it remains. However, unbeknownst to many, including California residents, additional sales taxes can be levied at both the county and city levels. But that is a discussion for another time.

Back to Proposition 3. It would make the income tax brackets originally affected by the 2012 initiative permanent. The rates are adjusted for inflation; at 2025 levels, we are talking about $371,000 for a single, $742,000 for a couple, and $505,000 for those who, when filing their state income tax return, list themselves as the head of household. 89 percent of the tax revenue would be allocated to local K-12 schools, with the remainder given to community colleges. How the funds would be spent would be decided by local school boards, with the stipulation that none of it be used for administrative costs. The Legislative Analyst’s office estimates the amount of money involved at between five and 15 billion dollars a year.

According to the state’s own numbers, California has 5,731,260 students enrolled in its public education system. This is a seven-percent decrease from 10 years ago. This year alone saw a 1.3 percent drop in enrollment from the previous year. One would think that, given fewer students requiring money to be spent on their indoctrination … er, education, a corresponding decrease in the money available for spending would suggest itself. But this is California we’re talking about.

It will never happen, but it would be nice if once — just once — the powers that be would say, “You know, we need more money for this or that. Tell you what we’re going to do. We’re going to find the most ornery financial auditing firm out there, one that despises both sides of the aisle with equal fervor, and let them not only check all the books but also do on-site evaluations with no questions unasked and no stones unturned. Then, we’ll let them present all their findings. If, and only if, they produce evidence that more money needs to spent will we come to you with any kind of tax increase.” As I said, it will never happen. But it’s fun to dream. In the meantime, let’s guarantee that there will be less tax revenue, regardless of whether Proposition 3 passes, because people affected by measures like Proposition 3 will continue leaving California, except now in ever-increasing numbers. BRILLIANT!

Editor’s Note: The 2026 Midterms will determine the fate of President Trump’s America First agenda. Republicans must maintain control of both chambers of Congress.

Credit: redstate.com