“It’s a bad idea” and “ignores education, housing and safety”
LOS ANGELES, CA — In case you missed it, three of California’s most influential media outlets — La Opinión, the Los Angeles Times, and NBC Sacramento (KCRA 3) — published editorials in recent days urging Californians to vote NO on Proposition 40, warning that “it’s a bad idea” and “ignores education, housing and safety.”
Each of these editorials raises serious concerns about Proposition 40’s many flaws and impacts — from driving taxpayers, revenue, jobs, and investment out of California and worsening the state’s budget challenges to its neglect of other top priorities and the dangerous precedent it sets.
These media outlets, join a growing chorus of publications coming out against Proposition 40, including: the San Diego Union Tribune (“Vote no on ‘billionaires tax’ to prevent economic chaos”), Los Angeles Daily News (“Proposed California wealth tax is absurd and must be defeated”), and the Washington Post (“California already losing with billionaire tax referendum”), among others.
La Opinión: Proposition 40 would be good nationally. For California alone, it’s a bad idea (September 4, 2026)
La Opinión argues that pursuing a wealth tax in California alone is “counterproductive, naive, and impractical,” will ultimately cost the state revenue, and could lead to higher taxes on everyone.
“But promoting this proposed law for one state during this campaign is counterproductive, naive, and impractical. If passed, it will only cause the state’s billionaires, some 200 of them, to relocate. And that’s it. Their current California tax revenue would vanish. That extra 5% would disappear.”
…
“But its small size does little to reassure those being asked to contribute. It only raises suspicions that it will be repeated.
And yes, that’s clearly stipulated in the text of the proposal. The Legislature—yes, with a special two-thirds majority—can renew the tax, expand it to include other population groups. And regarding the clause that says the change must “be consistent with and promote the purposes,” who decides that consistency?
In short: it’s not worth wasting money and effort promoting a motion that won’t produce the desired results.”
The editorial concludes by noting the strong opposition to Proposition 40 from Governor Gavin Newsom and the Democratic candidate for governor Xavier Becerra.
Read the full La Opinión editorial.
Los Angeles Times: Vote no on Prop. 40. It ignores education, housing and safety (September 6, 2026)
The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board urges Californians to reject Proposition 40, noting that the measure is poorly drafted, fails to ensure funding actually goes to address the state’s healthcare needs, and would make California’s budget challenges worse.
“Proposition 40 is ballot-box budgeting at its worst: a one-time tax that would raise tens of billions of dollars ostensibly for healthcare — but has insufficient guardrails to ensure the funds are spent to actually address Californians’ most pressing healthcare needs.
Instead, the funds could go to any interest group, including health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and for-profit hospitals.”
…
“The reality is that one-time taxes create a fiscal cliff, which leads to new and additional taxes when the money runs out. Even worse, this measure would drive out some of our state’s most successful residents, taking jobs, economic benefits and billions in tax revenue with them.
And Proposition 40 would establish an especially dangerous precedent. If one interest group can write a tax measure, target a politically unpopular group and dedicate the proceeds to its preferred programs, others will follow.
That is no way to govern a state with an economy larger than most countries.”
The Times concludes: “Proposition 40 is a temporary tax masquerading as a fiscal solution, a permanent precedent for ballot-box budgeting and the wrong answer to the very real problems facing California.”
Read the full Los Angeles Times editorial.
KCRA 3: Prop 40’s billionaire tax could come with intended consequences (September 6, 2026)
KCRA 3 President and General Manager Ariel Roblin warns that Proposition 40 could backfire by driving California’s wealthiest taxpayers to leave the state — taking tax revenue, investment, and philanthropic support with them.
“Critics say the problem with Prop 40 is that the promises don’t hold up.
California already relies heavily on its wealthiest taxpayers. The top 1% account for a whopping 40 to 50% of our state’s personal income tax.
A wealth tax would give them and their shareholders a strong incentive to consider or even demand a move to tax-friendly state like Texas, Florida, or Nevada.
That could mean losing some of their business investments and philanthropy.
If that were to happen, our state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office warns Prop 40 could lead to a “likely ongoing decrease in state income tax revenues.”
Many countries that tried this type of wealth tax – including Denmark, Germany, and France—later repealed it.”
Roblin concludes by urging voters to consider the measure’s broader consequences: “Like every proposition on the ballot, Prop 40 isn’t a one-trick pony so we need to consider the full scope of impact that it could have on all of us.”