“It will make a bad situation even worse”
ACRAMENTO, CA — In recent editorials, the Bay Area Reporter, Santa Barbara Independent, and Oakland Post all urged voters to reject Proposition 40, raising concerns that the “poorly-designed measure” will “damage the state’s economy,” “can’t possibly deliver on its promises,” and is a “temporary solution that could leave us confronting another revenue problem down the road.”
These publications join a growing chorus against Proposition 40, including editorials from the Southern California News Group and its 11 daily newspapers, La Opinión, Los Angeles Times, KCRA 3, San Diego Union-Tribune, Bakersfield Californian, El Popular, and the Washington Post, among others.
Bay Area Reporter: Editorial: B.A.R. recommends CA props (October 7, 2026)
The Bay Area Reporter recommends voting against Proposition 40, noting that it will cost the state billions in lost revenue, fail to lower healthcare costs, and hurt California’s economy and budget.
This initiative constitutional amendment and statute has garnered support from many who are fed up with the wealthy not paying their fair share in taxes. But Prop 40 is not the answer. It would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on certain taxpayers with covered assets valued over $1 billion, according to the voter guide. Proponents claim that 90% of the revenue would go toward healthcare, but this is a one-time tax, meaning that in the years following, the state would find itself in the position it’s in now: high healthcare costs that impact access to care for so many Californians.
We’re skeptical that the revenue will come in as expected; rather, it likely will cost the state $25 billion in lost revenue as companies and wealthy residents leave the state, as opponents argued. Some billionaires have already left, meaning they won’t pay any state taxes at all. In short, this is a poorly-designed measure that will damage the state’s economy. Vote NO on Prop 40.
Read the full Bay Area Reporter editorial.
Santa Barbara Independent: Endorsements for the General Election, November 3, 2026 (October 7, 2026)
The Santa Barbara Independent rejects Proposition 40, citing concerns about the feasibility of implementing this first-of-its-kind tax, uncertainty over its projected revenue, and impacts on California’s tax base.
Sadly, at its best, Prop 40 is a rhetorical gimmick that can’t possibly deliver on its promises. But it will make a bad situation even worse by creating a completely new category of taxation: a one-time tax of 5 percent on the wealth — not the income — of state billionaires.
…
We are struck by how often the words “maybe” and “probably” show up in the fine print. How much money might actually be raised? How many billionaires might flee the state? How much might state income tax revenues drop? Since California relies upon income taxes — as opposed to real estate assessments — those are threatening questions.
…
Little wonder that organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the California Medical Association — which would presumably benefit from Prop. 40 — have come out against the measure.
Read the full Santa Barbara Independent editorial.
Oakland Post: Proposition 40: It’s Time to Play Chess, Not Checkers (October 6, 2026)
In opposing Proposition 40, the Oakland Post warns about the long-term consequences of this measure, pointing to the impacts on people and communities with the fewest resources.
So let’s be clear: This is not about feeling sorry for billionaires. Billionaires will be fine.
This is about protecting the people who will not be fine if we get the policy wrong.
For decades, those of us in Black media have watched public policy debates move from crisis to crisis. We have also watched Black communities deal with the consequences when decisions made in Sacramento or Washington did not fully consider what would happen two, three, or four moves later.
We know what happens when funding disappears. Community organizations struggle. Small businesses lose support. Programs serving young people are squeezed. Schools and local governments are asked to do more with less. The people with the fewest resources are usually the first to feel the consequences.
That history should make us cautious about making major changes to California’s tax system without considering the entire board.
…
We should build tax policy that is thoughtful, sustainable, and difficult to avoid. We should not create a temporary solution that could leave us confronting another revenue problem down the road.
…
Too often our politics tells us that if we agree with the goal, we must agree with the proposed solution. That is not how responsible public policy works.
You can believe health care must be protected and still question the mechanism being proposed to protect it.
You can believe billionaires should pay more and still ask whether this particular tax is the smartest way to accomplish that.
And you can stand with working people while insisting that California consider the long-term consequences for all of the public programs working people depend upon.
We need to stop treating complicated economic decisions like a game of checkers, where we look only at the move directly in front of us.
We need to play chess.