What They're Saying About Prop 40:

"California depends heavily on personal income tax revenue to fund the General Fund, which supports major transportation and infrastructure investments. With California already facing a major transportation funding shortfall, UCON opposes Prop 40 because it could drive high-earning taxpayers out of the state, reduce ongoing income tax revenue and leave fewer resources available for roads, highways, bridges and other critical infrastructure. "

"The Chamber opposes Prop 40 due to the negative ripple effects this measure could have on state tax revenue and innovation. The one-time tax does not sufficiently address the long-term challenges of funding healthcare and creates concerns regarding future one-time taxes."

“While I appreciate the intentions behind Prop. 40, I’m concerned it could undermine the progress we’ve made over the past 15 years to stabilize the state’s finances. Californians need real solutions to our housing and affordability challenges, including rising healthcare premiums, and I don’t believe this measure delivers them. That’s why I’m standing with housing advocates and Planned Parenthood in opposing Prop. 40.”

“Prop. 40 may be well intentioned, but it is bad. It was crafted without input from our state's top leaders and it sends us speeding toward a fiscal cliff. We all want to fix our healthcare system, but this measure is not the answer. I urge Californians to join teachers, doctors, and firefighters and vote No on 40.”

“Prop. 40 is built on false promises — the biggest being that this is just about billionaires and won’t hurt you. In truth, it’s all 40 million Californians who will suffer when our budget blows up and our economy tanks because of Prop. 40. We can’t afford to gamble with our future and that’s why I’m voting No on 40.”

"Our neighborhoods have fought for generations to secure investments in our schools, public safety, and community services. The concern with Proposition 40 is the possibility of losing ongoing state revenue that helps support those priorities. Any discussion about taxing billionaires must also address what happens to the public services our neighborhoods have worked so hard to secure."

“Black-owned businesses need more than promises of economic opportunity. They need a stable environment where they can grow, hire workers, and invest in their communities. Proposition 40 raises serious questions about long-term revenue stability and the economic consequences of changes in how wealthy taxpayers respond. Those questions deserve clear answers."

“California needs a serious conversation about how we fund essential services while keeping our economy strong. We cannot ignore the possibility that higher taxes could encourage wealthy residents to leave the state, taking investment and future tax revenue with them. That could have consequences for small businesses, jobs, and the communities that depend on public services. We need to go back to the drawing board and find a balanced approach that protects California’s economy while addressing its budget challenges."

“When the NAACP, Gov. Gavin Newsom, and gubernatorial candidates agree on opposing Proposition 40, we need to pay attention. I trust that our leaders who understand California’s budget challenges have our state’s best interests at heart. They recognize the potential risks to the schools, seniors, and other community services our families depend on. We cannot afford a knee-jerk reaction to federal policies. We must be more thoughtful and methodical. I’m not a gambling man, and I’m certainly not willing to gamble with California’s future. We need to bring everyone back to the drawing board and work together on a responsible approach to California’s budget challenges. Unfortunately, Proposition 40 isn’t it."

“Put simply: insurance companies can expect billions more in revenue from Proposition 40 without new checks and balances or new requirements to improve patient services or access…California voters deserve to know where the money will go, who will control it, and whether it will produce lasting improvements or simply fatten profits for health insurance companies.

"There is zero guarantee the measure’s funds will actually help reach patients or ease the medical bills of struggling families. Instead, the revenue could easily be swallowed up by health insurance companies and executives — the very entities that helped create our healthcare crisis in the first place. Prop 40 fails, for lack of even trying, to make any reforms to the broken parts of our healthcare system. It is hard to fathom how steering tens of billions of dollars to for-profit health insurance companies somehow solves wealth inequality or addresses our healthcare needs.”

“San Francisco Democrats care deeply about addressing inequality and making California more affordable, but Proposition 40 is the wrong approach. A one-time tax does not solve the long-term challenges facing our state. When you look at the details, Proposition 40 could make our budget problems worse, putting schools and other essential services at risk while creating greater uncertainty for California’s economy. We need sustainable solutions that strengthen our state, not a measure that creates a new set of problems.”

“[Prop. 40] would risk dependable, recurring revenue for a temporary infusion of money. Once that money is spent, California could be left with a smaller tax base to support essential services year after year. This is not the way to spur business dynamism which supports innovation and job creation. The consequences could extend beyond tax revenues."

“As a faith leader and civil rights advocate, I believe we have a moral responsibility to protect the well-being of our families, stand with our most vulnerable communities, and ensure that every voice is heard. I support the goal of preserving access to healthcare, but I believe Proposition 40’s approach is flawed and unsustainable. California families are already facing difficult choices, and they deserve solutions that deliver real, lasting results. Good intentions must be matched by sound policy, accountability, and meaningful community engagement. This is a matter of fairness, justice, and human dignity. Our priority must be protecting access to care while ensuring that underserved communities have a voice in shaping a sustainable path forward."

“California needs more resources for health care, but Proposition 40 is a risky experiment that could ultimately leave our state with less funding for critical services. Every day, school nurses see how closely student health and academic success are connected. Yet Proposition 40 bypasses Proposition 98’s voter-approved constitutional school funding guarantee, potentially shortchanging our classrooms by billions of dollars. Proposition 40 is simply the wrong way to address California’s health care and education challenges.”

"CalTax opposes the measure because it contains significant constitutional, valuation, residency, apportionment, and implementation problems, would likely generate years of litigation, and could create substantial refund liability for the state. The measure also could reduce long-term state tax revenue due to taxpayer departures from California."

“For years, one of the top priorities of California’s veterans organizations has been making our state a more affordable place for veterans and their families to live, work and retire. We are deeply concerned about what Proposition 40 could mean for California’s economy, state budget, and the essential services veterans depend on. If the measure results in billions in lost state revenue, it could put even more pressure on funding for health care, housing and other critical programs. We want to ensure California remains a place that veterans and their families can afford to live.”

“California’s veterans know what it means to keep a commitment. Proposition 40 makes promises it can’t guarantee while putting billions in state revenue at risk and adding even more pressure to an already strained state budget. That could leave less funding available for health care, housing, public safety and other essential services veterans, military families and communities across California count on. Veterans deserve responsible, sustainable solutions — not a risky experiment with California’s future.”

"[Prop 40] does not support our public educators. It does not support our teachers and counselors, our librarians. It doesn’t support our first responders and firefighters. It doesn’t support the general fund and parks."

“California’s family farmers are already facing rising costs and enormous economic uncertainty. Proposition 40 raises serious questions about the potential impact on California’s economy, investment, and long-term financial stability. Farmers depend on a strong, predictable economy to sustain their operations, support local jobs, and pass their land down to the next generation.”

“Our schools, first responders, our construction workers depend on a healthy state budget – but with $25 billion less in the bank, that’s less money for water, road and electrical infrastructure. That means higher costs for utilities and longer commutes to get to work. That also means fewer jobs and high-growth careers in the building trades, and that’s fewer opportunities for our apprentices right here to grow in their careers. Vote no on Prop 40.”

“We won’t stand by and let a tax that’s supposed to target billionaires turn into a trapdoor for working families and we won’t support policies that scare away the private investment that keeps our crane booms moving and our crews working. We want California to be a place where you can do honest union work, build a good life, and know that what you’ve earned with your own two hands won’t be stripped away in the fine print. On behalf of the ironworkers, we are urging our members and all working Californians to vote no on Prop 40.”

“You don’t need tax policy to be a one-time shot because you need consistent, predictable revenue in order to manage a budget the size of the state of California…I was for 20 years on the Ways and Means Committee in Congress — a tax policy writer. Tax policy has to be predictable, it has to be stable, and it has to understand that it’s interconnected with everything that goes on.”

"[Prop 40]’s uncertain impacts on the state budget and lack of specificity on health care allocations will do more harm than good in the long term. In order to protect access to care for the millions of patients that safety net providers like Planned Parenthood serve, we have opposed this measure and urge our health care partners to do the same."

"It’s unfathomable that proponents of [Prop 40] are claiming their efforts are intended to help Medi-Cal, while at the very same time they are advocating for policies that will decimate the very safety-net and workforce that Medi-Cal patients rely on. Proponents have a long history of promoting flawed and deceptive proposals that actually harm patients. This measure is no different."

"[Prop 40] is the wrong way to address the state's health care funding challenges and was developed without input from the physicians, hospitals, clinics, and other providers who care for Medi-Cal patients every day. [Prop 40] relies on an unstable revenue source, provides no clear accountability for how the money would be spent, and does not offer the long-term funding solution that patients and health care professionals need."

"[Prop 40] raises serious questions about revenue reliability, economic impacts and the long-term consequences for California's tax base. CSBA believes students are best served through durable funding solutions that strengthen educational opportunity while preserving the state's economic competitiveness."

"After thorough review and democratic debate about [Prop 40], our State Council of Delegates – 800 educator representatives from throughout the state – determined that this policy will not provide the sustainable and long-lasting funding that our schools and communities deserve."

"California’s children deserve a stable, sustainable health care system. The one-time tax proposed by Prop 40 doesn’t provide that stability. Worse, the measure jeopardizes existing revenue that children on Medi-Cal, including those with the most medically complex conditions, rely upon for their care."

"California needs sustainable, predictable funding to address the challenges facing LGBTQ+ people. We need ongoing solutions to fund health care, education, and other critical services that LGBTQ+ Californians rely on, not one-time fixes."

“CADC opposes Prop. 40 because taxing unrealized wealth and difficult-to-value assets could be administratively complicated and could encourage high-income residents and entrepreneurs to relocate, potentially reducing California's future income-tax base.”

"Proposition 40 is the wrong way to address the challenges facing our state. In fact, it will make many of our problems worse, diverting billions of dollars from public schools and putting additional pressure on the budget that could squeeze funding for other essential public services. That’s why we urge Californians to vote No on Proposition 40."

"California’s students and schools have too much to lose under Proposition 40. The measure guarantees schools none of its revenue, places those dollars outside California’s longstanding constitutional protections for education and threatens the ongoing funding classrooms depend on. ACSA opposes Proposition 40 because students deserve resources they can count on, not a measure that will leave them with less."

"[We] stand firmly against Proposition 40 because when you gamble with the finances of our state and local governments, you gamble with public safety. Given California’s mounting fire danger and ongoing fiscal challenges, we need smart, durable solutions, not unproven risks. That’s why our 38,000 professional firefighters and emergency medical service personnel are proud to stand with teachers, the building trades, health care providers, and other sworn public safety professionals to say NO on 40."

"[Prop 40] will drive away capital when we need it the most, threatening construction jobs, our infrastructure, and California's future. When investment leaves California, critical housing, transportation, school, and water projects leave with it. We can't let that happen."

"We should be doing everything we can to encourage new investment and job creation across California, not driving it away. The California State Council of Laborers and our 80,000 union construction workers are proud to join the state’s union teachers, firefighters, carpenters, home care and family child care providers, and so many others all saying NO on 40."

"...UDW does not support this measure for several reasons: Most importantly, the proposed measure does not fund the IHSS or child care programs specifically, which provides vital care services to almost one million seniors and people living with disabilities across the state and child care to over one million qualified families...Secondly, a one-time wealth tax does not create the sustainable funding stream that is required to fully fund vital care programs like IHSS and child care programs...For these reasons, we’re urging our members to vote no on Prop 40, because we know it’s possible to deliver a better funding plan for our communities.”

"While access to health care in California is more precarious than ever, [Prop 40] is simply the wrong answer. This measure would only temporarily generate funding and threaten the overall health of California’s finances over the long term, further jeopardizing resources for life-saving health care services. California can’t afford this poorly designed tax measure."

"Our members build the infrastructure that powers California’s world-leading economy – from bridges, dams, and roads to rail lines, airports, and other critical projects. Our future and these union jobs depend on sustaining and growing this work, not sabotaging it with this deeply flawed wealth tax experiment. Together, our union brothers and sisters urge Californians to vote NO on 40."

"California’s working people need more jobs, more investment, and more opportunities — not policies that make it harder to build and grow. This initiative will discourage investment, slow economic activity, and threaten the jobs, wages, and benefits that support union families. We believe in a fair tax structure, but this proposal misses the mark."

"[Prop 40] puts at risk the very programs California depends on to build housing. From affordable housing funding and financial incentives for builders, to the state agency staffing that reviews entitlements and holds local governments accountable to their housing goals, these are the building blocks of housing production. Stable, sustained investment in these programs is how California closes the housing gap. A measure that undermines the state budget undermines housing."

"At a time when the state faces a severe housing shortage, policymakers should focus on attracting the resources needed to build affordable homes—not discouraging them. If our goal is to create and preserve affordable homes for working families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities, we should be encouraging investment in housing and community development—not creating new barriers that make it harder to finance the affordable housing Californians desperately need."

"[Prop 40] is poorly-designed: It will likely harm housing production by discouraging investment in California. It will likely harm overall tax revenues by driving out the taxpayers who already pay the most taxes. It earmarks most of the funds for a very narrow set of pre-defined uses. It is a one-time windfall tax that will not solve longer-term revenue problems, and would exacerbate them by creating future shortfalls."

"California policymakers have struggled for decades with the state’s volatile revenue system, [Prop 40] only compounds the volatility, adding uncertainty to both the economy and state budget, while narrowly dictating how these resources can be spent. Affordable housing providers believe there are better, more effective ways to fund the wide range of public services Californians depend on."

"To truly address our affordability crisis, California needs permanent, scaled investments that deliver stable, lasting impact. This measure simply doesn’t achieve that. That’s why Housing California and our partners remain focused on meaningful solutions that advance both health and prosperity: safe and affordable housing, strong schools, quality healthcare, and essential services. The foundation that will make everyday life more affordable and ensure our communities thrive."

"We all want a California that is more affordable, more equitable, and more prosperous. But we cannot tax our way to those goals by discouraging the investment and innovation that fuel economic growth. The path forward is creating more housing, improving education, and expanding economic opportunity—not imposing a wealth tax that risks shrinking the resources available to support those priorities. [Prop 40] would move California in the wrong direction."

"...the effort to impose an unprecedented wealth tax is not only misguided but creates a dangerous precedent that will cause more problems than it would ever solve... the risky nature of taxing unrealized gains on shares held by founders of Silicon Valley simply to obtain a one-time infusion of tax revenue that ignores the state’s systemic budget problems."

"CalCPA opposes the measure because it creates a fundamentally new and difficult-to-administer tax framework that raises significant administrative feasibility concerns."

"As the state’s largest law enforcement organization, our members know that safer streets require sustained investment. By further destabilizing California’s finances, this scheme is not just reckless — it’s dangerous."

"California should not address today’s issues by risking tomorrow’s safety and security. Proposition 40 threatens the long-term funding that supports public safety and other essential services. California’s police chiefs urge voters to reject Proposition 40."

"All of our communities in California deserve to thrive, but instead, Prop. 40 leaves too many behind. It’s missing key safeguards to ensure funds are spent as promised and it does nothing to address our growing housing, higher education, environmental, and infrastructure needs. We urge Californians to vote No on 40."