The Rev Dr. Rick SchlosserCalifornia Church IMPACT recommends a YES vote
There is no precedent for this initiative — no state has ever attempted to impose a wealth tax on its richest residents. Still, the elements are worth walking through.
If passed, this would impose a one-time 5% levy on wealth over $1 billion — for individuals, trusts, and other holdings, including personal property such as artwork — payable with 2026 taxes due in 2027. The revenue would fund health care and education for the state’s lowest-income families and individuals: 90% to health, 10% to education.
Much of the federal deficit traces to the large tax cuts given to top earners. Spending was supposed to fall in response but didn’t — instead, programs for people in need were cut: Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California), SNAP, and other food assistance. Those safety-net programs weren’t the drivers of rising federal debt; war spending, subsidies for the wealthy, and other factors have kept spending high even as tax cuts reduced revenue.
There is currently no proposed budget for basic safety-net programs beyond this year, and California is already seeing cuts: the state, along with a few others, is having Medicaid funds withheld over disputed fraud claims. As the wealthiest state in the nation, California is home to many beneficiaries of those federal tax cuts — some of whom pay little or no tax at all. Whether a wealth tax would drive billionaires to leave is uncertain; many have long used transfer pricing, moving assets across jurisdictions to reduce tax liability, meaning much of the taxable wealth may already be beyond the state’s reach. That’s a structural challenge of state-level taxation in a federal system.
The bigger problem with this measure may be constitutional: it could function as a retroactive tax, applying back to January 1, 2026, on wealth accumulated before the tax existed. Ex post facto laws are generally unconstitutional — conduct legal when it occurred typically can’t be penalized retroactively, even in civil matters. This would likely be resolved in court.
Despite those drawbacks, supporters point to a principle of equity: those with the most wealth bear a proportionally greater responsibility. The U.S. has never operated as a pure free market — policy choices have long shaped wealth accumulation at the top, which is part of why the country adopted a graduated tax system in the first place. Some frame this in moral or religious terms, citing the principle “from those to whom much is given, much is required.”
Given the practical and legal hurdles, supporters argue the measure is worth attempting as a remedy for growing inequality.
Recommend a YES vote