Two tax increase ballot measures facing voters this November deserve rejection. Proposition 3 would extend higher income tax rates initially imposed in 2012, while Proposition 40 is an attempt to levy a wealth tax on a handful of very rich individuals. Although not specifically related, the former offers a lesson why the latter should be viewed with skepticism.
The genesis of Prop. 3 occurred in 2012 amid an all-too-familiar recurring “budget crisis.” The description in the official ballot material for Prop. 30 stated that it would increase the state sales tax rate by one-quarter cent for every dollar for four years; increase personal income tax rates on upper-income taxpayers for seven years; and raise about $6 billion in additional annual state revenues from 2012-13 through 2016-17. By its very terms, Prop. 30 represented to voters that the increases would be temporary.
The plain language of Prop. 30 (2012) was affirmed by the accompanying ballot analysis. Then-Attorney General Kamala Harris (remember her?) placed “Temporary” at the beginning of the Prop. 30 ballot title in November 2012: “Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding.” Furthermore, the Argument in Favor of Prop. 30 used the phrases “Prop. 30’s taxes are…
