Wealth Tax News – 9/11/2026

This week’s wealth tax developments again centered on California’s Proposition 40, which drew editorial opposition from the Los Angeles Times and the National Review, exposed deepening divisions within organized labor as the California Teachers Association and construction trades lined up against SEIU-UHW’s measure, and prompted warnings from that the legislature’s broad amendment authority could eventually extend the tax well beyond billionaires.

California voters also face Proposition 3, which would permanently lock in higher income-tax rates first imposed as a temporary measure in 2012.

Please find summaries of relevant articles with web links below. Please reach out to any member of your Brownstein National Tax Policy Group team with questions or to set up a meeting.

California Wealth Tax Initiative 2026: Latest Polls – The New York Times
The New York Times has set up a page on their website tracking recent polling on the California wealth tax proposal.

Federal

Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez invited to Paris for Gabriel Zucman’s tax-the-rich summit – POLITICO
Prop 40 advocate Gabriel Zucman will host an event in Paris in late November called the “Summit Against the International Oligarchy.” It will focus on the concentration of wealth and power, the role of media and technology platforms, artificial intelligence, and taxation of billionaires. Zucman has invited Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D), and other progressive figures. The summit is co-organized with economists Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty and follows the publication of Zucman’s book of the same name. The event is intended to elevate the international tax-justice debate ahead of France’s 2027 presidential election, following Zucman’s high-profile advocacy for Prop 40.

California

Jon Coupal: Proposition 3 is a warning against Proposition 40 – LA Daily News
Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, argues that California voters should reject both Prop 3, which would make higher income-tax rates permanent after earlier “temporary” increases were extended, and Prop 40, a proposed one-time tax on billionaires’ assets. He argues that Prop 3 illustrates how temporary tax measures can become lasting obligations, citing the extension of Prop 30’s 2012 high-income tax rates through Prop 55 in 2016. Coupal further warns that Prop 40’s provision allowing the Legislature to amend the measure with a two-thirds vote could enable lawmakers to broaden the wealth tax beyond its stated target, potentially exposing a wider range of Californians and assets to taxation.

Editorial: Vote no on Prop. 40. It ignores education, housing and safety – Los Angeles Times
The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board recommends rejecting Prop 40. The Board argued that the measure is poorly structured and would worsen state fiscal challenges. The Board said the proposal lacks safeguards to ensure its healthcare-focused proceeds address urgent needs rather than subsidize for-profit insurers, drugmakers, or hospitals, while excluding other priorities such as education, housing, public safety, and wildfire prevention. It also warned that a temporary, one-time revenue source could create a fiscal cliff, encourage future tax increases, prompt wealthy residents to leave the state, and establish a precedent for interest groups to enact narrowly targeted, ballot-box tax measures.

California’s ballot measures could cost taxpayers billions – Tahoe Daily Tribune
Based on analyses by the California Budget & Policy Center, passage of Props 1, 2, 3, 37, and 40 could carry an estimated combined cost of roughly $155 billion over several years. Tax burdens would vary considerably by measure and taxpayer income. Prop 1 would authorize an $11.25 billion housing bond; Prop 2 would increase the share of General Fund revenue directed to the Rainy Day Fund from 10% to 20% while extending the state’s debt-paydown timeline. Prop 3 would permanently maintain higher income-tax rates for high earners. Prop 37 would provide $25 billion in revenue bonds for first-time homebuyer assistance. Prop 40 would impose a 5% wealth tax on billionaires. The report notes that the policy center expects most taxpayers to see little direct effect.

Prop 40 is dividing California labor unions and experts argue the fight goes well beyond a billionaire tax – ABC7 San Francisco
Prop 40 is exposing divisions within organized labor and the broader Democratic coalition. SEIU–United Healthcare Workers West, the measure’s sponsor, argues the tax is needed to avert service losses from anticipated federal health care cuts and has won support from the California Labor Federation and state Democratic Party. Opponents, including the California Teachers Association, California Professional Firefighters, and construction-trades groups, say they object to the proposal’s structure or favor a federal approach rather than a state wealth tax.

Temporary California tax is set to expire – but Democrats want to make it permanent – NY Post
California voters will decide in November whether to make permanent the higher state income-tax rates imposed on top earners in 2012 and currently set to expire in 2031. Prop 3 would apply to taxpayers with income above roughly $371,000, leave lower tax brackets unchanged, and preserve an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion annually for the state. 89% of the revenue would go to K–12 education and 11% to community colleges, while also increasing General Fund capacity for services such as health care and reserves. Supporters say retaining the revenue would prevent major public-service cuts, but opponents argue California already relies heavily on high-income taxpayers and warn that making the rates permanent could carry broader economic consequences.

Californians Shouldn’t Tax Away State’s Prosperity – National Review
The National Review’s Editorial Board urges California voters to reject Prop 40. The Board argued that the measure would undermine investment, job creation, and the state’s tax base. The Board also notes that valuing billionaire assets would be difficult, that much of their wealth is illiquid business equity, and that the measure could be unconstitutional. It also argues wealthy residents and businesses could relocate, reducing rather than increasing state revenue. Citing estimates that the measure would affect roughly 200 billionaires and that departures could sharply reduce projected receipts, the Board said the initiative could divert resources from other public priorities and noted opposition from several unions and prominent California Democrats, including Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra (D).

Maine

Maine Senate candidates spar over records, taxes – 13 WGME
In Maine’s Senate race, Troy Jackson (D) and incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R) focused their dispute on property-tax relief and the broader tax burden on families. Collins criticized Jackson for supporting a 2022 senior property-tax stabilization program before voting to repeal it the following year. Jackson’s campaign said the program disproportionately aided wealthier seniors and was replaced in the 2023 budget with initiatives providing up to $500 in additional relief for lower-income seniors. Collins also argued that Democratic lawmakers have increased taxes and made Maine too expensive, whereas Jackson supports tax cuts paired with higher taxes on billionaires and corporations.

Other

Voters in six states to decide eight income or wealth tax ballot measures in 2026 – Ballotpedia News
Wealth taxes will be a prominent, though limited, feature of the 2026 state ballot landscape: among eight remaining income or wealth tax measures across California, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, and Washington, one would create or increase a wealth tax and one would restrict or reduce one. California’s Prop 40 is the leading wealth-tax proposal, with campaign committees reporting about $31.4 million in support and $11.2 million in opposition as of the report. It is also among the cycle’s most heavily financed ballot measures. More broadly, the measures reflect competing voter choices over using ballot initiatives to raise revenue from concentrated wealth.