levy

A proposal to tax California’s billionaires has fractured Democratic politics, repelled some of the state’s richest residents and exploded into a costly battle that’s overshadowing even the gubernatorial election.

Known as Proposition 40, the ballot measure is also dividing the very industry it’s supposed to help. The healthcare workers union behind the initiative, which would authorize a wealth tax on billionaires, says the levy would raise sorely needed funds to shore up health coverage.

By contrast, leading California hospital and doctor groups are opposing the measure ahead of the November vote. They say the one-time 5% levy on the state’s wealthiest is a risky gambit with an uncertain path to victory — as well as a distraction from other proposals to shore up healthcare.

“This is an experiment on a taxation scheme that’s not been done before, and it puts healthcare in a more vulnerable position as a result,” California Medical Assn. Chief Executive Dustin Corcoran said at a recent briefing in Sacramento. “It’s not a healthcare ballot measure.”

Less than six weeks before election day, polls show a divided electorate. But whatever the outcome, the fight is exposing a broader problem confronting California: how to preserve one of the nation’s largest expansions of publicly funded healthcare as a big chunk of the money that helped pay for it disappears.

Over the last decade, California increased access to publicly funded healthcare by broadening eligibility for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, and other types of insurance, allowing millions more residents to gain coverage. The number of people without insurance fell to 2.4 million in 2024 from about 6.5 million in 2011.

Now, that trend is expected to reverse. According to the Congressional Budget Office, President Trump’s budget bill last year will lead to $1 trillion in healthcare-related cuts over a decade. Earlier this week, the Trump administration said it recently removed 760,000 people from Obamacare plans across the nation, alleging that some were enrolled improperly and others don’t exist.

Combined with strict work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and a pullback in state spending pushed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, the changes are projected to push California’s uninsured population under the age of 65 to 4.6 million by 2030, according to the UC Berkeley Labor Center.

“Without trying to be melodramatic, when millions of people lose coverage, it is entirely predictable that thousands will die unnecessarily because of foregone treatment,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, the healthcare-workers union pushing the billionaire tax.

“There is an absolute consensus on what the problem is, and there’s a consensus that there’s no other solution on the table,” he said in an interview at Bloomberg’s San Francisco offices.

Even before the budget cuts start to bite, financial strains are mounting at institutions such as Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital in South Los Angeles.

MLKCH’s waiting room is now mostly used for treating patients, with 16 wooden cubicles functioning as care rooms. Sick or injured people are also cared for in the hospital’s front hallways and in what used to be the meditation chapel and the gift shop.

The hospital opened in 2015 with an emergency department built for 25,000 visits annually. In 2024, it handled 130,000. Dr. Elaine Batchlor, its CEO, said further funding reductions “would threaten the sustainability of the hospital.”

Batchlor isn’t taking a position on Proposition 40 and has been looking for other sources of revenue. SEIU-UHW’s Regan argues there’s no other way to raise the money needed to fill the massive gap.

The California Budget & Policy Center estimates the state stands to lose roughly $30 billion in federal Medi-Cal funding each year. Asking California lawmakers for that amount is a “fool’s errand,” Regan said. “And on top of that, the only people the legislature will tax are ordinary people.”

The union estimates the levy would raise $100 billion over five years, with 90% earmarked to shore up health coverage amid impending budget cuts.

Critics dispute the projection. The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says the tax would probably raise tens of billions of dollars, but potentially reduce income-tax revenue in the long run, as some ultrawealthy residents depart the state.

Recent polls show an increasingly contested path for Proposition 40. A recent UC Berkeley-Politico poll found 45% of likely voters in favor, but opposition has increased since early this year and now stands at 43%. A separate Public Policy Institute of California survey put support at 52% and opposition at 46%.

Led by Sergey Brin, wealthy opponents have poured almost $230 million into funding Building a Better California, according to a filing late Thursday. That’s helping them flood the airwaves with anti tax advertising. There are also two competing ballot measures designed to torpedo Proposition 40 if they pass.

Billionaires aren’t the only detractors. Critics have also assailed Proposition 40 for carving out an exception to California’s constitutional funding rules to steer most proceeds to healthcare. While the state generally earmarks at least 40% of General Fund revenue to public schools and community colleges, the billionaire-tax proposal excludes the new levy from that calculation.

Corcoran, the medical association chief, argues that even if Proposition 40 passes in November, legal challenges would potentially delay its implementation for years.

“There’s a lot that we can do looking ahead to 2028 when these cuts start taking greater effect that frankly would provide more immediate relief than Proposition 40 would,” he said. His group and others are pushing instead for large corporations to help cover the cost of public insurance for their workers.

Regan called that proposal “the worst public policy on planet Earth,” saying costs will be passed on to consumers and that it essentially acts as a payroll tax on low-wage workers.

He also disputed the notion the billionaire tax would lead the ultrawealthy to leave the state, pointing to Nvidia Corp. CEO Jensen Huang, who earlier this year said he would be “perfectly fine” with the levy. As for legal challenges to the billionaire tax, Regan said he believes they can be resolved in 12 months.

The uncertain funding picture has many hospitals bracing for cuts.

James Suver, CEO of Ridgecrest Regional Hospital, about 150 miles north of Los Angeles, said he’s not betting on proceeds from the billionaire tax. He’s weighing options that include pausing maternity care again, cutting physician recruitment and reducing emergency-room service.

“Our future under the most likely scenario is not looking very good,” Suver said. “We’re beyond doing minor nips and tucks to be able to offset some of the changes that I suspect may be happening in the future.”

Clanton writes for Bloomberg. Kara Wetzel of Bloomberg contributed.

EastEnders star Sophie Levy, who plays Priya, has left the show in an unannounced exit that left fans gobsmacked, as the BBC show’s official X account showed the cast’s emotional goodbye

The EastEnders cast have said goodbye to one of their stars in a shock exit that was not announced to fans. Sophie Levy, who played Priya Nandra-Hart, has left the show.

In tonight’s episode, Priya decided to quit Walford, terrified that Max Branning (Jake Wood) would do something drastic if he found out that she was pregnant with his child. She packs her bags and is driven off in a cab headed for Leeds.

It has now been revealed by the EastEnders’ official X, formerly known as Twitter account that these were one of Sophie’s last scenes. They shared a video of Sophie being given a huge goodbye from the cast, who chanted, “We love you Sophie, we do!”

Executive producer Ben Wadey then said: “We have just wrapped Sophie’s last scene with us on EastEnders. Congratulations, Sophie! We want to say a massive thank you on behalf of everyone at EastEnders for an extraordinary few years. It’s a really hard thing to come in and put on the shoes of a new character in the show and instantly become an icon.

“You’ve led so many amazing stories, you’ve had brilliant, unlikely partnerships with people like Martin, with Ian, with Jean most recently. I’ve been enjoying you actually driving Max Branning to have a heart attack by stressing him out so much. You’ve been extraordinary; you’re a delight to work with. You’re going to be very, very missed.”

He added that Sophie, who is pregnant, was onto a “more important adventure” next. Sophie then said that the EastEnders crew were like “family” and that she loved being on the soap. Speaking directly to the camera, she added: “I just wanted to say a massive thank you to all of the fans and the viewers of the show. I’ve been so proud and happy to be part of this family for three years. I can’t believe it’s been three years, it doesn’t feel that long but it also feels like it’s been forever!

“Thank you for having me. And let’s see. Watch this space, you knows if Priya will return.” Turning to the side to show off her baby bump, she signed off with: “See ya!”

EastEnders captioned the post with: “Sophie Levy Khan’s final day on EastEnders was an emotional one. From the moment she arrived, Priya has been an unforgettable character and leaves behind a Walford legacy to be proud of. We’re not crying, you are.”

Fans were shocked in the comments as they did not think Priya’s exit was permanent. “Wait she’s left for good?” one fan asked. Another said: “Shut the f*** up???? This can’t be Priya’s actual exit!”

A third added: “Wait a minute that was her actual last scene really I thought she would be gone for a bit and be back another great Eastenders character gone.”

Others said they thought she might return in time for Christmas, so that she could still be the pregnant woman in Max Branning’s bed at New Year. One said that it was “obvious” that Sophie would return: “She even says at the end of the video let’s see if priya will return ?? Do any of you even watch any of these videos before jumping on a bandwagon ! Its obviously just a temporary leave!”

For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Judy Judge is hanging up her robe.

Nearly 30 years after Judy Sheindlin launched a career that made her TV’s most widely recognized judge — first on the syndicated small claims series “Judge Judy,” which premiered in 1996 and ran for 25 seasons; then on Amazon Prime’s streaming show “Judy Justice” starting in 2021 — she’s passing her gavel to a fitting successor: her son, Judge Adam Levy.

The 83-year-old Sheindlin told People magazine that when “Judy Justice” wraps in October, she’s moving away from on-camera work to focus on other endeavors, including afternoon naps and developing the animated series “Judyverse” based on the “Baby Judge Judy” videos circulating social media.

Created with AI, the videos feature a toddler version of Judge Judy overseeing cases with her signature New York accent and no-nonsense barbs.

“I don’t want to do hair and makeup anymore, but I still want my message to get out there,” she told the outlet.

Sheindlin will also produce her son’s syndicated court TV show, “Adam’s Law,” which debuts Monday.

“There aren’t a lot of people who can carry a half-hour on their own, unscripted,” Sheindlin continued, adding that Levy has what it takes.

The 58-year-old earned his law degree from Hofstra Law School in 1992. This isn’t his first foray into TV, as he joined a panel of judges on Prime’s “Tribunal Justice” in 2023. After three seasons, Sheindlin said he’s ready for his close-up.

On Sept. 22, CBS will air a 30th anniversary special looking back on Sheindlin’s career, “Judge Judy: Unfiltered, Unforgettable.”

“I don’t think that I’ve ever been this content before,” she told People of entering the next era of her life. “I don’t have to prove anything else. I did it.”

Holidaymakers will face a nightly levy on hotel and Airbnb-style stays across large parts of England in a move welcomed by many mayors but described as risking “irreparable harm” to the tourism industry.

Regions across England will be able to charge an uncapped “tourist tax” on overnight stays to potentially generate tens of millions of pounds that would then be spent in those areas.

The move will bring England into line with many European nations and the US, where holidaymakers have for years been paying overnight visitor levies.

However, tourism and hospitality bosses warned it would have a “hugely damaging” impact on an industry already under pressure from a rise in tax and employment costs.

UKHospitality, the industry’s trade body, said a 5% overnight levy across England could result in 33,000 job losses and a £2bn hit to the economy, with regions more reliant on tourism, such as the Lake District, being worst affected.

The owner of Premier Inn, Britain’s biggest hotel chain, said it would be “hugely damaging” and urged ministers to “avoid inflicting what could be irreparable harm on this large and vital sector of the economy”.

The proposal for an overnight levy was backed by Keir Starmer’s government in November and is similar to a scheme running in Scotland.

Angela Rayner, the housing secretary, outlined the details behind the levy to England’s regional mayors in a meeting at No 10 North in Manchester on Thursday.

Under the proposal, which is expected to be introduced as a bill in parliament within months, mayors will be given the power to decide what is best for their area, but ministers do not expect the levy to become overly expensive.

Allen Simpson, the chief executive of UKHospitality, said the plans would put jobs at risk in some communities, and that the new tourism tax in Edinburgh was “already having damaging effects”. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme holidays in the UK were “already more expensive” than they appeared because of higher VAT.

“What we’re talking about here is an open-ended power for mayors to set tourism taxes at any level they want,” said Simpson. “And remember that if you go to Paris, if you go to Rome, if you go to Berlin, you’re paying a small tourism tax, but it’s capped.”

He added: “It will be the case that you’ll have holiday parks which can’t open in the shoulder seasons, and of course people who go on holiday will just have that little bit less money in their pocket.”

The overnight visitor levy was outlined in the king’s speech in May, but legislation was not brought forward before Starmer stood down as prime minister. Andy Burnham is likely to pitch the policy as part of his wider devolution agenda. No 10 has previously said local leaders would be “able to set out plans for how revenues will be invested by March 2028”.

As mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham introduced the city visitor charge in April 2023 – a £1 per room per night fee – to pay for measures aimed at attracting more tourists. Last year other mayors, including Sadiq Khan in London, wrote a letter to the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, and the then chancellor, Rachel Reeves, urging the government to introduce a visitor levy.

Sources from the London mayor’s office said a plan to make the payment a percentage rather than a flat fee was welcome. No decisions had been made on the design of the scheme or how revenues would be allocated, they said, but any levy would not be more than 5% of accommodation costs. “This will really help us support London’s growth and our offer to visitors,” they said.

Edinburgh became the first city in Scotland to introduce a tourist tax, at 5% in July, after the Scottish parliament passed a law last year granting councils the power to implement their own visitor levies. In Wales, councils will have the power to charge £1.30 a person a night in tax for most accommodation from April 2027.

But UKHospitality, which represents thousands of restaurants, hotels and pubs, has said a levy of 5% would be one of the highest tourist tax rates in Europe and hit households continuing to struggle with the cost of living. It has written to Burnham urging him instead to consider plans for a “holiday bonus”, under which central government revenues would be devolved to local authorities based on the number of visitors they attract.

Tourist taxes are common in Europe and the rest of the world, and are used in cities such as New York, Barcelona and Venice to fund local services.