tax

State lawmakers have approved a series of modest changes intended to bolster California’s film and TV tax credit program.

Among the key revisions, independent filmmakers would be exempted from the $5 million state corporate tax credit cap that was approved earlier this year as part of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s state budget.

Film industry advocates lobbied hard for a carve-out, saying the cap would undercut gains made under the current film and TV tax credit program at a time when Hollywood has been reeling from job losses.

The exemption is a compromise. Film industry advocates were hoping all types of producers would be exempt from the corporate tax cap.

The bill includes other changes intended to help Hollywood, such as allowing companies to carry forward older tax credits for up to 15 years (the old limit was nine) and reducing the discount they are charged when they opt to seek a cash refund on unused credits.

Producers will also be able to collect their refund money more quickly — within two years instead of five.

California offers tax credits of up to 35% on qualified expenses, which can be applied to any tax liabilities the production companies have in the state. The program allocates $750 million annually in film and TV tax breaks.

The budget trailer bill was introduced to the Senate on Friday by Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), chair of the Assembly Democratic Caucus and Senator Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica).

The new cap, issued by Gov. Newsom, would have undermined the “competitiveness” of the current California Film and Television Jobs Program, said the Entertainment Union Coalition, an advocacy group that supports the bill. But with these new modifications, the group — which represents the Directors Guild, SAG-AFTRA, IATSE and more — said the program will be able to continue to “support the fragile recovery of our industry here in California.”

“Most importantly, we want to recognize the major role our members played in today’s success as advocates for their industry in California,” Rebecca Rhine, the coalition’s president, said in a statement. “They sent an unprecedented 450,000 letters to the California legislature, making clear the negative impact that SB 122 [the new cap] would have on their livelihoods, their families, and their communities.”

Over the program’s first full year in its expanded $750-million form, the California Film Commission says it delivered $6.6 billion in direct production spending and $4.3 billion in qualified expenditures, supporting nearly 35,000 cast and crew jobs across 6,630 filming days statewide.

The bill cleared the Assembly floor by a vote of 68-2, with the Senate approving its companion measure by a vote of 32 in favor, 8 against the same day. It now awaits Gov. Newsom’s signature.

“It’s a good day that we took steps to strengthen the program and while we have to do more next year, this was a crucial first step,” Zbur said in an interview.

Zbur said he believes everyone in the state’s film and TV tax credit program should have been exempted from the corporate tax credit cap and he plans to look at that within the context of next year’s budget.

“There were budget implications to doing that, so we really did all the things that are viable to do in this legislative session,” Zbur said.

The trend is seeing people certain Brits take extended breaks from work to travel

Certain Brits planning to take a year off work have been warned they could face a £10,000 pension trap if they use their retirement savings to fund a so-called ‘golden gap year’.

The trend is seeing people in their 50s, 60s, and beyond take extended breaks from work to travel, volunteer or simply enjoy more freedom after decades of employment and family commitments. But experts are warning that a dream year in the sun could come with a hefty financial sting if pension rules are overlooked.

The warning comes as many people prepare to make the most of the final bank holiday of the summer – and potentially start thinking about how they want to spend their later years. PensionBee says taking time out later in life is becoming increasingly attractive, particularly after redundancy, burnout or when children have left home.

But unlike a traditional gap year taken at 18, taking a year out at 58 can have consequences for retirement income. One of the biggest issues is the Money Purchase Annual Allowance (MPAA).

Someone aged 55 or over may be able to access a defined contribution pension, but taking taxable income flexibly can trigger the MPAA. This can reduce the amount they can subsequently pay into a pension with tax advantages to £10,000 a year.

That could be particularly important for anyone planning to return to work after their year away and rebuild their retirement savings. The normal annual pension allowance is currently £60,000, although some higher earners and people who have already accessed pensions can face different limits.

Maike Currie, VP personal finance at PensionBee, said: “For years, the words ‘gap year’ conjured up images of backpacks, hostels and young people heading off to see the world before starting their careers. But increasingly, it’s older generations who are taking time out.”

She added: “After decades spent working, raising families, paying mortgages and saving for retirement, it’s understandable that more people want to enjoy some of that freedom while they’re fit and healthy enough to make the most of it.”

But there are several other financial checks people should make before booking flights.

State Pension

Taking unpaid leave can potentially result in gaps in a person’s National Insurance record. People normally need at least 10 qualifying years to receive any new State Pension, while those whose National Insurance record started after April 2016 generally need 35 qualifying years for the full new State Pension.

It is therefore worth checking your State Pension forecast before taking a year away from work. Some missing years can potentially be filled through National Insurance credits or voluntary contributions.

Workplace pension

A sabbatical or period of unpaid leave could also mean that both employee and employer pension contributions stop, depending on the terms of the workplace scheme. That means the true cost of a year away could be considerably greater than the salary sacrificed.

People should check with their employer before leaving work to establish exactly what will happen to their pension.

Keep saving if possible

Even people with little or no relevant UK earnings can generally receive tax relief on pension contributions of up to £3,600 gross a year, subject to eligibility. Under relief-at-source arrangements, this can mean paying £2,880 personally, with £720 added in basic-rate tax relief.

For someone taking a year away, maintaining even modest pension contributions could help limit the damage to their longer-term retirement plans.

Think twice before raiding your pension

Using pension savings to pay for the trip may appear an easy solution, but it can have consequences extending long after the holiday is over.

Taking taxable pension income flexibly can trigger the MPAA and leave someone with much less scope to build up their pension when they return to work.

Don’t blow the lot

Financial experts also warn against spending every penny on the adventure. Anyone taking a long break should retain an emergency fund and continue to budget for unavoidable costs such as rent or mortgage payments, insurance and household bills.

Money should also be set aside for the period after returning home, particularly if there is no job waiting.

Ms Currie said: “A golden gap year is really about buying yourself something incredibly valuable: time. But you don’t want the trip of a lifetime to leave a lasting hole in your retirement. Think of it as planning for two journeys at once. There’s the adventure you want to have now, and the much longer retirement still ahead of you.”

She urged people to check their State Pension, understand what will happen to workplace pension contributions and think carefully before accessing retirement savings.

The idea of taking a ‘golden gap year’ comes as Government research has found that 55% of people aged 40 to 75 who had not yet retired said they would definitely or probably consider a Midlife MOT.

NS&I has just improved the prize draw odds but the personal finance expert has warned over the best place for money

Personal finance expert Martin Lewis has told anyone with Premium Bonds about the ‘£5,000 rule’ and warned about the chances of actually winning anything. The ITV and BBC star has said that unless people have at least £5,000 in there, the statistics suggest they might be wasting their time.

Premium Bonds are a government-backed UK savings product issued by NS&I (National Savings and Investments). Instead of earning regular interest, a person’s money buys unique £1 bond numbers that are entered into a monthly prize draw to win tax-free cash prizes ranging from £25 to £1 million.

Mr Lewis has spoken out about the bonds, and last week, in a new update, NS&I said that there will be an increase to the Premium Bonds prize fund rate and improved odds from the September 2026 draw. There will be an estimated £63 million of extra tax-free prizes in September, compared to August 2026, NS&I said. There is also an immediate interest rate increase for around 428,000 Direct Saver and 222,000 Income Bonds customers.

More than 22 million Premium Bonds holders will see a boost to the prize fund rate to 4.35%, up from 3.80%, for the September 2026 draw. At the same time, holders will have even more chances to win, with the odds shortening to 21,000 to 1 from 22,000 to 1. The Premium Bonds prize fund rate and odds were last improved in July 2026.

However, Mr Lewis has said that people would have a much better return with normal savings – if they don’t put enough money in – because of the odds. He explained that premium bonds are only worth getting if you have a certain amount of money. In particular, he advised that many grandparents would be better off giving grandchildren cash via normal savings accounts.

He said: “For years, many people, especially grandparents, have gifted their children premium bonds. And frankly, in my view, for many they would’ve done better sticking with normal savings. Premium bonds are government-backed savings, where the interest is based on a prize draw. The current prize fund rate is just 3.6 per cent, yet even that overestimates what most people will actually win with typical luck.”

Martin said that premium bonds are typically only worth buying if you have more than £5,000, to give you a chance of winning the prizes. He noted that premium bonds are “best for”: Those with larger savings, say over £5,000, as then you’ve a better chance of earning closer to the published prize fund rate. “With less, the odds are you will win little or nothing”, he said

Those who pay tax on their savings interest, who have used up their ISA allowances, as premium bond winnings are always tax-free

He added: “As most children have small amounts of savings and aren’t taxpayers, premium bonds are particularly unsuitable. Of course, there’s the ludicrously small chance your child will win a million, but they could also toss a coin and it land on its edge.”

“So if you’re thinking of putting £1,000 or less into premium bonds for a child, it’s worth noting that with average luck our premium bonds probability calculator shows they are likely to win nothing over a year (give it a try based on your scenario).”

He has also delivered his assessment of Premium Bonds in general: “Premium Bond prizes aren’t taxed, which means that if you’ve larger savings in cash, and have maxed out your £20,000 a year ISA allowance and earn enough interest to exceed your PSA, Premium Bonds are probably a decent choice… if you can accept the random nature of the ‘interest’.

“For everyone else, cash ISAs – savings accounts you never pay tax on – are still likely to be the better choice. The top easy-access cash ISA rate is currently 4.4% – slightly lower than the standard non-ISA rate, but tax-free and offering a guaranteed return that’s higher than the current Premium Bond prize rate of 3.6% (which you need to be lucky to get).”

He also said the prize rate – 4.35 per cent from September up from 3.80 per cent is the average return. He said: “The smallest prize is £25. So what happens on £100 is a lot of people get nothing and a few get £25.” He said the mena average, which is 4.35 per cent from Sept, but more important: “Is the median average which is zero on £100 in Premium Bonds over a year.

“Median is if you lined everybody up who had £100 in Premium Bonds from those who win the most to those who win the least what would the person exactly halfway along win.

“The first thing to say is someone with typical luck will always win less than the mean average. What affects the amount you win, generally, is the amount you’ve got in. The more you have in the closer you will get to the mean average on typical luck.”

However, the ‘tax-free’ nature of Premium Bonds could offer a benefit, he suggested: “Most people do not pay tax on savings. That’s because, as well as your normal personal allowance up to £12,570 a year you can earn from any source, most people are getting either a £1,000 personal savings allowance – so that’s £1,000 of interest they can earn a year without paying tax on it – or £500 personal savings allowance if you are a higher rate taxpayer.”

If someone has a lot of savings, it could mean they’re paying tax on the interest, and if that’s the case, he said people should consider making sure their ISA allowance is full.

He said: “If you’ve got a cash ISA allowance available, I’d be putting it there. Then, if you’re paying tax on your savings and you’ve filled up your cash ISA allowance, and especially if you’re higher rate taxpayers which means you’re going to be losing 40 per cent off your savings interest on any that you pay tax on, at that point, Premium Bonds even on typical luck at around 3.2 3.3 per cent after tax start to look good value.”

Mr Lewis also urged people to place their savings in high-yield accounts. For those who relish the excitement of potentially winning big, he proposed purchasing a small Lotto ticket: “To all those people who say ‘what about the thrill of winning’, yes there’s the thrill of winning but, you know what, if you put savings account, you’re going to win interest each month and you’ll know exactly how much you’ll be getting and it’ll probably be bigger.

“There is a chance of winning a million, but if you really want to talk about the thrill of winning, then it’s probably far more sensible and more effective for those people who don’t pay tax on savings and who aren’t higher rate taxpayers, to go and put their money in top savings and then take a couple of quid out and put it in the National Lottery and then you get your thrill of winning anyway but you get more return on the underlying savings.”

NS&I responded at the time: “Premium Bonds remain one of the nation’s favourite savings products and are a flexible and fun way to save. They offer the excitement of potentially winning tax-free prizes every month, the safety and security of the 100% government guarantee, and easy access to withdrawals.

“Every Premium Bond has a separate and equal chance of winning a prize each month, however the more Bonds you buy, the better your chances of winning.

“Each month we pay out millions of prizes ranging from £25 to £1 million. In our most recent draw, there were more than 6.1 million prizes worth over £403 million.”

The head of one of Hollywood’s largest talent agencies warned state leaders that a new budget bill threatens job gains from California’s film and TV credit program.

Legislators earlier this year passed a provision in the state budget that extends limitations on corporate tax credits, including a $5-million state tax credit cap each year.

But film industry advocates say the corporate tax credit cap will hurt film producers and undercut the effectiveness of the state’s expanded film and TV tax credits.

Lawmakers more than doubled annual funding for the program last year to $750 million in an effort to boost jobs and stem the exodus of film work from California.

CAA Chief Executive Bryan Lourd called for state leaders to create an exemption for tax credits earned under the expanded film and TV program.

“Without this fix, we risk destabilizing a program that is critical to keeping film and television production in California and the thousands of jobs it supports,” Lourd wrote in an Aug. 11 letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom, California State Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara).

“California must make itself competitive with the rest of the country and the world if it hopes to have a thriving entertainment ecosystem,” Lourd wrote. “Honoring commitments that have already been made to the entertainment industry is an essential step in achieving that goal.”

Film industry advocates expected producers would be exempted from the tax credit cap.

“It’s a reversal of California economic policy as it relates to the entertainment industry in an unhelpful and uncompetitive direction,” said Hilary Krane, CAA’s chief legal officer, in an interview. . “It undermines people’s ability to plan for the economics of the program because they all counted on a certain amount coming in under the previous rules that they were entitled to and had, but now can’t use.”

Last month, more than three dozen California lawmakers signed a letter calling attention to the issue. Hollywood unions also have raised alarm.

“The result of the changes is that production companies will lose the full value of credits already earned in exchange for creating middle-class entertainment industry jobs and other economic benefits to the State,” the Entertainment Union Coalition said last month.

Nick Miller, Rivas’ spokesperson, said the state Assembly is taking a hard look at the issue.

“Our lawmakers strengthened California’s film and TV jobs program last year and will keep fighting for creative industry workers,” Miller said in an email.

Newsom’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.

Time is running out for a fix to happen this session, which ends in less than two weeks.

State Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles) said state leaders are working on introducing legislation soon to address the issue.

Already, tens of thousands of jobs have come back to Southern California due to the modernization of the film and TV tax credit program, he said.

“We just saw the beginning of that resurgence and we don’t want to nip that in the bud,” Zbur said in an interview.

SACRAMENTO — A billionaire-funded political group gave a $5-million donation to the campaign opposing California’s proposed wealth tax, the first of many expected in the expensive fight over a ballot question dividing the state.

If approved by voters, Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who were residing in the state at the start of this year to pay primarily for healthcare.

The ballot measure has splintered California Democrats and their allies, who are at odds over which public services would receive a portion of the revenue and Proposition 40’s long-term impact on the state budget.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra and groups including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Teachers Assn. oppose the tax, arguing it could push many of the state’s biggest taxpayers to relocate and in effect destabilize the state’s finances.

On Monday, nine Democratic state lawmakers announced their opposition to Proposition 40, writing in an open letter to voters that “while well-intentioned, this measure will blow a massive hole in our state budget in the years ahead and undermine our ability to sustain investments in the very priorities Prop 40 claims to support.” Its signers included Assemblymembers Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier) and John Harabedian (D-Pasadena).

The California Democratic Party, the California Federation of Labor Unions and progressive officials including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) support the tax, which is intended to raise roughly $100 billion over five years to backfill federal cuts to healthcare and other social safety net programs by President Trump and the Republican-led Congress.

To this point, Building a Better California — a group funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other members of the Silicon Valley elite — has focused on qualifying two ballot measures meant to defang the billionaire tax while maintaining a neutral position on Proposition 40 itself.

That changed over the weekend when the group of billionaires officially came out against the measure and reported the $5-million donation to the anti-Proposition 40 campaign backed by teachers and firefighters unions.

A handful of billionaires have pumped more than $156 million into Building a Better California, mostly from Brin, who has given more than $100 million to the group. It has also received more than $17 million from venture capitalist L. John Doerr, $12 million from Ripple Labs founder Chris Larsen and $3 million from philanthropist and former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt.

In addition to opposing the wealth tax, Building a Better California announced support for Proposition 3, which would permanently extend an existing tax on certain high earners, along with two housing bonds.

The group has already spent more than $127 million on two competing ballot measures written to weaken or nullify the billionaire tax: Proposition 41 would require audits for new state special taxes and prohibit new taxes from being excluded from the state spending limit. Proposition 42 would ban new taxes on assets such as as personal property, intellectual property and retirement accounts.

If Proposition 40 passes but either Proposition 41 or Proposition 42 receive more votes, the billionaire tax would be voided.

“A few controversial billionaires like Sergey Brin would rather spend millions to fund shady opposition campaigns than simply pay their fair share in taxes so millions of their fellow Californians don’t lose their healthcare. That’s shameful,” said Debru Carthan, executive vice president of Service Employees International United-Healthcare Workers West, the union that collected the signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

Abby Lunardini, a spokesperson for Building a Better California, said the state “is at an inflection point” due to its high cost of living and taxes.

“California’s future rests on both maintaining our economic competitiveness and making smart, accountable public investments that improve affordability and quality of life for all,” Lunardini wrote in a statement. “It’s rare for such a broad coalition to unite around any single cause in California, but it reflects the potentially devastating impact of this measure on healthcare, education, and our state’s economy.”

The $5-million donation is the largest reported by the Proposition 40 opposition campaign, which wrote in a statement that it “welcomes support from everyone — teachers, doctors, hospitals, community clinics, firefighters, housing advocates, blue-collar unions, entrepreneurs, small businesses, Democrats, and Republicans.”

The donation indicates that members of the opposition coalition — and not billionaires — will play a more visible role in campaign ads.

“Two groups in California that have the most credibility with voters are the teachers and the firefighters,” said Garry South, a Democratic strategist who has worked on past ballot measure campaigns. Making them visible messengers against Proposition 40 “is a very important credibility aspect for the No campaign.”

“Nobody likes political consultants or lawyers. They like firefighters and nurses and teachers,” Republican strategist Matt Rexroad agreed.

California voters are sharply divided over a ballot measure to impose a one-time tax on billionaires to help fund healthcare programs, a proposal already triggering a fierce and expensive political fight as the November election approaches, according to a poll released Friday.

More than half of likely voters oppose a separate measure that would require Californians to provide identification when voting and election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens, the survey showed.

The two controversial proposals are among the 14 ballot measures Californians will decide in the Nov. 3 election. Proposition 40, which would impose the tax on billionaires’ assets, has reached the precipice of nationwide debates over economic inequality and liberal overreach. The Republican-led voter ID measure, Proposition 39, emerged amid President Trump’s baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.

Among likely California voters, 48% support Proposition 40, compared with 41% who oppose the proposed wealth tax and 11% who are undecided, according to a new poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that is co-sponsored by The Times.

Proposition 40’s failure to crack 50% support among voters at this point in the electoral cycle is a potential red flag, said IGS poll director Mark DiCamillo. Traditionally, Californians who are undecided on ballot measures tend to vote against them, he said.

“It’s got an early lead, but it’s not a very large lead, and it’s not a majority,” he said. “Usually, for ballot propositions, you want the yes side to be above 50%, and that’s not where it is right now.”

The proposal was crafted by a healthcare workers’ union to compensate for an estimated $100 billion in federal healthcare cuts approved by Trump and congressional Republicans that it argues will cause devastating harm to millions of California’s most vulnerable residents. Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who resided in California as of Jan. 1, with some exceptions.

Democrats and their allies are splintered over the proposal. Some, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, argue it will prompt the wealthy to flee California, further harming its volatile budget, which is dependent on the state’s richest residents. The California Democratic Party and leading progressives support the measure, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) calling it a modest tax necessary to help Californians struggling because of cuts imposed by Republicans to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.

While Democratic voters mostly support the ballot measure and Republicans largely oppose it, younger Californians are far more likely to say they plan to vote for it compared to seniors. Minorities, women and lower-income voters are also more supportive of the measure than white voters, men and Californians who earn at least $200,000 annually. Union households support the measure, while non-union families are evenly divided about it.

Turnout will be pivotal, DiCamillo said. While younger Californians are historically less likely to vote, especially in midterm elections, if they are energized by the issues championed by socialist Democrats, including New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, that could boost the wealth tax proposal’s prospects.

The survey found that voters are far less aware of two competing ballot measures aimed at nullifying the proposed wealth tax.

Proposition 41 would prohibit new taxes from being exempt from voter-approved state spending limits and require audits of new levies. Proposition 42 would ban new taxes on personal property and some retroactive state taxes. If the wealth tax is approved and either of the countermeasures receives more votes, the proposed billionaires’ tax would not go into effect.

The poll found that 35% of likely voters supported Proposition 41, with 37% opposing it. On Proposition 42, 40% of voters backed the measure, and 37% opposed it.

Roughly one out of every four of the voters surveyed on those two measures said they were undecided. DiCamillo said he expects that to change as the anti-wealth tax campaigns, which are expected to be well-organized and well-funded, ramp up their messaging to voters.

“There’s going to be a lot of campaigning, apparently on the no side especially. So we’ll see,” he said. “But you know, I think it’s confusing to voters in some ways.”

Among the other controversial measures on the Nov. 3 ballot is Proposition 39, a measure pushed by Republicans that would require all voters in future elections to show government-issued identification every time they vote in person or provide a special PIN or the last four digits of their Social Security number when submitting mail-in ballots.

The measure would also require the California secretary of state and county election officials to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.

Just over half of California’s likely voters oppose the ballot measure, while 42% support it. Californians are predictably divided along partisan lines. Eight out of 10 Democrats oppose the proposal, while more than nine out of 10 Republicans support it. Voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose it 54%, while 36% support it.

Proponents of voter ID contend that such laws prevent election fraud and, along with proof-of-citizenship mandates, prevent noncitizens from voting. Opponents say ID mandates threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans who do not have the mandated documentation readily available, and that the restrictions are unnecessary given that voting by noncitizens is rare and already outlawed in the U.S.

The Republican-led push for the voter ID initiative comes at a time of growing distrust in the integrity of the electoral process nationwide, a wariness intensified by President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him and false assertions that droves of undocumented immigrants are swaying elections with illegal votes.

“It’s a very traditional Democrat versus Republican split,” DiCamillo said, adding that it would be surprising to see major shifts in the numbers. “Once these things get solidified in terms of the partisan splits, without any other kinds of splits like we’re seeing in Prop. 40, you know that’s usually the dominant theme.”

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll findings are based on an online survey in English and Spanish of 4,207 California registered voters, 2,310 of whom are considered likely voters, from Aug. 3-9. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of about 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the likely voter sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

The more I think about Proposition 40, the billionaire tax that will go before California voters in November, the angrier I get.

I’m angry at President Trump. His cruel slashing of Medicaid threatens the health of millions of Californians, may lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of medical jobs and is the stated reason behind Proposition 40, which would levy a one-time 5% tax on billionaires. Trump invoked government deficits, but this was really his latest attack against people he sees as losers and thus expendable — people of color, the undocumented and especially the poor. “Evil” isn’t mean enough a word to describe this.

I’m upset at what Proposition 40 proposes to do. It’s a temporary stopgap that doesn’t reverse Trump’s Medicaid cuts and won’t solve the fundamental problems facing healthcare, or all the other things that make life in California so expensive. Plus, since when has a tax happened just once?

Proposition 30 was supposed to be a temporary tax increase for Californians who earn more than $250,000 a year in the name of propping up K-12 schools and community colleges. Passed in 2012, it was supposed to expire in 2019. Instead, voters extended it to 2030 — and our public schools are in more dire need than ever.

If Proposition 40 succeeds, you know every advocacy group from Yreka to San Ysidro will propose one-time taxes in the name of rescuing something or other. But relying on new taxes, or strengthening old ones, only shows that people are out of ideas — a dangerous scenario for democracy.

I’m enraged at billionaires. In the past, California’s captains of industry — your Dohenys, Gettys, Huntingtons and so many more — at least pretended to care about the rest of society by funding charities, the arts and other things meant to better the masses. Not this generation. Their avarice, their gleeful supplication before a tyrant like Trump, their obsession with breaking things and not caring about the consequences and their indifference to how the rest of us live have made billionaires a deserved scapegoat, about as popular as a diaper rash.

I’m furious at Proposition 40’s supporters. For a generation, California’s left has treated the rich as a goose that keeps laying golden, taxable eggs, making the state budget too reliant on a sliver of the population. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget summary this year estimated that the top 1% of Californians paid about 45% of the state’s personal income taxes from 2002 through 2023. What Proposition 40 supporters don’t get is that you can only smack a goose so much to give more until it bites back, which is what California billionaires are increasingly doing by throwing their cash around to defeat any political candidate exuding a whiff of progressivism.

Mark Zuckerberg and Lauren Sanchez attend the inauguration of President Trump Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington.

(Kenny Holston-Pool / Getty Images)

I’m upset at Proposition 40’s opponents. Backing two other ballot initiatives that would neutralize Proposition 40 doesn’t amount to a convincing argument against it. A point they do argue — that picking on billionaires will alienate them, push them out of California and tank the state’s budget — is at least plausible. But it’s not a winning argument in this era of populism on both the left and right, where voters seem to approve of cutting off your nose to spite the man.

I’m disgusted by Proposition 40’s architect. Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West President Dave Regan represents everything wrong with the union movement in California. He has made a mockery out of the proposition system by continually trotting out initiatives in the name of bettering the lives of blue-collar Californians. But as my colleague Taryn Luna reported last month, Regan doesn’t even believe in what he sells: He uses the threat of ballot measures to cut deals for his members, and his members alone. Way to use the rest of us as a bargaining chip, Dave.

I’m done with Newsom. He opposes Proposition 40 in the most Newsom-esque way possible. One of his arguments is that it will scare away billionaires from California — there he goes, carrying water for oligarchs again. His other argument is even more ludicrous — that Proposition 40 isn’t enough because there should be a permanent national tax on billionaires via changes to the tax code instead of a one-off. So Californians shouldn’t go after billionaires because you want to do it? Good luck explaining that logic to voters across the country if you run for president in 2028.

I’m mad at California Democratic Party leaders. Its executive board recently endorsed Proposition 40 despite the many loyal soldiers and allies who are opposed, including gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, the California Teachers Assn. and Planned Parenthood. Other unions are expected to oppose Proposition 40 or sit out the campaign, setting up the party’s latest civil war in an election year when state Democrats need the fewest distractions. But that’s the party’s leadership for you — they’ve never met an internal crisis they didn’t make worse.

I’m revolted by the California Republican Party. It entered the second Trump administration with tailwinds behind its sails after a generation of statewide failures, installing a record number of Latino GOP legislators in Sacramento and grabbing enough voters of color to imagine a future in which they once again mattered. Instead, the party’s blind devotion to Trump has left it with the moral authority of a dandruff flake.

California’s Republican congressional delegation unanimously voted for Trump’s Medicaid cuts, even though rural parts of the state, which also happen to be deep red, will be severely affected. State GOP leaders either stayed silent or cheered as Trump volleyed other financial missiles against California, including canceling billions of dollars in clean energy initiatives solely because we’re a blue state. Proposition 40 supporters just need to say that Republicans oppose the ballot measure and Californians will line up to vote “yes” like In-N-Out fans idling to grab a Double-Double.

Not me. I’m angry, for sure: The fight over Proposition 40 will add nothing but rage to this election and a redwood grove’s worth of political mailers. The Medicaid cuts will worsen life for too many people. As odious as Trump and his side have been, Proposition 40 solves too little for too short a time, while potentially making things permanently worse.

Count me as a big, beautiful “no.”

A controversial wealth tax won backing from the California Democratic Party on Sunday, the latest episode in the measure roiling the left and its allies.

The party’s executive board voted Sunday to endorse Proposition 40, which, if approved by voters this November, would impose a 5% one-time tax on billionaires’ assets to pay for healthcare.

The measure has proved divisive. While it has support from progressives including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), others including Gov. Gavin Newsom, gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, and a growing list of labor unions have come out against it, arguing the one-time nature of the tax and billionaire flight could cause more harm than good to California’s state budget.

“This endorsement puts to rest the idea that California Democrats are not united by the billionaire tax — they are,” said Dave Regan, President of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the labor union that gathered enough signatures to put Proposition 40 on the ballot.

Regan cited an internal poll which found more than 80% of registered Democrats support the tax, “and now the Democratic Party of California has officially embraced that strong support through this endorsement.”

Public opinion polls have shown the measure with slim majority support. According to a May poll from the Public Policy Institute of California, 54% of likely voters and 76% of Democrats said they would vote for the tax.

Proposition 40 seeks to raise $100 billion over a five-year span to backfill cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump last year. Its supporters argue that the federal tax cuts benefit the wealthy at the expense of low-income people and that Proposition 40 would reverse the damage.

Its opponents, which include the California Teachers Assn. and tech founders spending millions to defeat the measure, argue it could destabilize the state budget — which already taxes wealthy earners at higher rates — by pushing billionaires to leave California for other states.

In a statement, the No on Prop. 40 campaign said Newsom, Becerra, and organizations including the California Professional Firefighters union and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California oppose the tax “because it’s bad for our budget, bad for our economy, and bad for our future. We need smart, durable solutions to our biggest challenges, not unreliable, untested schemes that shortchange healthcare, education, and public safety.”

Democratic executive board members endorsed the measure Sunday during a meeting in San Diego. The party also voted to oppose two competing ballot measures that seek to undercut the billionaire’s tax, along with a voter ID measure and a proposal to weaken the California Environmental Quality Act for housing and infrastructure projects.

Democrats voted to endorse two housing bonds — a $11.25-billion bond to build affordable housing and a $25-billion down payment assistance program — and an $8.4-billion immunology research bond.

The party is also supporting a measure to make permanent an existing tax on high-income earners which funds education and health care.

“Every endorsement we make is earned, not given,” California Democratic Party chair Rusty Hicks said in a statement. “California Democrats take a deliberative approach to our endorsement process that puts our values first and ensures our members have a meaningful voice in shaping the future of our state.”

SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his wife, documentary filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom, have earned at least $11 million since he took office, with most of their income coming from wineries, restaurants and other investments, according to tax returns from 2019 through their most recent filings for 2024.

The tax records show the couple has earned between $1.4 million and $3.5 million per year, putting them in the upper echelon of Americans when it comes to annual income.

Newsom allowed reporters on Thursday to view four years of the couple’s jointly filed tax returns after receiving criticism for not disclosing his filings since he last released the information for the tax year 2020.

The release of the tax records comes just weeks after Newsom accused the Department of Justice of launching — at President Trump’s request — a baseless and politically motivated investigation into him and his wife, including her business interests and charity work. The governor said the probes, which federal officials have not confirmed, were a personal vendetta launched because he’s considering a run for president in 2028.

Siebel Newsom leads the Representation Project, a nonprofit that advocates for gender equity through film and education programs, and Girls Club Entertainment, a for-profit production company she owns that holds the copyrights to her documentaries. The nonprofit has faced criticism for accepting donations from companies that lobby the governor, including Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and AT&T.

The tax records released Thursday showed that her salary from the Representation Project was $145,000 to $150,000 annually from 2021 though 2024, similar to prior years. While Girls Club paid her $100,000 in 2021, and $11,700 in 2022, she did not report any income from the production company in the two years that followed.

The governor’s office, in a summary of the tax returns provided to reporters, stated that financial documents contradict “the FALSE right-wing claims that the Newsoms ‘enriched themselves’ through new ventures and nonprofit organizations.”

The memo stated that their income has declined since Newsom became governor. The tax records also show that Girls Club Entertainment has been losing money in recent years.

The governor signed a law during his first year in office to require presidential and gubernatorial candidates to release five years of tax returns to appear on the primary ballot. Democrats passed the law in response to Trump’s refusal to make the information public.

Less than six months later, the California Supreme Court struck down the portion that required presidential candidates to comply with the law. Gubernatorial candidates are still required to disclose their tax filings during election season.

Though tax returns became a flash point in the California vs. Trump political saga, Democrats have for decades demanded that candidates for governor and president release their income tax filings.

Presidential candidates dating back to the Nixon administration routinely shared their filings, with only President Ford and Trump refusing to do so. Former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and his Republican opponents also declined to share their tax returns before the 2010 and 2014 California gubernatorial elections.

Newsom released his tax returns during his campaigns for governor in 2018 and 2022, again in 2020 and before he beat a recall election in 2021. California candidates, elected officials, judges and some public employees also file annual economic interest statements.

“In the interest of transparency, he’s now voluntarily making all remaining filed tax returns available — going beyond what the law requires — as part of his longstanding commitment to transparency,” said Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for the governor, in a statement.

The governor and his wife put their investments in a blind trust when he took office. Their earnings, which have totaled more than $1 million per year since at least 2011, stem from investments in wineries, restaurants, bars, hotels and hospitality management companies based in San Francisco, Napa Valley, and Lake Tahoe, according to economic interest disclosures filed with the state.

The latest batch of tax returns covers 2021 through 2024. Reporters were allowed to view, but not copy, more than 700 pages of tax records at the governor’s office in Sacramento on Thursday. Their 2025 tax returns were not available because, as he has done most years, the governor filed for an extension with the Internal Revenue Service and he doesn’t expect to file until October.

The couple’s reported income was the highest in 2021, when they sold their home in Kentfield, a wealthy enclave in Marin County, for $5.9 million. The Newsoms reported receiving more than $55,000 in rent for leasing out the home that same year, but declared an overall loss for tax purposes of $70,000 due to their mortgage payments, taxes, legal fees and depreciation.

The family previously moved to a mansion in Fair Oaks that they purchased for $3.7 million in 2019 following a brief residence at the Governor’s Mansion in downtown Sacramento.

The family kept the Fair Oaks home and purchased another $9.1-million estate in Marin County in 2024, where they primarily live and their four children attend school. Newsom and his wife also spend time in Fair Oaks while working at the state Capitol.

During those four years, Newsom and Siebel Newsom paid a high of $1,253,187 in federal income taxes in 2021, and a low of $488,821 in 2023. Their state tax income bill ranged from $34,307 to $213,331 during that time. The annual property tax bills hovered between $48,000 and $64,300 over that span.

The governor’s income included his government salary, which ranged from $167,647 in 2021 to $192,087 in 2024.

Newsom also was paid more than $150,000 during that period as an author. In recent years, Newsom has published a book for children with dyslexia and a memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry.”

The tax returns showed the family paid from $154,000 to almost $200,000 each year for household employees from 2021 through 2024. The returns showed that they paid for Social Security coverage, Medicare and the state’s unemployment benefits fund as part of those expenses.

The governor and his family donated more than $200,000 to charity from 2021 to 2024. While most of those donations were in cash, they also gave $4,900 in “Armani Business Wear” to the Oakland nonprofit organization Restorative Justice, and toys, furniture, appliances, books and other goods to Goodwill in Sacramento.

Among their listed expenses in 2021 was $3,542 in storage costs for silver and platinum holdings. Previously, the couple made nearly a half-million dollars trading silver bars in 2011 alone.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham will give all mayors of city regions in England a share of income tax revenue for the first time, as part of his drive to transfer power from Westminster to local leaders.

Burnham will also allow mayors of English strategic authorities to keep some cash from business rates collected in their areas, and gain greater control over services such as housing, transport, skills.

The government has not yet decided the exact portion of taxes mayors will get, with more details to be announced when Chancellor John Healey delivers his first budget in the autumn.

The Conservatives said the plans lacked detail and could lead to areas with weaker economies losing out on funding.

But Burnham said the move would “make good” on his pledge to “bring power home” to “every postcode in the country”.

“Under our plans, more of the taxes raised in a community will stay in that community,” the prime minister added.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, First Secretary of State Louise Haigh said areas would not need mayors to benefit from investment.

She said: “We won’t be imposing mayors to areas that don’t want it but we will be creating strategic authorities in every area of England and they will be able to hold these powers and resources as well.

“They don’t need to have mayors in order to control them or in order to retain a share of their income tax and business rates.”

Strategic authorities bring together local councils to control regional issues such as transport and economic development, with decisions taken collectively by council leaders rather than a single elected mayor.

For example, the Lancashire strategic authority will take in Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council, Blackpool Council and Lancashire County Council, which form the Lancashire Combined County Authority area, despite the area not having a mayor.

Haigh added: “Vast swathes of England don’t have strategic authorities or mayors and today’s blueprint will set out that roadmap for every area of England to be covered by strategic authorities that will ultimately be able to retain a proportion of their income tax, business rates and set an overnight visitor levy should they wish, so they can generate revenue and really reinvest it in their local area.”

The power to raise and control tax revenues is highly centralised in the UK, making the country an outlier by international standards.

The share of national taxes collected at a local level in the UK is 5.8%, the lowest in the G7, according to the OECD, external, a global policy forum.

That share is far below that of other countries with large economies such as France (20.4%), Japan (36%), and the US (45.7%).

As it stands, mayors of strategic authorities in England receive most of their funding from central government grants.

During his time as Greater Manchester mayor, Burnham pushed for greater control over tax revenue, rather than having to rely on government grants.

The UK government had already been exploring whether a share of revenue from national taxes could be distributed to metro mayors, before Burnham became prime minister earlier this month.

But in a major speech on devolution in June, Burnham said he would “oversee the biggest rebalancing of power our country has ever seen” if he became prime minister.

Burnham has put devolution at the heart of his plan for government, arguing that metro mayors are best placed to boost economic growth across the country.

SACRAMENTO — One of California’s most powerful labor unions declined to endorse a proposed state billionaires tax, a blow to its backers and a sign of simmering divisions on the left over the controversial ballot measure.

The executive board for Service Employees International Union California voted Wednesday to take a neutral position on the tax, which will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 40. It would impose a one-time, 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who resided in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026.

In a statement, the 750,000-member union noted revenue from the “one-time tax proposal [is] dedicated 90% to healthcare,” echoing concerns from other unions opposed to the measure. Teacher, police and firefighter unions argue the tax would largely benefit the healthcare sector and fear it would destabilize the state budget and, along with it, services such as education and public safety.

SEIU California is a parent organization of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the union that crafted the measure and moved to put it on the ballot before securing broad support from other labor groups.

SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan said he pushed the tax to backfill an estimated $100 billion in cuts to healthcare and food assistance programs that California is expected to shoulder under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump last year.

“Trump’s ‘Big, Ugly Bill’ slashed funding for healthcare in California to pay for more billionaire tax breaks. Now, millions of Californians are losing their health coverage, and millions more are being forced to pay skyrocketing costs,” SEIU-UHW Press Secretary Renee Saldana wrote in a statement to The Times.

Saldana pointed to an internal poll showing 70% of union members in California would support the billionaire tax, adding: “We’re confident that SEIU members will be joining millions of their fellow Californians and voting YES on Prop. 40 this November to protect healthcare, keep hospitals and clinics open, and stand with California working families.”

In negotiations with Gov. Gavin Newsom last month, Regan offered to pull the tax from the ballot in exchange for concessions for his union, including help securing contracts at several medical facilities around the state, two sources told The Times. Regan denies making the demand, and said the proposal is meant to solve an impending “catastrophe in California’s healthcare system.”

Several unions and Democratic allies, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, argue the one-time tax is the wrong solution for the cuts, which are unlikely to be reversed while Republicans hold power in Washington.

SEIU California said its members are focused on “a multi-year campaign to secure California’s fiscal foundation with ongoing revenue,” including an effort to tax large companies that pay wages low enough that their workers rely on public benefits.

Surrounded by members of the SEIU California executive board, Newsom this month signed a bill punting the “Fair Share” measure to next year, when a new governor will take office.

Some labor unions and elected Democrats worry that, in the long run, the proposed billionaire tax will hurt the state budget — which raises more money from wealthy people taxed at higher rates — by pushing rich Californians to move to other states.

Some already have. Google co-founder Sergey Brin last year moved to the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe to preemptively avoid the tax, and has pumped $82 million into a committee fighting Proposition 40.

Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential contender, has begun arguing for a federal wealth tax that the rich could not escape by moving to a new state.

“You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do,” he wrote on Substack in June. “The fight belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place.”

SEIU California on Wednesday also announced “strong opposition” to Proposition 39, a proposed voter ID measure; and Proposition 43, which would make it harder for local governments to raise taxes.

Tax incentives for film and television productions have not been enough to counter a still-sluggish environment for filming in the greater Los Angeles region, according to a new report.

For the three-month period that ended June 30, there were a total of 4,711 shoot days in the greater L.A. area, a nearly 13% decline from the same time last year, according to second-quarter data from FilmLA, a nonprofit that tracks local filming.

Compared to the five-year average, that second-quarter figure is a drop of about 36%.

Feature film shoots were down 20% in the second quarter compared to last year, while TV production decreased by 30%.

Incentivized productions are, however, making up a growing number of shoot days. For instance, 33% of the 443 total shoot days for feature films in the second quarter came from productions that received a tax credit. For the TV category, roughly 28% of the 1,607 shoot days last quarter were for projects that benefited from the tax incentive, particularly for dramas and comedies.

“While there is still much work to do, FilmLA’s quarterly report is proof that incentives are working: local incentivized productions are on the rise,” said L.A. Mayor Karen Bass in a statement.

Shoot days for TV dramas were down 6.4% to 732 days this past quarter, with just over 38% of those days coming from incentivized projects. TV comedy production saw a 43% decline to 57 days, with 21 of them coming from projects that received a tax credit. FilmLA noted that many local comedy productions are based on stage and not accounted for in the latest research.

“Because scripted television production supports more industry jobs than any other production category, helping to attract these types of productions is an important step towards bringing filming back to the region, restoring jobs and strengthening our local production economy,” said FilmLA Chief Executive Denise Gutches in a statement.

But any boost from the incentives was offset by serious declines for productions that are not eligible for the state’s film and TV tax credit program.

Shoot days for reality TV, for instance, were down 40% to 676 days compared to the second quarter of 2025. While large-scale competition shows are eligible for the state’s tax credit, such as Jimmy Kimmel’s “Schooled!” science experiment series for kids, other kinds of popular reality TV shows cannot apply for production incentives.

Filming for commercials in the second quarter was down nearly 22% from last year to 543 days. That total marked a 46% decline compared to the five-year average.

In a bright spot, FilmLA’s “other” category, which captures shoot days for student productions, still photography, documentaries and music videos, climbed 10% in the second quarter to 2,118 days.

That boost came largely from online content shoots, which rose by 47%. Filming for short films and documentaries were also higher in the second quarter, though those two segments had much smaller numbers of shoot days, FilmLA said.

SACRAMENTO — As the architect of a one-time tax on California billionaires, Dave Regan says he’s pushing the measure to raise $100 billion to protect low-income patients, workers and hospitals from President Trump’s cuts to healthcare.

The behind-the-scenes negotiations with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office in June to pull the measure off the ballot, however, revealed another possible goal, according to two sources familiar with the talks who requested anonymity to share details of the discussions with The Times.

Regan, the president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, asked for union contracts with two hospitals in San Diego and Fresno and a clinic in Imperial County, among a list of sweeping demands to grow his union, in exchange for rescinding the measure, the sources said.

The union leader denied that he asked for concessions for his union in exchange for removing the billionaire tax from the ballot, calling the allegations “categorically false.”

“We are trying to solve a problem,” Regan said. “The problem is to prevent a catastrophe in California’s healthcare system. We put forward a proposal. Nobody else has offered a solution, and none of what you are referencing happened.”

The talks failed to result in a deal and the measure will appear as Proposition 40 on the November ballot, leaving California voters to decide pivotal tax policy that has roiled the Democratic Party and opponents worry could ultimately reduce revenue for the state budget.

The terms Regan allegedly laid out raise the question of whether he intended for the billionaire tax to go on the ballot, or if it was designed as a leverage play to expand his union, which represents more than 120,000 workers and is among the largest healthcare unions in the nation.

Regan, who has been elected to five consecutive terms as union president since 2011, has a record of launching ballot initiatives at the state and local level to use as leverage for union expansion and to thwart his political opponents.

His foes say that this year he went too far.

“It’s no secret in Sacramento that the ballot initiative has been used this way by UHW as a weapon,” said Francisco Silva, president of the California Primary Care Assn., which represents community clinics. “They’ve been very vocal about it and we think it’s a bigger risk to the safety net than any benefit that it brings.”

Known as a stubborn negotiator and a brash personality, Regan has filed multiple ballot initiatives against the healthcare industry.

His opponents say his strategy centers on launching initiatives that would hurt employers, which forces them to come to the table to negotiate. Regan’s union then requests union contracts or other concessions that could pave the way for a collective bargaining agreement. If employers resist, the initiative advances to the ballot. Voters consistently reject his measures, but companies still spend millions of dollars campaigning against them.

Over the years, Regan has proposed multiple measures that would have limited charges and executive salaries at hospitals and dropped the initiatives after landing temporary deals with the California Hospital Assn. that could help his union’s organizing efforts.

This year, UHW agreed to call off an initiative to again cap compensation for hospital leaders, and the hospital association rescinded its dueling proposal to require the union to seek approval from its members to spend more than $1 million on a statewide ballot measure campaign.

Regan led and lost measures against the dialysis industry in 2018, 2020 and 2022 as he struggled to force dialysis companies to recognize his union and negotiate a contract.

Silva accused Regan of using the same playbook in negotiations around another measure on the November ballot, Proposition 44, which would restrict spending at nonprofit community health clinics.

Regan drafted Proposition 44 to require that community clinics spend 90% of revenue on patient services, which he said ensures that money is aligned with the mission of the health centers. But Silva said the measure dramatically reduces funding for other essential services in the community care model, such as community outreach, education, overhead costs, technology and medical equipment investments, and programs that bring people living on the streets into the healthcare system.

About 70% of the patients community clinics serve are insured through Medi-Cal, and the rest are either on Medicare or uninsured, with a small portion on private insurance, Silva said. The measure would result in layoffs and clinics being forced to close, and ultimately reduce access to care for low-income Californians, he said.

“One of the things that stands out that really highlights the abuse of the ballot initiative process in this instance is that the substance of what’s on the ballot has nothing to do with what he wants to negotiate with us,” Silva said. “The request was to guarantee 25,000 workers, or else.”

Regan also denied that he asked the clinics to support his unionization efforts in exchange for dropping Proposition 44.

“We wanted to construct a relationship with the clinic association that prioritized appropriate funding of the community clinics in California, including restoring the healthcare cuts that were introduced by the ‘One Big [Beautiful] Bill,’” Regan said. “It was a strategic relationship where we’re working in a mutually cooperative way to properly fund the healthcare system to respect workers, and they were not interested in that.”

Regan’s opponents say his strategy runs afoul of the purpose of direct democracy and pushes the bounds of legality.

During negotiations on the billionaire tax, essentially put the onus on Newsom to force unrelated private hospitals and clinics to unionize their employees, the sources said.

Despite a desire to call off the tax measure, Newsom’s office couldn’t provide guarantees to satisfy Regan’s demands, according to those sources.

California legislators changed state law in 2014 to provide more flexibility around initiative negotiations and to allow proponents to pull measures off the ballot after they gather enough signatures and qualify for the election, said Mary-Beth Moylan, an associate professor of law at McGeorge School of Law.

State law also prohibits a proponent of an initiative from bargaining for money or a thing of value in exchange for abandoning their measure, which hasn’t been tested in court, she said.

“I think the intention behind the law allowing the ballot measures to be negotiated off was that the negotiation would be for the Legislature to do the thing that you’re bringing about in the measure,” Moylan said. “It is not to use it as leverage for obtaining something else.”

Regan’s wealth measure retroactively applies a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of billionaires who were residing in California as of Jan. 1, 2026.

He and advocates of his proposal cast it as a solution to the healthcare cuts from the Trump administration. It comes as the progressive message on wealth inequality has gained support in California and beyond.

“What’s remarkable about the situation is that everyone — the governor, the Legislature, the healthcare industry — everyone agrees that the ‘One Big Beautiful’ bill is going to result in 3.5 million people losing healthcare coverage, 150,000 frontline healthcare workers losing their jobs, community clinics and hospitals closing, and all of us who buy or receive our healthcare through job-based insurance are spending more on premiums, deductibles, and copays because the legislation defunded healthcare and in return gave yet another round of huge tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans,” Regan said. “That’s why we have put Proposition 40 forward.”

Newsom contends that Regan’s solution won’t work.

Instead of paying more California taxes, billionaires would simply pick up and move to another state with a lower tax rate before the start of the year, the governor warned. The state budget is dependent on income taxes the rich pay on stock market and similar profits.

A report from the Hoover Institution at Stanford University estimated that the tax would generate only $40 billion, not the $100 billion proponents claim, largely because of an expected exodus of billionaires. Overall, the tax would result in an estimated loss for the state of $24.7 billion, with the permanent decline in future income tax revenue due to billionaire migration eclipsing any gains from the one-time levy, according to the report.

Regan rejected the findings of the report and cast doubt on the amount of taxes that billionaires actually pay in California.

Newsom sought to negotiate with Regan to remove the billionaire tax from the ballot before the beginning of the year. At the time, Regan said he wanted an extra $20 billion for healthcare in 2027-28, which is beyond Newsom’s time in office and not something the outgoing governor could promise, according to two sources familiar with the negotiations.

Regan said he never asked for $20 billion in funding for healthcare to remove the billionaire tax from the ballot. He said he was open to hearing alternative solutions that never came.

“But did we ever make a proposal, or did we ever receive a proposal for something different?” Regan said. “The answer is no.”

In the spring, Newsom began working to form a coalition against the initiative that includes Planned Parenthood, doctors and firefighters while billionaires launched a series of counterproposals.

In an unusual split within labor, major unions such as the California Teachers Assn. and the State Building and Construction Trades Council oppose the measure. Teamsters California and AFSCME California joined Regan. The SEIU California State Council and California Federation of Labor Unions have yet to take positions.

Under California law, proponents had until June 25 to rescind measures that earned enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Negotiations picked up again to remove the measure from the ballot shortly before the deadline. Two sources said Regan’s demands changed and allegedly had nothing to do with raising money to offset federal healthcare cuts.

Sources said Regan said he wanted union contracts with two private hospitals and a health clinic, an organizing neutrality agreement with healthcare clinics statewide, recognition of his union from dialysis clinics and for billionaires to remove measures they launched in response to his tax.

Newsom’s office said they couldn’t force private companies to do anything. The governor’s aides offered an alternative plan to dedicate around $7 billion over several years to healthcare funding in California, which didn’t move Regan.

“There were no negotiations,” Regan said about the billionaire tax.

Days before the deadline to pull the wealth tax measure from the ballot, UHW announced an offer to reduce the billionaire tax from 5% to 2% of net worth that the union said Newsom rejected. Sources said the compromise was first offered in a press release and did not reflect any serious negotiation.

Regan set a goal to add 25,000 new members by this year and has so far added around 8,000, according to the union’s website.

In exchange for removing the billionaire tax from the ballot, sources said one of Regan’s demands was for Newsom’s office to get involved with battles for union contracts at hospitals in Fresno and San Diego and a clinic in the Imperial Valley.

The union is tied up in labor disputes over recent attempts to unionize facilities in two of those places — Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego and Innercare, a community clinic in El Centro.

The dialysis industry became a ballot target for Regan three election cycles in a row as he attempted to unionize its workers.

The battle is on pause after dialysis companies agreed to not oppose a $25 minimum wage increase for healthcare workers and UHW agreed to not target the industry in legislation or ballot measures through the end of this year, but the fight turned DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care into major political donors in state campaigns.

California’s billionaire class is also increasing its presence in state politics.

Billionaires pushed two measures on the November ballot that seek to neutralize the billionaire tax and block new taxes on personal property and assets and require audits of new programs funded with special taxes.

The billionaire tax has also become a national rallying cry for the political left, drawing the high-profile support of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others who are fed up with wealth inequality. Opponents of Proposition 40 have questioned whether any of the solutions Regan proposed would have been enough for him to remove the measure from the ballot and avoid the wrath of progressives who backed the tax.

Sacramento political observers say the unintended consequences of Regan’s tax measure are already reshaping California politics.

“When he did the billionaire tax, all these people who never engaged in politics finally woke up,” said Jim DeBoo, a Democratic consultant and former chief of staff to Newsom. “And they aren’t going away.”

The measure is causing a rift within the SEIU California State Council, an umbrella organization that represents more than 700,000 workers from all SEIU unions including UHW.

The billionaire tax only benefits healthcare. SEIU, which also represents workers in the public sector, nursing homes, child care and other service industries, has become a target of California’s wealthiest new political players despite most of its union members gaining nothing from the measure.

Billionaires and their companies, including Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen, venture capitalist Tim Draper, Google and Meta have spent nearly $30 million on a successful campaign to oppose SEIU-backed progressive candidates or boost moderate Democrats in legislative races. The same donors spent only $50,000 on independent expenditures in legislative races in the entire 2024 election cycle.

Shaudi Fulp, a political strategist working with Larsen and Draper, said a new governor and lawmakers present an opportunity to build fresh governing coalitions around issues that matter most to Californians.

“California is entering a unique moment of transition,” Fulp said.

The billionaires’ strategy is whittling away at SEIU’s influence in the state Legislature, where the state council has historically used its endorsements and army of volunteers to boost progressive candidates aligned with their cause. Moderates backed by billionaires beat nearly every SEIU-endorsed candidate in more than a dozen races in the June primary, with record spending knocking union candidates out of the top two in places such as Bakersfield and Orange County.

The SEIU California State Council declined to comment for this story.

The battle over the billionaire tax is also expected to become the most expensive ballot measure campaign of the election cycle, if not ever. The opposition is poised to exponentially outspend UHW.

“Look, the only thing that stands down a bully is when you punch him in the face,” said Brandon Castillo, a political consultant who has represented healthcare providers against UHW on more than a dozen initiatives. “You can’t sit back and continue to take punches or nothing will change.”

Staff writer Nicole Nixon contributed to this report.

The budget airline has confirmed it’ll be cutting the number of aircraft from one of its city bases by five, and its schedule will have two million fewer seats to a popular city break destination as of winter 2026

Ryanair has slashed the number of seats from its schedule for a city break destination that’s famous for its Christmas market and historic sites, as well as being a major business hub.

The decision was made in response to the country’s decision to raise aviation taxes, with Ryanair releasing a strongly-worded statement to announce they would be cutting two million seats from two of the capital’s airports.

The Federal Government of Belgium announced plans to raise the country’s aviation tax from €5 (about £4.20) to €7 (about £6) as of January 2027. This was erroneously described by Ryanair in a statement as a “250% increase since 2025.”

As a result, the budget carrier plans to cut five aircraft from its base at Brussels South Charleroi Airport, and reduce capacity by two million seats overall from Belgium’s Charleroi and Zaventem airports. The reductions will be applied to the winter 2026 and summer 2027 schedule.

Brussels is not the first destination to see a cut in the number of Ryanair seats this year. Earlier this year it announced reductions in services to Spain and Portugal, with smaller regional airports the most affected.

Valladolid and Jerez saw cuts to their services, while scrapped routes included Asturias and Vigo. A service to Tenerife North was also scrapped as a result of a dispute over airport fee hikes, leaving the airport with no alternative direct UK routes. Ryanair also closed its two aircraft base at Santiago de Compostela which reduced capacity.

As a result over one million seats were taken from the winter 2025 routes, and 1.2 million cut from the summer 2026 schedule. Another cut was to a Portugal service, with Ryanair cutting six routes to and from the Azores, an emerging tourist destination. It was estimated the cuts affected around 400,000 passengers.

At the time, Ryanair blamed this cutback on growing airport charges set by Portuguese authorities and environmental taxes linked to the EU Emissions Trading System. John Paul II Ponta Delgada Airport, the islands’ main airport, now only has a single seasonal UK route from London Heathrow operated by British Airways.

Speaking about the cuts in Belgium, Ryanair CEO, Eddie Wilson, said in a statement: “It’s absurd that the Federal Govt have decided to increase Belgium’s aviation tax by 250% from Jan ’27, especially when competing EU countries, like Sweden, Hungary, Slovakia, regional Italy, and Albania are abolishing aviation taxes to grow traffic, tourism and jobs.

“We warned Prime Minister De Wever that increasing Belgium’s aviation tax would result in traffic cuts, but he failed to listen. As a result, Ryanair will now remove 5 aircraft from our Charleroi base and 2m seats from our Brussels schedules (Charleroi and Zaventem) for Winter ’26/Summer ’27 and relocate to more competitive economies.”

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

Millionaires including former footballer Gary Lineker and music producer Brian Eno have written to new prime minister Andy Burnham asking to be taxed more.

In an open letter, 120 well-off Britons told Burnham: “We can afford it. We’re not talking about higher taxes on those who get up and go to work for their income every day, but on the very richest whose income is derived from the wealth they hold.”

Organised by Patriotic Millionaires, the letter said it would lead to a more equal society, and urged a “devolution of wealth and power from the very richest”.

People can already quietly give money or stocks voluntarily to the Treasury using its donation facility.

The group supports a 2% tax on wealth over £10m.

“Millionaires are a patriotic bunch,” the letter states. “We love this country and we want it to succeed.

“But success requires investment and a primary source of untouched capital investment is sitting with us, in untaxed potential.”

The renewed call for higher tax on the wealthy follows a similar campaigns in previous years.

Burnham did not rule out a wealth tax when asked about it by Lineker a few days before he became prime minister.

He suggested he may have “to ask for a little more” tax at some point.

The latest call from Patriotic Millionaires said there is a “need to embrace a new kind of devolution of wealth and power, from the very richest in order to reinvest back into our greatest asset in every region”.

It added that in its own poll, the majority of millionaires wanted a higher tax on themselves.

“There are a few people left with outdated economic thinking and few others desperate to hold onto every penny they can… Those that can’t see past the end of their own self interest have no place in designing a Britain for the future,” the letter said.

Other signatories include film director Richard Curtis who directed Notting Hill and Ian Gregg, the former managing director of bakery chain Greggs, who is the son of the firm’s founder.

More than three dozen California legislators are calling for Gov. Gavin Newsom to exempt the state’s film and TV production incentive program from a recently approved cap on corporate tax credits, warning that without action it will be “significantly kneecapped.”

Though the state’s budget has already been approved, the legislators say a solution must be devised before the end of the year so that production companies do not lose the “full value of tax credits they earned in exchange for creating middle-class entertainment industry jobs,” according to a letter dated Friday and addressed to Newsom, State Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas.

“Tax credits earned for creating jobs in motion picture and television production are not the same as tax credits provided for research and development,” the letter states. The legislation “creates short-term budget savings by reneging on commitments made to the entertainment industry and the working families who depend upon it for their livelihoods.”

The letter comes shortly after Newsom signed his final state budget as California’s governor, a $351.7-billion spending plan that includes new limitations on corporate tax credits.

The budget includes a provision that restricts the maximum tax credit companies can claim in a given year to $5 million or 50% of a company’s tax state tax liability, whichever is greater.

Hollywood industry representatives had warned the governor’s office that the new restrictions could affect the state’s production incentive program, which was just bolstered last year to an annual cap of $750 million.

The film and TV industry in Southern California has struggled to rebound from the effects of the pandemic, the dual writers’ and actors’ strikes in 2023 and the exodus of production to other states and countries.

Members who voted for the budget bill had believed there was a carve-out for the film and TV tax credit program, said Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), chair of the Assembly Democratic Caucus.

“I don’t think that anyone understood what this cap was, what it did and that it effectively kneecapped and reverses the progress that we made last year,” Zbur, who co-authored last year’s bill, said in an interview. “We need to have people understand that these changes, which I think people believed were minor, are really significant and will result in significant job loss if we don’t fix them.”

The new changes to the state’s film and TV tax credit program, which included expanded eligibility for additional shows and films, came after intense lobbying from studios and industry workers, who argued that more funding was necessary to lure production back from other states and countries.

Last week, the California Film Commission said the expanded tax credit program was set to deliver $6.6 billion in direct production spending in-state and more than 34,000 cast and crew jobs across the 170 total film and TV shows that received production incentives this year.

SACRAMENTO — For all the media attention California’s proposed billionaire tax has generated nationally — with some blasting it as a foolish Left Coast assault on American enterprise — the November ballot item has actually triggered a rift among progressive labor unions and Democrats, groups critical to the measure’s success.

Championed by California’s largest health workers union, Proposition 40 would levy a one-time, 5% tax on California’s roughly 200 billionaires. The measure aims to backfill Medicaid cuts signed into law last year by President Donald Trump, and would raise an estimated $100 billion.

Dave Regan, the measure’s architect and president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, said the tax was intended to prevent “the imminent collapse of California’s health care system because of the Trump cuts in the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill.’”

Regan, who has become well-known for using ballot measures as leverage in negotiations with state lawmakers and the healthcare industry, seemed poised to channel public anxiety over economic affordability, access to medical care and anti-Trump sentiment when the initiative was announced last fall.

Today however, the initiative not only faces heavy and well-funded opposition from those it aims to tax, but also divided support among groups who traditionally favor taxes on the wealthy — labor unions. Both the powerful California Teachers Association and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California have come out against Prop. 40, while Teamsters California and AFSCME California support it. Others unions have yet to weigh in, including the California Federation of Labor Unions and SEIU California, a parent organization for Regan’s healthcare worker union.

Establishment Democrats are also divided. Gov. Gavin Newsom aggressively opposed the measure and sought to negotiate with Regan to remove it from the ballot beginning last year. Days before a state deadline to withdraw ballot measures in late June, Regan publicly offered to trim the wealth tax to 2% over two years, an offer Newsom quickly rejected.

To some close observers, the offer signaled that Regan may have been looking for a way out of an expensive ballot fight.

“I found it unusual that he did that because he’s usually not that kind of negotiating type — he’s no nonsense,” said Democratic political consultant Steven Maviglio. “I don’t know if he felt it was a hot potato or what.”

Regan’s union spent $31 million to gather 1.6 million voter signatures to put the tax on the ballot.

“At the outset, this may have looked like the replay of a strategy he’s employed successfully many times in the past, but he ended up painting himself into a corner, and so now he’s stuck with an initiative that he knows he probably can’t pass,” said Dan Schnur, a politics and communications professor at Pepperdine, USC and UC Berkeley.

A March poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies showed 52% of registered voters support the billionaire tax while 33% opposed it and 15% were undecided. However, campaign experts say its position remains precarious, due in part to the deep pockets of its opponents.

Several billionaires, including Google co-founder Sergey Brin, have so far pumped a combined $118 million into a campaign committee that gathered enough signatures to place two other measures on the ballot aimed at undercutting the billionaire tax.

Groups that might otherwise support more revenue for healthcare have also come out against Prop. 40, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Medical Assn.

“The dangerous wealth tax directly threatens vital funding for education and schools, healthcare and clinics, public safety, and infrastructure projects by making California’s revenue even more volatile,” leaders of the California Medical Association, California Primary Care Association and California School Boards Association wrote in a joint statement.

Regan and fellow supporters insist that, without approval of the tax measure, Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” will gut the state’s healthcare resources.

“This will take between $20 and $25 billion annually out of our healthcare system, meaning three and a half million people are going to lose insurance, 150,000 health care workers will be laid off and over 20 million consumers are already paying more in premiums, deductibles and copays,” he said.

While prominent progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) have voiced support for the measure, some progressive opponents say its near exclusive focus on healthcare is a problem. (Only a small portion of tax revenues would go toward education and food security.)

The CTA said after reviewing the measure, its council of delegates “determined that this policy will not provide the sustainable and long-lasting funding that our schools and communities deserve.” Leaders of the state’s largest teachers union plan to focus their efforts on passing Proposition 3, which would make permanent an existing tax on certain high earners to fund schools and community colleges.

Labor unions have typically aligned in support of tax-raising ballot measures, including earlier temporary versions of this year’s Prop. 3 and an unsuccessful 2020 proposal to revamp commercial property taxes.

But the billionaire tax “doesn’t benefit everybody. It benefits workers in the healthcare sector primarily, and I think that’s why not everybody’s on board. It’s not a ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ kind of proposal,” Maviglio said.

In the 15 years he has led SEIU-UHW, Regan has become known for using expensive ballot measures — or the threat of them — to bring lawmakers and industry opponents to the negotiating table.

In a landmark 2023 deal, Regan secured a statewide $25 wage floor for healthcare workers after qualifying initiatives to raise industry wages in Los Angeles and other cities. The deal included a 10-year moratorium on minimum wage propositions. He also pushed ballot measure regulations on kidney dialysis clinics for three subsequent election cycles. Though none of them passed, the dialysis industry spent hundreds of millions between 2018 and 2022 to defeat them.

“Everybody knows that he is wielding ballot measures as a weapon to leverage his unionization or political demands. It’s not a secret. He’s admitted it,” said Brandon Castillo, a ballot measure strategist who often finds himself opposite Regan in ballot fights including the dialysis clinic propositions.

The measure retroactively applies a tax on billionaires who were residing in California as of Jan. 1. Newsom and other opponents say the initiative would drive the ultra-wealthy out of the state and their departure would blow a hole in the state budget.

California’s budget is dependent on income taxes the rich pay on stock market profits. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the measure would “likely” result in an “ongoing decrease in state income tax revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars or more per year.”

“You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do,” Newsom wrote in a post on Substack in late June. “Wealth is movable, and it shops for the state with the lowest taxes.”

After the talks ultimately failed to result in a deal, Newsom endorsed the idea of a national wealth tax instead.

“It’s easy to see how they may have believed that Newsom’s strongest incentive was simply to stay out,” Schnur said. “There’s a huge potential downside for a Democratic governor [to weigh in] on either side of this initiative. If you oppose it, you’re alienating your base. If you support it, you’re putting your state in dire fiscal peril.”

Focusing on raising taxes at the federal level allows the governor to support a popular idea nationally, which he can campaign on if he runs for president. His opposition to the measure in California could still leave him vulnerable to criticism from progressives in a national Democratic primary.

Times staff writer Taryn Luna contributed to this report.

California voters will decide 14 statewide propositions in the Nov. 3 election, measures placed on the ballot mostly by either powerful interest groups or lawmakers that will affect the lives of millions of Californians.

While a proposed tax on state billionaires has dominated headlines, voters will also have a chance to weigh in on a number of consequential issues, from healthcare to voter identification requirements and more.

Californians are accustomed to legislating by the ballot and often face a list of propositions. But even by the standards of the state’s direct democracy process, the 2026 election stands out. The campaigns supporting and opposing the ballot measures have already collected more than $100 million in contributions, and are expected to use their money to inundate the television airwaves, livestreams and social media feeds and to flood mailboxes with glossy campaign mailers over the coming months.

Here are the measures on the Nov. 3 ballot:

Proposition 1: The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026

Spurred by the state’s affordable housing shortage, state lawmakers are asking voters to approve an $11.25-billion bond to boost affordable housing construction around the state.

Advocates say the funds would help build more than 40,000 shovel-ready affordable homes that are unable to move forward because of a financing gap and help preserve thousands of other existing units.

Proposition 1 includes specific funding for high-need groups, including $1.25 billion for a veterans’ home loan program, $1.15 billion for supportive housing for homeless people, $350 million for student housing at state universities, $450 million for farmworker housing and $200 million for Native American tribes.

“In California, we don’t turn away from the needs of our people — we meet them head-on,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom in a statement about the measure. “We are giving voters the power to help shape the future of housing in our state. This bond is about building communities, expanding access and affordability in California, where every family has a fair shot at a place to call home.”

Some Republicans took issue with the measure’s title — “The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026” — arguing that it included veterans to have broader appeal while doing little to actually help homeless veterans.

“It’s a sad thing to say that you have to use the veterans as bait to get the people of the state of California to approve an $11-billion bond, and I just think that’s shameful,” said Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), an Army veteran. “Call it what it is. It’s a homeless bond, and it does include some veterans’ benefits, but it is not a veterans bond.”

Proposition 2: Save for California’s Future Act

This measure would give California lawmakers more flexibility over state spending and allow them to save money that could otherwise go back to taxpayers.

The measure, supported by Newsom, seeks to exempt deposits into state savings accounts from a spending limit that voters adopted through a series of ballot measures dating back to the late 1970s, and to increase the share of tax revenue that can be put into the rainy day fund.

Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration. Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers.

The measure could incentivize lawmakers to save more money because funds tucked away in the rainy day fund would no longer be considered expenditures counted toward the spending limit. By allowing lawmakers to set aside more money that is not subjected to state spending limits, it could also allow them to hold onto money that otherwise would be returned to taxpayers under current law.

This proposed constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by state lawmakers.

Proposition 3: Fund schools and healthcare

If passed, this proposition would make permanent an existing tax on high-income Californians.

The existing tax, passed by voters in 2012 and extended in 2016, is set to expire in 2031. It applies to people who earn more than $360,000 for single filers, $721,000 for joint filers, and $490,000 for heads of household. It adds between 1% to 3% to these high earners’ personal income tax rates.

According to the initiative text, the funds are largely earmarked for local school districts and community colleges, with some portion of the money going to California’s rainy day reserves — which the state uses to prevent cuts to healthcare and other services when revenues decline. The measure says revenues cannot be spent on state bureaucracy or administrative costs.

The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office expects the measure to bring in between $5 billion and $15 billion annually, depending on how the stock market is performing, with the amount expected to grow over time.

Proposition 4: Public financing of campaigns

This measure would allow the state and local governments to offer public campaign financing to candidates running for elected office. Candidates receiving the funding must abide by expenditure limits and adhere to the criteria set by statute, ordinance or charter to demonstrate broad support, such as demonstrate a large number of small dollar contributions.

None of the public campaign financing can come from funds designated for education, transportation or public safety. The financing cannot discriminate based on party or whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent. The public funds cannot be used for legal costs, fines or to pay back personal loans to a campaign.

This measure was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature and governor.

Proposition 5: Recall elections

This measure would change the way recall elections are conducted in California. Under this proposed constitutional amendment, during a recall election, voters would decide solely whether a politician should be removed from their elected position. If the recall is successful, that office would remain vacant until it is filled in accordance with existing law — either by a separate election or by appointment.

Under current law, voters make two separate decisions during a recall election: Whether to remove the subject of the recall from office and, if they are booted, which candidate running to replace them should fill the position. The candidate who receives the most votes wins, even if they receive far less than 50% of the vote.

The proposed constitutional amendment would also allow the recalled politician to run in the next election to fill the vacancy, though they cannot be appointed to their former post. Under the current system, office holders targeted in a recall are barred from being a candidate to replace themselves in that same election.

The proposal comes in the wake of the unsuccessful, Republican-led recall campaign against Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, which in part tested voter sentiment about his response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the sponsors of the recall-reform measure was Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), who was recalled from office in 2018 after he voted to increase gas taxes for road repairs, legislation pushed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown. Newman won back his seat in 2020.

This proposed constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature.

Proposition 37: Homeownership loan program

Proposition 37 would create a down payment assistance program to help middle-class Californians buy a new home.

The measure, spearheaded by former state Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, would allow middle-class California residents — defined as anyone who makes less than 200% of an area’s median income — borrow most of their down payment for a new home that they plan to live in. It is designed to boost construction of single-family homes.

A down payment is traditionally about 20% of the purchase price of a home. If passed, the measure would create a state-administered loan program that offers qualified homebuyers a second mortgage of up to 17% of a home’s sale price.

The proposition would allow the California Housing Finance Agency to issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to administer the program.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office does not anticipate the measure to result in direct state or local costs because the costs are meant to be covered by homeowners’ mortgage payments.

Proposition 38: Immunology research bond

Proposition 38 asks voters to approve an $8.4-billion bond to support research in the burgeoning fields of immunology and immunotherapy, which study the human immune system and how it can be used to prevent, treat and cure diseases.

If approved, half of the funding would go toward the creation of a new immunology and immunotherapy research institute affiliated with the University of California. The other half would fund research grants for other California-based universities and nonprofit medical research institutions to study potential treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease.

The measure has a built-in discount program for Californians — it requires that any technology or drugs developed from bond-funded research be sold to California patients for a price at least 20% below the national average.

Backers of the proposal include the Alzheimer’s Assn., National Multiple Sclerosis Society and other healthcare groups. Supporters argue the funding would facilitate research that could save lives and save patients “billions of dollars in health care costs by preventing and curing a range of debilitating diseases and illnesses,” according to the initiative text.

Proposition 39: Voter identification

Proposition 39 would require Californians to show government-issued identification every time they vote at the polls.

Currently, Californians must affirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens and provide information to verify their identity, such as their birth date, driver’s license or Social Security number, when registering to vote, but they don’t have to present identification when they cast their ballot.

Under this measure, voters would also need to present government-issued ID each time they vote in-person at the polls or, if voting by mail, provide the last four digits of a “unique identifying number from government-issued identification” that matches the one they provided when they registered to vote. California would be required to provide free voter ID cards on request, and state and county election officials would be required to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens by using government data.

The voter ID measure has support from Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), who has framed it as necessary to prevent voter fraud and restore trust. It comes as President Trump is pushing for stricter voter identification requirements and severe limits on voting by mail.

Democrats and voting rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, oppose the measure, saying California’s elections are already secure — voter impersonation and noncitizen voting cases are rare — and that it would make voting harder for many eligible voters, including people who have changed names, move frequently or face housing instability.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the measure would make election administration more expensive, costing state and local governments anywhere from tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, plus tens of millions in upfront implementation costs.

Proposition 40: Billionaire tax

This proposition, supported by a healthcare worker union, would impose a one-time tax of 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued at more than $1 billion.

According to a state-prepared summary of the measure, 90% of the tax revenues would be spent on healthcare and 10% would fund food assistance or education-related programs. California’s richest residents would be able to spread the payments over five years.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates it would generate “tens of billions of dollars” spread over several years, but would lead to an annual decrease in state income tax revenues of “hundreds of millions of dollars or more.”

Newsom has publicly opposed the tax, arguing it would lead wealthy residents to leave the state and lead to future budget problems. Other opponents include Planned Parenthood, the California School Boards Assn. and a nonprofit called Building a Better California that is backed by tech execs and venture capitalists.

Some billionaires have already proactively moved themselves or their businesses out of the state because of the proposal, which as written would retroactively apply to residents of the state as of Jan. 1.

Proposition 41: Requires limits and audits on new state special taxes

This is one of two ballot measures crafted by opponents of the proposed initiative to impose a new tax on California billionaires, and it would in effect undercut or curtail that wealth tax.

This proposed ballot measure would also prohibit any new state taxes from being excluded from the state’s current voter-approved spending limit. The proposed billionaire tax would have such an exclusion. If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but this proposal receives more votes, the billionaire tax measure would be voided.

The measure would require the state auditor to conduct a financial and performance audit of proposed ballot initiatives and of the programs they fund. The measure would require audits of any program that would receive funding from the special tax in the proposed initiative to assess the efficiency of the program and recommend who ought to reduce its annual costs by 10%. If the measure passes, the costs of the audits would be paid via the revenues generated by the special tax.

This ballot initiative is one of two so-called poison pills to sink the billionaire tax that is being bankrolled by Building a Better California, which has raised well over $100 million from the state’s most affluent. The largest donor is Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who has reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to the group as of late June.

Proposition 42: Ban on new state personal property taxes

This is one of two ballot measures created by opponents of the proposed initiative to impose a tax on California billionaires, and it would in effect void that wealth tax.

This proposed ballot measure would prohibit new taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts and other assets and would limit situations in which a ballot measure or state lawmakers can impose or raise taxes retroactively — both of which are essential parts of the billionaire tax initiative.

If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but this proposal receives more votes, the billionaire tax ballot measure would be voided.

This ballot initiative is one of two so-called poison pills to sink the billionaire tax that is being bankrolled by Building a Better California, which has raised well over $100 million from the state’s most affluent. The largest donor is Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who has reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to the group as of late June.

Proposition 43: Voting thresholds for special taxes

The measure would prohibit local governments from imposing new special taxes unless the proposed tax receives approval from two-thirds of voters. The restriction also applies to citizen initiatives, which currently only need a simple majority vote to be approved.

It would also limit cities’ ability to impose taxes on property sales. In charter cities, the measure would prevent voters from approving any real estate transfer taxes beyond the state’s existing rate of 0.11% of a property’s sale price. It would also cancel some existing property-related taxes.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. supports Proposition 43. The advocacy group has characterized the measure as an effort to “save” 1978’s Proposition 13, the landmark initiative that capped California property tax increases and required a super-majority of votes to approve most future tax increases.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who authored the legislation that became Proposition 43 — ACA 22 — opposes the measure and has urged Californians to vote against it. She said the only reason she crafted the bill was because it was a necessary bargaining chip to torpedo another ballot measure backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. that would have devastated revenues for local governments and retroactively rescinded some local tax increases.

“I authored ACA 22 not because I wanted it to become law — but because it was the only path left to get the more dangerous initiative off the ballot before time ran out,” Wicks posted on social media.

Proposition 44: Regulate health clinic spending

If passed, Proposition 44 would require federally qualified health centers to spend 90% of their revenue on “program services advancing their charitable purpose” rather than management and overhead. Community clinics that fail to comply would be penalized, with fines placed in a state-managed fund to be spent on clinic workforce programs.

Advocates say clinics spend too much on executive pay and other administrative costs and not enough on patient care. The measure, which would dictate how clinics spend money, is designed to fix that. The measure is backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, an influential healthcare workers union, which argues it will help hold clinics accountable.

In May, the California Primary Care Assn., which represents more than 2,300 community health clinics, sued to block the ballot measure. The state’s powerful doctors’ lobby, the California Medical Assn., also opposes the measure, arguing it would ban clinics from keeping funding in reserves and hamper their ability to upgrade equipment or expand to new locations.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that enforcing the measure would cost the government up to the low tens of millions annually, and that much of the cost would be paid for through penalties and fees charged to affected clinics. The office says the measure has “uncertain” impacts and could lead to clinic closures.

Proposition 45: CEQA reform

This proposition would amend the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and speed up the process for projects deemed “essential,” including certain housing, water, health, public safety, energy and transportation projects.

Jails, detention facilities and oil or natural gas production facilities would not be considered “essential” projects, according to the measure text.

If passed, the measure would set deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review, allow expedited review of a project’s environmental impacts — currently, public agencies are required to consider a range of feasible alternatives to reduce environmental impacts — and establish deadlines for filing and resolving lawsuits.

CEQA lawsuits have often been used to block construction of housing in the state. For instance, in Berkeley, neighbors used CEQA — citing potential noise impact from partying students — to delay, for years, UC Berkeley’s construction of student dorms on People’s Park.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the state and local government implementation will cost in the tens of millions of dollars for the first several years. It notes the legislation would probably result in net savings in the long term due to reduced administrative and legal workload.

Times staff writers Seema Mehta and Phil Willon contributed to this report.

Published on
06/07/2026 – 11:38 GMT+2

The South Korean government intends to set aside the extra tax income flowing from its record-breaking chip industry in a dedicated “future response fund”, the presidential office said, using the proceeds of the AI boom to bankroll public projects ranging from industrial infrastructure to support for younger generations.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Behind the windfall sit Samsung Electronics and SK hynix, whose memory chips have become essential to the data centres powering the global AI race.

Their record profits this year have propelled the wider economy, and swollen the government’s tax receipts along the way.

Presidential chief of staff Kang Hoon-sik outlined the plan at a meeting between the government and the ruling party on Sunday, saying the fund would help finance large-scale projects built around AI and semiconductors, while also tackling inequality and helping young people with housing, start-ups and work.

Kang warned that the extra revenue thrown off by the chip boom must not be squandered at what he described as a decisive moment for the country’s future.

No figure was provided for the fund’s size, as the government will consider its use at a fiscal strategy meeting this month before consulting the public.

In an interview with the Dong-A Ilbo newspaper, Kang added that part of the money would go towards the utilities on which chip plants depend, above all power and water.

A boom that keeps giving

The windfall reflects an extraordinary run for Korea’s chipmakers.

Samsung shares surged more than 170% in the first half of the year, and SK hynix shares rose more than 300%, carrying both companies past $1 trillion (€874bn) in market value.

Samsung is due to publish preliminary second-quarter earnings on Tuesday, while SK hynix plans to raise 45 trillion won (€25.7bn) through a listing on the Nasdaq.

Both are also part of an 800 trillion won (€457bn) public-private push, unveiled last week, to build a new chipmaking hub in the country’s southwest.

How the windfall should be spent has become a live political debate.

In May, presidential policy chief Kim Yong-beom floated using it for start-ups, young people, basic income schemes in rural and fishing communities, and support for artists.

The boom has also emboldened workers as Samsung averted a major walkout in May by agreeing to a bonus deal with its largest union.

Additional sources • AFP