tax

RUSSELL Brand could be hit with a £2.9million tax bill after his jail sentence made him a UK resident again. 

The rapist was advanced £7.4million by his British firm managing his earnings after sex investigations began. 

Then two years ago he moved his residence to the US on company records.  

And the loan was taken off his firm’s accounts last year. 

Entrepreneurs living abroad usually pay no further UK income tax on dividends from their companies — if they stay abroad over five years. 

UK residents pay up to 39.35 per cent on dividends so Brand could be liable for up to £2.9million tax. 

HIT SQUAD

Iranian hitman illegal immigrant convicted of spying in £150k UK hit plot

BRAND HORROR

Six more women ‘accuse Russell Brand – including one he apologised to after’

The fallen funnyman and his wife Laura co-own Pablo Diablo’s Legitimate Business Firm Limited which was formed in October 2006. 

The company managed his earnings from film and broadcast work, live shows, royalties and merchandise and made profits of £3,341,057 in 2021. 

A tax expert said: “HMRC will want to know how Brand’s £7.44m loan was wiped out in 2025 as a dividend or a write-off is taxable, and prison could bring the five-year rule into play. 

“Companies House records show he didn’t change his residence to the US in 2024 so he hasn’t been there long enough to be exempt. 

‘The tax will be owed by Brand personally – not the firm – and he won’t be able to offset his criminal defence costs against any business profits.” 

Brand was convicted at Southwark Crown Court eight days ago of one rape and three sexual assaults against four women. 

 He was cleared of two rapes and an attempted indecent assault. 

California voters have rejected the controversial billionaire tax.

Proposition 40 sought to impose a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires’ assets to try to offset federal healthcare funding cuts.

Despite the blue wave in the midterm elections, the novel tax on the ultra-wealthy had trailed from the first day of vote counting and was officially rejected on Monday.

Roughly 53% of Californians voted against the measure, while 47% supported it, the Associated Press said when it declared that the proposition had failed.

Although the billionaire tax was rejected in the vast majority of counties, the late tally showed major pockets of support in Los Angeles and San Francisco — home to the lion’s share of the state’s 200 billionaires. Orange County, however, voted no by a wide margin.

The political battle over the ballot measure and two competing proposals divided the state and was among the most expensive in California history. More than $400 million had been spent on the three intertwined ballot measures, with more than 90% spent opposing the billionaire tax, according to fundraising disclosures filed with the secretary of state’s office.

Billionaires, notably Google co-founder Sergey Brin, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into groups that funded ads to kill the billionaire tax. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Teachers Assn. and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California are among the powerful Democrats and other Democrat-aligned groups that expressed fears that billionaires would flee the state. Some, including Brin and fellow Google co-founder Larry Page, moved out of California because of the proposal.

An onslaught of advertisements against the billionaire tax argued it could impact all Californians, not just the ultra-wealthy. Teachers, firefighters and other middle-class Californians became the face of their campaigns, fueling growing opposition ahead of election day.

Opponents of Proposition 40 said Californians made the “right decision,” calling Proposition 40 a “reckless experiment” that would hurt the state’s economy. The group included the California Medical Assn., California Primary Care Assn. and the California School Boards Assn.

“Proposition 40 risked California’s economic competitiveness and fiscal stability, as well as the revenue we rely on to fund our top priorities — from education and healthcare to public safety and infrastructure,” the group said.

Leaders of the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which sponsored the proposition, vowed to put a billionaire tax proposal on the 2028 ballot if Sacramento leaders don’t find a way to better support the public health sector. Given California’s volatile budget, which is expected to be particularly problematic next year, it appears unlikely that state lawmakers will find a way to backfill an estimated $100 billion of federal healthcare funding cuts.

Supporters said the proposed tax on more than 200 California billionaires aimed to raise that amount, with 90% funding healthcare, and the remainder going to schools and food assistance.

“Billionaire-funded propaganda may have influenced the outcome of this election, but as hospitals reduce services, emergency rooms close and families lose access to care, the truth will become increasingly difficult to hide,” said Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff for the SEIU-UHW. “Californians will see for themselves what was at stake.”

This will not be the end of the debate about taxing the rich. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), who both backed Proposition 40, are pushing for the passage of a federal 5% tax on American billionaires.

Earlier this year, they introduced the “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act.” Despite Democrats winning control of the House and Senate last week, the legislation will probably face constitutional challenges if it passes.

Laura and Callum Anderson say the better weather and cheaper cost of living made it a no-brainer

A family swapped “miserable” Scotland for the Mediterranean – where their energy bill costs just £85 and they have no pressure to “keep up with the Joneses”.

Laura and Callum Anderson, both 42, moved out to Malta with their youngest daughter when their heating bill shot up to £1,100 a month. They swapped their £1,600 a month four-bed farmhouse in Fife for a three-bed penthouse for £2,500 per month and moved out in October 2026. And despite the jump on rent, they are saving £1,251 a month – as bills and petrol is cheaper and there is no council tax.

Laura, a business owner, living in Naxxar, Malta, said: “If we weren’t living in Malta we would have had to move out of our house.

“It was £690 per month just for oil, with electricity on top of that, wood on top of that, it was £1,100 just to heat the house and put the lights on. Electricity is £85 per month here. We basically wanted to move to Malta to enjoy life.”

Laura and Callum had previously lived in Malta between 2010 and 2013 after they were able to get a full relocation package through Callum’s work as a recruitment consultant – but moved back to Fife to set up their own business.

And after returning to renew their vows in 2024, they decided to move back out permanently. Laura said: “We came here in 2024, and we renewed our wedding vows.

“At that point we were like, ‘Why are we staying in Scotland, what is the point?’ I love Scotland and I’m very much an outdoorsy person and like walks with the dogs and being at the beach even in Scotland, but it was just miserable.

“Last winter in Scotland was especially bad. It didn’t stop raining for six months. It sounds like an exaggeration, but it must have rained for 26 days every single month.”

Laura’s health was also a motivation to move. She was diagnosed with Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) – a severe form of premenstrual syndrome that causes intense emotional and physical symptoms – such as depression, anxiety, irritability, and fatigue – in November 2023 and had to pay for private care as she struggled to get help on the NHS.

She struggled with her mental health and said the “doom and gloom” of Scotland was not helping, and so they made the “positive step” and made the move.

“I was paying a fortune in tax and in private medical insurance,” she says. “It makes me feel resentful at my own country and I don’t want to feel like that because I love Scotland.

“Because of my PMDD, I struggle a bit with my mental health and being in Scotland in the doom and gloom was not great for my mental health so we decided to make a positive step by moving.

“We were spending too much time indoors with the fire on. We ended up getting dragged into watching the news with the doom and gloom about how taxes have gone up and people can’t afford to feed themselves. It’s very negative.”

They flew out in October 2026 on digital nomad visas with youngest Mia, 17 – with Lucy, 20, flying out to visit whilst she remains in the UK to attend university. Laura and Callum still run their business selling saunas remotely, and have a team based in Scotland covering the day-to-day operations.

Their daughter, Mia, plans to become a strength and conditioning coach, and Laura says Malta is a “hub” where people travel to train up. They flew out without a permanent home sorted, choosing to stay in an Airbnb so they could view properties in person.

Now settled in a three-bed penthouse, Laura says the “pressure to keep up with the Joneses” is not as big a thing out in Malta. She said: “Our car in Scotland was included on our insurance and it was £650 per month.

“We lived on a farm and I had to drive 20 minutes just to get to the shop. Fuel was £130 per week. Here, fuel is £33 every two weeks. It was £180 per month for Sky broadband and Wi-Fi. Here, Wi-Fi is £25.”

Paying £750 for their visas, they are “really happy” they made the move. “Apart from missing our eldest daughter, we’re not missing anything,” she said.

“We’ve deliberately chosen to live in an area with access to good walks for the dogs. Walking is one of the things that really helps my head so it’s important I go out on those long walks.

“I love Scotland and I’m more than happy to go back and visit but it was stifling and there’s a lot of positivity here.”

Ensure our latest real life stories always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as Preferred Source in your Google search settings

Price breakdown per month

Fife

Rent: £1,600

Electricity: £1,100

Council tax: £150

Car: £650

Fuel: £520

Broadband and Wi-Fi: £180

Private healthcare: £240

Total: £4,440

Malta

Rent: £2,500

Electricity: £85

Car and insurance: £375

Private medical insurance: £138

Fuel: £66

Wi-Fi: £25

Total: £3,189

Days after the midterm elections, Proposition 40 has yet to be decided. The ballot measure, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires to help fund healthcare, is failing by more than 8 percentage points.

Statewide, more than 4 million votes remain to be counted in this race, according to the Associated Press, which calculates the expected vote using returns and other data. That includes more than half a million from Los Angeles County, where the “yes” vote leads by more than 7 percentage points.

The proposition has so far found support in nine counties: Alameda, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Sonoma and Yolo. In Southern California, Los Angeles is the only county leaning toward “yes.”

Propositions 41 and 42

While Proposition 40 focuses narrowly on taxing billionaires, competing Propositions 41 and 42 would have broader impacts on the state’s ability to enact new taxes. And the measures could undercut Proposition 40 if it passes.

As of Friday, the latest vote tallies showed “yes” on Proposition 41 trailing by more than 7 points, while “yes” on Proposition 42 was ahead by more than 6 points.

Proposition 41 would would require audits for new state special taxes and prohibit new state taxes from being exempted from a voter-approved state spending limit. Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on retirement holdings, individually owned assets and other personal savings. If Proposition 40 passes and either of these measures passes with more “yes” votes than Proposition 40, it would prevent the billionaire tax from becoming law.

A late October poll showed voter opposition to Propositions 41 and 42 had grown even as support for the billionaire tax declined.

The money behind the measures

Support for Proposition 40 has totaled to nearly $35 million, mostly from the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the healthcare workers union that proposed the tax.

Backers of Propositions 41 and 42 also opposed Proposition 40. Combined, they raised more than $300 million. Most of that money came from the billionaires who would be subject to the tax.

Despite a nationwide blue wave in the midterm election, California’s much-debated billionaire tax didn’t get the support many expected in one of the country’s most liberal states.

Since the Golden State’s powerful healthcare union proposed the new tax, supporters of Proposition 40 have faced a fierce, expensive battle against the world’s richest people.

In what has been described as a David-versus-Goliath fight, the underdog appears to have lost. The proposition, which would have imposed a one-time 5% tax on the assets of California billionaires to mostly fund healthcare, seemed headed toward defeat as votes were tallied Wednesday.

“In a deep blue state like California, most voters are going to support additional funding for healthcare, especially to replace Trump funding cuts. But in retrospect, the sponsors may wish they’ve been a little bit less ambitious,” said Dan Schnur, a politics and communications professor at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine.

Nearly 56% of California voters rejected the proposal while 44% voted for Proposition 40. However, with roughly 6 million votes still needed to be counted, the results are still too close to call.

The battle over the billionaire tax has been one of the most expensive ballot-measure fights in California’s history, sparking a debate over wealth inequality and taxing the ultrawealthy. It also highlighted how billionaires have wielded more influence in politics.

Well-known politicians such as U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the California Democratic Party, healthcare workers and Hollywood celebrities including actor Mark Ruffalo, backed the wealth tax. But the idea drew opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the teachers union, Planned Parenthood, business groups and others who expressed fears that billionaires could flee the state.

The state’s next governor, Xavier Becerra, who just won, also opposed the tax.

Though California’s $4.25-trillion economy remains a global powerhouse, and a major draw for investments in AI and aerospace, thousands of businesses have moved to Texas and other states in recent years due to lower costs.

Opponents of the wealth tax heavily outspent Proposition 40 supporters, flooding televisions, radio, social media and smartphones with ads. Their message: the wealth tax is a reckless experiment and a tax on everyone, not just billionaires.

UC Berkeley law professor Brian Galle, who helped write the wealth tax proposal, said it’s tough to “fix a broken system” and get the facts to people when they were up against the ultrawealthy. Billionaires also own media outlets and social media companies, megaphones that help spread political messaging.

“When billionaires have half a dozen different strategies for buying this election, it shows that they already have too much money and pay too little back,” he said.

Support for the billionaire-bashing proposition had already begun to wane in recent months.

A poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times and released last week, showed that voter support for Proposition 40 had fallen to 42% of voters surveyed last month from 48% in August.

The measure also may have lost fans because taxing assets rather than income can be a complicated and confusing process and sparks concerns among even non-billionaires on whether they want to allow the state to start demanding a slice of the value of the things that they own.

No matter the result, Proposition 40 also fueled a conversation about taxing billionaires that will continue, Galle said.

As of Wednesday afternoon, roughly $489 million has been raised to support and oppose Proposition 40 along with two ballot measures — Propositions 41 and 42 — that could block the wealth tax, data from the California secretary of state show.

The vast majority of that funding, more than $380 million, went toward killing the billionaire tax. Supporters of the wealth tax, including the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, trailed far behind, contributing roughly $100 million, according to filings with the California secretary of state.

Billionaires such as Google co-founder Sergey Brin contributed millions to a group called Building a Better California that funded ads against the wealth tax and propositions that could block it.

Money doesn’t always win an election, but a big funding imbalance is tough to overcome, Schnur said.

“As important as the money was to beat Prop. 40, the coalition against it may have been just as important. You didn’t see Sergey. You didn’t see tech billionaires in the ads. You saw teachers and nurses and firefighters,” he said.

The four richest Californians — Brin, Nvidia Chief Executive Jensen Huang; Google co-founder Larry Page and Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg — would owe 40% of the estimated taxes to be collected from the billionaire tax, according to an L.A. Times analysis.

Ahead of the election, billionaires made moves to prepare for the potential tax. Zuckerberg expressed concerns that if he had to sell his stock to pay the tax that could reduce his control over the company, but Meta’s board struck a deal to address that fear.

The billionaire tax proposal also faced other big hurdles. Proposition 42, which could have blocked the billionaire tax, was on track to pass. It would prohibit new taxes on “retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings” and bar retroactive taxes.

“They didn’t just reject a single bad tax idea — millions of Californians backed the strongest protections available to protect their hard earned life savings from double taxation. They joined firefighters, law enforcement officers, building trades workers, seniors, veterans and small businesses in doing so,” said Nathan Click, a spokesman for Proposition 42.

On the other hand, Proposition 41 — a proposal that would have required audits for new state special taxes, and also could have blocked the billionaire tax — was headed for defeat.

Supporters of Proposition 40 tried to convince voters that taxing roughly 200 billionaires was the solution to raise $100 billion needed to offset federal healthcare cuts.

This week, the wealth tax’s supporters emphasized the high stakes. People won’t be able to afford healthcare coverage, children will die and hospitals will shutter, they said, if California lawmakers don’t find a way to get more funding.

“If Sacramento fails to protect patients and deliver a real solution that makes billionaires pay their fair share, healthcare workers will pursue every available avenue, up to and including returning to the ballot in 2028 with a billionaire tax,” said Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff for the SEIU-UHW.

The fate of multiple high-stakes California ballot propositions remained undecided Wednesday, as poll workers continued to tally votes from across the state.

Other measures have generated decisive action from voters on such issues as public funding for housing and voter identification.

Six races have been called by the Associated Press, according to The Times tracker. They include four propositions — 1, 2, 3 and 37 — and two failed measures — 39 and 44. Eight remained undecided.

So far, there have been no big surprises, said Mark Baldassare, statewide survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. The verdicts are “consistent with what we were seeing in the preelection polling.”

Undecided

Among the undecided items is Proposition 4, which would allow state and local governments to use public money to help finance political campaigns — something California largely has prohibited since 1988. The measure would lift that prohibition, subject to restrictions on how the money could be used and who could receive it. As of Wednesday, votes were leaning slightly against the proposition.

Another undecided item, Proposition 5, would change the process for recalling an elected official. It would separate the decision to recall the official from the choice of who replaces them, creating a second election or appointment process to determine the successor. The race was very tight Wednesday, with votes in favor holding a narrow edge.

Proposition 38 is leaning toward a passing vote by a solid margin. The measure would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research that aims to cure and prevent cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Half the money would go to a single UC-affiliated nonprofit research institute, with the other half distributed through research grants.

One closely watched item, Proposition 40 — the so-called “billionaire tax” — also is leaning toward a likely rejection from voters. The proposition would create a one-time 5% tax on individuals and trusts with wealth of more than $1 billion, with the revenue going toward healthcare, food assistance and education. State officials estimated it would generate tens of billions of dollars for the state, but others, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, warned that it would lead wealthy residents to leave California and lead to future budget problems.

Two separate ballot measures, Proposition 41 and Proposition 42, were crafted to nullify the wealth tax and still remain too close to call.

Proposition 43, meanwhile, would require a two-thirds vote, rather than a simple majority, to approve certain local government taxes. It was leaning toward rejection.

Another big-ticket item, Proposition 45, was opposed by a small margin of voters but still too close to call. It would change the state’s landmark environmental review process, the California Environmental Quality Act, by shortening deadlines and permitting rules for public and private development projects. Supporters say it would cut costly delays and expedite essential housing, transportation, water, health and education projects. But opponents say it would clear the path for more artificial intelligence data centers.

Prop. 45 “has been interesting all along because it fits in with concerns about housing affordability,” Baldassare said. However, it also raised questions about “unintended consequences” for the environment.

“CEQA reform is complicated, let’s face it,” he said. “That has made the voters more split.”

Passed

The passing propositions each won with what were considerable margins Wednesday.

They included Proposition 1, which authorizes $11.25 billion in state bonds to finance affordable housing programs, with $1.25 billion set aside for housing for veterans.

Another passing item, Proposition 2, gives lawmakers the ability to put more money into California’s “rainy day fund,” doubling the reserve from 10% to 20% of the state’s general fund revenues. It also would require the state to save more in years when tax revenues are high, helping to weather economic ups and downs. It passed with a clear majority, according to The Times tracker.

Voters also approved Proposition 3, which permanently extends a high-income tax increase on California’s highest earners. The increase was approved by voters in 2012 and was scheduled to expire in 2031. The money generated by Proposition 3 would flow to education, with 89% going to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges. It is separate from Proposition 40 — the more controversial tax on California’s wealthiest citizens, which remains undecided.

“We saw a majority of Californians in our poll saying that the wealthy should be taxed,” Baldassare said. And while voters were warned that Proposition 40 could push billionaires out of the state, Proposition 3 seemed a more palatable way to do that.

Proposition 37 passed with a clear majority of the vote. It authorizes up to $25 billion in state-issued bonds to create a loan program to help middle-income Californians buy newly constructed homes. Qualified buyers can borrow up to 17% of the price of the home while contributing 3% of the down payment from their own funds.

“There’s been strong support for the idea of spending more money on housing affordability through bonds, not taxes, and that explains the support that we saw all along for Proposition 1 and Proposition 37, despite the fact that it’s a lot of bond money,” Baldassare said.

Rejected

Californians rejected Proposition 39, which would have required voters to provide government-issued identification when voting in person or provide identifying information on mail-in ballots. It would have changed California’s signature-based voter identification system and was a resounding rejection of the broader fight playing out over onerous voter ID measures at the national level.

This was another measure where voters received a clear message, including from governor-elect Xavier Becerra, who urged Californians to vote no, Baldassare said.

“We saw in our polling before the election that most Californians don’t think that there’s a problem with the way that we go about our elections and casting ballots and counting votes … so that sort of didn’t align with thinking,” he said.

California voters also resoundingly rejected Proposition 44. The act would have required certain nonprofit community health clinics serving low-income and medically underserved populations to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on health care services. Those that fell short would be penalized. As of Wednesday morning, a whopping 82% of votes were against the proposition, more than any other.

A ballot measure that would funnel more money to the Los Angeles city Fire Department by raising sales taxes by a half-cent was leading in early returns Tuesday night, along with seven other ballot measures before city voters.

“I’m humbled by the support of the voters,” said Doug Coates, president of United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112, which spearheaded the measure. “We showed up and we did what we needed to do … Thank you to the voters.”

Partial returns also showed L.A. voters turning thumbs up on a City Charter amendment that would allow the City Council to meet just once a week, instead of the thrice-weekly meetings now required.

Measure FD would increase the city’s retail sales tax from 10.25 cents to 10.75 cents per dollar spent, with all of the extra revenue going to the Fire Department. The city still would be required to fund firefighters at its normal rate, meaning the measure would add an estimated $345 million annually to the department’s budget.

Proponents of the measure include the union representing rank-and-file firefighters, who say the department is underfunded. The tax fund is needed to lower response times across the city and increase the number of firefighters, according to the union.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., a nonprofit that advocates for lower taxes, opposed the measure. The organization raised concerns that this would be the third sales tax hike since 2024, costing an average of $86 per person and $345 for a family of four in additional sales taxes each year.

It also was opposed by the union representing Los Angeles Police Department officers, which objected to limiting the revenue to one city department.

The measure that would allow the City Council to meet just once a week was included in Charter Amendment EE. Most City Council members supported it, with Councilmember Tim McOsker noting his time is better spent working in his district.

Councilmember Monica Rodriguez opposed the measure, arguing that having fewer public forums is a disservice to constituents, who would have less time to meaningfully engage with their representatives. She also worried fewer meetings would mean council members would rush through deliberations.

The amendment also would make smaller changes to how the city governs, including giving more power to independent inspectors to conduct audits of the L.A. Police and Fire Departments, and increase the penalties for campaign finance violations.

The number of signatures needed for a ballot referendum also would rise, and ethics commissioners would be barred from City Council or the L.A. Unified Board of Education for five years.

The six other measures were leading by wider margins.

Proposition TE was ahead in early results. Measure ULA, also known as the “mansion tax,” imposes additional taxes on L.A. property sales above $5.4 million. Proposition TE would allow Palisades fire victims who own homes in the area to avoid the tax as long as they sell the property within five years of the disaster.

Charter Amendment LA, which aims to streamline how the city delivers basic services for infrastructure in need of repair, was leading in early results. The measure would reduce the power of the city Board of Public Works and possibly lead to eliminating it.

Charter Amendment PL took a big lead in partial early returns. The measure folds in five proposals, including to consolidate the city’s planning department, to facilitate building and opening businesses in the city.

Charter Amendment PRK, which would double the minimum amount of money earmarked for the Department of Recreation and Parks, had a big early lead in early results. If it passes, the department could receive a minimum of $986 million annually by 2036, up from the current rate that would generate $493 million by that year.

A measure that would make changes to the city’s airports, harbor and Department of Water and Power had a big lead in early results. Charter Amendment PRT would require the Los Angeles World Airport’s board of commissioners to include two members who live in Van Nuys and three who live around LAX.

Charter Amendment SC, which makes small clarifying changes to language surrounding campaign finance rules for the LAUSD Board of Education, also led in early results. Those changes would affect campaign contribution limits, filing deadlines, public disclosures and fundraising windows.

The fate of a controversial ballot measure to impose a new tax on California billionaires, proposed as a lifeline for the needy and castigated as a threat to the state’s fragile economy, appeared headed for defeat in early election results Tuesday night.

California voters also rejected another hotly contested measure, Proposition 39, which would have required voters to show identification when they cast ballots and elections officials to verify that all registered voters were U.S. citizens.

The billionaire tax, Proposition 40, would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires to raise an estimated $100 billion to assist millions of Californians destined to lose healthcare coverage under federal funding cuts. Two separate ballot measures, Propositions 41 and 42, were crafted to nullify the wealth tax and remained too close to call Tuesday evening.

While supporters of the billionaire tax did not concede Tuesday evening, they acknowledged facing tough odds in the race because of the avalanche of spending against them and warned that people will die if the measure fails.

“In the event that we don’t succeed with Prop. 40 tonight, if Sacramento fails to deliver a real solution to the healthcare crisis instigated by the [federal government], one that actually makes billionaires pay their fair share, then California’s healthcare workers intend to be back on the ballot in 2028 to correct the damage, and to overcome all of the lies and deception, and just completely outrageous campaigning that we’ve seen,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, which crafted the proposal.

Voters rejected the Republican-led Proposition 39 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, notably in California, are swaying elections.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal by Trump’s attorneys to set aside 20,000 ballots in the state that the White House argued could be cast by people who are not citizens.

The proposals were among the 14 state ballot measures that California’s 23.3 million registered voters were asked to decide Tuesday in addition to congressional, statewide and local elections.

The billionaire tax was proposed in response to legislation signed by Trump last year that could result in millions of Californians losing Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals shuttering and other healthcare services being slashed unless a new funding source is found. The proposal would retroactively apply to billionaires who lived in California as of Jan. 1, prompting some to preemptively move out of the state. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on education programs and food assistance.

Proposition 40 divided Democratic leaders because of concerns about its impact on the state’s volatile budget that is highly dependent on the wealthy. Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed the measure, while the state Democratic party endorsed it.

The effort supporting and opposing the tax and two ballot measures designed to nullify it came close to breaking a state campaign finance record. About $425 million had been donated to the three commingled ballot measures as of Tuesday.

The vast majority of that money was provided by California billionaires, including some of the state’s most powerful tech barons, opposing the wealth tax. The campaign was centered on three interwoven ballot initiatives: Proposition 40 and Propositions 41 and 42, both of which would undercut Proposition 40 through a series of strategic changes to state tax laws and new spending restrictions.

Neither explicitly stated that it would nullify the billionaire tax if Proposition 40 passed and either of the counter measures received more votes.

Proposition 41, which trailed slightly Tuesday evening, is framed as an effort to cut wasteful government spending and require audits of new special taxes. But it also would bar new taxes that are exempt from state spending limits. Proposition 42, which was slightly ahead, is presented as protection from state lawmakers taxing everyday Californians’ retirement funds, personal savings and home equity.

In polling leading up to election day, voters appeared to differentiate between the billionaire tax proposal and Proposition 3, which was approved by voters on Tuesday. . It would make permanent a temporary tax increase on wealthy Californians that largely funds education. The tax adds 1% to 3% to the state income tax of single filers who earn more than $360,000, joint filers who make more than $721,000 and heads of household who earn more than $490,000. Voters passed the tax in 2012 and extended it in 2016, but it is set to expire in 2031.

Voters cast ballots on several other proposals about local taxes, public financing of political campaigns, a landmark environmental law, housing, the state’s recall process, state lawmakers’ ability to redirect taxpayer money to the state’s “rainy day” fund, immunology and immunotherapy funding, and restrictions on how community healthcare clinics spend money:

Several ballot measures were decided Tuesday evening:

• Proposition 1, which proposed a $11.25-billion bond to boost the construction of affordable housing, was approved by voters.
• Proposition 2, which would gave state lawmakers more flexibility over state spending by exempting certain tax revenue from a state spending limit, allowing them to place it into a “rainy day” fund, was approved by voters.
• Proposition 37, which would create a down-payment assistance program to help middle-class Californians buy a home, was approved by voters.
• Proposition 44, which would require certain health centers to spend 90% of their revenue on patient care rather than overhead and executive compensation, failed.

Among those that remained too close to call:

• Proposition 4, which would allow state and local candidates to receive public campaign financing if they demonstrated broad support and agreed to expenditure limits.
• Proposition 5, a constitutional amendment that would alter the state’s recall process by limiting it to the question of whether to remove an elected official from office, and no longer including the cadre of candidates hoping to replace the politician.
• Proposition 38, which would create an $8.4-billion bond to support the immunology and immunotherapy fields.
• Proposition 43, which would bar local governments from imposing special taxes unless two-third of voters support the effort. Current law requires a simple majority vote.
• Proposition 45, which would amend the California Environmental Quality Act to speed up certain housing, water, energy, transportation and other projects deemed essential.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday called for a significant expansion of the state’s film and TV tax incentives in the face of mounting evidence that producers are fleeing California in search of cheaper locales.

Newsom said in a statement Monday that he favors expanding California’s current Film and Television Tax Credit Program from $750 million to at least $1 billion annually.

Notably, Newsom’s proposal would include credits for actors and other above-the-line talent and extend the tax credit through 2040, according to the statement. That would make California’s program more competitive with those of other states such as Georgia and New York that allow tax credits to offset the cost of actors’ salaries.

If approved by the state Legislature, the credit would be the country’s largest capped film and TV tax credit, Newsom’s office said.

“We’re the capital of entertainment and we’re going to keep it here,” Newsom said in the statement. “Through this expansion, we will maintain the momentum and success of our historic expansion last year.”

Newsom’s announcement comes as the outgoing California governor and possible presidential candidate is looking to burnish his image as a champion of Hollywood as the state is increasingly losing production to other hubs in the U.S. and abroad, where tax incentives are higher and production costs lower.

The proposal puts pressure on fellow Democrat Xavier Becerra, who is widely expected to be California’s next governor, to take up the mantle of helping Hollywood at a time when the state faces rising financial pressures.

Newsom expanded the program last year, when the annual credit was raised from $330 million to $750 million through 2030. Since then, the credit has generated more than $8 billion in direct production spending and over 43,000 jobs, according to the governor’s office.

Newsom also recently signed California’s first stand-alone postproduction credit to bring back jobs for the industry’s editors, sound mixers, composers and visual effects artists.

With a budget of $10 million, the program will allow a 35% to 50% credit on qualified expenses related specifically to postproduction work done in California, even for productions that don’t shoot in the state.

Despite the expanded incentives, local film and TV production in the Los Angeles area continues on a downward trend.

On-location shoot days in the Los Angeles area fell nearly 5% between July and September from the same period a year earlier, and were 29% below the five-year average, according to FilmLA, the nonprofit group that handles film permits for city and county.

Newsom said the expanded credits would address some of California’s limitations.

For example, the new incentives would allow companies that commit to shooting two different productions in California to get a 5% boost in credits. Independent productions would be eligible for $100 million in annual funding, up from $26 million.

Steve Kang, president and chief film liaison for the city’s Board of Public Works, welcomed the proposed enhancements.

“This is a huge win because the current expanded program is helpful, but there were a lot of exceptions and caveats, which limited its full potential,” Kang said.

Others welcomed Newsom’s proposal as “a good start,” but said more was needed to keep the industry in Southern California.

Many productions that shoot locally still face logistical and operational problems with permitting and specific shoot requirements, said Cale Thomas, policy legislative director for Stay in L.A., a grassroots coalition.

“We just need to make it cheaper and easier to shoot here,” Thomas said. “A multifaceted problem takes multifaceted solutions.”

Scott Budnick, a producer of the successful “The Hangover” franchise who lobbied for the state’s enhanced film tax credits last year, also praised Newsom’s proposal, but said the state needs to remove a cap on funding that has created significant hurdles for filmmakers.

“I feel very strongly that the biggest problem with the current credit is because we have a cap,” Budnick said. “It makes every piece of the credit 10 times harder.”

The effort in California comes after congressional leaders introduced the Motion Picture, Television and Entertainment Revitalization Act in September. The bill would establish a 20% federal tax credit on U.S. labor for eligible film and TV productions, including postproduction and visual effects work.

If the federal incentive passes, the hope is for U.S. productions to stack incentives and make the U.S. more attractive for major studio shoots. The federal incentive, however, also is likely to raise the competitive stakes for California as other states compete for Hollywood’s business.

“This is about protecting the future of an industry that has helped define California for generations,” Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles) said in response to Newsom’s proposal. It would ensure “the next generation of creative workers and small business owners can raise their families right here at home,” he said.

Newsom has faced tense relations with Hollywood. Many in the industry remain angry with Newsom over his role in the Paramount acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. Newsom was instrumental in behind-the-scenes lobbying to get state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to abandon the court fight challenging Paramount-Skydance’s takeover of the legacy studio, which is expected to lead to widespread layoffs.

Newsom’s support for the deal came after Paramount threatened to move operations to Tennessee or Texas, placing more pressure on Bonta to come to an agreement and blunt efforts to lose California’s signature industry.

Los Angeles voters will head to the polls Tuesday to vote on a slew of ballot measures, including a half-cent sales tax that would beef up the city’s Fire Department — but which also would cost Angelenos more to fill up their gas tanks, buy clothes and dine out.

Another measure would allow the City Council to meet just once a week, instead of three times as required by the City Charter.

In all, there are eight ballot measures before L.A. voters that could have a significant impact on how the city government functions, and which take just a simple majority to pass.

Here’s a roundup:

Measure FD: Sales tax hike for the Fire Department

Voters will consider a half-cent increase to the city’s retail sales tax, bumping it from 10.25 cents per dollar spent to 10.75 cents per dollar spent. The tax hike is expected to raise an estimated $345 million annually and would be funneled into a separate fund specifically for the Fire Department.

The sales tax increase was spearheaded by the union representing rank-and-file firefighters, who have long complained the department is underfunded.

The city still would be required to fund the department at the same average percentage out of the general fund, ensuring extra revenue generated by the tax would add to its regular budget.

Opponents say this would be the third sales tax hike since 2024, costing an average of $86 per person and $345 for a family of four in additional sales taxes each year.

The firefighters union said the tax fund is essential to increase the number of firefighters and lower response times across the city.

Charter Amendment EE: Fewer City Council meetings

Amendment EE would allow the Council to meet once a week instead of three times, as required under the City Charter.

The Council voted 12-0 to put the measure on the ballot, with three council members absent. Council members in support of the measure said the three meetings are costly and ineffective, and noted their time is better spent working in their district.

Councilmember Monica Rodriguez opposed the measure, saying it would reduce the time available for L.A. residents to engage with their representatives in a public forum and could lead to council members rushing through deliberations on important matters.

The amendment also would approve changes to how the city governs. If passed, independent inspectors for the L.A. Police and Fire Departments would have more power to conduct audits, and it would increase the penalties for campaign finance violations. The changes also include raising the number of signatures needed for a ballot referendum and would bar ethics commissioners from running for City Council or the Los Angeles Board of Education for five years after they leave office.

Proposition TE: An exception to the ‘mansion tax’

Proposition TE would grant a one-time exemption to Palisades fire victims from paying the so-called “mansion tax” if they sell their home within five years of the disaster.

The “mansion tax,” or Measure ULA, took effect in 2023 and imposed an additional 4% transfer tax on all L.A. property sales above $5.4 million and a 5.5% tax on sales above $10.9 million. Despite its nickname, the tax also falls on more modest multifamily residences like apartment buildings that exceed the sales price benchmarks.

The proposition would exempt Pacific Palisades homeowners from paying the tax, regardless of whether they lived at the property or not. It also would refund any resident who already sold their property and paid the tax.

The proposition was spearheaded by Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the region. Supporters say fire victims have been through enough and should have more flexibility as they navigate expensive rebuilding costs.

Opponents argue the proposition is too broad and should have included only victims whose primary residence was destroyed.

Charter Amendment LA: Restructuring how the city administers public works

Amendment LA is intended to more efficiently deliver basic city services for infrastructure in need of repair, including streets in need of repaving, dangerous sidewalks and broken streetlights. It also would leverage existing resources to open up sources of revenue.

The measure would reduce the sway of the Board of Public Works or pave the way to eliminate it, while also increasing the power of the director of public works. Critics oppose the elimination of the board, saying it would weaken accountability and increase public scrutiny.

Charter Amendment PL: Streamlining the Planning Department

L.A. residents have for years complained that navigating the Planning Department to build or open businesses is complicated and confusing.

Amendment PL includes five proposals that would increase efficiency and streamline certain parts of the Planning Department, which controls land use and approves construction and renovation projects.

The changes would consolidate seven Area Planning Commissions into one, partly to lower costs and ensure that all appeals and applications are governed by the same logic. It also would give the City Council more flexibility in approving taller buildings and set deadlines to speed up rulings from the City Planning Commission.

Charter Amendment PRK: Doubling the money for recreation and parks

Amendment PRK would double the minimum amount of money set aside for the Department of Recreation and Parks by reworking the parameters of the city budget.

The department is in charge of maintaining green spaces, playing fields and senior centers in the city. The City Charter mandates the department receive .0325% of the total assessed value of taxable properties, which is about $303 million for the park system this year and would be around $493 million in 10 years.

If the measure passes, that would double, meaning the park system would get a minimum of $986 million by 2036.

Supporters say the existing city allocation isn’t enough and has led to deteriorating recreation centers, swimming pools and restrooms. Critics warn it would force city officials to cut other services to make room for this additional funding.

Charter Amendment PRT: Changes to airports, harbor and water and power departments

Charter Amendment PRT is part of a package of proposed changes to the City Charter to increase transparency, build public trust and streamline operations. It would change how airports, harbors and the Department of Water and Power are managed.

The amendment would require that two of the seven members of the Los Angeles World Airport’s board of commissioners, who oversee Van Nuys and Los Angeles International airports, live in Van Nuys and three live around LAX.

It also would require the L.A. Board of Harbor Commissioners allocate a portion of its operating income from the Port of Los Angeles to investments in waterfront public access projects. The harbor is one of the busiest in the country and generates revenue from the operators at its terminals. PRT also would broaden public insight into how lease agreements with the port affect the local workforce.

Supporters say people overseeing Van Nuys and LAX should have a firsthand understanding of living near the airports.

No ballot argument against PRT was submitted, although the L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce said it opposes the measure, citing concern over the additional requirements it would impose on businesses and the potential impact on port operations.

Charter Amendment SC: Altering LAUSD’s campaign finance rules

Amendment SC wouldn’t make major changes, but would clarify rules on campaign finance for candidates running for a seat on the Board of Education, which oversees LAUSD.

Language would be simplified to clarify that the same rules apply for mayoral candidates and Board of Education candidates, except in certain instances. Some of those rules include governing campaign contribution limits, filing deadlines, public disclosures and fundraising windows.

Supporters say it won’t make any substantive changes, but instead make the rules easier to understand by deleting duplicated language. No argument was provided against the amendment.

The billionaires targeted by the wealth tax on the November ballot include owners of some of California’s top sports teams and, among them, there will be winners and losers if voters approve the measure.

Which owners would be ensnared by the proposed tax on billionaires’ assets remains unclear, since it’s largely dependent on whether they are declared official California residents, at least for state tax purposes. And that’s before lawyers and accountants get involved, an almost certain bet if the ballot measure is approved by California voters.

So it’s possible that the majority owner of the Los Angeles Chargers, Dean Spanos, would have to pay the the wealth tax while the owner of the Los Angeles Rams, San Kroenke, would not — even though both their teams are playing on the same home field at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. It all depends on whether the state considers Spanos or Kroenke official California residents and how their assets are tallied.

Other wealthy team owners or co-owners who have residences in California and could be subject to the tax include the Golden State Warriors’ Joe Lacob and Peter Guber, the San Diego Padres’ José E. Feliciano and Kwanza Jones, the San Jose Sharks’ Hasso Plattner and the Anaheim Ducks’ Henry Samueli.

Among those who appear to live out of state, according to news reports, and may not be impacted: the San Francisco 49ers’ Denise DeBartolo York and John York, the Los Angeles Clippers’ Steve Ballmer, the San Francisco Giants’ Charles Johnson, the L.A. Kings’ and the L.A. Galaxy’s Philip Anschutz.

In August, embattled billionaire Mark Walter agreed to sell the L.A. Lakers to former Disney chief executive Bob Iger and venture capitalist Joshua Kushner. The proposed billionaire tax would apply to Iger, who lives in California, but not Kushner, who lives in New York. A spokesperson for Iger declined comment. Walter, who also owns the Dodgers and has been under federal investigation, told the California Post on Wednesday that he has no plans to sell the team.

There is uncertainty and disagreement about how the tax would be levied on sports team owners, and how their ownership stakes would be evaluated by the state when assessing their assets.

Representatives of the Warriors and Chargers, declined comment. Spokespeople for the Kings, Padres, Sharks and Ducks did not respond to requests for comment, nor did representatives of Kroenke or Sun Microsystems co-founder Vinod Khosla, who lives in California and whose $9.6-billion purchase of the Seattle Seahawks was finalized in September.

Legendary sports agent Leigh Steinberg warned that the proposed tax would have unintended consequences. “It creates an uneven playing field,” he said. “Out-of-state owners get an advantage over in-state residents.”

Steinberg, who has represented more than 300 professional athletes including Troy Aikman, Drew Bledsoe, Michael Vick and Oscar De La Hoya, said the increased tax could be passed on to fans if voters approve Proposition 40 on Nov. 3.

“Ticket prices are high enough anyway, and somewhat prohibitive to a working person or young person attending a game live,” Steinberg said. “The last thing in the world positive for the growth of sports is passing on that surcharge.”

Dodgers fans buy food at Dodgers Stadium.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% levy on many of the assets of billionaires, including their holdings in companies. It was crafted by a healthcare union to compensate for federal healthcare cuts signed by President Trump last year that will cost California an estimated $100 billion, impacting the state’s most vulnerable residents.

David Gamage, a tax law and policy professor at the University of Missouri’s law school, countered that consumers would be far more hurt by the impacts of the impending federal healthcare funding cuts than by potentially higher prices at sporting events.

“The billionaire wealth tax would address the healthcare crisis caused by the Trump administration slashing Medicaid and other healthcare funding. Passing the billionaire wealth tax would be expected to reduce healthcare costs and thereby keep the prices of hot dogs and other consumer goods lower,” Gamage said. “Trying to fool voters by implying otherwise is shameful.”

More than 200 billionaires live in California, some of whom moved themselves or their businesses out of the state because of the proposed tax. Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of social media giant Meta, told company leaders that he planned to leave the state to avoid his control over the company being substantially diluted by being forced to sell enough stock to pay the proposed levy. Last week, the company announced the creation of a new nonvoting type of stock that would allow Zuckerberg to sell enough shares to pay the proposed tax while retaining his voting power in exchange for him agreeing to remain in the state for eight years.

Protesters in New York demonstrate against Elon Musk following the launch of the SpaceX initial public offering.

(Spencer Platt / Getty Images)

Proposition 40 supporters say that billionaire sports team owners have benefited from Trump’s tax cuts — dividends they didn’t share with the fans who spend hard-earned money to bring their families to games — and that they need to pay their fair share.

Opponents argue that professional sports are among myriad California economic engines that will suffer if voters approve the proposition, in part because owners based in the state would be subject to the tax while those who reside in other parts of the country would be exempt.

The measure “will also drive up the cost of operating a sports team in California, increasing the price of tickets, concessions and merchandise,” said Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable. “This is just one of many ways Proposition 40 will cost Californians.”

A poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies released Thursdayshowed public sentiment had turned against the billionaire tax, with half of likely voters opposing it and 42% supporting it.

Clippers owner Steve Ballmer addresses the crowd.

(Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

More than $404 million has been donated to efforts supporting and opposing the wealth tax, according to the California Secretary of State’s Office. Proponents of the ballot measure had raised $36.5 million as of Thursday, while opponents received nearly $368 million.

The residency of billionaires is often difficult to ascertain, given that many have multiple properties across the nation and around the world. It is not solely based on where the person is registered to vote.

Among the “facts and circumstances” the California Franchise Tax Board considers are the person’s employer, their spouse’s and childrens’ locations, where mail is delivered, and the location of doctors, accountants, lawyers, country club memberships and houses of worship. The number of days spent in California also is factored into the board’s assessment of residency.

Lakers part-owner Patrick Soon-Shiong at a game.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Los Angeles Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a billionaire, owns 4% of the Lakers and recently became a co-owner of a new women’s professional volleyball team in Los Angeles expected to start competing next year.

Soon-Shiong noted that it’s not only wealthy Californians who oppose the tax. Teachers, firefighters and other groups oppose Proposition 40 because of concerns about long-term impacts on the state. And, as a businessman with stakes in sports teams, he predicted bad effects on pro sports.

“It’s really, really expensive to bring a family to watch a professional game, whatever that game may be,” he said during an interview in September. “All those costs will go up, and for sure, it’ll be passed down to the cost of the ticket.”

Times Library Director Cary Schneider contributed to this report.

As California decides whether to slap billionaires with a special tax, the Golden State’s swarm of social media stars is chiming in — and increasingly getting paid to influence voters.

Unlikely influencers, from foodies to mothers to retirees, are weighing in on Proposition 40, a one-time 5% tax on the assets of the state’s roughly 200 billionaires and on other ballot measures created to cancel it.

Campaigns try to team up with and sometimes compensate key content creators, as their endorsements often hit harder than traditional political ads.

Between cheery Instagram videos about budget-friendly trips to a playground, a Halloween house and zoo with her kids, Bartley Chavez posted a video opposing Proposition 40 to her more than 47,500 followers.

“Look, I’m all for trying new things. A new recipe? Sure. A crazy haircut? Go for it. A quirky movie with the kids. Why not? But when we’re talking about California jobs, our family’s financial future, and the state’s economy, that’s not something I want to experiment with,” she says in the October video.

The video’s caption states the campaign opposing Proposition 40 paid her to post.

Getting political online does come with risks. In the video’s comments, one Instagram user said they unfollowed Chavez’s account, and another called her a “sell out.” Others backed her position. Chavez didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Los Angeles author and political influencer Leigh McGowan has built an audience of more than 3.5 million followers on different platforms with her no-nonsense takes on politics and other issues. She was already a supporter of the wealth tax when the Proposition 40 campaign started to pay for some of her posts.

“No one is punishing the rich. They are doing just fine,” she said in a sponsored video on Instagram. “We are simply asking them to pay an outstanding one-time tax that’ll help the rest of us.”

Campaigns have been paying attention to influencers as younger people turn to them for news, said McGowan, who’s known for pontificating from her kitchen. Many people distrust traditional media and want regular people to break down complex topics.

“We don’t know who to believe anymore, and there are just so many lies out there,” McGowan said in an interview. “The people who take the time to say authentically this is what they believe in, that’s who people believe.

In California, political ad spending in the 2026 election cycle is projected to approach $1 billion, more than any other state, according to political advertising intelligence firm AdImpact. Roughly $114 million is expected to go to digital platforms such as Facebook, Google, Snapchat and X.

The campaign opposing Proposition 40 has plenty of money to spend on political messaging in what’s become one of the most expensive ballot fights in California’s history. Billionaires such as Google co-founder Sergey Brin have donated millions to Building a Better California, a group funding ads against the wealth tax proposal. More than $350 million has been contributed to fight the billionaire tax and support two propositions — 41 and 42 — that could block it.

Campaign finance forms show how much groups spend on digital media, but they don’t say how much of that goes to influencers. While the data are limited, campaign leaders and other experts say social media stars are playing a bigger role in how brands and political movements advertise.

“Any modern campaign that wants to win needs to be active in spaces where voters get information — and that’s exactly what the No on 40 coalition is doing,” said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the coalition opposing Proposition 40.

Some political influencers broadcast their views independently or talk to campaigns without compensation. Others are paid a few hundred dollars or even up to $30,000 per post, according to an October report from the Center for Democracy & Technology and the Communication Technology Research Lab at the University of Pittsburgh.

Influencers will post content for political campaigns to make money, but “genuine belief in political issues or candidates can — and often does — coexist with compensation,” the report said.

One Los Angeles influencer, The Speech Prof, who has more than 1.7 million combined followers on Instagram and TikTok, said he refused money to stop the billionaire tax.

The creator, also known as Professor Chesko, talks about everything from parenting and misogyny to politics. In September, he posted a viral video in which he says he rejected a large amount of money to oppose the billionaire tax.

This month, he posted a new video backing the billionaire tax, noting that the Proposition 40 campaign paid him to make the content. “It’s not nearly as much, but they’re a healthcare union and not corporate oligarchs. Plus I already said where I stand for free,” he said in the October video.

Professor Chesko didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The storm of new voices chiming in on the political debate, delivered through people’s personalized social media feeds, could be causing confusion, said Ramesh Srinivasan, professor of information studies at UCLA.

“If I’m seeing a completely different reality than you, whether it’s through influencers, AI or social media microtargeting,” he said. “Then it’s impossible to have a common basis for making decisions or choices.”

While the anti-billionaire tax war chest is much bigger, groups behind the tax say they’re still winning on social media.

“Despite being heavily outspent, the Prop. 40 campaign has been beating the billionaires on social media content and impact,” said Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff for the SEIU-UHW, the healthcare union backing the billionaire tax.

She said influencers support the tax even when they’re not paid because they understand that “California needs functioning hospitals and emergency rooms, not more tax breaks for billionaires.”

Some sponsored influencers are avoiding direct criticism of the billionaire tax and instead signaling support for a ballot measure that could nullify Proposition 40 even if voters approve it.

Proposition 42 prohibits new taxes on “retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings,” but it conflicts with the billionaire tax proposal. If voters approve both, the one with the most “yes” votes generally would become law.

Karen Clay-Fenderson, a Los Angeles mom and retired teacher with more than 120,000 Instagram followers, has posted videos about Proposition 42.

“I did my research on 42, and I did see something about the billionaire tax. But I want to keep my retirement and my life savings. I don’t want that taxed,” she said in an interview.

She disclosed that the Proposition 42 campaign paid her for the videos, but didn’t go so far as to tell people how to vote.

“They understand that we have influence, and people listen to what we have to say,” she said. “That’s why I’m very cautious. This is what I’m doing, but you need to make your choice.”

In California, influencers must disclose that they are being paid by a political campaign. In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation that would penalize influencers who failed to disclose that they were paid to post political content. Influencers could face fines of up to $5,000 per post.

Social media platforms also have their own rules. Instagram allows paid political ads, but TikTok doesn’t — though enforcement has been an issue.

Nathan Click, a spokesperson for Proposition 42, said their partners disclose they are paid and follow all campaign laws.

“Creators play an important role in the political conversation,” he said. “And campaigns across the country partner with them to ensure their audiences understand what’s at stake in the election.”

California voters are souring on a Nov. 3 ballot measure to impose a one-time tax on billionaires to help fund healthcare programs, a proposal that has triggered one of the most expensive political battles in state history.

Half of likely voters plan to vote against Proposition 40, the proposed wealth tax on billionaires’ assets, while 42% support it, according to a new poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times. The findings mark a significant decline in support of the measure, which was crafted by an influential California healthcare union to compensate for an estimated $100 billion in federal healthcare cuts approved by President Trump and congressional Republicans.

The survey also found that a solid majority of likely voters opposed Proposition 39, which would require Californians to provide identification when voting and election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens. The findings come as the Trump administration continues to attack California as a haven for voter fraud, including unfounded allegations of rampant illegal voting by undocumented immigrants.

Mark DiCamillo, the poll’s director, said previous surveys showed support for Proposition 40 has been fragile, and the most recent shows its prospects have dimmed as election day approaches.

The increase in opposition to Proposition 40 is “broad-based and spans virtually all major segments of the electorate,” DiCamillio said. The ballot measure was leading in a Berkeley poll conducted just six weeks ago, albeit by a slim margin, so its reversal of fortune is significant, he said.

The declining support comes after an onslaught of money spent opposing Proposition 40, including a torrent of television and social media ads airing everywhere from NFL games to “Everybody Loves Raymond” reruns. Nearly $368 million has been contributed to efforts opposing the billionaire tax, while $36 million has been donated to support the proposed levy.

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 Republican voters overwhelmingly oppose Proposition 40, nearly two-thirds of Democrats support it and more than a quarter opposing it. There is also a generational divide, with 6 out of 10 voters 65 years old or older opposing the measure, while more than two-thirds of those under 30 supporting it, according to the poll.

The findings are similar to a Public Policy Institute of California poll released Tuesday, which found 52% of likely voters would vote against Proposition 40, while 46% supported it.

The campaign against the wealth tax, funded by some of California’s richest tech moguls, is centered on three intertwined ballot initiatives: Proposition 40 and Propositions 41 and 42, both of which would undercut Proposition 40 through a series of changes to state tax laws and spending restrictions.

Proposition 41 would cut wasteful government spending by requiring audits of new state special taxes and would bar new state taxes that are exempt from a state spending limit. Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on retirement holdings, individually owned assets and other personal savings. Both Propositions 41 and 42 would nullify the billionaire tax if it passes, provided either measure receives more votes.

A plurality of voters oppose Propositions 41 and 42, a reversal from just six week ago, according to the poll.

In mid-September, voters were closely divided about Proposition 41 — 37% in favor and 33% opposed — with a large number of undecided. In the current poll, 38% of likely voters favor the measure and 47% oppose it. Proposition 42 led by 9 percentage points in the Berkeley/L.A. Times poll in September — 43% in favor and 34% opposed. Now, 43% of likely voters support it and 45% oppose it.

DiCamillo said backers of a ballot measure also should be concerned any time support registers below 50%, since voters who are undecided or unsure tend to vote no.

“It’s below 50%, and it’s trending down. Both of those are ominous signs,” DiCamillo said. Proposition 42 is “still very close. I’m not saying it’s definitely going down, but it’s moving in the wrong direction late in the campaign, and usually movement in a late poll is even more significant than the actual numbers themselves,”

He added that while many voters were unaware the two proposed ballot measures were designed as poison pills to kill the billionaire tax, among those who knew, the opposition was significantly greater.

If all three measures fail, that still would be a victory for the billionaires who spent aggressively to tank the wealth tax.

Another notable finding was voters’ support of Proposition 3, which would make permanent a higher income tax rate on the wealthy that funds education. A majority of voters — 54% — support continuing the levy, while 37% oppose it, according to the poll. DiCamillo says the disparity in support of the proposed billionaire tax and the extension of the existing wealth tax has been consistent in IGS’s polls, and is likely because of the differing foundations of the levies.

“Proposition 3 is already in place, and if you read the fiscal impact, if this were to pass, it maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual funding,” he said, “It’s a big revenue generator, and I think that is something that’s already in place.”

“Voters kind of understand the progressive nature of California’s tax system, and they kind of support that, but they don’t support nearly as much the idea of some new kind of tax, the wealth tax, which is taxing assets rather than income,” he said. “So that’s the distinction.”

These ballot measures are among 14 that voters will decide on Nov. 3, as well as statewide, congressional, local and judicial elections.

Among the other controversial measures 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 also would 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.

Nearly 6 in 10 likely voters oppose the effort, while more than a third support it, split largely along party lines. More than half of voters who are registered as “no party preference” or with a smaller political party oppose the proposal, which DiCamillo said was an indication of trouble for the proposition given the state’s Democratic majority electorate and the proximity of the election.

“It’s hard for Republicans to push something over the finish line by themselves,” he said.

Other prominent ballot measures:

• Proposition 43, which would prohibit local governments from imposing certain new special taxes unless two-thirds of voters approve the proposal. Such proposals need a simple majority vote to be approved. While 46% of likely voters oppose the proposal, 36% support it, challenging numbers this close to election day, DiCamillo said. “It needs to get to 50,” he said. “We’ll see how you do that this late in the campaign.”

• Proposition 4, which would repeal a prohibition of public financing of campaigns, allowing state and local governments to support candidates if they abide by several rules. Likely voters are evenly split about the proposal, with 41% supporting it and opposing it, and 18% undecided. “It’s close, but it’s still below 50%. Most voters tend to vote no in the late going if they’re not convinced,” DiCamillo said, adding that he viewed the lack of support among voters who do not affiliate with a political party as a signal of potential failure.

The poll of 2,787 registered California voters was conducted online in English and Spanish Oct. 19-25 and has a margin of error of about 3 percentage points in either direction.

They hit you hardest if your income is close to one of the tax thresholds, but anyone who gets a pay rise is affected, as long as you earn enough to pay tax. Only people earning under £12,570 – the personal allowance threshold – pay no income tax.

By 2031 an extra 6.8 million people will be paying tax who wouldn’t have if the personal allowance had not been frozen, the OBR calculates.

The state pension is currently just below the personal allowance threshold, and pensioners looked set to be drawn into paying tax from next April, when the basic state pension rises to £13,036.

However, the chancellor is putting in place a new separate Pension Tax Allowance, which will ensure that low-income pensioners, with income up to the value of the full new state pension, will not pay income tax.

The personal allowance threshold is set for the whole UK, so people in Scotland will also be affected, although other tax bands there vary, external.

National Insurance Contributions (Nics) are levied according to the same thresholds.

The dueling campaigns over a Pasadena ballot measure that would levy a special tax on property owners for fire department funding are heating up in the run-up to the Nov. 3 election.

In a press release, the city of Pasadena last month encouraged neighborhood associations, homeowner groups and other organizations to host informational sessions on Measure PFD, featuring presentations from Fire Chief Chad Augustin and other city staff.

But if you ask opponents of the measure, these events are actually campaign stops.

The presentations focus on “everything that supposedly won’t happen” if the measure fails, according to a press release from the No on Measure PFD Campaign.

“The city has turned the fire department into the grassroots campaign arm for Yes on PFD,” said Matt Klink, a consultant for the No campaign.

Augustin disputed that characterization of the presentations and said he’s provided only factual information about the measure so residents can understand the choices before them. “That, in my mind, is education, not advocacy,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Yes on Measure PFD Campaign has accused the No campaign of running a digital ad and using website language suggesting that local firefighters don’t support the measure.

“None of the Pasadena firefighters support a no on Measure PFD,” said Raffy Bitchakdjian, president of the Pasadena Firefighters Assn. 809. “So for them to use our name, our likeness, and actually go say that is very deceptive.”

Here’s what to know about Measure PFD:

ROBBIE Williams has been cleared over controversial tax scheme links — paving the way for a gong in the King’s New Year’s Honours.

The pop superstar, 52, is in line for recognition for his charity work with Unicef and Soccer Aid after he founded the all-stars event in 2006.

Sources said the She’s the One singer’s tax affairs had been “green-flagged” after a probe, meaning Whitehall chiefs can put him ­forward to for an honour — and he could even be made a Sir.

He has previously been linked to investments in Ingenious Media, a financing company designated a tax avoidance scheme by HMRC.

Footie stars and other celebs — including David Beckham, Wayne Rooney and Ant and Dec — were caught up in the battle between Ingenious and investigators.

Becks, also a Unicef ambassador, was knighted in 2025 after HMRC conducted financial checks.

‘She understands’

Michael Douglas hopes Catherine accepts confessions about affairs

STAR SPLIT

Gary Wilmot, 72, reveals divorce from third wife after 23 years

And former Take That member Robbie is now set for a gong.

A source said: “Robbie’s name has been put forward and if he gets anything it’s likely to be a knighthood or possibly an OBE.

“He has raised hundreds of ­millions for charity and this year was the 20th year of Soccer Aid — which was his idea. So his name has been put on the list by the charity and philanthropy committee after it was green-flagged. There are more hoops to get through, and it needs to go forward to the main honours committee and then the PM and ultimately the King.

“Anyone who is high-profile is checked and vetted thoroughly.

“And one of those checks is their tax affairs, so it is a good sign for him that HMRC have given him the thumbs-up.”

It was reported in 2019 that he was barred from receiving an OBE over his links to the tax scheme and placed on an “honours blacklist”.

But he is understood to have now satisfied Treasury bosses over his finances.

Robbie, who with wife Ayda, 47, and their four kids lives part of the year in California, has a home in London and pays tax here.

Stoke-born Robbie — catapulted to fame when he joined Take That in 1990 — founded Soccer Aid with pal Jonathan Wilkes and the annual fundraiser has so far made more than £137million.

This year’s event at a sold-out London Stadium, screened live on ITV, raised more than £16million for Unicef.

Robbie started working with Unicef after seeing the organisation’s efforts in Sri Lanka in 1998 and became a UK ambassador in 2000.

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “We do not comment on speculation regarding honours.”

More than $351 million in political donations has been poured into a high-stakes contest about a proposed wealth tax on the November ballot, making it one of the most costly campaigns in California history.

About 90% of the money is being spent to defeat a statewide initiative to impose a new tax on the assets of billionaires, a multifaceted opposition effort bankrolled primarily by ultra-rich Californians being targeted by a measure that supporters call an economic reckoning.

The billionaire tax, Proposition 40, would levy a one-time, 5% tax on many assets of California billionaires who lived in the state as of Jan. 1.

Millions of dollars continue to flow into the campaigns of three intertwined ballot initiatives at the center of the debate: Proposition 40, and Propositions 41 and Proposition 42, which would neuter the Proposition 40 through strategic, esoteric tax law changes.

“The pro-40 campaign picked a fight and then came to that fight with a butter knife against a nuclear arsenal,” said GOP strategist Rob Stutzman, who is not involved in any of the wealth-tax-related ballot measures. “Because they’re so well funded, in today’s multifaceted media world, they are able to show up everywhere from network TV to inside video games. That is a very, very large advantage few campaigns ever get to have.”

But, Stutzman warned, money does not guarantee a win.

In the most expensive ballot measure fights in California history, $463 million was spent on two gambling proposals 2022. The initiatives pitted some of California’s most successful Native American tribes with gaming interests against gambling corporations, including online sports gaming companies DraftKings and FanDuel. Both side’s measure failed.

People attend a rally against Proposition 40 at the Iron Workers Apprenticeship Training Center on Oct. 5 in La Palma.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

The tax measure was crafted by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West in response to federal healthcare funding cuts signed by President Trump last year that are expected to reduce California’s healthcare budget by $100 billion, burdening the state’s most vulnerable residents.

“Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ slashes healthcare funding, with major coverage cuts scheduled to hit after the midterms,” said Suzanne Jimenez, the union’s chief of staff. “More than 3 million Californians could lose their health insurance. Hospitals and emergency rooms face closure. Patients will die unnecessarily when the care they need is no longer there. Proposition 40 is an emergency response to that looming disaster.”

The proposition’s supporters raised $34.3 million, nearly all of it from Jimenez’s union.

The two other measures, Propositions 41 and 42, would nullify the billionaire tax if either receives more votes.

Proposition 41 supporters say the measure aims to cut wasteful government spending by requiring audits for new state special taxes and would bar new state taxes that exempt their revenue from a state spending limit. Backers of Proposition 42 argue it would prohibit new taxes on retirement holdings, individually owned assets and other forms of personal savings.

Advocates for the billionaire tax say both are well-financed smokescreens to undercut Proposition 40.

Opposition campaigns to the wealth tax as well as the two countermeasures have received enormous donations from several of the state’s billionaires. But Building a Better California, the main funder of efforts to defeat the wealth tax, noted that its allies included Democratic and Republican politicians, prominent labor groups and business leaders.

“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 group said in a statement.

Among the largest donors opposing the wealth tax are billionaires Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google who has donated more than $100 million to anti-wealth-tax efforts, and former Google leader Eric Schmidt and venture capitalist L. John Doerr, who each kicked in $40 million.

Brin, Schmidt and Doerr did not respond to requests for comment.

US tech entrepreneur Sergey Brin and Gerelyn Gilbert-Soto arrive for the 2026 Met Gala celebrating “Costume Art” at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in May.

(ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images)

The spending disparity also reflects a divide among Democrats and their allies, many of whom support wealth taxes, but argue that the way Proposition 40 was written is disastrous to California’s volatile budget, which is dependent on the state’s wealthiest residents.

Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said that while her organization would support a nationwide or a California wealth tax, their primary concerns are about 40’s impacts on the state budget and healthcare in the state.

“We are opposed to this particular proposal because we think it does more harm than good,” she said, adding that after what her organization “faced last year having to scramble for dollars because of [federal funding cuts] we are committed to work with the stakeholders facing cuts and not harming the budget and finding revenue in a smart way.”

The cash imbalance between supporters and opponents of the billionaire tax is vast. Those opposed to the measure raised $316.7 million, while proponents raised nearly $34.3 million.

The Fair Games Coalition, made up of community leaders, labor organizations and advocates, announce the launch of the Overpaid CEO Tax Initiative in front of the Tesla Diner in West Hollywood in January.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

The supporters of the wealth tax spent nearly all of their money gathering signatures to place the measure on the ballot. They had $1.6 million on hand as of Oct. 17.

Now, as voters cast ballots, their campaign appears reliant on public events and media coverage, such as of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) recent rally in support of Proposition 40 in downtown Los Angeles.

“What you are showing people from coast to coast and all over is that, yes, we can take on the greed of the oligarchs,” he said, calling it the most important ballot measure in the country. “Yes, we can create an economy and a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.”

Facebook creator and Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg was among the California billionaires Sanders name-checked in his remarks. After Zuckerberg told company leaders that he planned to leave the state to avoid his control over the company substantially reduced by being forced to sell enough of his stock in the social media giant to pay the proposed levy, the company on Wednesday announced the creation of a new, non-voting type of stock that would allow Zuckerberg to sell enough shares to pay the proposed tax while retaining his voting power in exchange for him agreeing to remain in the state for eight years.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg listens as President Trump speaks to reporters at the White House on Sept. 29.

(Jacquelyn Martin / Ap Photo/jacquelyn Martin)

The pro-wealth-tax campaign is sending voters emails and texts and has an online presence.

“Remember: it’s not enough to vote YES on 40. You also need to vote NO on 41 + 42,” read an email sent to voters on Tuesday. “Don’t be fooled: Props 41 and 42 are billionaire-funded initiatives designed specifically to undermine Prop 40, the California Billionaire Tax.”

Meanwhile, the anti-40 and pro-42 campaigns are inundating voters on television, streaming services, in mailboxes, through online influencers and even in digital video games such as Sim City.

Jimenez said voters will see through the blizzard of campaign messaging.

“The billionaires think voters are stupid. They think they can bury the facts under millions of dollars in advertising and disguise Prop. 42 … as protection for ordinary taxpayers,” she said. “Their spending also makes our case for us. When billionaires can afford to spend millions a day protecting their fortunes, voters can see that billionaires have plenty of money to spare.”

Sheri Sadler, a veteran Democratic media buyer, questioned how much voters were hearing about the rationale for the proposed billionaire tax.

“The yes side is severely lacking in getting their message through while the no side is dipping into different kinds of pockets,” she said.

Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Law School, said that beyond voter confusion about the competing ballot measures, it is certain to face legal challenges, notably about the retroactive nature of the tax, which would apply to any billionaire who lived in California as of Jan. 1. She described that as “the biggest legal pressure point.”

“It’s kind of a mess,” she said.

Times staff writer Gabrielle LaMarr LeMee contributed to this report.

Foes of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is widely viewed as a likely 2028 presidential candidate, are launching television and digital ads this weekend in early primary states that criticize the governor’s opposition to the proposed billionaire tax on California’s November ballot.

The ad, funded by backers of the wealth tax, castigates Newsom for opposing Proposition 40, the ballot measure that would impose a 5% tax on California billionaires’ assets to offset federal healthcare funding cuts approved by congressional Republicans and signed by President Trump last year.

“We’re all struggling with the high cost of healthcare. In California, Democrats are championing a one-time tax on billionaires that would save coverage for millions,” a narrator says in the 30-second ad. “So why [has] presidential hopeful Gavin Newsom betrayed his own supporters by trying to sabotage the billionaire tax? Maybe it’s because the same billionaires who oppose Prop. 40 also gave millions of dollars to Newsom. Gavin Newsom turned his back on working Californians. Will he do the same to you?”

The ad specifically calls out billionaires Stewart Resnick, who owns several businesses including Pom Wonderful, Fiji Water and Justin Wines; crypto executive Chris Larsen; former Google leader Eric Schmidt; and venture capitalist Michael Moritz, all of whom have backed Newsom’s political ambitions.

Newsom has argued that, although he supports wealth taxes, they ought to be enacted at the national level, rather than a state-by-state patchwork that could drive the rich to leave California, a state with a volatile budget heavily dependent on the state’s wealthiest residents.

The primary funders of the ad are the Service Employees International Union – United Healthcare Workers West, which crafted Proposition 40; Saikat Chakrabarti, a climate change warrior and political advisor who made his wealth in part as a founding engineer at Stripe; and Ross Boucher, an early engineer at Stripe.

The ad buy is six figures but could grow, according to its backers. Among the states where the ad is expected to air are South Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and New Hampshire.

Earlier this month, Newsom stumped for candidates in New Hampshire, his latest foray to early presidential primary states.

The ad launch comes amid a contentious, expensive battle over the proposed wealth tax, which has divided Democrats and their allies. Although Newsom is among Democrats who oppose it, the ballot measure was endorsed by the state Democratic Party and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Voters are closely divided about the measure.

Saira Hayati and her daughter wanted a ‘better lifestyle’

A British mum moved abroad to afford a better lifestyle and said she saves £2,141 a month as well as enjoying weekly £20 massages, polo lessons, a cleaner and a pool.

Saira Hayati, 50, from Gravesend, Kent, relocated in 2024 after years of navigating financial uncertainty and learning to prepare for economic downturns. The mum-of-five said her monthly household budget in the UK was around £3,612 to £3,929 and stretched to the rare massage, a gym membership and access to a lake in the summer.

She now estimates she spends £1,788 to £1,874 a month in Melaka, Malaysia, and gets more luxuries – including a weekly massage and a cleaner. Her plan was originally to retire, but she has found work doing social media and doesn’t stress about inconsistent earnings as she doesn’t “need” it.

Saira, a content creator and entrepreneur, said: “The problem is in England no matter how much you earn it’s not enough. I’m swimming, juicing, enjoying the sunshine. I feel healthier, happier, and more relaxed. My kids have said they noticed a difference.”

About more than money

The move has been more than just money saving for Saira, who is now embracing a new chapter with her youngest child while working to rebuild connections with her older children after spending most of her time focused on her career. Her other children are still living and working in England.

After a 22-year marriage ended, she found love again in Malaysia and remarried four months ago. The former director of a national mortgage brokerage says the lower cost of living has given her more freedom to enjoy everyday luxuries without the same financial pressure she experienced in England.

She said: “Over here for me to have a two-hour massage is £20. So I go for massages every week.”

Her Malaysian monthly budget includes £150 for a cleaner, £300 for her daughter’s online tuition and £87 for weekly massages. She pays £20 a month in local charges, compared with £280 in UK council tax, while her electricity costs around £100 a month – three times less than her gas and electricity in England.

Her water bill is just £5 a month, compared with £150 in the UK, while her mobile phone costs £10, rather than £50. Saira spends around £639 a month on eating out and takeaways in Malaysia, covering breakfast and dinner for three every day rather than food shops.

In England takeaways and eating out was a treat, at £100 to £200 per month. Buying her 3,700sqft five-bedroom, six-bathroom, home outright in Malaysia cost her £165,000 and Saira benefited from a better exchange rate in December 2023. In Kent, her monthly mortgage was £1,400 a month for a four-bedroom detached house.

How Saira’s outlook was shaped

Saira’s financial outlook was shaped by experiencing four major recessions and the impact of the 2008 crash on her property management business. At the time, she was working as a director of a property management agency and had a professional portfolio of 350 properties, alongside around ten properties in her personal portfolio. She spoke about the fear of falling into negative equity and having to “tighten the purse strings” on her family’s finances during the credit crunch, including pulling her children out of private school.

She said: “The cost of living is making people squeezed from every angle. The burden is heavier now than it was and people just aren’t in a position to do what they strive to.”

She said the pressure facing households in England had become increasingly difficult, regardless of how much people earned. Saira began selling properties from her personal portfolio before leaving the UK, eventually putting more than £100,000 into a Singapore vault with gold to give her family a financial safety net.

The fund means she no longer feels compelled to keep earning more money simply to feel secure. She said the £100,000 was enough to protect her family for years in an emergency living in Malaysia.

She said: “I’m comfortable in the sense that I don’t need any more emergency fund and I don’t need to earn any more than I need.”

For Saira, moving abroad was not just about cutting bills, but about finding somewhere she could enjoy a better quality of life and spend more time with her family without constantly worrying about money.

She said: “I’ve positioned myself somewhere that I know I can have a decent lifestyle that isn’t going to cost me a lot of money. That’s the kind of guidance I’m giving people having done it myself.”

Saira’s costs

Mortgage/rent

UK: £1,400

Malaysia: £0 – home owned outright

Council tax/local collection charge

UK: £280

Malaysia: £20

Service charge: grounds, pool and gym

UK: Not included

Malaysia: £30

Gas and electricity

UK: £300

Malaysia: £100 – electricity only

Water

UK: £150

Malaysia: £5

Internet

UK: £50

Malaysia: £50

Mobile phone

UK: £50

Malaysia: £10

Groceries

UK: £650 to £867

Malaysia: £80 – fruit, juicing supplies, and toiletries

Eating out/takeaways

UK: £100 to £200

Malaysia: £639 – breakfast and dinner for three daily

Fuel

UK: £217

Malaysia: £87 to £173

Car costs: insurance, tax, service, repairs

UK: £200

Malaysia: £110

Home insurance

UK: £75 – buildings and contents

Malaysia: £20 – buildings

Cleaner

UK: Not included

Malaysia: £150

Child tuition

UK: £0

Malaysia: £300

Gym

UK: £40

Malaysia: Included in service charge

Clothes, toiletries, haircuts and dental

UK: £100

Malaysia: Toiletries above; other costs not totalled

Weekly massages

UK: Not included

Malaysia: £87

Monthly totals

UK: £3,612 to £3,929

Malaysia: £1,788 to £1,874

Annual totals

UK: £43,344 to £47,148

Malaysia: £21,456 to £22,488

Los Angeles is still struggling to bring filming back to the region, though projects that receive a state tax credit are making up a growing share of local shoot days, according to a new report.

For the three-month period that ended Sept. 30, there were 4,171 shoot days in the greater L.A. area, down 4.8% compared with the same period last year, according to FilmLA Research, a program of FilmLA which tracks on-location production. That’s also down about 11.5% from the second quarter, and nearly 29% below the five-year average.

“Where the tax credit applies, it’s working to bring productions back to Los Angeles and put local crews to work,” FilmLA Chief Executive Denise Gutches said in a statement. “Still, overall production remains far below where Los Angeles needs it to be, and crews and businesses across the region are feeling it.”

The report counts only on-location filming. Productions shot on certified soundstages aren’t included.

Television shoot days totaled 1,400, a 2.8% slide from the third quarter of 2025 and a drop of nearly 53% compared with the five-year average. About 23% of the TV shoot days were for incentivized projects, up from about 9% a year earlier. Among them was the CBS drama “Tracker,” which relocated to L.A. from Vancouver for the show’s fourth season after receiving a state tax credit.

“California’s incentive is what made it possible to bring ‘Tracker’ here,” Elwood Reid, showrunner and executive producer of “Tracker,” said in a statement. “Los Angeles is the big leagues, and after more than a decade away, I’d forgotten what I was missing.”

Within television, comedy made the biggest gains, with 192 days of filming, up 143% from the 79 days in the third quarter of 2025. More than 60% of the comedy shoot days were for projects that received a production incentive, FilmLA said. The organization said this figure could be even higher, as many comedies shoot on soundstages, which are not included in this report. Promisingly, the third-quarter comedy numbers were a 16% improvement on the five-year average.

Other TV genres lost ground, including drama (494 days, down 9.4%), reality programming (630 days, down 2.9%) and pilots (9 days, down 52.6%).

Feature film production was a bright spot, with 533 shoot days, up 2.1% from a year earlier and about 20% from the second quarter. About 24% of that filming came from incentivized projects, up from about 22% a year earlier, including Netflix’s “13 Going on 30” reboot and Jonah Hill’s comedy “Cut Off” from Warner Bros., according to FilmLA. However, the third-quarter numbers are still a 19.3% decline when compared to the five-year average.

Production for commercials, which are not eligible for a state tax credit, continued to struggle, with 562 shoot days, down nearly 16% from the same time period in 2025, though it improved 3.5% from the second quarter.

FilmLA’s “other” category, which includes student productions, still photo shoots, documentaries and online content, totaled 1,676 shoot days, a 4.2% drop from the same period in 2025. Within that category, however, online content accounted for 556 days of filming, up 16.3% from last year.

Paddy Power-owner Flutter has announced plans to cut up to 1,400 jobs as its boss claimed the company “cannot fully absorb” tax rises imposed on the gambling industry.

Staff based in Leeds and Dublin, as well as workers for its UK and Ireland business at Flutter’s Portugal and Romania sites, will be most affected, but what roles are at risk has not been disclosed.

The government announced taxes rises on online casino and sports betting, with an exemption for horse racing, in the Budget last year.

Flutter boss Kevin Harrington said the tax hikes had “fundamentally changed” the economic model of the UK betting and gaming industry, arguing it had helped “fuel the unlicensed, unregulated market”.

“We continue to expect these tax increases to have a very significant impact on the overall market,” Flutter Entertainment said on Tuesday.

Flutter, which also owns Sky Bet and Betfair, employs 28,500 people across the world, including 9,000 in the UK and Ireland.

As well as its Leeds and Dublin offices, the BBC understands the cuts could also affect staff based in London and Sunderland, as well as Malta and Gibraltar.

Harrington, who is chief executive of the betting giant’s UK and Ireland business, said: “As we warned a year ago, we cannot fully absorb a rise of this magnitude without reducing our fixed cost base and therefore must restructure our business so that we can best position ourselves for the future.”

The BBC has contacted the Treasury for comment.

Flutter delisted from the London Stock Exchange in August in a blow to the UK, with its shares now solely traded in New York.

In its most recent results, the company reported a $299m (£224m) pre-tax loss for the three months to June for its entire business worldwide, compared to a $205m profit in the same period last year. Sales rose 3% to $4.3bn.

However, revenues in the UK and Ireland rose by 4% over the period, due to strong growth in online gambling games.

Some online gambling tax rises announced in last year’s Budget took effect in April. This included remote gaming duty, which is paid on online casino betting, rising from 21% to 40%.

General betting duty, paid on the profits made from various forms of sports betting, was kept at 15% in betting shops, but is set to rise from 15% to 25% online in April next year.

Betting firms had warned that cost increases would lead to job losses and betting shop closures, but MPs dismissed the warnings as “scaremongering”.

During the summer, Ladbrokes owner Entain announced job cuts, with news agency Reuters reporting 500 roles were being removed.

Punters’ winnings from gambling are not taxed in the UK, nor is VAT charged on bets.

Flutter said its restructuring plan would cost between $80m and $90m.

The company has claimed in previous financial results that the impact of UK tax rises would hit its underlying profit by $320m this year and $540m in 2027, before any savings or restructure to mitigate the impact.