taxes

Reporting from Sacramento — California cities and counties won’t be allowed to tax soda for the next 12 years after Gov. Jerry Brown signed fast-moving legislation Thursday.

The bill, which was first unveiled Saturday evening, prohibits local governments from imposing new taxes on soda until 2031. It comes after a deal was struck between legislators and business and labor interests who agreed to remove an initiative from the Nov. 6 statewide ballot that would have restricted cities and counties from raising any taxes without a supermajority vote of local citizens.

In a signing statement, Brown said soda taxes “combat the dangerous and ill effects of too much sugar in the diets of children.” But he added that mayors across the state called him to support the deal because they were alarmed by the tax initiative.

Brown also reacted strongly to another part of the initiative, which would have restricted the state’s ability to raise certain fees without a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

“This would be an abomination,” Brown wrote.

Many lawmakers shared Brown’s mixed emotions toward the soda tax ban.

During debate on the legislation, Assembly Bill 1838, legislators said they reluctantly voted to impose the moratorium because the ballot measure, for which signatures were gathered by a political campaign financed by more than $7 million from the beverage industry, would have been worse for state and local government coffers.

Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) said he was against both the soda tax ban and how the beverage industry used the threat of an initiative to force the Legislature’s hand, but ultimately supported it.

“I think this is a terrible decision that we’re making,” McCarty said during a state Capitol hearing on the bill Thursday morning.

Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) voted against the deal, but said he understood the choice his colleagues were making.

The beverage “industry is aiming basically a nuclear weapon at governing in California and saying if you don’t do what we want, we’re going to pull the trigger and you are not going to be able to fund basic government services,” Wiener said. “This is a pick-your-poison kind of situation, a Sophie’s choice. What the Legislature is doing is perfectly reasonable.”

Coverage of California politics »

Minutes after Brown signed the soda tax ban, proponents formally withdrew their initiative from the statewide ballot. The deadline to do so was Thursday.

The initiative wouldn’t have banned local soda or other tax increases. But it would have made them much harder to pass. It would have required all local tax hikes to pass by a two-thirds supermajority vote, making it significantly more difficult for cities and counties to raise revenue for a variety of projects.

Currently, any local sales, hotel-room or other tax increase needs a simple majority of local ballots that are cast — provided that the money goes to a city’s day-to-day operating budget. Roughly half of the local tax measures approved by voters since 2012 — raising hundreds of millions of dollars annually — did not receive supermajority approval, according to the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Public health advocates have been pushing for soda taxes across the United States for years, saying that higher prices would reduce consumption amid growing rates of obesity and diabetes while also generating more revenue for local governments. By contrast, the beverage industry has argued such taxes make it harder for low-income residents to buy groceries and unfairly single out soda as the cause of health problems.

Thirty cities and states attempted to pass soda taxes before Berkeley became the first to succeed in November 2014, charging a penny-per-ounce tax. Since then, three other Bay Area cities — San Francisco, Oakland and Albany — have passed soda taxes. The soda tax ban leaves those measures intact, but prohibits others that would have taken effect this year. Earlier this week, Santa Cruz city officials voted to put a 1.5-cent-per-ounce soda tax on the November ballot, an effort that will be blocked under the new state legislation.

California Legislature nears deal to temporarily ban soda taxes »

Activists were stunned by the quick action on the soda tax ban. Carter Headrick, director of state and local obesity policy initiatives at the American Heart Assn., said using a ballot initiative to leverage lawmakers to prohibit soda taxes in communities across California was “blackmail.”

“I don’t think the [beverage industry] ought to be forcing legislators to be taking away the rights of people to vote,” Headrick said.

Some lawmakers attacked the deal because they supported the initiative. Sen. Jeff Stone (R-Temecula) said that Thursday’s decision subverted the will of Californians who wanted to keep their taxes low.

“This bill tells 1 million people that signed this petition to make it harder to raise their taxes that their voices don’t matter,” Stone said.

The American Beverage Assn., which represents soda companies and other nonalcoholic drink manufacturers, contributed 85% of the initial $8.3 million raised by backers of the ballot measure.

A spokesman for the association said that the legislation would keep grocery prices lower and that the industry was working to find alternatives to reduce sugar consumption.

“We believe the legislation approved today will allow us to work toward these goals,” association spokesman William M. Dermody Jr. said in a statement.

Labor interests added momentum to the eleventh-hour soda tax ban legislation, saying the initiative would be far more damaging to the state.

“A temporary pause on further local soda taxes gives California the opportunity to work on a statewide approach to the public health crisis of diabetes,” Alma Hernandez, executive director of SEIU California, said in a statement.

liam.dillon@latimes.com

Twitter: @dillonliam

UPDATES:

6:30 p.m.: This article was updated with comments from a beverage industry spokesman.

3:55 p.m.: This article was updated with Gov. Jerry Brown approving the soda tax ban and details about the withdrawal of a local tax ballot initiative.

This article was originally published at 12:45 p.m.

Caracas, April 9, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez announced a series of upcoming reforms concerning Venezuela’s labor, tax, and pension frameworks during a press conference on Wednesday, April 8. 

Addressing her cabinet at Miraflores Presidential Palace, Rodríguez unveiled the creation of a commission made up of representatives from the state, business sector, active workers, and pensioners to “review labor conditions, address precariousness, and strengthen the social security system.”

Rodríguez acknowledged deficiencies in areas such as working hours, vacation benefits, and pensions, arguing that the present social security system is not sustainable due to insufficient contributions from active workers and the private sector.

The acting president disclosed an upcoming increase to workers’ incomes on May 1, but did not specify if it would come in the form of an adjusted minimum wage or non-wage bonuses. Rodríguez warned that salary adjustments must be “responsible” so that they do not trigger inflation.

Venezuelan authorities have discussed the prospect of reforming the 2012 Labor Law for several months, installing several dialogue commissions and public debates.

The existing labor law, approved by former President Hugo Chávez, prohibits unfair dismissal and outsourcing, enshrines the world’s third-longest maternity leave, guarantees the right to work for both women and people with disabilities, and extends retirement pensions to all workers, including full-time mothers and the self-employed. However, trade unions have pointed out that state institutions and the Labor Ministry have reduced their enforcement of the law in recent years.

Rodríguez’s public broadcast came hours before workers and unions staged a mobilization in Caracas demanding higher wages, improved working conditions, and the repeal of statutes that suspended several collective bargaining rights. In recent protests, workers have called for an end to the government’s bonus-based wage policy and the restoration of collective bargaining agreements.

Venezuela’s minimum wage has remained unchanged since March 2022 at 130 bolívares per month—equivalent at the time to around US $30 but presently worth approximately $0.27 at the official exchange rate.

With the economy heavily constrained by US sanctions, the Venezuelan government relied on non-wage bonuses—paid in bolívares but pegged at a fixed US dollar amount. A recent increase took the so-called Economic War Bonus, paid to public sector employees, to $150 a month. Coupled to a $40 food bonus, it brought the floor income to $190.

Public sector retirees and pensioners receive $130 and $60 Economic War bonuses, and do not access the food bonus.

For their part, business sector representatives have demanded changes to the labor law that reduce costs for employers before any adjustment to the minimum wage. Amid ongoing discussions with the International Labour Organization (ILO), private sector organizations proposed modifying Article 122 of the Labor Law, which establishes that severance payments are calculated based on the last salary earned by the worker.

Tax reform and state asset review

Rodríguez also announced the immediate convening of a National Economic Council tasked with designing a more “efficient” tax model aimed at making Venezuela “more competitive.”

“I hope that this council can produce a new tax model that can generate consensus among the different economic sectors in the country,” the Venezuelan leader stressed. 

She further enacted the Law on Streamlining and Optimization of Administrative Procedures, previously approved by the National Assembly, which seeks to modernize public administration by reducing bureaucracy and incorporating digital tools. According to Rodríguez, the law grants the executive authority to eliminate procedures, shorten timelines, and improve coordination between institutions.

In addition, she ordered the creation of a mixed commission to evaluate which state-owned assets have “strategic” importance, potentially opening some to private investment. However, she clarified that the hydrocarbons sector will remain under state control. The Cisneros group, one of Venezuela’s largest conglomerates, recently announced plans to raise funds ahead of an “expected wave of privatizations.”

The Venezuelan acting administration’s wholesale reform plans follow a recent pro-business overhaul of the Hydrocarbon Law in late January. The South American country’s National Assembly is likewise close to approving a new Mining Law with the goal of attracting foreign investment for extractive activities.

On Wednesday, Rodríguez additionally called for reforms to the country’s housing laws, claiming that there are half a million “frozen” properties presently that could be incorporated into the real estate market.

The acting president’s final announcement was a nationwide “pilgrimage” scheduled from April 19, Venezuela’s Independence Day, to May 1 to demand the lifting of US unilateral coercive measures against the Caribbean nation. While the Trump administration has issued selective and restrictive licenses to favor the participation of Western companies in the Venezuelan oil and mining sectors, wide-reaching sanctions remain in place.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.