Proposition 40 Doesn’t Deliver What the Inland Empire Actually Needs

More than 1.8 million residents across the Inland Empire, roughly four in ten of us, rely on Medi-Cal for coverage. Many of our families stand to lose coverage due to federal and state budget cuts and newly imposed enrollment requirements. We face a health care safety net crisis that requires a viable solution. Proposition 40 is being offered as that solution, but unfortunately, this measure doesn’t hold up to the scrutiny it deserves. Inland Empire Community News recommends a no vote.

Proposition 40 proposes a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of California’s roughly 200 billionaires to raise an estimated $100 billion for health care, food assistance, and education. It’s easy to see why the idea has caught on: a wealth tax is a relatively new approach, and it taps into a popular sentiment that the wealthiest should contribute more at a time of high inequality and real strain on working families. But popularity isn’t the same as sound policy, and this measure is unlikely to deliver on its promise.

Here’s why. Unlike an income tax, which applies to money someone actually earns, a wealth tax requires valuing everything a person owns—stock, a business, often assets with no simple market price. That complexity invites legal disputes, and because no other state has attempted a tax quite like this, Proposition 40 is likely to face years of court challenges before its fate is settled, delaying the funding needed now.

That legal uncertainty adds to a deeper financial risk. Several of California’s wealthiest residents have already relocated out of state ahead of the tax’s residency deadline, and every departure means years of future income tax revenue the state won’t collect. A one-time tax that risks the state’s ongoing, dependable tax base is a trade-off this measure doesn’t grapple with honestly. And even by its own numbers, a single infusion of cash doesn’t fix an ongoing, structural funding gap. The Inland Empire needs a lasting strategy, not a stopgap that leaves next year’s shortfall unresolved. 

Other policies have been proposed, including reversing the 2017 federal tax cuts that benefited high earners and passing a national minimum tax rate for those earning more than $100 million a year. These and other possible solutions may take longer to enact, but would apply evenly across states and avoid the risk of relocation.

There’s also the question of accountability. Ninety percent of the revenue would go toward health care, but the measure’s language lacks the specificity to guarantee it reaches the people it’s meant to help. No program thresholds, specific outcomes, or independent audit are included to ensure the funds are doing what’s promised. For families across the Inland Empire who depend on Medi-Cal, that’s the difference between making short-term promises to those in need and building a true safety net.

None of this means the concerns driving Proposition 40 are misplaced. But a legitimate concern doesn’t automatically justify a rushed, one-time measure pushed onto the ballot without the deliberation a policy this consequential deserves.

That rushed process is itself worth examining. SEIU California, the broader state union body, has not endorsed Proposition 40, only SEIU-UHW backs it. Reporting has also raised questions about how forcefully the measure’s backers pursued support from within their own ranks. The lack of consensus even within organized labor is worth keeping in mind when weighing the intent behind this measure.

Although the measure has some high-profile supporters, those currently in charge of California’s budget, and those hoping to be, are opposed. This includes Governor Newsom, along with both major candidates for governor, Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton. Also opposed are organizations including the California Medical Association, the California Teachers Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

Inland Empire families deserve real, lasting solutions to the health care crisis they’re already living through, not a rushed measure that asks us to trust the process more than the policy. Vote No on Proposition 40.