California November ballot: a billionaire tax and new local tax limits

California has long been synonymous with high taxes, but new fights over who will pay them are exposing a sharper fault line.

The state increasingly reaches for “tax the rich” tools to fund housing and social programs, while anti-tax forces try to constrain those same tools.

California’s tax fight is unfolding under a national spotlight. Lawmakers and advocates are testing how far “tax the rich” politics can go in expensive states. California needs money for affordable housing and social services, yet risks pushing property and wealth taxes so hard that they slow construction or spook investors.

Other high-cost states, such as New York, are experimenting with higher taxes on luxury homes and high-dollar transactions. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul recently signed into law a tax on luxury New York City homes owned by nonresidents.

What California decides on transfer taxes, “mansion” levies and billionaire wealth measures this year could shape how other states pursue politically viable ways to make homes more affordable.

Transfer tax deal in Sacramento

In late June, that tension surfaced in Sacramento in a deal over transfer taxes. California YIMBY and other housing groups backed Assembly Bill 736.

AB 736 would have set a statewide ceiling on local transfer taxes. It would have limited city and county transfer taxes to 1.5% of a property’s sale price. Supporters said the bill would prevent future local taxes from climbing to levels that could discourage transactions and weaken housing production.

The bill advanced alongside a ballot initiative from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. That measure would have sharply limited transfer taxes and tightened rules for local special taxes. It threatened to dramatically reduce local governments’ ability to raise money from property sales.

Instead of going to the November ballot, the association withdrew the initiative after lawmakers crafted a compromise state constitutional amendment for the November ballot. Voters will decide whether to raise the threshold for future local special taxes to two-thirds, as laid out in Proposition 13, passed in 1978, instead of a simple majority.

The California Association of Realtors opposed the taxpayers association’s initiative and AB 736. The group said the bill would have incentivized cities to increase transfer taxes up to the new cap. It supported the compromise, however.

“While the amendment would apply going forward rather than to taxes already in place, it would protect taxpayers by returning the two-thirds threshold to all ballot measures for all local special tax measures,” it wrote in an update to members.

California YIMBY called the defeat of AB 736 a failure but pointed to one upside. The group noted that cities now face a much higher bar to pass new transfer taxes and existing taxes cannot be undone.

The pro-housing group has vowed to continue the push for transfer tax reform. An initial salvo came in a Washington Post opinion written by Michael Manville, a professor of urban planning at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

Manville focuses on how Measure ULA – known as the “mansion tax” – was intended to do good but has had a negative impact.

Voters approved ULA in 2022, adding a 4% tax on sales over $5 million. It also imposed a 5.5% tax on sales above $10 million. Supporters promised hundreds of millions annually for homelessness programs and subsidized housing.

“When the tax took effect, higher-end sales plunged and stayed down,” he wrote, based on his own research and a Rand study.

Billionaire wealth tax debate

The statewide fight over taxing billionaires raises similar questions. On November’s ballot, voters will consider a one-time 5% tax on billionaire net worth. The measure applies to residents whose assets exceed $1 billion.

Supporters call it a way to fund health care, education and food assistance. They emphasize that very few taxpayers would pay the levy.

Opponents see another narrow, high-rate tax aimed at a small group. They warn it could encourage avoidance strategies or prompt some billionaires to leave. That, they argue, could destabilize revenue and investment.

Business leaders and taxpayer organizations back countermeasures to limit such taxes. Some proposals would neutralize the billionaire tax if it passes. Others would ban new taxes on personal property and retroactive taxes on accumulated wealth.

These efforts seek to set constitutional limits on how California taxes wealth and savings. Rather than fighting each proposal individually, opponents want durable guardrails.

Housing advocates are trying to balance production concerns with the need for new funding. They support curbing extreme transfer taxes that hit development hardest. Yet they also rely on targeted taxes to finance affordability programs.

Taken together, the transfer-tax negotiations, Los Angeles’s experience with ULA, and the billionaire-tax campaigns show that housing and tax policy are converging. As California searches for ways to finance housing and social services, the design of taxes on property and wealth becomes crucial. Who is taxed, at what rate and with what behavioral effects now sits at the center of the debate.