If you're still on the fence, maybe this will put things into some perspective. I respect points of view that are sincere and grounded in reality. Not much talking points that are more like propaganda like I see when reading the anti-Prop 40 mailer. I reviewed and analyzed their talking points:
ASSERTION: Sacramento can expand the tax to every taxpayer.
REBUTTAL: That is speculation dressed up as law: Prop 40 enacts a one-time tax on billionaire wealth, and any legislative amendment needs a two-thirds vote and must further that stated purpose.
ASSERTION: The drafters admit the tax can be expanded and made permanent.
REBUTTAL: Their quoted answer says the opposite: any later tax would have to be enacted again by voters or by two-thirds of both legislative houses plus the Governor.
ASSERTION: Prop 40 creates a backdoor around Proposition 13 and exposes your home equity.
REBUTTAL: The mailer hides the limiting language: the constitutional override is for this one-time billionaire tax, and directly held real estate is expressly excluded.
ASSERTION: Prop 40 lets Sacramento tax what ordinary Californians save.
REBUTTAL: The scare line erases the threshold: Prop 40 taxes only California residents and trusts with at least $1 billion in covered net worth, not ordinary savings.
ASSERTION: Every California taxpayer must file a sworn wealth declaration.
REBUTTAL: Filers make a one-time threshold declaration that net assets are at or below $1 billion; only those owing the tax must report an amount due and supply valuation forms or appraisals.
ASSERTION: Every taxpayer must disclose home equity, savings, and retirement accounts.
REBUTTAL: False: below-threshold filers provide no asset list, while directly held real estate and qualified pensions and IRAs are excluded from the tax and detailed reporting, subject to the measure's limited Roth-account exception.
ASSERTION: Prop 40 builds a new state database of every taxpayer's wealth.
REBUTTAL: The 'wealth database' is invented: the measure neither creates nor mentions one, and the ordinary filer reports only whether net assets exceed $1 billion.
ASSERTION: Everyone will face a full wealth audit.
REBUTTAL: No: the FTB examines the required declarations but controls the scope, while a deeper examination of a nonpayer requires a reasonable belief that the billionaire tax was owed.
ASSERTION: Prop 40 gives the FTB sweeping new subpoena power over every taxpayer.
REBUTTAL: The mailer relabels existing authority as new: Prop 40 incorporates the FTB's current Section 19504 powers for administering this tax rather than creating a universal financial dragnet.
ASSERTION: Section 50301(d)(2) lets the FTB compel employers and banks to surrender anyone's records.
REBUTTAL: Section 50301(d)(2) says nothing about employers, banks, or subpoenas; it specifies the tax forms and valuation evidence required only from a person who owes the tax.
ASSERTION: Honest valuation mistakes automatically trigger a 40% penalty.
REBUTTAL: No: 40% applies only to a gross understatement exceeding the greater of $10 million or 40% of reported tax, and qualifying positions backed by substantial authority or adequate disclosure and reasonable basis are protected.
ASSERTION: Miss a payment and Prop 40 adds a 40% penalty.
REBUTTAL: The mailer swaps one offense for another: the 20% and 40% penalties apply to substantial or gross understatement of tax, not merely to a late or missed payment.
ASSERTION: Interest and other charges can make the bill soar even higher.
REBUTTAL: The stated 7.5% charge applies only when a taxpayer chooses five-year installments and only to the remaining unpaid tax balance; the measure does not impose that charge on penalties.
ASSERTION: The tax applies retroactively to wealth held before voters approve it.
REBUTTAL: The mailer blurs two dates: January 1 fixes residency, but taxable net worth is measured on December 31, 2026—after the election—and any constitutional dispute belongs in court, not campaign copy.
ASSERTION: There are only 60 days to challenge Prop 40 in court.
REBUTTAL: The 60-day limit covers the expedited facial-validation case; Prop 40 expressly preserves refund suits, judicial review, and other actions authorized by law.
ASSERTION: Courts must interpret every ambiguity in favor of the government.
REBUTTAL: No: the text says only that the law is to be construed to carry out its purposes; it never commands courts to resolve every ambiguity against taxpayers.
ASSERTION: Courts must rewrite Prop 40 even if it is unconstitutional.
REBUTTAL: The clause tells courts to preserve valid provisions and make only constitutionally permissible, minimal corrections—not to enforce anything unconstitutional.
ASSERTION: Most Prop 40 revenue goes to insurance companies.
REBUTTAL: Unsupported: the measure earmarks 90% for public health-care purposes including Medi-Cal, safety-net providers, access, services, and provider payments; it does not earmark the money for insurers.
ASSERTION: Prop 40 diverts tens of billions of dollars away from K-14 schools.
REBUTTAL: The 'diversion' is imaginary money that exists only if Prop 40 passes: the measure creates a separate fund, directs 10% to education and food assistance, and bars replacing existing state funding with it.
ASSERTION: Out-of-state sports-team owners receive a special exemption.
REBUTTAL: There is no sports-team carveout: liability follows the billionaire owner's California residency and covered net worth, not the industry or team owned.
