Proposition 3: Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

The law today

Voters approved Proposition 30 in 2012 to temporarily raise income tax rates on high-income taxpayers and Proposition 55 in 2016 to extend the higher rates until 2030 (the Analyst's proposal section refers to expiration in 2031). The top 2 percent of taxpayers pay these rates and about half of all state income taxes. Income tax pays for most General Fund spending, about half of which goes to schools, community colleges and universities.[2]

Official fiscal estimate

Legislative Analyst: Proposition 3 would bring in between $5 billion and $15 billion each year (about $5 billion in a weak year, $15 billion in a strong year), varying with the stock market. Roughly 40 percent would go to schools and community colleges and the rest to other state programs, part set aside in budget reserves.[2]

Arguments made for

• Official argument in favor, signed by David Goldberg (California Teachers Association), Katie Nilsson, RN (California School Nurses Organization) and Jodi Hicks (Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California): "Proposition 3 is NOT a new tax and does NOT raise taxes on anyone. Prop. 3 prevents millionaires and billionaires from getting a tax cut, and requires strict accountability and audits to ensure school funding gets to classrooms."[3]
• Same argument: "Without Prop. 3, California's 8 million public school and community college students face billions in cuts, including teacher layoffs, overcrowded classrooms and bigger class sizes."[3]

Arguments made against

• Official argument against, signed by Robert Gutierrez (California Taxpayers Association), Robert Rivinius (Family Business Association of California) and Julian Canete (California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce): "Politicians told voters higher income taxes would be temporary—only for seven years to cover a budget deficit." It adds: "Now the special interests and politicians want to make these higher income taxes PERMANENT."[3]
• Rebuttal to the argument in favor, signed by Jon Coupal (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association), Carlos Solorzano (Hispanic Chambers of Commerce of San Francisco) and Clint Olivier (Central Valley Business Federation): "California doesn’t have a tax revenue problem—it has a spending problem." It also says the measure would be "costing taxpayers up to $15 billion every year."[3]

On record in support

• Yes on Prop 3 committees registered with the Secretary of State, including Yes on Prop 3 to Protect Public Education, Health Care and Budget Stability (sponsored by education and labor organizations).[5]
• California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers and California School Employees Association (named in the official argument in favor and/or signing the argument or rebuttal).[3]
• California State PTA, California Nurses Association, California School Nurses Organization, Community College League of California, Nurse Alliance of SEIU California and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California (listed in the official argument in favor).[3]
• California Professional Firefighters (signer of the rebuttal to the argument against).[3]
• California Democratic Party and California Medical Association (listed in CalMatters' voter guide).[6]

On record in opposition

• California Taxpayers Association (President Robert Gutierrez; also sponsor of the No on Proposition 3 committee), Family Business Association of California and California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, signers of the official argument against.[3][5]
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (Jon Coupal), Hispanic Chambers of Commerce of San Francisco and Central Valley Business Federation, signers of the rebuttal to the argument in favor.[3]
• Reform California (listed in CalMatters' voter guide).[6]