California Proposition 3: Make permanent the income tax rates on high earners
What it does. Voters approved higher income tax rates on high earners in 2012 (Proposition 30) and extended them in 2016 (Proposition 55). They are set to expire in 2031. Proposition 3 would make them permanent. The rates apply to income over about $371,000 for single filers and $742,000 for joint filers (2025 levels, adjusted yearly for inflation). Revenue would go 89% to K–12 schools and 11% to community colleges, and would increase General Fund revenues available for health care, budget reserves and other programs. [1] [2]
Official ballot question. Provides permanent funding for schools and health care by extending existing tax on high incomes. Initiative constitutional amendment. [1] [2]
If you vote yes
A YES vote on this measure means: An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would become permanent instead of expiring in 2031. [1] [2]
If you vote no
A NO vote on this measure means: An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would expire in 2031. [1] [2]
What it would cost
The Legislative Analyst estimates the measure “maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue by making a temporary tax increase on high-income earners permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031.” The amount varies widely from year to year because much of it comes from income tied to the stock market. [2]
Both sides
Strongest case for
The official argument in favor, signed by the presidents of the California Teachers Association, the California School Nurses Organization and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, says “Proposition 3 is NOT a new tax and does NOT raise taxes on anyone,” and that it “prevents millionaires and billionaires from getting a tax cut.” [1]
They argue the money is needed. Without it, they write, “California’s 8 million public school and community college students face billions in cuts, including teacher layoffs, overcrowded classrooms and bigger class sizes.” They add that it “only extends the current tax rates on the wealthiest top 2%.” [1]
They say the measure has safeguards: “Every dollar in Prop. 3 is independently audited every year,” and the Legislature “cannot touch it, redirect it, or spend a single dollar on bureaucracy or administrative overhead.” [1]
Strongest case against
The official argument against, signed by the presidents of the California Taxpayers Association, the Family Business Association of California and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, says “Politicians told voters higher income taxes would be temporary—only for seven years to cover a budget deficit,” and now want to make them permanent. [1]
They argue that taxes add to costs: “Californians have the nation’s highest cost of living partly because we also suffer from the highest income taxes, highest sales taxes and highest gas taxes of all fifty states.” The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association’s Jon Coupal, in a rebuttal, calls it “the largest permanent state income tax increase in California history.” [1]
They say the state’s problem is spending: “California doesn’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem,” and that politicians “turned a $100 billion budget surplus into a $30 billion budget deficit in just three years.” [1]
What neither side is saying
Context that bears on what this measure does or who it affects but that the arguments above do not address. These are sourced facts, not arguments for or against the measure.
- Only part of the money goes to schools. The Legislative Analyst says: “Roughly 40 percent of the funding would go to schools and community colleges. The rest would go to other state programs.” Part of that amount “would be set aside in budget reserves.” [2]
Editorial context, not the opinion of We Elect. Each point is a fact we found in a source we opened and read; where sources disagree or data are missing, we say so. How we choose these.
Follow the money
Contributions reported by committees registered to support or oppose Proposition 3. Major donors are those who gave $100,000 or more; where fewer than three did, up to five of the largest listed donors giving $5,000 or more are shown.
Supporting (Yes)
Total raised $74,864,711
Committees
- Yes on Prop 3 $71,429,944
- Communities for an Affordable California Yes 3, No on 39, and 43 $2,338,429
- Tax the Ultra-Rich Now, YES on 3 & 40, NO on 41 & 42 $464,579
- Working Families for a Better Central Coast - Yes on Prop 3, No on Prop 39 $291,759
- Black Californians for Thriving Communities - Yes on Prop 3, No on Props 39 & 43 $220,000
- Working People in Supporting of Prop 3 and in Opposition of Prop 39, 43 and 45 $100,000
- Californians for Yes on 3 and No on 39 $20,000
At least one of these committees also campaigns on California Proposition 39, California Proposition 40, California Proposition 41, California Proposition 42, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| California Teachers Association / Issues PAC | $53,838,619 |
| National Education Association (MPO) | $7,500,000 |
| California Federation of Teachers COPE Prop/Ballot Committee | $1,750,000 |
| PACE of California School Employees Association Issues | $1,600,000 |
| SEIU California State Council for Working People | $1,509,029 |
Opposing (No)
Total raised $5,500
Committee
- No on Proposition 3, Sponsored by California Taxpayers Association $5,500
Major donors
| Family Business Association of California Issues Political Action Committee | $5,000 |
Donors shown gave 91% of this side’s total.
Reported contributions through Oct. 22, 2026, as compiled by Ballotpedia from state filings; the source lists each side’s top donors, not every donor. Figures are reported contributions and may be updated as new reports are filed. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Official filings: California Secretary of State, Cal-Access.
Sources
- 2026 General Election Official Voter Information Guide (title and summary, official arguments and rebuttals) — California Secretary of State (Official state voter guide, 2026)
- Proposition 3 ballot analysis — California Legislative Analyst’s Office (Official fiscal analysis, 2026)
- California Proposition 3 (2026) — Ballotpedia (Reference (quotes supporters and opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Last reviewed 2026-10-28. How we write both sides.
We Elect is a Brunner Creative site. Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Each side is written to be the strongest case its supporters would recognize, and every claim is tied to a source we opened and read.