Two measures have qualified for the November ballot that if enacted would boost the state income tax rate nearly 20 percent:
-
A measure sponsored by Lyft, a ride-sharing company, would add a 1.75% tax on incomes over $2 million to finance electric car subsidies. Cleverly marketed as a clean air campaign, the real reason for the measure is found in Lyft’s 10K where the company expresses concern about the costs to it of regulations requiring ride-sharing companies in California to be 90% electric by 2030. If enacted, Lyft’s ballot measure would pass those costs to taxpayers and surely set a record for corporate welfare in California.
-
A measure sponsored by Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), a crypto executive who shelters his company’s income in the Bahamas, and Dustin Moskovitz (DM), a co-founder of Facebook, would add a 0.75% tax on incomes over $5mm to finance a pandemic prevention institute of their design. Governed by an unaccountable board like the state’s disappointing stem cell institute, the SBF/DM institute would not be run by the University of California or any other established research organization and instead of utilizing tax-deductible charitable contributions that often finance such research would, like the Lyft measure, force Californians to pay higher non-tax-deductible state income taxes.
On top of the measures’ intrinsic flaws, a tax increase on the state’s highest earners would jeopardize funding for K-12 and other core services. No doubt that’s one reason the California Teachers’ Association opposes the measures.
Article II of the California Constitution, which allows voter initiatives, was not adopted in 1911 to encourage corporate welfare or plutocrat-driven policies with enormous potential consequences for basic services. The proper place for evaluation of such proposals is in the legislature.
We and our allies have initiated opposition research should the initiatives not be withdrawn before June 30.
