Polling for bill that may push out billionaires from California nears: What data shows

Proposition 40 is a California ballot measure designed to tax extreme personal wealth rather than ordinary earnings. If approved, it would impose the tax once on individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 billion. The proposal matters because it would create a new way to fund healthcare while directly affecting some of the state’s wealthiest residents.

The measure would assess each qualifying person’s assets and unrealised capital gains. Unrealised gains are increases in value that have not yet been converted into cash through a sale. The tax would therefore consider wealth tied up in holdings, not only money received as income. About 90% of the money raised would support public healthcare services.

The proposal faces strong opposition from corporate leaders, technology figures, and Governor Gavin Newsom. Opponents say it could encourage wealthy residents to leave California, potentially damaging the state’s economy and future revenue base. Polling in the article shows support weakening before November 3.

Proposition 40 would levy a one-time tax equal to 5% of the relevant wealth covered by the proposal. It would apply only to individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 billion. That narrow target makes the measure unusually focused on billionaires rather than the wider population. Its stated purpose is to generate substantial funding for healthcare.

The proposal would assess assets and unrealised capital gains. Assets are valuable holdings, while unrealised capital gains are increases in those holdings’ value that have not been locked in through a sale. This means the measure would look beyond regular pay or cash income when determining taxable wealth. The article says approximately 90% of the revenue would support public healthcare services.

The remaining revenue is not specified in the article. Supporters say the funding would help offset federal healthcare funding shortfalls. Opponents argue the tax could push wealthy residents out of California, threatening the state’s longer-term revenue base and broader economy.

The polling trend described in the article shifted sharply before the November 3 election. Between August and mid-September, six independent surveys found California voters leaning toward a “yes” vote. Those leads ranged from 2% to 10%, suggesting the measure initially had positive momentum.

That momentum changed in late September. An Independent Voter Project survey showed the “no” side moving ahead by four points. The article then cites a Manhattan Institute poll showing opposition with a much larger 15-point lead. These surveys indicate that support was eroding as voters approached election day.

The article links the reversal to intensifying opposition advertising and a major spending advantage. Opposition groups had assembled more than $340 million and were spending over $1 million daily during the first half of September. The polling does not establish why every voter changed position, but it shows the measure losing support as the campaign entered its final phase.

The opposition campaign had assembled more than $340 million, while the healthcare workers’ union backing Proposition 40 had raised $32 million. The opposition was also spending more than $1 million per day during the first half of September. Dave Regan, the union’s leader, expected opponents to spend at least $400 million by November 3.

The largest listed individual donor was Sergey Brin, a Google co-founder, with $138 million. Other major contributors were John Doerr, with $40 million; Eric Schmidt, with $35 million; Patrick Collison, with $33 million; and Vinod Khosla, with $12.5 million. Together, these five donors supplied a large share of the named contributions.

Other opposition figures included Larry Page, Peter Thiel, Michael Moritz, and Chris Larsen. The article identifies the broader opposition as a coalition of technology founders, venture capitalists, executives, and corporate leaders. The spending imbalance coincided with declining support in the latest polling.

If Proposition 40 passes, approximately 90% of the revenue would be directed to public healthcare services. The measure is therefore designed not just to raise money, but to target a specific public need. The article presents healthcare funding as the central reason supporters want the wealth tax approved.

The key mechanism is a one-time 5% charge on qualifying individuals’ wealth. The proposal would assess assets and unrealised capital gains, then use most of the resulting revenue for healthcare. According to the article, this funding would help offset shortfalls in federal support. The measure’s healthcare effect would therefore depend on how much revenue the tax actually produces.

The article does not provide a projected dollar amount for healthcare. It also reports a major political challenge: opponents say the tax could encourage high-net-worth residents to leave California. If that happened, the measure could raise less than supporters expect and create longer-term pressure on the state’s revenue base.

A wealth tax could affect location decisions because it would impose a substantial one-time cost on qualifying residents. If billionaires considered California less financially attractive, they might move elsewhere. The article reports that opponents believe even advancing Proposition 40 is accelerating an exodus of high-net-worth residents.

The proposed mechanism is straightforward: residents who leave may no longer contribute as much to California’s future tax base. Their assets, investment decisions, businesses, and related economic activity could also become less connected to the state. The article does not quantify these effects, but opponents describe them as potential long-term damage to California’s revenue base and broader economy.

This creates a trade-off between immediate revenue and possible future losses. Proposition 40 could raise money for healthcare if wealthy residents remain and the tax produces expected funds. If significant numbers leave, however, the measure could collect less over time and weaken other state revenues. These are opposition arguments, not outcomes established by the article.

Net worth is the total value of a person’s assets minus their debts. Assets include valuable things a person owns, such as investments or property, although the article does not list specific examples. Income is money received during a period, such as pay or other earnings. It measures a flow, not a person’s accumulated wealth.

An unrealised capital gain is an increase in an asset’s value before the owner sells it. For example, if an investment rises in value but remains unsold, the increase is unrealised. A realised gain occurs after a sale. Proposition 40 would assess assets and unrealised capital gains, so it would focus on accumulated wealth rather than income alone.

These concepts can overlap but are not identical. Someone may have high net worth but little current income, or substantial income without having accumulated billion-dollar wealth. The article provides the proposal’s terms but does not explain these definitions; the distinctions here use standard financial terminology.