Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

“In the last few years alone, the Legislature and special interests have introduced six separate proposals that would tax retirement and savings accounts.”

Seen in: Official Voter Information Guide, argument in favor of Proposition 42

The guide does not name the six proposals. The Yes on 42 campaign's own website lists five: AB 2088, AB 310, ACA 8, AB 259, and ACA 3, introduced between 2019 and 2024. They are wealth-tax proposals, three bills and two constitutional amendments: AB 2088 (2019-20, Bonta and others): an annual tax of 0.4 percent on worldwide net worth above $30 million ($15 million for married taxpayers filing separately), directly held real property excluded; the text lists pension funds and interest-bearing savings accounts among the assets reported toward net worth. Last recorded action 2020-11-30, from committee without further action; it did not become law. AB 310 (2021-22, Lee, Santiago, Lorena Gonzalez): a 1 percent tax on worldwide net worth above $50 million ($25 million filing separately) plus a 0.5 percent surtax above $1 billion ($500 million), with the same asset reporting; died 2022-01-31 under Article IV, Section 10(c), never leaving the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee. ACA 8 (2021-22, Lee and others): a constitutional amendment that would authorize the Legislature to tax "all forms of personal property or wealth, whether tangible or intangible"; its text does not address retirement accounts by name; last action 2022-11-30, from committee without further action. AB 259 (2023-24, Lee): the same net-worth tax design as AB 310 (1.5 percent above $1 billion for 2024-2025, then 1 percent above $50 million plus a 0.5 percent surtax above $1 billion from 2026), pension funds and savings accounts counted toward net worth; held on the suspense file 2024-01-10 and died 2024-01-31 under Article IV, Section 10(c). ACA 3 (2023-24, Lee): the same tax authorization as ACA 8, without its task-force section; last action 2024-11-30, from committee without further action. Each bill taxed net worth above $30 million or $50 million, not accounts as such, though pension funds and savings accounts count toward net worth. None became law. The count of six does not match the campaign's own list of five.

“California’s Constitution currently allows the Legislature to tax the value of our personal property like retirement funds and savings accounts, even though residents already pay income tax on that money when they earn it.”

Seen in: Official Voter Information Guide, argument in favor of Proposition 42

The Analyst says both the state and local governments tax the ownership of certain personal property today (the vehicle license fee and county property taxes on business equipment are examples), and that ownership of financial assets such as stocks and investment accounts is not taxed: the state taxes the income from them, but there is no tax for simply owning them. The Analyst describes Proposition 42 as prohibiting "new" taxes on financial assets and other personal property, which implies the Constitution does not bar them now. Two points the sentence leaves out: no such tax on retirement funds or savings accounts exists today, and contributions to traditional (pre-tax) 401(k) plans and IRAs are generally not taxed when earned but when withdrawn, so "already pay income tax on that money when they earn it" does not describe all retirement money; it fits after-tax savings and Roth accounts better.

“Prop. 42 requires any new taxes to apply only after voters have approved them.”

Seen in: Official Voter Information Guide, argument in favor of Proposition 42

The sentence appears under the argument's heading on unfair retroactive taxes. Section 2(a) of Proposition 42 bars any state law or constitutional provision enacted on or after January 1, 2026 from imposing a tax that operates retroactively to create liability based on conduct, activities, or status before the effective date, including residency status on an earlier date. The Analyst describes this as limiting when "a ballot measure or the Legislature" can raise a tax retroactively. Two points the sentence leaves out: the measure does not require a voter vote for new taxes, so a tax passed by the Legislature takes effect without one; and Section 2(c) lets the Legislature impose a tax with limited retroactivity (up to 365 days) when the Governor has declared certain emergencies and the revenue is limited to responding to the emergency.

“This is a billionaire-funded initiative designed specifically to undo the California Billionaire Tax, Prop. 40.”

Seen in: Official Voter Information Guide, argument against Proposition 42

On funding, the FPPC top-contributor list shows Building a Better California, whose top donors the FPPC lists as Sergey Brin and L. John Doerr III, gave $89,800,000 of the $89,822,537.26 from the top contributors to the main committee supporting Proposition 42 on the FPPC list. On purpose, the measure's findings and statement of purpose describe protecting retirement savings and personal property and requiring new taxes to apply only prospectively; they do not mention Proposition 40. Section 2(a)(2) bars a tax "imposed on a taxpayer based upon their residency status on a date prior to the effective date of the tax", and the Analyst says Proposition 40 would tax billionaires who were California residents on January 1, 2026, so Proposition 40 falls within that wording on its face. Section 5 says an initiative on the same ballot that taxes ownership of such assets, or that taxes based on past conduct or status, is deemed in conflict and is void if Proposition 42 receives more affirmative votes. The guide does not state whether Proposition 40 is covered, and the "designed specifically" part is a statement about intent that the official documents neither confirm nor refute.

“Now he’s spent over $57 million to fund sham measures like Prop. 42 that attempt to cancel out a billionaire tax.”

Seen in: Official Voter Information Guide, argument against Proposition 42

The FPPC list shows Building a Better California, whose top donors it lists as Sergey Brin and L. John Doerr III, gave $89,800,000 to the Proposition 42 committee and $58,350,000 to the Proposition 41 committee. Cal-Access itemized filings for Building a Better California list seven contributions from Sergey Brin between January 12 and July 24, 2026, totaling $102,000,000, more than the $57 million the argument cites. The filings do not trace his money measure by measure. "Sham" is a characterization, not a checkable fact.

“Sacramento politicians have tried to tax retirement and savings accounts five times in recent years”

Seen in: Text message forwarded by the site owner, received September 30, 2026 · Paid for by YESonProp42.org. Top funder: Building a Better California

The campaign's own website names five proposals, all introduced in the Assembly between 2019 and 2024: AB 2088 (2019-20, Bonta and others): an annual tax of 0.4 percent on worldwide net worth above $30 million ($15 million for married taxpayers filing separately), directly held real property excluded; the text lists pension funds and interest-bearing savings accounts among the assets reported toward net worth. Last recorded action 2020-11-30, from committee without further action; it did not become law. AB 310 (2021-22, Lee, Santiago, Lorena Gonzalez): a 1 percent tax on worldwide net worth above $50 million ($25 million filing separately) plus a 0.5 percent surtax above $1 billion ($500 million), with the same asset reporting; died 2022-01-31 under Article IV, Section 10(c), never leaving the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee. ACA 8 (2021-22, Lee and others): a constitutional amendment that would authorize the Legislature to tax "all forms of personal property or wealth, whether tangible or intangible"; its text does not address retirement accounts by name; last action 2022-11-30, from committee without further action. AB 259 (2023-24, Lee): the same net-worth tax design as AB 310 (1.5 percent above $1 billion for 2024-2025, then 1 percent above $50 million plus a 0.5 percent surtax above $1 billion from 2026), pension funds and savings accounts counted toward net worth; held on the suspense file 2024-01-10 and died 2024-01-31 under Article IV, Section 10(c). ACA 3 (2023-24, Lee): the same tax authorization as ACA 8, without its task-force section; last action 2024-11-30, from committee without further action. (1) "Tried" here means introduced: none of the five passed a house as far as the status pages show, and none became law. (2) Each bill was a tax on net worth above $30 million or $50 million, not a tax aimed at ordinary retirement or savings accounts; pension funds and savings accounts count toward net worth under the bill text, and the two amendments would let the Legislature tax personal property and wealth without naming retirement accounts. (3) The argument for Proposition 42 printed in the Official Voter Information Guide says "six separate proposals", not five. Five matches the campaign's own list.