The Seven Lean Years: The Economic and Fiscal Consequences from California’s Prop. 30 – Pacific Research Institute

The Seven Lean Years: The Economic and Fiscal Consequences from California’s Prop. 30

The Pacific Research Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit think tank, today released a study on the effects of Prop. 30 on the state’s economy. “The Seven Lean Years: The Economic and Fiscal Consequences from California’s Proposition 30” was authored by Wayne Winegarden, Ph.D, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. According to Dr. Winegarden, Prop. 30 increased the progressivity of California’s tax code, created additional budget rigidity, and decreased the incentives to work, save, and invest in the state.

Prop 30 (officially titled “Temporary Taxes to Fund Education”) raised the sales tax by one-quarter of 1 percent (from 7.25 percent to 7.50 percent) for four consecutive years. It also increased the marginal income tax for seven years for single filers who earned more than $250,000 a year from 9.3 percent to 10.3 percent. Beyond $250,000, the rates increase based on the level of income, with the highest rate at 13.3 percent for taxpayers who earned more than $1 million.

Based on Dr. Winegarden’s calculations, Prop. 30 reduced the after-tax income of the targeted taxpayers by $18,120 for every million dollars earned if the taxpayer is not subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT); if the taxpayer is subject to the AMT, his or her tax income was reduced by $30,000. “Prop. 30 has reduced the return from saving, investing, and working in California, and is, consequently adversely influencing labor force participation and investment decisions,” Dr.Winegarden said.

Moreover, the decision may prompt taxpayers to move to another state. For example, Dr. Winegarden calculates that the same investor or worker can now earn $80,332 more for the same investment simply by relocating to Nevada, if not subject to the AMT. If the AMT applies, the investor can earn $133,000 more if he or she moved to Nevada. “California’s historical experience shows a consistent pattern: when the state’s top personal income tax rate increases, California’s share of the total personal income earned in the U.S. declines; the reverse is true when California’s top personal income tax rate decreases.”

Dr. Winegarden’s analysis also shows that proponents of Prop. 30 failed to recognize that the state’s fiscal problems were not due to a lack of tax revenue but because of ineffective budgeting: “Overly restrictive budget rules and lack of spending control in other budget areas are driving the state’s budget problems and crowding out spending on other services.”

“Instead of Prop 30’s approach, fiscal and tax reforms should be implemented. First, California’s budget sclerosis should be addressed. The plethora of spending requirements and revenue earmarks makes it very difficult for legislators to effectively prioritize state spending. These spending requirements and budget earmarks should be repealed. Second, fiscal reforms should reduce the anti-growth incentives of California’s tax code. The starting point should be the reduction in marginal tax rates and the broadening of the tax base. Effective tax reform will incent more entrepreneurship and investment in California, creating a more robust state economy. Combined this with the state’s natural advantages, California will regain its position as a national economic leader,” said Dr. Winegarden.

Download the Study

Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.

Subscribe to our newsletter:

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Scroll to Top