The San Francisco Democratic Party, as predicted, voted 17-4 on Wednesday evening to oppose the upcoming California billionaire tax — and, in so doing, made the rare choice to buck the state Democratic Party, which had narrowly endorsed the proposition in early August.
The vote fell along a neat progressive/moderate divide. The local chapter took the step two months ago to alter its bylaws to allow itself to diverge from the state party’s endorsement on California ballot measures. Previously, the local chapter’s convention was to follow the state party on statewide ballot measures and candidates.
Prop. 40, or the billionaire tax, would levy a one-time, 5 percent tax on some 200 billionaires who lived in California on Jan. 1, 2026. Most of the money would be spent on health care, patching up a $30 billion hole in Medi-Cal due to federal cuts after President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” The rest would go to education and food assistance.
Members of the Democratic County Central Committee, the local party chapter, said California would suffer from billionaires fleeing the state.
“[My union is] particularly disturbed, because we feel it sets up an uneven playing field for California,” said Patrick Boileau, a DCCC member and the political director of the Operating Engineers Local 3. “The billionaires that are going to be taxed with this measure also have the ability to vote with their feet and move out of California.”
Supervisor Matt Dorsey put it bluntly: “This is terrible public policy.”
Lanier Coles, a DCCC member who was diagnosed with a chronic neurological disorder at 28 and had trouble getting healthcare coverage, said she opposed Prop. 40 because it is not “a long-term viable solution to provide affordable healthcare.”
When Democrats win Congress this fall and the White House in 2028, she said, they will “pass enduring legislation” to fund and expand the Affordable Care Act and tackle federal tax reform to address inequalities.
“That is how we will get to a place where more Americans, more working-class people will have access to healthcare for the long term,” she said.
“They’ll be dead,” quipped a Prop. 40 supporter in the audience.
“That’s why you lost to Trump twice,” added another.
But for the minority of supporters of the billionaire tax on the body, the tax cannot wait.
“California needs this money now,” said Michael Nguyen, a progressive DCCC member. “There are reasonable questions here around implementation, long-term revenue projections, but those questions cannot become an excuse for doing nothing.”
Gordon Mar, another member, agreed. “The bottom line is Prop. 40 is the only proposal before voters and on the table, more generally, that approaches the scale of this crisis.”
Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff at the health care labor union SEIU-UHW that pushed for the measure, called the local party’s vote to oppose Prop. 40 “shameful.”
“They have put the interests of a few hundred billionaires ahead of the healthcare needs of their fellow Californians,” Jimenez wrote in a statement.
The state ballot measure was endorsed by the California Democratic Party and the California Federation of Labor Unions and other elected officials including Senator Bernie Sanders. But it has faced formidable opposition from Gov. Gavin Newsom; his likely successor, Xavier Becerra; Planned Parenthood; and several labor unions.
While the tax is estimated to bolster state revenue by tens of billions of dollars, according to the nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office, it could also lead to “ongoing” deficits of less than $1 billion per year.
Opposing the billionaire tax could be a boon for the DCCC: It may benefit from heavy spending by tech billionaires already pouring millions of dollars into defeating the measure.
The campaign fighting the tax could pump money into the DCCC that the body would then use to put out slate cards, which would promote other candidates and measures the San Francisco Democratic Party has endorsed, unrelated to the tax.
“After tonight, we will be moving into full-blown campaigning mode for our endorsed candidates and campaigns,” said Nancy Tung, the chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party.
The DCCC, in a symbolic vote, then went on to unanimously pass a non-binding resolution for a “national wealth tax.”
“This is something that we can actually do that will make an impact on income inequality in this country,” said Eric Kingsbury, who introduced the measure with Emma Hare. “I ask that all of you join me in pushing for this tax that would be actually workable, viable, and not something that would hurt the economy of one city or county or state.”
Others called it performative politics.
“It is a resolution. It doesn’t have to go anywhere,” said Hene Kelly, 84, the regional director of the California Democratic Party. “We’ll work on it for years and years and years. I would like to have something before my 85th birthday and this won’t do it for me.”
“Let’s just be honest with ourselves: The resolution is just basically shouting into the void and may or may not go anywhere,” Nguyen said. “Prop. 40 will be at the voters in November.”
The local chapter also voted to:
- Endorse Manny Yekutiel in District 8 supervisor race, despite a sexual assault allegation against him;
- Support Prop. B, the measure to create a public bank;
- Oppose Prop. G, the measure to reopen the Upper Great Highway to cars;
- Oppose Prop. I, the measure to dedicate transfer-tax revenue to affordable housing.
DCCC: Democratic County Corporate Control, but with a public bank. Fasten your seat belts, everyone!
“S.F. Dems alter rules to vote on billionaire tax, potentially defying state party”… Isn’t this similar to what SF Latin Democratic Club did when they went against the DCCC? One thing you can say about the Dem party is that it is not unified. Neither is the opposition party. Party unity is not in the cards for the country right now. Maybe that is a good thing for the people who have broken away from the yoke that was holding them down.
Jesus Christ things are bleak here in San Francisco. The SF Democratic Party is more Trumpian everyday (endorsing a groper and supporting our plutocratic overlords).
Awesome work eveybody!
Shameful business from shameless plutocrats.
Let’s turn this in to a double win against ultra rich people who don’t pay enough taxes. The DCCC gets a ton of campaign money for left of center candidates from the billionaires, which might make a small difference for better policy in the future. But, we the voters, ignore the recommendation and hit the billionaires with the tax anyway. They can’t flee: it is a one time tax for january 1, 2026 residents. If the argument is they will flee for spite because they only have $950,000,000 left, out of each of their billions of, how much would we have gotten out of them, if they stayed? Been hearing the “the ultra rich people will all leave and we need them to stay and gobble up more assets while we wait for them to accidently drop a painting or a car or a house, for us to quickly scoop up and use for the benefit of the other 39,999,800 of us” for decades now. Meanwhile, the super rich get richer while almost everyone else gets poorer and public services decline. It’s not stable: too many people getting hurt now, including the middle class holding on with white knuckles to the very tips of the coattails of the ultra wealthy. A modest one time tax might come to be considered pretty mild if the ultra wealthy continue on this path.
I see that the tech industry’s Adopt-a-Democrat program is bearing fruit. Much scare-the-children rhetoric has been spilled over the potential consequences of Proposition 40, summed up by Matt Dorsey’s “terrible public policy” proclamation. I expect this kind of yeoman work from the city’s Herbert Hoover Democrats to continue as the state’s health care and food insecurity programs come under further assault.
Proposition 40 is a function of California’s refusal to effectively tax its considerable wealth to deal with its vast problems, especially related to housing and health care. It is a kitchen table response to the state’s obstinate inability to grapple with the consequences of Proposition 13. But it is at least a response. According to the California Budget and Policy Center, Mark Zuckerberg, for example, has personally experienced a wealth gain of 166 billion dollars over the last decade. That is the equivalent of over a third of all California’s state expenditures in 2024. Prop 40 would shave off about eleven billion dollars, or six percent of Zuckerberg’s windfall, to bolster California’s health care safety net. Whether the great man would abandon his Palo Alto fortress as a consequence of this “terrible” policy is anyone’s guess. Dorsey does not know. I do not know. I bet that even Zuckerberg does not know, which suggests this isn’t a policy debate at all, but theater.
But here is what we do know. Even if the Democrats by some miracle take the House and Senate this November, and our democracy survives the consequent MAGA counterattack under the banner of voter fraud, the partisan assaults on our national/state safety net system will continue. All the GOP has to do is keep the country sleepwalking into the early 2030s, and their Social Security/Medicare insolvency wet dream will kick in with ten to 25 percent cuts in both programs. The consequences of this for California will be catastrophic. One quarter of all older unmarried women in the USA rely entirely on Social Security for their survival, and many of them live in the Golden State. Almost sixty percent working-age women (ages 18–64) in California have zero coverage under a workplace retirement savings plan.
At that point, San Francisco’s Democrats will have to do a little better than pass a resolution calling for a national wealth tax, which they will later oppose by deploying the same fleeing billionaire arguments that they are serving up now. The working people of San Francisco deserve something better than a resolution that boils down to ‘this is not happening and we are not here.’ Whether they will get it is anyone’s guess.
This ridiculous decision shows how out of touch is the San Francisco Democratic Party…. ugh.
This DCCC under Nancy Tung is shameful.
Whatever… It is very clear that this city is a billionaire paradise and the rest of us are just mere chess pieces for them. It makes me so angry though, because the percentage that they would have to pay under that proposal is nothing compared to their overall wealth. They are selfish, egotistical jerks that would rather leave the state than actually put some money into helping the state compensate for all the cuts the federal government made to cut taxes for these very same people. Shameful and borderline evil. I really hope this turns around and bite them in the… behind.
“Tax the billionaires”. It stands to reason that most billionaires actually wouldn’t have much of a problem chipping in more. Just not the Prop 40 way, which practically defines how not to approach it.
Propose the better alternative and put it on the ballot. I will vote for it. I do not see it on this year’s ballot: perhaps you are still gathering signatures? I do not like to question motives, but i am doubting your sincerity a bit here. You could turn it all around for me by telling me more about “the right way” to tax the ultra wealthy and where that initiative is right now, who is proposing it, who is supporting it, etc. should not be too hard if this one is “the worst”.
The SF DCCC vote opposing the proposed state billionaires tax is, without question, the smart/sensible approach no matter what one thinks of billionaires. Only low-information voters and/or non-sensible ideologues would vote for a “billionaires tax” at the state level.
If you’re really interested in an effective addition tax on billionaires, the uniformly-applied “billionaire tax” (or something similar) at the federal level is the only way to go — as it won’t pit one state against another.
“United we stand; divided we fall” — remember that battle cry?
Attempting to do this at the state level will inevitably fail as the billionaires will simply flee and/or avoid the state (as many have already done) — and CA’s existing already stress state coffers will suffer massively.
If California is dumb enough to pass this, it’ll be cutting off its nose to spite its face and shooting a massive hole in its financial foundation.
Focus on the smart approach: Take back Congress and the White House and actually deliver on long-promised federal tax reform that both massively simplifies the system and applies a progressive tax system without loopholes. (We have an historic once-in-a-lifetime change to do this in 2026 and 2028.)
And while you’re at it, get rid of gerrymandering, overturn Citizens United, establish term limits for the Supreme Court, and implement universal healthcare.
In sum — do the smart thing: actually finally get good, long-promised stuff done for the middle and lower classes done!
This is the centrist version of “But first the revolution.”
Yeah, let’s vote against the proposal actually on the table asking our state’s 200 most obscenely wealthy individuals to fill the gap in healthcare coverage caused by the Trump tax cuts. Instead, the sensible choice is to fantasize about something that isn’t going to happen. Third way for the win!
“Supervisor Matt Dorsey put it bluntly: “This is terrible public policy.”
Dorsey is right. Prop 40 is stunningly inept. Why would you want to drive out those who pay the most tax and create the most jobs and wealth here?
Great news for Nevada, Arizona, Texas and so on.
As for a “national wealth tax”, my understanding is that that would require a constitutional amendment, so won’t happen.
If true, which I doubt, then good riddance to those tax-dodging, job-eliminating, election-corrupting parasites.
Even if that means folks like you will have to pay more tax to make up the difference, Chaz?
You hate them that much?
We need to tax the rich.
But also; good riddance we don’t need the rich.
Yes. Unironically. If we taxed away the money the ultra-rich spend on corrupting our elections, they wouldn’t be able to steal so much of the fruits of our labor from the rest of us.