The Billionaire Tax Is a Distraction from California’s Bigger Failures

Be sure to spend some time marveling at the 14 statewide measures on November’s California ballot .

一定要花一些时间惊叹 11 月份加州投票中的 14 项全州范围措施。

Because this is no ordinary ballot.

因为这不是普通的选票。

No, this is history.

不，这是历史。

A political marvel.

一个政治奇迹。

A towering monument.

一座高耸的纪念碑。

To nearly a half-century of California’s fundamental failures of governance.

加州近半个世纪以来治理的根本失败。

Since the passage of property tax limitation Proposition 13 in 1978, Californians and their leaders have abandoned serious work in two areas: creating an integrated coherent tax system and building housing.

自 1978 年通过财产税限制第 13 号提案以来，加州人和他们的领导人放弃了两个领域的认真工作：建立一个综合一致的税收制度和建设住房。

Into this void have stepped unions, corporations, billionaires, and others who seek to use the ballot to seize money for selfish pursuits.

工会、企业、亿万富翁和其他试图利用选票来攫取金钱以实现自私追求的人都进入了这个真空。

This reality is on display on the November ballot, and particularly in Proposition 40, the so-called “wealth tax.” Your columnist reads every word of every statewide ballot measure in every election.

这一现实在 11 月的投票中得到了体现，尤其是在 40 号提案（即所谓的“财富税”）中。您的专栏作家会阅读每次选举中每项全州选票措施的每一个字。

And Prop.

和道具。

40 , by my lights, is the most cynically conceived, incompetently drafted, and politically counterproductive measure to reach a California ballot in the 21st century.

在我看来，40 号法案是 21 世纪加州投票所采取的最愤世嫉俗、起草最不称职、在政治上适得其反的措施。

It’s how you would write a wealth tax if your goal was to discredit the idea of wealth taxes.

如果您的目标是质疑财富税的想法，那么您将如何编写财富税。

Prop.

道具。

40 poses as a solution to major problems—wealth inequality, Trump’s federal budget cuts, and California governments’ need for more resources—and addresses none of them.

40 号法案提出了解决重大问题的方案——财富不平等、特朗普的联邦预算削减以及加州政府对更多资源的需求——但没有解决任何问题。

This one-time 5% tax on the net worth of billionaires features a variety of exemptions and could be net-negative long-term, as billionaires move (or pretend to move) their domiciles and companies out of state to avoid it.

这种对亿万富翁净资产一次性征收 5% 的税具有多种豁免，并且可能会长期出现净负值，因为亿万富翁将其住所和公司迁出（或假装迁出）州外以避免这种情况。

But the worst part of Prop.

但道具中最糟糕的部分。

40 is how it spends the money.

40就是钱的花法。

A smart wealth tax could help Californians, especially those with very little, build their own net worth, perhaps by giving them ownership in the immense riches generated by the most affluent Californians.

明智的财富税可以帮助加州人，尤其是那些身无分文的人，建立自己的净资产，或许可以让他们拥有最富裕的加州人创造的巨额财富。

(The best concept for such shared ownership is called universal basic capital ).

（这种共享所有权的最佳概念称为普遍基本资本）。

Or it could produce money for the state general fund, which supports California’s many diverse needs.

或者它可以为州普通基金产生资金，该基金支持加州的许多不同需求。

Instead, this measure would throw 90% of dollars into our broken, ineffective healthcare system .

相反，这项措施会将 90% 的资金投入到我们破碎、低效的医疗保健系统中。

This structure makes sense when you realize that the measure was drafted by a union representing healthcare workers, who are the real intended beneficiaries of the tax.

当您意识到该措施是由代表医护人员的工会起草时，这种结构就有意义了，而他们是该税收的真正预期受益人。

The political idiocy of this approach is staggering.

这种做法的政治愚蠢程度令人震惊。

By walling off a massive, temporary revenue stream for one specific sector, Prop.

通过隔离某个特定部门的大量临时收入来源，提案。

40 managed to alienate education advocates, many progressive Democrats, and anyone else who relies on the state budget.

40 设法疏远了教育倡导者、许多进步的民主党人和任何依赖国家预算的人。

That’s why the outgoing governor, the incoming governor, and the powerful California Teachers Association—all of whom would like more tax revenues—are opposing the measure.

这就是为什么即将离任的州长、即将上任的州长和强大的加州教师协会——他们都希望获得更多的税收——都反对这项措施。

In response, the billionaire targets of the wealth tax could have been the good guys and used their influence to advance thoughtful tax reform.

作为回应，财富税的亿万富翁目标可能是好人，并利用他们的影响力推进深思熟虑的税收改革。

Instead, they have chosen the path of villainy, seeking retribution against everyday Californians by qualifying Propositions 41 and 42 for the ballot.

相反，他们选择了邪恶之路，通过让 41 号和 42 号提案获得投票资格来寻求对普通加州人的报复。

Under the supposed guise of local accountability and protecting your retirement income, both add limitations on taxes on top of Prop.

在所谓的地方责任和保护您的退休收入的幌子下，两者都在提案的基础上增加了税收限制。

13’s longstanding rules, making it harder for local communities to raise revenues and invest in themselves.

13 的长期规定使当地社区更难筹集收入和进行自我投资。

Prop.

道具。

43, placed on the ballot by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, is another anti-democratic limit on local finance.

霍华德·贾维斯纳税人协会 (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association) 提交的 43 号法案是对地方财政的另一个反民主限制。

The fact that billionaires and labor unions have so many millions to wage this fall’s campaigns for and against these measures is evidence that the public should be grabbing more in taxes from rich and entrenched interests.

亿万富翁和工会在今年秋季投入数百万美元来支持和反对这些措施，这一事实证明，公众应该从富人和既得利益者那里攫取更多税收。

No tax measure on this year’s ballot benefits the long-term public interest.

今年选票的任何税收措施都不利于长期公共利益。

To be fair, the legislative constitutional amendment Proposition 3 makes permanent a voter-approved 2012 income tax increase that was supposed to be a temporary budget stopgap.

公平地说，立法宪法修正案第 3 号提案使选民批准的 2012 年所得税增加永久化，而这本应是临时预算权宜之计。

But it must do so because, in the last 14 years, California has punted on coming up with a better way of replacing those revenues.

但它必须这样做，因为在过去 14 年里，加州一直致力于找到一种更好的方式来替代这些收入。

Another legislative measure, Proposition 2, is more evidence of failure.

另一项立法措施，即提案2，是更多失败的证据。

It is an attempt to expand the state’s rainy-day fund that sounds prudent but is in fact a dodge.

这是扩大国家应急基金的尝试，听起来很谨慎，但实际上是一种逃避。

It treats a symptom (volatile revenues) while ignoring the disease (our crazy tax system).

它治疗症状（不稳定的收入），却忽视疾病（我们疯狂的税收制度）。

The housing measures on the November ballot reflect both California’s funding problems and its housing failures.

11 月投票中的住房措施反映了加州的资金问题和住房问题。

Proposition 1 and Proposition 37 would borrow money, and Proposition 45 would ease environmental protections, to increase housing production.

第 1 号提案和第 37 号提案将借钱，第 45 号提案将放松环境保护，以增加住房生产。

Such changes would be unnecessary if we had changed our tax system to encourage local governments to build housing.

如果我们改变税收制度以鼓励地方政府建造住房，那么这些改变就没有必要了。

(Right now, local governments approve retail because it produces sales taxes that goes to their budgets; if local governments received more revenues or taxes from housing, they’d build more housing.)

（目前，地方政府批准零售业，因为它产生的销售税进入了他们的预算；如果地方政府从住房中获得更多收入或税收，他们就会建造更多住房。）

Of course, one big reason why California can’t do tax reform is that its people lack the modern tools—like participatory budgeting, deliberative assemblies, and open-source governance platforms—to enact their own ideas and solve problems directly.

当然，加州无法进行税收改革的一个重要原因是，其人民缺乏参与式预算、审议议会和开源治理平台等现代工具来实施自己的想法并直接解决问题。

Instead of focusing on democratic practice and agency, the state’s short-sighted good government groups spend their time and money on elections.

该州短视的优秀政府团体没有把重点放在民主实践和代理上，而是把时间和金钱花在选举上。

In Proposition 4, so-called reforms would make it easier to put public dollars into an election system already saturated with money.

在提案 4 中，所谓的改革将使公共资金更容易投入到已经资金饱和的选举体系中。

Proposition 5, a “recall reform,” eliminates the power of voters to replace corrupt politicians on the same ballot, thus discouraging recalls and protecting failing incumbents.

提案 5 是一项“罢免改革”，它消除了选民在同一选票上更换腐败政客的权力，从而阻止罢免并保护失败的现任者。

(Why recall the governor if you’re going to get stuck with the lieutenant governor for the time being?)

（如果你暂时要和副州长在一起，为什么要召回州长呢？）

Then there’s Proposition 39, a Voter ID ballot initiative backed by donors to President Trump.

然后是第 39 号提案，这是一项由特朗普总统捐助者支持的选民身份投票倡议。

The measure is at best pointless, since people impersonating voters is not a significant problem in this state or country.

这项措施充其量是毫无意义的，因为在这个州或国家，冒充选民的人并不是一个严重的问题。

Would-be election cheaters, like Trump himself, have tried to corrupt the counting of ballots instead.

像特朗普本人这样的潜在选举作弊者却试图破坏计票工作。

Understanding all this, you may just vote no on everything.

了解了这一切，你可能会对所有事情都投反对票。

Or throw your ballot in the trash.

或者将选票扔进垃圾桶。

I’d suggest that you instead devote your energy to historic, comprehensive tax reform.

我建议您将精力投入到历史性的、全面的税收改革上。

The federal government is robbing California by lawlessly slashing federal funding for vital programs—even as Californians heavily subsidize the rest of the nation through federal income taxes.

联邦政府通过非法削减重要项目的联邦资金来掠夺加州——尽管加州人通过联邦所得税大量补贴全国其他地区。

Instead of being distracted by ballot measures, California should focus on designing aggressive, state-level vehicles to limit the outflow of federal tax payments from our citizens.

加州不应因投票措施而分心，而应专注于设计积极的州级工具，以限制联邦税款从公民手中流出。

As an interim measure, state leaders should organize and sanction a federal tax strike for 2027.

作为一项临时措施，州领导人应组织并批准 2027 年联邦税收罢工。

Longer term, we should pass state laws that maximize federal deductions, shelter local industries, and redirect the wealth currently bleeding out to Washington into California-based programs and private in-state investment.

从长远来看，我们应该通过州法律，最大限度地提高联邦扣除额，为当地工业提供庇护，并将目前流向华盛顿的财富重新引导到加州的项目和州内私人投资。

This conversation doesn’t have to start at zero.

这场对话不必从零开始。

Californians could begin by reviving the state’s bipartisan Commission on the 21st Century Economy from 2009, which offered a structural solution: reduce personal income taxes, eliminate the corporate income tax, and introduce a broad “business net receipts tax” to boost and stabilize state revenue.

加州人可以从 2009 年起恢复州两党 21 世纪经济委员会开始，该委员会提供了一个结构性解决方案：减少个人所得税、取消企业所得税，并引入广泛的“企业净收益税”，以增加和稳定州收入。

A few years later, the Think Long Committee for California (organized by the Berggruen Institute, where I’m now a fellow) spent months modeling 23 different tax scenarios and proposed lowering income taxes to keep California competitive while broadening the sales tax to include services.

几年后，加州长期思考委员会（由伯格鲁恩研究所组织，我现在是该研究所的研究员）花了几个月的时间对 23 种不同的税收方案进行建模，并提议降低所得税以保持加州的竞争力，同时扩大销售税以将服务业纳入其中。

The committee’s projections showed this package would generate an additional $10 billion annually and stabilize revenues.

该委员会的预测显示，该计划每年将额外产生 100 亿美元的收入并稳定收入。

In both cases, political leaders ignored the reform proposals.

在这两种情况下，政治领导人都忽视了改革建议。

The result?

结果呢？

The ballot you’re looking at.

您正在查看的选票。

If you don’t wish to see a similarly nasty piece of work in your mailbox in 2028, now is the time to get busy doing the tax and governance work Californians have avoided for 50 years.

如果你不希望 2028 年在你的邮箱中看到类似的令人讨厌的工作，那么现在是时候开始忙于加州人 50 年来一直回避的税务和治理工作了。

Joe Mathews writes the Connecting California column for Zócalo Public Square and is founder-columnist of Democracy Local , a planetary publication.

乔·马修斯 (Joe Mathews) 为佐卡洛公共广场 (Zócalo Public Square) 撰写《连接加州》专栏，也是行星刊物 Democracy Local 的创始人兼专栏作家。

Primary editor: Eryn Brown | Secondary editor: Sarah Rothbard

主要编辑：Eryn Brown |二级编辑：莎拉·罗斯巴德

Get our latest essays, poems, art, and updates on our (always) free events.

获取我们最新的文章、诗歌、艺术作品以及我们（始终）免费活动的最新动态。