California Pension Tax Proposition (2010)
|Not on Ballot|
| This measure did not or |
will not appear on a ballot
|Voting on Pensions|
|Not on ballot|
The measure would have taxed California public employees who drew a pension from the state of more than $40,000/year. If enacted, the California Legislative Analyst's Office indicated that the measure would have raised $6 billion to $8 billion in new taxes.
Paul McCauley was the potential initiative's official proponent.
Text of measure
The following title and summary were for Initiative 09-0006, the first version of the initiative. The following initiative, 10-0014, was similar.
TAX ON PENSION DISTRIBUTIONS AND HEALTH CARE BENEFITS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
The brief summary of the proposed initiative provided by the Attorney General was
Imposes additional, annual taxes on California residents who receive income in excess of $40,000 from pension distributions, social security, and the cash value of health care benefits. May impose a one-time, additional tax on non-California residents whose pension benefits exceed $50,000 in a year, and who earned income in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Annual state revenue increases of up to $6 billion to $8 billion beginning in 2010 from new taxes on pension benefits. Revenues likely would decline over time due to changes in behavior.
Path to the ballot
433,971 valid signatures of California registered voters were required to qualify the measure for the ballot.
Two versions of the McCauley Pension Reform Act were presented to state election officials. 09-0006 was filed on March 25, 2009. Its petition drive deadline elapsed. Version 10-0014 was filed on February 18, 2010. This version awaits a ballot title also failed to reach the ballot.
The LAO wrote:
- "The measure raises legal issues that could result in the excise tax being invalidated under federal law. According to FTB, states are prohibited from imposing an income tax on the retirement income (from an in-state employer) of a nonresident. While the proposed excise tax is not technically a tax on current income, the outcome is similar (especially since this measure allows the excise tax to be paid over time). As a result, the excise tax may not survive a legal challenge. In that case, the annual revenue estimate would drop by $1 billion to $3 billion."
- Sacramento Bee, "Public pension crusader returns with new ballot initiative", May 22, 2009
- Attorney General Ballot Title and Summary of Initiative 09-0006, accessed January 10, 2014
- Sacramento Bee, "LAO: McCauley pension tax proposition may be illegal", June 12, 2009
- LAO analysis of the Pension Tax Proposition, 09-0006