California's Prop. 3 would make a tax on wealthy earners permanent. Here is our choice | Opinion

Students raise their hands to answer a question on Winding Creek Elementary School’s opening day in Roseville in August. Proposition 3 seeks to extend a tax on wealthy Californians that helps fund education. ZIYU JULIAN ZHU julian.zhu@sacbee.com

Proposition 3 would extend a tax on wealthy Californians, but it has received far less attention than Proposition 40, which seeks a one-time tax on state billionaires. Although Proposition 40 is arguably the most controversial of California’s 14 propositions on the November ballot, Proposition 3 has generated comparatively little public debate.

The difference is that millionaires have made far less noise than billionaires about being taxed in California. It is also the difference between Proposition 40’s new, one-time 5% tax on people with more than $1 billion in assets and a tax that voters approved in 2012 and that will expire in 2031 unless they approve Proposition 3 in November.

Approval of Proposition 3 would make permanent a tax that generates between $5 billion and $15 billion a year.

As The Bee reported, Prop. 3 would “apply to the top 2% of California taxpayers. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, that affects single filers earning at least $361,000 and joint filers earning at least $721,000, though the thresholds increase annually with inflation.”

Proposition 3 would allocate 89% of its revenue to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges through the state’s Education Protection Account. If those funds exceed California’s Proposition 98 minimum-funding guarantee, half of the excess, up to $2 billion annually, would support critical health care for children and their families, primarily through Medi-Cal programs.

Proponents of Prop. 3 include the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees of California, California Federation of Teachers, California Professional Firefighters, California School Employees Association, California Teachers Association and Service Employees International Union California. Organizations opposing Prop. 3 are the California Taxpayers Association and Reform California.

“Investing in our students, our communities, and educators is one of the best investments we can make as a state,” said David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association. “If we do not pass this, it actually is a tax cut for the wealthiest Californians.”

McClatchy’s California editorial board, representing The Sacramento Bee, Modesto Bee, Merced Sun-Star, Fresno Bee and San Luis Obispo Tribune, recommends a “Yes” vote on Prop. 3. Approving Prop. 3 would soften the blow to public schools and healthcare facilities during economic downturns.

Extending a previously approved tax is a good investment in public education.

We urge Californians to vote “Yes” on Prop. 3.