Would Proposition 30’s wealth tax supercharge California’s fight against climate change?

California voters may be understandably amenable to heaping another tax on the wealthy to fund a good cause. But doing so as Proposition 30 suggests is not the right way to address the existential threat of climate change.

Prop. 30’s stated goals — raising billions to help California make the transition to electric vehicles and to prevent and fight wildfires — are laudable and likely to reduce air pollution. Similar goals motivated the California Legislature to approve several recent bills pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, which put a combined $54 billion into tackling greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a good start that puts California on the right track.

One serious problem with Proposition 30 is that it’s being pushed by a special interest hoping that the money raised, or a good portion of it, will end up in its pocket. That special interest is Lyft, the ride-hailing giant that carts people from Point A to Point B all over California and the world. Nobody spends $15 million — as Lyft has on this campaign — expecting nothing in return.

Newsom called Prop. 30 “a special-interest carve-out — a cynical scheme devised by a single corporation to funnel state income tax revenue to their company.” The governor’s turn as the face of the opposition to a climate measure backed by much of his party is awkward, but he does have a point.

Because its cars are idling while waiting for ride assignments — and producing emissions while on their way to pick up passengers — the ride-hailing industry’s vehicles pollute more than other private automobiles. That’s why the California Air Resources Board decided that the companies should go green faster than the rest of us — by 2030 for most cars employed by Lyft, Uber and others, five years before all dealers in California are restricted to electric vehicles.

In simple terms, Prop. 30 is Lyft’s way of getting someone else to pay the bill for the transition from gas- to electric-powered cars. That someone else would be Californians earning more than $2 million a year, whose income tax would go up by 1.75 percentage points.

Forty-five percent of the initiative’s proceeds would fund incentives for electric vehicle purchases, 35% would go to build charging stations and 20% would help mitigate wildfires.

That’s all good in theory. But in practice, ballot-box approaches are most needed when politicians refuse or are unable to find solutions. That’s not the case here. California legislators are making progress on measures to stem climate change.

Beware special interest initiatives

CalFire Local 2881, the union representing state firefighters, endorsed Prop. 30 because it would allow the department to bypass normal budgeting procedures and avoid competing with other agencies for general fund money. That’s another special interest.

“I would be astonished if the governor hasn’t given CalFire everything they’ve needed,” Loren Kaye of the California Chamber of Commerce told the editorial boards of McClatchy’s California newspapers.

It’s not that the state’s wealthy need protection. If they’re netting more than $2 million a year, of course they can afford to pay more in taxes.

But if we’re going to solve a problem by soaking the rich, let’s do it for a better reason than lining the pockets of the ride-hailing industry. Vote no on Proposition 30.

This story was originally published September 15, 2022 at 9:19 AM.