California already collects higher income taxes from its highest earners. Proposition 3 isn't asking voters to invent that tax. It's asking whether the state should stop treating it as temporary.

The higher rates were approved in 2012 and later extended. Under current law, they expire in 2031. Proposition 3 would make them permanent. The difference matters for state finances, public schools and taxpayers who earn enough to pay the additional rates.

Who's Paying the Higher Rates?

The tax applies to income above certain thresholds, not every dollar a person earns. For 2025, the state's official guide lists thresholds of roughly $371,000 for single filers, $742,000 for joint filers and $505,000 for heads of household. The amounts adjust annually for inflation.

The Legislative Analyst's Office says the top 2% of California taxpayers pay the higher rates. Those taxpayers also pay about half of the state's income taxes overall. That's a reminder that a relatively small group can have a big effect on the budget.

Where Does the Money Go?

The official fiscal estimate says keeping the rates would maintain roughly $5 billion to $15 billion in annual state revenue after the scheduled expiration. That's a wide range because investment gains and other high incomes can swing dramatically from one year to the next.

The state's analysis estimates roughly 40% of the money would support schools and community colleges. The rest would support other state programs and budget reserves, including funding available for health care and other services.

There's a distinction worth making: Proposition 3 doesn't send a fixed check to every school in Vista or San Marcos. State funding follows broader budget rules, and the measure doesn't guarantee a particular classroom or local program will receive a specified amount.

What Does Voting Yes or No Mean?

Voting Yes would keep the higher income-tax rates on high earners in place permanently instead of allowing them to expire in 2031.

Voting No would leave the existing expiration date in place. The higher rates would continue until 2031, then expire under current law.

Neither choice immediately rewrites everyone's tax bill. This is mainly a decision about whether the current higher rates should continue beyond their scheduled end.

Why Do People Disagree?

Supporters, including education organizations, argue the revenue helps sustain schools, community colleges and state services without imposing a new tax rate. They say keeping the existing rates avoids a major future drop in funding.

Opponents, including taxpayer and business organizations, argue California already relies heavily on high income taxes and should address spending priorities rather than make temporary rates permanent. They also question whether extending the tax is the best way to manage the budget.

The nonpartisan fiscal analysis estimates revenue, not a guarantee of better educational or health outcomes. Voters can weigh both the potential funding stability and the consequences of making a temporary tax permanent.

Questions You May Have About Proposition 3

Is Proposition 3 a new tax?

No. It would make existing higher income-tax rates permanent rather than allowing them to expire in 2031.

Would it affect everyone who pays California income tax?

No. The additional rates apply only to income above specified high-income thresholds, which adjust for inflation.

Would Vista and San Marcos schools automatically get a set amount?

No. The measure does not guarantee a specific allocation to individual local schools.

What happens if voters reject it?

The higher rates would remain until their scheduled expiration in 2031 under current law.

Official sources: California Secretary of State, November 3, 2026 Proposition 3 Official Voter Information Guide; California Legislative Analyst's Office, Proposition 3 analysis.