Wealth tax.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when AB 310 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on AB 310.
You're tracking AB 310
We'll email you the moment it moves.
AB 310 — Wealth tax.
Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
Existing law imposes taxes upon income and real property, as well as taxes upon certain transactions and excise taxes. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, impose an annual tax at a rate of 1% of a resident of this state's worldwide net worth in excess of $50,000,000, or in excess of $25,000,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately. The bill would also impose an additional tax at a rate of 0.5% of a resident's worldwide net worth in excess of $1,000,000,000, or in excess of $500,000,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately. The bill would describe worldwide net worth with reference to specific federal provisions and would provide that worldwide net worth does not include specific assets, including personal property situated out of state, directly held real property, or liabilities related to directly held real property. The bill would also authorize the Franchise Tax Board to adopt regulations to carry out these provisions, including regulations regarding the valuation of certain assets that are not publicly traded. Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to administer the Personal Income Tax Law. This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to amend or create returns with regard to the Wealth Tax. Existing law, the False Claims Act, provides that any person who commits specified acts, including, but not limited to, knowingly presenting a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval or knowingly making or using a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, is liable to the state or to the political subdivision for 3 times the amount of damages that the state or political subdivision sustained because of the act and for the costs of a civil action brought to recover any penalties or damages, and is subject to a civil penalty. That act requires the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority of a political subdivision to diligently investigate violations of those specific acts involving state funds or political subdivision funds, respectively, and authorizes the Attorney General, the prosecuting authority, or a qui tam plaintiff to bring a civil action against a person who commits those acts. That act does not apply to claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code. This bill would apply the provisions of the False Claims Act to claims, records, or statements made in relation to the wealth tax imposed by the bill, as specified. This bill would specify that the tax imposed by the bill shall only become operative if a specified constitutional amendment is approved by the voters and takes effect. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill Text
- Amended 04/05/21 - Amended Assembly Current pdf April 05, 2021
- Amended 03/29/21 - Amended Assembly pdf March 29, 2021
- Amended 03/25/21 - Amended Assembly pdf March 25, 2021
- Introduced 01/25/21 - Introduced pdf January 25, 2021
- AB310 View text html
Action History
-
From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
-
Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.
-
Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. Read second time and amended.
-
Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. Read second time and amended.
-
Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. Read second time and amended.
-
Referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee February 25.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Alex Lee · Primary
- Santiago · Cosponsor
- Ash Kalra · Cosponsor
- Jeff Gonzalez · Cosponsor
- Robert Rivas · Cosponsor
- Mark Stone · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 5 co-sponsors · 116 not signed on · 14 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Lee, Alex Democratic
Co-sponsors (5)
- Santiago
- Kalra, Ash Democratic
- Gonzalez, Jeff Republican
- Rivas, Robert Democratic
- Mark Stone
Not signed on (116)
116 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 116 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 47 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 15 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 0 | 12 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 62 | 17 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 78% | 21% | 0% | 1% |
How each member voted (80)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| McCarty | — | Yea |
| Rendon | — | Yea |
| Friedman | — | Yea |
| Low | — | Yea |
| Wood | — | Yea |
| Santiago | — | Yea |
| Essayli | — | Nay |
| Waldron | — | Nay |
| Mathis | — | Nay |
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Yea |
| Rodriguez | — | Yea |
| Villapudua | — | Yea |
| Ting | — | Yea |
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Yea |
| Jim Patterson | — | Nay |
| Luz Rivas | — | Yea |
| Vince Fong | — | Nay |
| Wendy Carrillo | — | Yea |
| Addis, Dawn | Democratic | Yea |
| Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Alvarez, David | Democratic | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Bains, Jasmeet | Democratic | Yea |
| Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca | Democratic | Yea |
| Bennett, Steve | Democratic | Yea |
| Berman, Marc | Democratic | Yea |
| Boerner, Tasha | Democratic | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Carrillo, Juan | Democratic | Yea |
| Cervantes, Sabrina | Democratic | Yea |
| Connolly, Damon | Democratic | Yea |
| Fong, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Gipson, Mike A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Grayson, Timothy S. | Democratic | Yea |
| Haney, Matt | Democratic | Yea |
| Hart, Gregg | Democratic | Yea |
| Irwin, Jacqui | Democratic | Yea |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Lee, Alex | Democratic | Yea |
| Lowenthal, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| McKinnor, Tina | Democratic | Yea |
| Muratsuchi, Al | Democratic | Yea |
| Nguyen, Stephanie | Democratic | Yea |
| Ortega, Liz | Democratic | Yea |
| Pacheco, Blanca | Democratic | Yea |
| Papan, Diane | Democratic | Yea |
| Pellerin, Gail | Democratic | Yea |
| Petrie-Norris, Cottie | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Yea |
| Ramos, James C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Reyes, Eloise Gómez | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Rubio, Blanca E. | Democratic | Yea |
| Schiavo, Pilar | Democratic | Yea |
| Soria, Esmeralda | Democratic | Yea |
| Valencia, Avelino | Democratic | Yea |
| Ward, Christopher M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah | Democratic | Yea |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Wilson, Lori D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Zbur, Rick Chavez | Democratic | Yea |
| Alanis, Juan | Republican | Nay |
| Chen, Phillip | Republican | Nay |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Nay |
| Davies, Laurie | Republican | Nay |
| Dixon, Diane | Republican | Nay |
| Flora, Heath | Republican | Nay |
| Gallagher, James | Republican | Nay |
| Hoover, Josh | Republican | Nay |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Not Voting |
| Patterson, Joe | Republican | Nay |
| Sanchez, Kate | Republican | Nay |
| Ta, Tri | Republican | Nay |
| Wallis, Greg | Republican | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Unaffiliated | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 11 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 69% | 25% | 0% | 6% |
How each member voted (16)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Mathis | — | Nay |
| Wendy Carrillo | — | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Fong, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Hart, Gregg | Democratic | Yea |
| Lowenthal, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| Ortega, Liz | Democratic | Yea |
| Papan, Diane | Democratic | Yea |
| Pellerin, Gail | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Nay |
| Dixon, Diane | Republican | Nay |
| Sanchez, Kate | Republican | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 63% | 25% | 0% | 13% |
How each member voted (8)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Alanis, Juan | Republican | Nay |
| Sanchez, Kate | Republican | Nay |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 310 do?
- Existing law imposes taxes upon income and real property, as well as taxes upon certain transactions and excise taxes. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, impose an annual tax at a rate of 1% of a resident of this state's worldwide net worth in excess of $50,000,000, or in excess of $25,000,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately. The bill would also impose an additional tax at a rate of 0.5% of a resident's worldwide net worth in excess of $1,000,000,000, or in excess of $500,000,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately. The bill would describe worldwide net worth with reference to specific federal provisions and would provide that worldwide net worth does not include specific assets, including personal property situated out of state, directly held real property, or liabilities related to directly held real property. The bill would also authorize the Franchise Tax Board to adopt regulations to carry out these provisions, including regulations regarding the valuation of certain assets that are not publicly traded. Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to administer the Personal Income Tax Law. This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to amend or create returns with regard to the Wealth Tax. Existing law, the False Claims Act, provides that any person who commits specified acts, including, but not limited to, knowingly presenting a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval or knowingly making or using a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, is liable to the state or to the political subdivision for 3 times the amount of damages that the state or political subdivision sustained because of the act and for the costs of a civil action brought to recover any penalties or damages, and is subject to a civil penalty. That act requires the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority of a political subdivision to diligently investigate violations of those specific acts involving state funds or political subdivision funds, respectively, and authorizes the Attorney General, the prosecuting authority, or a qui tam plaintiff to bring a civil action against a person who commits those acts. That act does not apply to claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code. This bill would apply the provisions of the False Claims Act to claims, records, or statements made in relation to the wealth tax imposed by the bill, as specified. This bill would specify that the tax imposed by the bill shall only become operative if a specified constitutional amendment is approved by the voters and takes effect. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
- Who sponsors AB 310?
- AB 310 is sponsored by Lee, Alex (Democratic), Santiago, Kalra, Ash (Democratic), Gonzalez, Jeff (Republican), Rivas, Robert (Democratic), and Mark Stone.
- What is the current status of AB 310?
- This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track AB 310?
- Track AB 310 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 310
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of AB 310
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →