A brief on what Proposition 30 might have accomplished.

After the devastating fires began in Los Angeles, I searched for all California tax propositions that recently failed, and was surprised that I only needed to go back to 2022 to find Proposition 30 (Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $2 Million. Initiative Statute).
In the 2022 California election, voters were presented with a proposal that sought to impose an additional 1.75% tax on income over $2 million. The revenue generated would have funded zero-emission vehicle initiatives (80%) and wildfire prevention programs (20%). Despite California’s escalating wildfire crises, the measure was rejected.
While it’s unlikely that the rejection of this bill played a role in the perfect storm of high winds, drought, and dry vegetation that led to the fires, I cannot help but consider that the resistance of the wealthiest to pay higher taxes hindered collective efforts to address what has resulted in an existential calamity for Los Angeles.
Proposition 30 could somewhat decrease state and local government costs related to firefighting, clean-up, and recovery if the additional funding for wildfire activities ends up reducing the severity of future wildfires.
—Legislative Analyst’s Office
The rejection of Proposition 30 came at a time when the evidence of California’s vulnerability to wildfires was obvious. Wildfires have increased in frequency and intensity, fueled by climate change, poor land management, and unchecked urban sprawl. But to be fair, the proposition also came right after Mr. Tax Avoidance himself Elon Musk decided to move Tesla manufacturing from California to Texas (apparently because of the pro-transgender environment, but more likely because of unionization efforts).
In 2021 alone, wildfires consumed over 2.5 million acres, displacing thousands and inflicting billions of dollars in damages. It was within this context that the government sought resources from those most capable of contributing to an equitable solution. The wealthiest residents, representing the upper echelons of the state’s income spectrum, would have borne the brunt of this taxation.
The lost revenue from Proposition 30 could have catalyzed a series of interventions.
In the immediate term, California might have fortified its emergency response infrastructure, equipping first responders with advanced firefighting tools that might create faster, more reliable evacuation systems. Vegetation management efforts, including the strategic clearing of overgrown areas and the establishment of firebreaks, could have been scaled up to reduce fire risks. Moreover, public education campaigns would have empowered communities with the knowledge to mitigate their vulnerabilities, fostering a culture of readiness in the face of an ever-present threat.
In the medium term, the funds might have been directed towards reshaping urban and suburban planning practices like the creation of green belts in London, Seoul, and Delhi to act as natural buffers against advancing flames. Community wildfire resilience hubs, located across the state, could have emerged as vital centers of training, resource distribution, and coordination, enabling a more localized and proactive approach to fire management. Investment in advanced predictive technologies, such as satellite-based monitoring and AI-driven risk assessment, could have revolutionized early detection capabilities, which would have undoubtedly provided ample warning. Imagine an AI to predict the storm rather than the AI used to predict when Palestinian fathers would return home so that missiles would be used to blow up entire families (“Lavender” and “Where’s Daddy”).
The long-term vision enabled by Proposition 30 could have changed fire response and mitigation. Forest restoration projects, could have reinstated the natural balance of fire-prone ecosystems, while extensive reforestation efforts with native, fire-resistant species might have mitigated the risks of uncontrolled burns.
Beyond immediate fire management, the measure could have catalyzed broader climate strategies, including investments in renewable energy infrastructure and carbon sequestration initiatives. These efforts would at least address the root causes of the crisis, rather than merely its symptoms.
Furthermore, rather that insurance companies cancelling home insurance policies, public wildfire insurance programs might have been established to ensure that affected communities received equitable and timely support in the aftermath of disasters, reducing displacement and cancellation from insurance companies.
The rejection of Proposition 30 should remind us of the stark inequity in how burdens and benefits are distributed. The wealthiest sectors, shielded by their means to deploy private solutions—such as fortified homes or private fire or security services—effectively abdicated their responsibility to contribute to the collective good. This refusal not only perpetuates the vulnerability of the less affluent but also erodes the moral fabric that underpins democratic governance. Progressive taxation is not merely a matter of fiscal necessity; it is a cornerstone of social justice, a mechanism through which privilege can help to provide our General welfare with a more just and resilient society.
If another measure should appears on the ballot, it is imperative that the 1% grasp the stakes and choose to prioritize a future of shared responsibility. A regulatory revolution paid for by taxes from the 1% is probably better than being surrounded by private fire and security services. Simple, right?
(originally published on Facebook on January 10)