Skip to content

Introduction

Legacies of historical racist policies and ongoing discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and housing have barred many Californians of color from economic opportunities. As a result, Californians of color — particularly Black, Latinx, and American Indian Californians — are less likely to have high incomes and to have built enough wealth to be able to weather periods of income loss, retire comfortably, and pass on wealth to their children. These barriers have also made Californians of color more likely to have experienced health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. One area policymakers should consider in efforts to address these inequities is the state’s tax and revenue policies. Although these policies may appear race-neutral, they can play a significant role in either worsening existing racial and ethnic income and wealth disparities or promoting greater equity for Californians. A policy need not be explicitly racist in order to have racially inequitable outcomes.1 Because many current state tax policies privilege Californians with higher incomes and wealth, they widen existing racial inequities. Policymakers can also use tax policy as a tool to promote racial equity, both by making the tax code itself more equitable, and by raising revenue to invest in the social and economic well-being of Californians of color.

1. Legacies of Racist Policies Have Led to Significant Racial Income and Wealth Inequality in California

Centuries of racist policies, from enslavement, land theft, and genocide to educational and residential segregation, inadequate employment antidiscrimination laws, overpolicing and overincarceration of communities of color, and other forms of ongoing discrimination have locked many people of color out of opportunities to build income and wealth.2 As a result, American Indian, Black, Latinx, and Pacific Islander Californians are less likely to have high incomes than white and Asian households.3 For example, Black households represent only 3% of the richest one-fifth of California households, even though they make up 6% of all California households.4 Latinx households represent 14% of the richest fifth compared to 30% of all households. And while American Indian and Pacific Islanders make up very small shares of California households, they represent even smaller shares of the richest 20%.5 There are also stark differences in wealth — assets minus debts — between racial and ethnic groups. The median wealth of Black and Latinx families in the United States in 2019 was $24,100 and $36,100, respectively, compared to $188,200 for white families.6 This racial wealth gap leaves Black and Latinx families at a significant disadvantage in their ability to weather crises like the current COVID-19 pandemic and recession, to save for retirement, and to pass wealth on to their children.

Chart Title: Black and Latinx Californians Are Underrepresented Among Californians with High Incomes

2. Many Tax Breaks Benefit People with Higher Incomes, Worsening Racial Inequities

California is expected to lose over $60 billion in state revenues in 2021-22 to personal income tax breaks, some of the largest of which provide the majority of benefits to high-income families.7 For this reason, many tax breaks disproportionately benefit white and Asian Californians and provide little to no benefits to many other Californians of color. For example, many tax benefits are only available to those who opt to “itemize” their tax deductions, and people who itemize tend to have higher incomes. California’s four largest personal income tax deductions provide more than three-quarters of their benefits to families with incomes over $100,000, who are generally the richest 20% of families, while providing nearly no benefits to those with incomes below $20,000.8 American Indian, Black, and Latinx Californians are more likely to have low incomes, so they are less likely to benefit from these tax breaks.

Chart Title: California's Four Largest Personal Income Tax Deductions Mostly Benefit High-Income Californians

3. Costly Tax Breaks for Homeowners Are Less Likely to Benefit Californians of Color

California provides several tax benefits for homeowners, including the deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes, which are respectively projected to cost the state $4.1 billion and $3 billion in 2021-22. Racist policies and practices have blocked many Californians of color from homeownership, so they are less likely to benefit from these tax breaks. In California, Black, Latinx, and Pacific Islander households own homes at rates below the state average of 55%, while American Indian, Asian, and white households own homes at rates at or above the state average.9 In addition, many homeowners of color have lower-valued homes — largely due to residential segregation and racially biased appraisal practices — and therefore generally lower mortgage interest and property tax expenses, resulting in smaller tax benefits for these expenses.10 Moreover, these tax benefits are unlikely to help many families of color become homeowners, since the main barrier to homeownership is down payment costs, not mortgage interest or property taxes.11 By rewarding families who would have purchased homes anyway instead of helping families of color become homeowners, these tax breaks protected by policymakers perpetuate the racial wealth gap. Better-targeted assistance such as down payment assistance or a first-time homebuyer tax credit may be more likely to increase homeownership among these families.

4. Refundable Tax Credits Increase Racial Equity by Boosting Incomes for Low-Income Californians of Color

Refundable income tax credits are the only tax credits that help families with very low incomes.12 As a result, these credits are more likely to benefit American Indian, Black, and Latinx Californians, who are more likely to have low incomes due to racist economic, education, and employment policies and practices. California has two refundable tax credits, the California Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC) and the Young Child Tax Credit, which boost the incomes of Californians with incomes under $30,000.13 Around 3 in 4 Californians eligible for the CalEITC are people of color, including about half who are Latinx.14 However, the amount the state spends on these two credits is only about 2% of all state spending on tax breaks for individuals. Policymakers could improve racial equity in the state by increasing the CalEITC and the Young Child Tax Credit or by converting other tax benefits into targeted, refundable credits, which would provide greater benefits to lower-income families of color.

5. Taxing Wealth and High Incomes Would Reduce Racial Inequity and Raise Revenue to Help More Californians Thrive

Even before the COVID-19 crisis devastated many communities of color, racist policies and discrimination blocked many of these Californians from accessing well-paying jobs, safe and affordable housing, and a quality education. Meeting these critical needs and building a more equitable California where everyone can thrive will require significant investments supported by additional revenues. Raising needed revenues equitably means asking more from Californians with the greatest ability to pay. Policymakers could significantly narrow racial income and wealth inequality by using these revenues to help people of color boost their incomes and build wealth in the long run. State leaders could explore raising top income tax rates, eliminating or cutting back tax breaks that primarily benefit higher-income people, or tapping into the state’s vast wealth with a tax on inheritances, estates, or net worth. California does not directly tax wealth and does not currently have an inheritance or estate tax. Inheritances make up a significant share of the total wealth for many, yet people of color are much less likely to receive inheritances.15 Reinstituting a tax on large inheritances could reduce the racial wealth gap, especially if the revenues were used to increase wealth-building among Californians of color who have been historically locked out of such opportunities.16

Policymakers Can Build a More Equitable California by Improving Tax and Revenue Policies

 The racial, ethnic, and economic inequities that have been made painfully clear by the COVID-19 pandemic and recession are nothing new for California’s communities of color. The inequities are the product of centuries of policies and practices that have put Californians of color, particularly Black, Latinx, and American Indian Californians, at a significant economic disadvantage. California’s leaders need to do more than help the state recover from the current crisis; they need to change how the state raises and allocates resources to address the long-standing inequities hurting Californians of color.

Policymakers should start by re-examining and restructuring the state’s tax and revenue system. The goals of this effort should be twofold. First, policymakers should make the tax code itself more equitable by limiting or eliminating tax breaks that primarily benefit the already wealthy and expanding or creating new tax benefits that reach Californians with low incomes and help families build wealth. For example, the state could increase the CalEITC and Young Child Tax Credit, increase the existing renter’s tax credit and make it refundable, provide a tax credit for first-time homebuyers with low and middle incomes, and provide better-targeted incentives to save for retirement.17 Second, policymakers should explore opportunities to raise sufficient revenues from those who have been provided the most advantage by past racist and classist policies to fund investments to support Californians who have been provided the least advantage. Investments could include moving toward universal health care, making child care, housing, and higher education more affordable, and expanding children’s savings accounts or creating a “baby bonds” program to help families save for their children’s futures.18 Policymakers have an opportunity to improve the state’s tax code to make the investments needed now to ensure that more Californians have the ability to achieve economic stability and build wealth for their families and future generations.

Endnotes can be found in the publication PDF here.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

New Report: Corporations Paying Historically Low State & Federal Taxes Amid Urgent & Ongoing Needs for Californians

SACRAMENTO — A new report by the California Budget & Policy Center  — Why Aren’t Corporations Paying Their Fair Share of Taxes? — finds corporations are paying less than half the amount in state taxes, as a share of their income, than they did just four decades ago. This is largely due to state policymakers’ decisions to cut tax rates and expand tax breaks for corporations.

Introduction

California’s corporate taxes raise revenue that helps pay for the public services and infrastructure that enable businesses to exist and to profit in local communities and statewide. Corporations depend on high-quality schools to produce a dedicated and educated workforce and to help attract qualified employees. Corporations, like individuals, also benefit from a range of public services such as those provided by fire departments and the state judicial system that protect corporations’ legal rights.

California cut the state corporate tax rate twice since the 1980s

Yet, profitable corporations are contributing less in taxes that support these public services, as a share of their California income, than a generation ago. This Issue Brief shows how far corporate taxes have fallen as a share of corporate profits in California, explains several reasons for the decline, and points to inequitable policies that provide larger benefits to corporations that are thriving than to small businesses and Californians who are struggling to live and work in the state. By examining and limiting corporate tax policies that benefit multinational corporations and big businesses, California policymakers have an opportunity to advance a more equitable tax structure, raise revenue for critical services, and achieve a vibrant state and economy that serves more people.

Unlike spending on programs that is deliberated during the annual state budget cycle, policymakers do not scrutinize most tax expenditures each year.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

About this event

Our tax policies affect who gains wealth — namely corporations and wealthy white Californians — and who remains locked out from out state’s prosperity — Californians of color and people in low- and middle-income households. Join us to learn how the state’s current tax structures perpetuate wealth and racial disparities and how policymakers can work toward building a more equitable California.

Watch the recording

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Local tax revenue reflects a community’s shared effort to support vital public services that all Californians need to live in our cities and counties, such as education for students in K-12 schools and community colleges, housing, health care, public parks, and libraries. When tax breaks provide advantages to some taxpayers over others, it not only creates inequities but can also lead to revenue losses that compromise the ability of schools and local communities to provide essential services for Californians. This is the case with commercial and industrial property taxes across California, and why voters will be asked in fall 2020 to vote on Proposition 15, an amendment to the state Constitution that would change how commercial and industrial properties are taxed to provide more revenue for schools and communities. 

Under Prop. 15, commercial and industrial properties would be taxed based on their market value rather than their purchase price. By moving from a property tax system based on purchase value to one based on market value, Prop. 15 would raise an estimated $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion annually in property tax revenues for K-12 schools and community colleges, counties, cities, and special districts, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Guide to Understanding Proposition 15


FAQ: Understanding Commercial Property Tax & Revenue in California

How Are Commercial and Industrial Properties Taxed Today? 
The general property tax rate for California commercial and industrial properties has been capped at 1% of assessed value since voters approved Prop. 13 in 1978. Counties determine the assessed value of commercial and industrial properties based on the property’s purchase price plus an annual adjustment for inflation not to exceed 2%. Counties collect property taxes and are generally only allowed to reassess properties to their market value when they undergo a change in ownership or new construction.

How Is Revenue From Commercial and Industrial Property Taxes Distributed Across California?
Revenue received from the taxes paid by commercial and industrial property owners is distributed to counties, cities, K-12 schools and community colleges, and special districts (such as public utility districts and fire protection districts) for services provided to Californians, based on complex state laws. The share of countywide property tax revenue going to each local entity is largely based on the distribution of these revenues dating back to the mid-1970s – before Prop. 13 was enacted and each local entity was able to set its own property tax rates. This means that there is wide variation among counties in the share of revenue going to – and the level of services provided by – each type of local government.

Why Are Commercial and Industrial Property Taxes Inequitable for Californians and in Need of Reform?
The property assessment limits set by Prop. 13 mean that an owner that purchased a commercial or industrial property several decades ago pays far lower taxes than an owner that recently purchased a similar property – leading to inequity among local businesses and a significant loss of revenue at the expense of schools and local community services. Schools and local communities are losing significant revenues every year as properties that have not changed ownership in many years are assessed at values much lower than their market values. Additionally, when a property changes hands, commercial and industrial property owners can more easily avoid reassessment than residential property owners due to the laws defining ownership changes and the complexity of business property ownership.


Report: Raising Revenue for Schools and Local Communities, Changing California’s Inequitable Taxing of Commercial Properties, and Understanding Proposition 15

Local tax revenue reflects a community’s shared effort to support vital public services that all Californians need to thrive in our cities and counties. This ranges from education for students in K-12 schools and community colleges to access to housing, health care, public parks, and libraries. These vital public services are supported by tax revenues from commercial and industrial properties – many of which are still taxed based on purchase prices that are more than four decades old. California voters will be asked in fall 2020 to vote on a measure known as Proposition 15, an amendment to the state Constitution that would change how commercial and industrial properties are taxed and provide more revenue for schools and local communities to support services Californians rely upon.

 

Download this report.


Infographic: California’s Inequitable Tax System Hurts Schools & Local Communities

Download this infographic.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

The share of California corporate income paid in state taxes declined by more than half during the past three decades. In the early 1980s, corporations that reported profits in California paid more than 9.5% of this income in state corporation taxes. In contrast, corporations paid just 4.2% of their California profits in corporation taxes in 2017, the most recent year for which data are available. California’s state budget would have received $11.2 billion more revenue in 2017 had corporations paid the same share of their income in taxes that year as they did in 1981 – more than the state spends on the University of California, the California State University, and student aid combined.

Corporations pay less of their income in taxes today – even amid the COVID-19 economic crisis – than they did in the 1980s in part due to the reduction of tax rates by state policymakers. Since increasing the corporate tax rate to 9.6% in 1980, the Legislature has cut the rate twice: from 9.6% to 9.3% in 1987 and from 9.3% to 8.84%, its current level, in 1997.

In addition to cutting tax rates since the 1980s, state policymakers have enacted several corporate tax breaks that reduce the share of income that corporations pay in California corporation taxes. For example, beginning in 1987, California allowed multinational corporations to lower their tax liability by calculating their California income based on either their total income from worldwide operations or only from their operations within the US. This so-called “water’s edge” election will cost the state an estimated $2.4 billion in 2019-20. Also in 1987, state policymakers established the state’s research and development (R&D) tax credit, which primarily benefits large corporations and will cost the state an estimated $1.8 billion in 2019-20. As with many corporate income tax credits, the amount spent on the R&D credit each year is unlimited, and there is no expiration date. In total, California is projected to spend $5.7 billion on tax expenditures for corporations in 2019-20.

California spending on tax breaks for corporations far exceeds the amount the state spends on tax benefits for low-income Californians. In 2019, California was projected to spend $1 billion on the state’s two largest tax credits targeted to Californians with low incomes – the California Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC) and the Young Child Tax Credit (YCTC). The CalEITC and YCTC boost the incomes of families and individuals with annual earnings of less than $30,000, a large majority of whom are people of color. The CalEITC alone directly benefited 3.7 million Californians in 2018. One example of how tax credits, exemptions, and deductions could be more equitably targeted is to extend the CalEITC and YCTC to all immigrant families. The Legislature could pay for the extension of the CalEITC and YCTC to these immigrant families by eliminating or reducing tax breaks for corporations that can afford to contribute more.

Corporations can contribute more not only because they are paying less than half the amount in state taxes than they did three decades ago, but also because they are likely to pay far less of their income in federal taxes due to the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), signed by President Trump in 2017. The TCJA made several changes to federal tax law that benefit corporations, including slashing the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, the largest one-time reduction in US history. The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) estimated that the tax benefit to California corporate business owners was more than $13 billion in 2018. The reduction in federal corporate taxes may argue for an increase in the state’s corporate income tax rate. However, policymakers have other options for ensuring that corporations pay their fair share in state taxes. For example, they could review existing corporate tax provisions, such as corporate tax credits, exemptions, and deductions, and reduce or eliminate those that are not achieving the state’s policy goals. By reducing spending on corporate tax breaks, the state would have more resources available to support families with low incomes who are struggling to afford the costs of living in California, COVID-19 crisis or not.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

California loses a large amount of state revenues through tax breaks, also called “tax expenditures,” with much of the benefits going to high-income households and corporations. Personal income and corporate income tax expenditures combined are projected to amount to more than $63 billion in forgone state revenues in 2019-20 (the fiscal year that started on July 1, 2019), or an amount equivalent to more than 40% of the 2019-20 General Fund budget. This is revenue that otherwise could go to Californians who need additional support to be able to live and work in the state while strengthening the state’s economy.

Unlike program spending, tax breaks generally are not up for debate every year, and instead often quietly continue from year to year. If tax breaks are debated at all, those discussions are largely deliberated outside of the usual budget cycle, reducing opportunities for advocates and the public to provide input on how the state is making fiscal decisions. Some of the largest tax expenditures – for example, the Mortgage Interest Deduction and the Water’s Edge Election – help higher-income households and businesses that do not need the help, or need it much less, while also reducing the resources available for individuals and families who do need support. This “upside-down” nature of the state’s tax expenditures also contributes to the racial wealth gap, as households with higher income and wealth that benefit most from many tax breaks are less likely to be comprised of people of color. Furthermore, it may be more effective to pursue many of the state’s policy goals through spending directly on services that benefit more Californians rather than indirectly through the tax code. California could improve its use of tax expenditures by setting sunset dates, requiring their periodic evaluation, and better targeting their benefits to low- and middle-income households. Doing so would free up funding that could be used to invest in policies that provide greater opportunities for millions of Californians that struggle with the cost of living to increase their incomes and wealth.

Read the 2-page Fact Sheet and see how:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!