-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
I started my career as an apprentice sprinkler fitter, following my father into UA Local 709. Today I lead the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, representing nearly half a million workers who build and maintain our communities. Along the way, I’ve sat across the bargaining table more times than I can count. Wages matter, and so do health benefits. But the question our members ask about most is the one that will shape the rest of their lives: Will I be able to retire?
This November, Californians have an opportunity to protect the hard-earned retirement savings they have earned. For the workers I represent, retirement isn’t a windfall. It’s earned across jobsites from thousands of hours worked, over decades of early mornings, long shifts and hard physical work. We need to protect what we’ve saved — and that’s why I’m voting yes on Proposition 42.
Working people already pay income taxes on the money they earn. They shouldn’t pay taxes on that money twice simply because it’s sitting in a retirement or savings account. Proposition 42 prevents that double taxation by closing a loophole in California’s Constitution that allows new taxes to be imposed on retirement accounts, life savings and other personal property.
Revenue-generating ideas don’t stay on the shelf forever. In recent years, lawmakers have introduced five bills proposing taxes on retirement savings and other personal property. None passed. But every new proposal sends working families the message that the savings they’ve built are fair game. Our members feel that. They’re already stretched by the cost of housing, groceries, gas and child care. Eighty-five percent of Californians say the cost of living or taxes are making it harder to save for retirement. The last thing working families need is to worry that what they’ve managed to put away could be taxed again.
Some will argue that taxes on savings would hit only the wealthy. I’ve been around long enough to know new taxes rarely stay where they start. A plumber with a pension, an electrician with a 401(k) and a retired heavy equipment operator with a modest savings account are exactly the people who can least afford to find out the rules have changed.
A worker who has spent 30 years on job sites across the Sacramento region needs to be certain that the retirement they planned for will be there when they hang up their tools.
The labor movement has always fought for the basics: a fair wage, a safe jobsite and the chance to retire with dignity. Proposition 42 backs that last promise. It doesn’t take anything away from working families. It makes sure what they’ve earned stays theirs. You earned and saved it. Proposition 42 would protect it.
Chris Hannan is the president of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The column argues that retirement savings represent decades of work, not a windfall, and that workers should be able to count on those savings when they retire.
- It supports Proposition 42 as protection against new state taxes on financial assets and personal property. The article frames such taxes as double taxation because workers have already paid income taxes on the money they saved.[2][6]
- The piece contends that even if a tax is initially aimed at the wealthy, future proposals could reach workers’ pensions, 401(k)s and modest savings. It cites past legislative proposals as evidence that the possibility is not merely theoretical.
- The column links that risk to the cost pressures facing working families and argues that uncertainty about future taxes could undermine their ability to plan for retirement.
Different views on the topic
- Opponents argue that Proposition 42’s broad ban on new taxes on personal property is principally intended to block Proposition 40, a proposed one-time tax on billionaires’ wealth—not to protect ordinary retirement accounts. If both measures pass, Proposition 42 could prevent Proposition 40 from taking effect.[3][4][5]
- Critics also dispute the article’s suggestion that retirement savings are broadly at risk under current policy. California does not presently tax the ownership of stocks or investment accounts, and a San Francisco Chronicle editorial notes that Proposition 40 excludes qualified pensions and retirement accounts, while including certain very large Roth IRAs.[6][7]
- Opponents say blocking the billionaire tax could mean less revenue for public services, including health care. The measure’s fiscal effect is uncertain, but the Legislative Analyst’s Office says Proposition 42 could make it harder for the state to raise taxes and could reduce future revenue.[1][3]
- Critics further contend that the measure’s restriction on retroactive taxes reaches beyond retirement savings and could limit the state’s ability to adopt tax policies that apply to past activity.[1][7]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
It started as a ploy to scare Texas out of redrawing its congressional map and ended with California voters approving a new map of their own, one that could hat could help alter the balance of power in Washington.
William Mulholland was the water boss who made L.A. possible. His reputation gave him unchecked authority as a dam builder. In 1928, that led to one of America’s deadliest disasters--and the question of whether it was a crime.
