Menu
California · individual fact

California income and taxes

Household income, income per person, purchasing power, and California’s tax structure.

Median household income$99.12K2020–2024 · #5 of 50 · highest first
Per-capita money income$49.51K2020–2024 · #10 of 50 · highest first
Real personal income per person$63.03K2024 · #12 of 50 · highest first

California over time

Explore California readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. California officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a California effect.

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a California change.

Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear

Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.

Real personal income per person California · source units
CaliforniaPublished U.S. benchmark

Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.

Real personal income per person2024: $63,028$45.56K$55.42K$65.28KCalifornia, 2014: $47,472California, 2015: $50,054California, 2016: $51,802California, 2017: $52,569California, 2018: $53,523California, 2019: $55,931California, 2020: $59,993California, 2021: $63,373California, 2022: $59,126California, 2023: $60,100California, 2024: $63,028201420192024
✦ Major events & context · 37National context · Katrina emergency tax relief enacted · 2005-09-23Katrina tax reliefNational context · Investment tax rates extended and AMT relief enacted · 2006-05-172006 tax extensionsNational context · First step of the federal minimum-wage increase · 2007-07-24Wage floor risesNational context · Economic Stimulus Act authorizes tax rebates · 2008-02-132008 rebatesNational context · Financial crisis intensifies during the Great Recession · 2008-09-15Financial crisisNational context · Recovery Act expands tax credits and income support · 2009-02-17Recovery ActNational context · Federal minimum wage reaches $7.25 · 2009-07-24Wage floor: $7.25National context · Affordable Care Act establishes health tax credits · 2010-03-23Affordable Care ActNational context · Tax extensions and a temporary payroll-tax cut enacted · 2010-12-17Payroll-tax reliefNational context · New investment-income and Medicare taxes take effect · 2013-01-01New health taxesNational context · Employee Social Security tax returns to 6.2% · 2013-01-01Payroll relief endsNational context · American Taxpayer Relief Act resolves tax expirations · 2013-01-02Fiscal-cliff tax dealNational context · IRS recognizes lawful same-sex marriages for federal taxes · 2013-08-29Marriage tax rulesNational context · Marketplace premium tax credits begin · 2014-01-01Health credits beginNational context · PATH Act makes key tax-credit expansions permanent · 2015-12-18PATH tax creditsNational context · 2017 tax law changes individual and business taxes · 2017-12-222017 tax lawNational context · SECURE Act changes retirement saving and withdrawals · 2019-12-20SECURE retirement lawNational context · Families First Act authorizes emergency leave and food aid · 2020-03-18Emergency leave aidNational context · CARES Act expands pandemic income support · 2020-03-27CARES reliefNational context · First pandemic employment report shows job losses · 2020-04-03Pandemic job lossesNational context · Second-round rebates and unemployment relief enacted · 2020-12-27More pandemic reliefNational context · American Rescue Plan expands credits and benefits · 2021-03-11American Rescue PlanNational context · Advance child tax credit payments begin · 2021-07-15Monthly child creditNational context · Federal pandemic unemployment programs reach their cutoff · 2021-09-06Pandemic UI endsNational context · Temporary family-credit expansions end for tax year 2022 · 2022-01-01Credit expansions endNational context · Inflation outpaces average hourly pay growth · 2022-07-13Real earnings fallNational context · Inflation Reduction Act changes corporate and energy taxes · 2022-08-16IRA tax changesNational context · Social Security announces an 8.7% cost-of-living increase · 2022-10-13Social Security COLANational context · SECURE 2.0 revises retirement tax rules · 2022-12-29SECURE 2.0National context · SNAP emergency allotments end nationwide · 2023-03-01Emergency food aid endsNational context · Social Security Fairness Act repeals WEP and GPO · 2025-01-05Social Security fairnessCalifornia · California suspends specified property-tax penalties in fire-affected ZIP codes · 2025-01-16Fire-area tax penaltiesNational context · 2025 reconciliation law extends and changes tax provisions · 2025-07-042025 tax lawCalifornia · California signs tenant and consumer-protection laws · 2025-10-06Tenant and consumer lawsNational context · Marketplace credit enhancements expire and repayment rules change · 2026-01-01Health credit changesNational context · First filing season under the 2025 tax changes opens · 2026-01-26New deductions filingNational context · New child savings accounts become eligible for funding · 2026-07-04Child savings funding● California Legislature · 63222● U.S. Congress · California delegation · 6◆ Governor · 2■ California agencies · 182005-09-012026-07-31

89 of 89 reviewed California actions match · 86 date markers shown. 37 major events shown separately.

California · 2024: $63,028 · Rank #12 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $59,195

BEA personal income per person adjusted for regional price parities and the national PCE price index. Constant 2017 dollars. A BEA measure, distinct from ACS per-capita money income. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.

View observations and export data
California Real personal income per person · source units
PeriodCaliforniaRankU.S. benchmark
2024$63,028#12 of 50$59,195
2023$60,100#16 of 50$58,088
2022$59,126#16 of 50$57,104
2021$63,373#11 of 50$59,365
2020$59,993#11 of 50$56,514
2019$55,931#17 of 50$53,683
2018$53,523#18 of 50$52,242
2017$52,569#18 of 50$51,006
2016$51,802#18 of 50$49,828
2015$50,054#21 of 50$49,396
2014$47,472#25 of 50$47,661
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis · BEA SARPI, line 2 ↗
How major events are selected

The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.

Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.

California · state comparison

Household resources

Compare the ACS five-year estimates using the same population and dollar period.

California · 2020–2024$99,122
California rank#5among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$80,734Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Median household income

Median before-tax income received by households; half are above and half below.

2024 dollars. ACS sampling error means nearby ranks may not be statistically distinguishable.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.

Lower value · $56.45KHigher value · $103.96KStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

California · $99,1222020–2024 · Rank #5 of 50, highest first90% confidence interval: $98,812 – $99,432Selected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare California with every state · 50 ranked
Median household income · 2020–2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Massachusetts$103,96090% CI: 103433–104487
#2Maryland$103,67890% CI: 103081–104275
#3New Jersey$103,55690% CI: 103043–104069
#4Hawaii$100,38990% CI: 99268–101510
#5California · your comparison$99,12290% CI: 98812–99432
#6New Hampshire$99,03190% CI: 97908–100154
#7Washington$98,14190% CI: 97727–98555
#8Connecticut$95,78190% CI: 95049–96513
#9Colorado$95,47090% CI: 94892–96048
#10Utah$95,16690% CI: 94392–95940
#11Virginia$93,17090% CI: 92712–93628
#12Alaska$92,78890% CI: 91556–94020
#13Minnesota$89,06290% CI: 88653–89471
#14Rhode Island$87,79690% CI: 86587–89005
#15New York$85,97490% CI: 85572–86376
#16Delaware$84,95490% CI: 83703–86205
#17Illinois$83,39090% CI: 83028–83752
#18Oregon$83,01190% CI: 82438–83584
#19Vermont$81,20390% CI: 79864–82542
#20Arizona$79,96490% CI: 79557–80371
#21Texas$78,47690% CI: 78213–78739
#22Nevada$78,26090% CI: 77664–78856
#23Pennsylvania$77,97190% CI: 77629–78313
#24Idaho$77,80090% CI: 77057–78543
#25Wisconsin$77,48590% CI: 77030–77940
#26Georgia$77,35390% CI: 76946–77760
#27North Dakota$76,65790% CI: 75494–77820
#28Nebraska$76,47590% CI: 75842–77108
#29Wyoming$76,17690% CI: 75008–77344
#30South Dakota$75,08190% CI: 74193–75969
#31Iowa$75,05990% CI: 74641–75477
#32Maine$74,73390% CI: 73938–75528
#33Florida$74,56890% CI: 74284–74852
#34Kansas$74,27590% CI: 73800–74750
#35Michigan$72,87590% CI: 72582–73168
#36Montana$72,50990% CI: 71748–73270
#37North Carolina$72,38890% CI: 72064–72712
#38Indiana$71,95790% CI: 71605–72309
#39Ohio$71,38990% CI: 71068–71710
#40Missouri$70,70290% CI: 70377–71027
#41Tennessee$69,59590% CI: 69166–70024
#42South Carolina$69,32490% CI: 68754–69894
#43Oklahoma$65,03990% CI: 64600–65478
#44New Mexico$64,05990% CI: 63251–64867
#45Alabama$63,99990% CI: 63600–64398
#46Kentucky$63,72690% CI: 63297–64155
#47Arkansas$60,77390% CI: 60306–61240
#48Louisiana$60,75690% CI: 60348–61164
#49West Virginia$59,60890% CI: 58917–60299
#50Mississippi$56,44790% CI: 55908–56986

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

U.S. Census Bureau · 2020–2024 ACS five-year estimates ↗

Median household income

$99,1222020–2024 estimate, in 2024 dollars

Inflation-adjusted household income at the midpoint: half of California households had more income and half had less.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Method and limitations

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts estimate derived from the American Community Survey and expressed in 2024 dollars.

  • This is a statewide multi-year household measure, not individual earnings or take-home pay.
  • It does not show income distribution, taxes paid, or regional cost-of-living differences.
U.S. Census Bureau · QuickFacts: California ↗
California · state comparison

Is income keeping up with prices?

Real income adjusts for price levels and inflation. Disposable income subtracts personal current taxes but does not subtract household living expenses.

California · 2024$63,028
California rank#12among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$59,195Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Real personal income per person

BEA personal income per person adjusted for regional price parities and the national PCE price index.

Constant 2017 dollars. A BEA measure, distinct from ACS per-capita money income.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

California
Real personal income per person history in California$45.09K$55.42K$65.76K20142024
2024 · California: $63,028 · Rank #12 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $59,195 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
California Real personal income per person history
PeriodCaliforniaCompare
2014$47,472
2015$50,054
2016$51,802
2017$52,569
2018$53,523
2019$55,931
2020$59,993
2021$63,373
2022$59,126
2023$60,100
2024$63,028

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.

Lower value · $48.47KHigher value · $75.5KStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

California · $63,0282024 · Rank #12 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare California with every state · 50 ranked
Real personal income per person · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Wyoming$75,501—
#2Connecticut$74,254—
#3Massachusetts$71,629—
#4South Dakota$69,153—
#5Nebraska$65,297—
#6North Dakota$65,271—
#7Colorado$65,223—
#8New Hampshire$64,632—
#9Washington$64,421—
#10New York$64,153—
#11New Jersey$63,142—
#12California · your comparison$63,028—
#13Minnesota$62,039—
#14Virginia$61,914—
#15Maryland$61,111—
#16Illinois$60,333—
#17Alaska$60,272—
#18Iowa$60,144—
#19Montana$59,203—
#20Kansas$59,172—
#21Vermont$58,893—
#22Oklahoma$58,692—
#23Pennsylvania$58,620—
#24Tennessee$58,582—
#25Wisconsin$58,273—
#26Texas$58,219—
#27Missouri$57,850—
#28Maine$57,480—
#29Florida$57,131—
#30Louisiana$56,789—
#31Nevada$56,503—
#32North Carolina$56,310—
#33Ohio$56,232—
#34Rhode Island$55,878—
#35Indiana$55,562—
#36Oregon$55,451—
#37Arkansas$55,219—
#38Delaware$55,185—
#39Utah$55,116—
#40Michigan$53,569—
#41Georgia$52,952—
#42Arizona$52,890—
#43Idaho$52,816—
#44South Carolina$52,463—
#45Kentucky$52,290—
#46Hawaii$52,272—
#47Alabama$52,216—
#48New Mexico$51,121—
#49West Virginia$50,051—
#50Mississippi$48,465—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis · BEA SARPI, line 2 ↗
California · state comparison

How California raises taxes

2025 marginal rate schedule; an additional 1% applies to taxable income above $1 million. Revenue comparisons rank dollars collected, not statutory tax rates or a particular household’s tax burden.

California · FY2024$123.1B
California rank#1among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$479.63BSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Personal income-tax collections

Revenue collected under the Census tax classification. Missing item codes in the complete state-level file mean no reported amount.

State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Larger collections reflect population, income, tax bases, and rates; they are not inherently better.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.

Lower value · $0Higher value · $123.1BStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

California · $123.1BFY2024 · Rank #1 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare California with every state · 50 ranked
Personal income-tax collections · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California · your comparison$123.1B—
#2New York$53.84B—
#3Illinois$22.63B—
#4Massachusetts$22.13B—
#5New Jersey$18.88B—
#6Virginia$17.64B—
#7Pennsylvania$17.08B—
#8North Carolina$16.66B—
#9Georgia$16.02B—
#10Minnesota$13.27B—
#11Michigan$11.56B—
#12Maryland$10.65B—
#13Connecticut$10.03B—
#14Ohio$10.02B—
#15Oregon$9.54B—
#16Wisconsin$9.49B—
#17Indiana$8.1B—
#18Missouri$7.75B—
#19Colorado$7.52B—
#20South Carolina$6.15B—
#21Utah$5.72B—
#22Alabama$5.28B—
#23Kentucky$5.02B—
#24Louisiana$4.88B—
#25Arizona$4.81B—
#26Oklahoma$4.51B—
#27Kansas$4.5B—
#28Iowa$3.76B—
#29Hawaii$3.28B—
#30Idaho$2.89B—
#31Arkansas$2.76B—
#32Delaware$2.53B—
#33Nebraska$2.48B—
#34Maine$2.4B—
#35Mississippi$2.33B—
#36West Virginia$2.27B—
#37Montana$2.25B—
#38New Mexico$2.17B—
#39Rhode Island$1.59B—
#40Vermont$1.24B—
#41North Dakota$356.48M—
#42Washington$350.45M—
#43New Hampshire$183.36M—
#44Tennessee$2.12M—
#45Alaska$0—
#45Florida$0—
#45Nevada$0—
#45South Dakota$0—
#45Texas$0—
#45Wyoming$0—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

U.S. Census Bureau · 2024 state and local finance public-use data · state-government level ↗

How federal income taxes work

A marginal rate applies only to taxable income within its band. Moving into a higher bracket does not apply that rate to all your income.

Base standard deduction

$16,100

Tax year 2026 · Single

Marginal versus effective rate

The bracket table applies to ordinary taxable income after deductions, not to gross wages or Census household income.

2026 ordinary taxable-income bands · Single
Marginal rateTaxable income in this band
10%Up to $12,400
12%Over $12,400 through $50,400
22%Over $50,400 through $105,700
24%Over $105,700 through $201,775
32%Over $201,775 through $256,225
35%Over $256,225 through $640,600
37%Over $640,600

Selected filing statuses only. Rates exclude preferential capital-gain rules, credits, alternative minimum tax, payroll taxes and state/local taxes. The base deduction does not include extra amounts for age, blindness or other eligibility. Tax year 2026 returns are generally filed in 2027.

IRS · Tax schedules and deductions ↗

Who pays what share of income taxes?

Compare income groups’ shares of federal individual income tax. These groups divide tax returns by adjusted gross income (AGI), with no overlap.

Tax year 2023 · IRS estimates · Returns excluding dependents. Latest available in this IRS release: 2023. The 2026 tax schedules above describe a different year.

$2.14 trillion total individual income tax153.1 million tax returns
Income groups ranked from lowest to highest AGI · 2023 dollars
Income group Approximate AGI range Share of income Share of income tax Average tax rate
Bottom 50%50.0% of returnsBelow $53,80112.3%3.3%3.7%
50th–75th percentile25.0% of returns$53,801 to under $105,60419.2%10.4%7.7%
75th–90th percentile15.0% of returns$105,604 to under $187,60820.9%15.8%10.6%
90th–95th percentile5.0% of returns$187,608 to under $272,20911.2%11.2%14.2%
95th–99th percentile4.0% of returns$272,209 to under $675,60215.8%20.9%18.7%
Top 1%1.0% of returns$675,602 and above20.6%38.4%26.3%

Blue bars show tax shares; gray bars show income shares. Both use a 0–100% scale. Each share column totals approximately 100% after rounding. The bottom group includes zero and negative AGI.

What is included, and how are the groups calculated?

IRS total income tax includes income tax after specified credits, limited to zero, plus net investment income tax and tax on accumulation distributions of trusts. Refundable portions of credits are excluded. This is tax liability, not withholding, refunds received or all government revenue. Payroll, corporate, estate, excise, and state/local taxes are outside this measure. Paying little federal income tax does not mean paying no taxes.

FactVote subtracts adjacent IRS cumulative totals to form the separate groups. For example, the 95th–99th percentile equals the top 5% minus the top 1%. Average rates are then calculated from each group’s tax and AGI, rather than subtracting the published average rates. Historical groups contain different returns over time. Figures are sample estimates and rounded source amounts can introduce small differences.

IRS Statistics of Income, Table 4.1 · Published March 2026 · Checked 2026-09-14. Download IRS source table ↗ · IRS methods and releases ↗

Who pays corporate income taxes?

Compare federal corporate income tax after credits across company-size groups. IRS groups these returns by annual business receipts, not by household income or profit.

Tax year 2022 · Active corporation returns excluding S corporations, real estate investment trusts (REITs), and regulated investment companies (RICs). Latest available in this IRS table: 2022.

$448.50B corporate income tax after credits in this table1.56 million estimated returns
Corporate tax by annual business receipts · 2022 dollars
Company-size group Share of returns Share of business receipts Income tax after credits Share of corporate income tax
Under $100,00044.6%0.1%$5.93B1.3%
$100,000–under $1 million32.9%0.6%$2.31B0.5%
$1 million–under $10 million17.6%2.9%$8.78B2.0%
$10 million–under $100 million3.9%5.6%$21.87B4.9%
$100 million–under $1 billion0.8%10.9%$40.78B9.1%
$1 billion and above0.2%80.0%$368.84B82.2%

All six groups are separate. Blue bars show tax shares; gray bars show receipts shares, both on a 0–100% scale. Shares sum to approximately 100% after rounding. The smallest group includes zero receipts and receipts not reported.

How this differs from the individual income-tax breakdown

The individual section groups returns by adjusted gross income. This section groups corporate returns by business receipts; neither the income concepts nor the tax totals are interchangeable. No effective tax rate is calculated by dividing corporate tax by sales.

S corporations generally pass income through to owners and are excluded here, as are REITs and RICs. Their exclusion does not mean their owners pay no tax. This section therefore describes the IRS table’s covered corporations rather than every business or every dollar of corporate-tax revenue. It does not estimate how the economic burden is shared among shareholders, workers and customers.

FactVote combines adjacent IRS size bands and sums published amounts; no suppressed values are used. Figures are sample estimates. Returns may use different accounting periods, and company size and nominal dollar values change over time. Small differences from totals reflect source rounding.

IRS Statistics of Income, Publication 16, Table 3.3 · Latest release September 2025 · Checked 2026-09-14. Download 2022 IRS table ↗ · IRS coverage and methods ↗

The broader federal tax burden

Individual income tax is one part of a household’s federal taxes. Compare income, payroll, corporate and excise taxes as a percentage of each group’s income.

Calendar year 2022 · CBO estimates · Latest available in this release: 2022. These household groups use a different income definition from the IRS tax-return groups above.

Average federal tax rates · Percent of income before means-tested transfers and taxes
Income group Individual income Payroll Corporate Excise Combined rate
Lowest fifth−10.1%9.5%0.8%1.3%1.4%
Second fifth−0.9%8.8%0.8%0.8%9.5%
Middle fifth3.1%8.8%0.9%0.6%13.4%
Fourth fifth6.8%9.3%1.0%0.5%17.6%
Highest fifth16.6%6.1%2.9%0.3%25.9%
All households10.6%7.5%2.1%0.4%20.6%

Combined-rate bars share a fixed −30% to +30% scale, centered at zero. Blue = net tax; teal = net payment to households. Negative individual income tax reflects refundable credits. Components may differ from the combined rate by 0.1–0.2 points because CBO rounds each figure separately.

How this comparison is measured

CBO combines tax records and household survey data. Each rate divides the group’s total tax by its total income; it is not a simple average of individual rates. Income includes earnings, investment income and social insurance benefits, including some noncash benefits. The employer share of payroll taxes is attributed to workers. Corporate-tax allocation reflects modeling assumptions, not directly observed household payments.

The four tax types covered 90% of federal revenue in fiscal 2022. Estate and gift taxes, customs duties and other federal sources are outside this comparison, as are state/local taxes. Households with negative income are excluded from the five individual groups but included in “All households.” Do not average the five group rates to calculate the national rate.

CBO · Published 2026-01-21 · Checked 2026-09-14. Report and data ↗ · Methods and tax allocation ↗

Is after-tax income keeping up with prices?

Real disposable income per person tracks average income available for spending or saving after personal taxes, adjusted for inflation. A rise means average purchasing power increased; it does not mean every household is better off.

Real income per person

$52,849

Jul 2026 · Chained 2017 dollars · Annual rate

Change from prior month

+0.3%

Jun 2026 to Jul 2026 · Not an annualized change

Change from a year earlier

+0.2%

Jul 2025 to Jul 2026

Per personchained 2017 dollars

Hover to inspect; click or tap to keep a reading selected. Use the arrow keys to explore, or Escape to clear.

Purchasing power. chained 2017 dollars. Use left and right arrows to explore observations.023,069.446,138.869,208.2Jan 2020Apr 2023Jul 2026

Scroll the chart sideways to see the full timeline.

Jul 2026Per person: 52,849 chained 2017 dollars
View data: Purchasing power
Purchasing power · chained 2017 dollars
PeriodPer person
Jul 202652,849 chained 2017 dollars
Jun 202652,666 chained 2017 dollars
May 202652,517 chained 2017 dollars
Apr 202652,402 chained 2017 dollars
Mar 202652,624 chained 2017 dollars
Feb 202652,694 chained 2017 dollars
Jan 202652,941 chained 2017 dollars
Dec 202552,610 chained 2017 dollars
Nov 202552,667 chained 2017 dollars
Oct 202552,684 chained 2017 dollars
Sep 202552,865 chained 2017 dollars
Aug 202552,829 chained 2017 dollars
Jul 202552,740 chained 2017 dollars
Jun 202552,529 chained 2017 dollars
May 202552,609 chained 2017 dollars
Apr 202553,077 chained 2017 dollars
Mar 202552,794 chained 2017 dollars
Feb 202552,465 chained 2017 dollars
Jan 202552,422 chained 2017 dollars
Dec 202452,376 chained 2017 dollars
Nov 202452,348 chained 2017 dollars
Oct 202452,252 chained 2017 dollars
Sep 202452,159 chained 2017 dollars
Aug 202452,136 chained 2017 dollars
Jul 202452,135 chained 2017 dollars
Jun 202452,192 chained 2017 dollars
May 202452,124 chained 2017 dollars
Apr 202451,946 chained 2017 dollars
Mar 202451,924 chained 2017 dollars
Feb 202451,902 chained 2017 dollars
Jan 202451,878 chained 2017 dollars
Dec 202351,637 chained 2017 dollars
Nov 202351,515 chained 2017 dollars
Oct 202351,302 chained 2017 dollars
Sep 202351,171 chained 2017 dollars
Aug 202351,195 chained 2017 dollars
Jul 202351,166 chained 2017 dollars
Jun 202351,106 chained 2017 dollars
May 202351,085 chained 2017 dollars
Apr 202350,936 chained 2017 dollars
Mar 202350,861 chained 2017 dollars
Feb 202350,594 chained 2017 dollars
Jan 202350,353 chained 2017 dollars
Dec 202249,403 chained 2017 dollars
Nov 202249,210 chained 2017 dollars
Oct 202249,165 chained 2017 dollars
Sep 202249,043 chained 2017 dollars
Aug 202248,912 chained 2017 dollars
Jul 202248,660 chained 2017 dollars
Jun 202248,071 chained 2017 dollars
May 202248,219 chained 2017 dollars
Apr 202248,312 chained 2017 dollars
Mar 202248,344 chained 2017 dollars
Feb 202248,607 chained 2017 dollars
Jan 202248,616 chained 2017 dollars
Dec 202149,845 chained 2017 dollars
Nov 202150,093 chained 2017 dollars
Oct 202150,258 chained 2017 dollars
Sep 202150,266 chained 2017 dollars
Aug 202150,857 chained 2017 dollars
Jul 202150,982 chained 2017 dollars
Jun 202150,671 chained 2017 dollars
May 202150,939 chained 2017 dollars
Apr 202152,450 chained 2017 dollars
Mar 202161,793 chained 2017 dollars
Feb 202150,288 chained 2017 dollars
Jan 202154,791 chained 2017 dollars
Dec 202049,374 chained 2017 dollars
Nov 202049,323 chained 2017 dollars
Oct 202049,907 chained 2017 dollars
Sep 202050,099 chained 2017 dollars
Aug 202049,835 chained 2017 dollars
Jul 202051,838 chained 2017 dollars
Jun 202051,388 chained 2017 dollars
May 202051,575 chained 2017 dollars
Apr 202054,304 chained 2017 dollars
Mar 202047,344 chained 2017 dollars
Feb 202047,961 chained 2017 dollars
Jan 202047,800 chained 2017 dollars

Monthly observations are seasonally adjusted and expressed at an annual rate; $52,849 is not one month’s income. BEA’s measure is broader than cash take-home pay and differs from Census money income and CBO household resources elsewhere on this page. Personal taxes include federal, state and local personal taxes; this is not calculated by subtracting the CBO table from Census income.

BEA via FRED · Updated 2026-08-26 · Checked 2026-09-14. Historical estimates may be revised. Series and data ↗ · Inflation adjustment ↗

Income before and after taxes and benefits

Compare average household resources within each income group: starting income, plus means-tested benefits, minus federal taxes. These are accounting comparisons, not predictions of what incomes would be without those programs.

Calendar year 2022 · Average per household · All amounts in 2022 dollars. Gray = before; blue = after. Both bar columns use the same zero-to-$450,000 scale.

Before + means-tested benefits − federal taxes = after · Rounded CBO estimates
Income group Before + Benefits − Taxes After
Lowest fifth$26,200$19,000$400$44,800
Second fifth$59,100$9,600$5,600$63,100
Middle fifth$94,000$5,600$12,600$87,000
Fourth fifth$143,100$3,000$25,100$121,100
Highest fifth$412,600$1,700$106,700$307,600
All households$143,000$7,900$29,400$121,500

“Before” already includes social insurance, including Social Security and Medicare. “Benefits” adds means-tested programs only, including cash and noncash assistance from federal, state and local governments. The tax column covers federal taxes only. CBO uses PCE inflation adjustment; amounts are rounded to the nearest $100, so the displayed equation can differ by $100–$200. Negative-income households appear in the national total, not the five separate groups.

CBO · Latest year in this release: 2022 · Published 2026-01-21. Report and household income data ↗

Tax credits and measured poverty

A deduction reduces taxable income. A credit reduces tax directly; a refundable credit can also result in a payment when the credit exceeds the tax owed. Census estimates how counting these payments changes the number of people below its Supplemental Poverty Measure threshold.

Original-release estimates: These figures use the thresholds in Census’s September 2025 report. Thresholds were corrected in July 2026; these are not revised credit-effect estimates. Read the revision notice ↗

Refundable tax credits · 2024 · Original September 2025 release
Age group Fewer people below the threshold 90% margin of error
All ages6,768,000±462,000
Under 183,704,000±263,000
Ages 18–642,985,000±224,000
Ages 65+79,000±25,000

Bars start at zero and share a fixed 0–7 million people scale. “All ages” includes the three age groups below it. Refundable credits combine EITC and the refundable Child Tax Credit; the CTC-only estimate overlaps and must not be added to the combined estimate or subtracted to infer an EITC-only effect.

The SPM counts taxes, selected noncash assistance and necessary expenses, with thresholds that vary with housing and location. This differs from the official poverty measure based on pretax money income. The 2023 and 2024 counts also use different population controls, so a difference combines demographic changes and methodological updates. No year-to-year effect is calculated here.

Census CPS ASEC · Table B-7 · Checked 2026-09-14. Source table and uncertainty ↗ · Report and data-vintage notice ↗

Understanding California income

Median, average and per person

The median describes the middle household. Per-capita income is a population average, including children. BEA personal income also includes sources outside Census money income. These measures answer different questions.

Income, taxes and living costs

Before-tax money income is not take-home pay. Disposable personal income subtracts personal current taxes. Real personal income adjusts for prices. A state income-tax rate does not describe sales taxes, local property taxes, federal taxes or a household’s complete tax burden.

Annual and five-year estimates

The California ACS comparison pools 2020–2024 and expresses income in 2024 dollars. BEA annual history describes individual calendar years. A difference between the two series is not an income change.

Rankings and uncertainty

#1 means the highest measured value, not the best state. Survey ranks use point estimates; nearby values may not be distinguishable after sampling uncertainty. Larger tax collections can simply reflect a larger population or tax base.

California officeholders

Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.

89 of 89 reviewed California actions · newest first

Jul 2, 2026 · AB 2208 · Medi-Cal: cost sharing and accessibility. · Amended Senate
California Legislature · AB 2208

Medi-Cal: cost sharing and accessibility.

Jul 2, 2026 · Amended Senate

Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is in part governed by, and funded pursuant to, federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing federal law, enacted on July 4, 2025, sets forth various changes to Medicaid eligibility with regard to community engagement reporting, redeterminations, cost sharing, and retroactive coverage, among other factors, for certain Medicaid populations, including beneficiaries between 19 and 64 years of age, inclusive, with income up to 138% of the federal poverty level, commonly known as…

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on July 2, 2026: Amended Senate.

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses Medi-Cal, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on California's under-65 uninsured rate.

Retained California evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Existing federal law, enacted on July 4, 2025, sets forth various changes to Medicaid eligibility with regard to community engagement reporting, redeterminations, cost sharing, and retroactive coverage, among other factors, for certain Medicaid populations, including beneficiaries between 19 and 64 years of age, inclusive, with income up to 138% of the federal poverty level, commonly known as Medicaid expansion adults.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Asm. Catherine Stefani’s profile ↗
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑
Jul 1, 2026 · SB 1329 · Real property tax: valuation: active solar energy system. · Amended Assembly
California Legislature · SB 1329

Real property tax: valuation: active solar energy system.

Jul 1, 2026 · Amended Assembly

Sen. Jerry McNerney · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

The California Constitution generally limits the maximum rate of ad valorem tax on real property to 1% of the full cash value of the property and defines “full cash value” for these purposes as the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment. Pursuant to constitutional authorization, existing property tax law excludes from the definition of “newly constructed” for these purposes the construction or addition of any active solar energy system, as defined, through the 2025–26 fiscal year, except as specified. This bill would establish uniform rules regarding the method of valuation of an active solar energy…

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on July 1, 2026: Amended Assembly.

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses renewable electricity generation, a named renewable resource, net metering, or storage tied to the electric grid. It does not establish an effect on California's displayed renewable-generation share.

Retained California evidence context: In-state electricity generated from renewable resources. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

This bill would establish uniform rules regarding the method of valuation of an active solar energy system.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Sen. Jerry McNerney’s profile ↗
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑
Jun 18, 2026 · SB 1054 · Unemployment insurance: reporting requirements. · Amended Assembly
California Legislature · SB 1054

Unemployment insurance: reporting requirements.

Jun 18, 2026 · Amended Assembly

Sen. Christopher Cabaldon · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law provides for unemployment compensation benefits for eligible individuals in the state who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Existing law requires an employer, as defined, to make contributions for unemployment insurance premiums and to file specified reports with the Director of Employment Development, including, among other reports, a report of contributions, a quarterly return, and a report of wages paid, as specified.

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on June 18, 2026: Amended Assembly.

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses wages, household-income support, the earned income tax credit, or unemployment insurance. It is household-income context and does not establish an effect on California's median household income.

Retained California evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Unemployment insurance: reporting requirements.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Sen. Christopher Cabaldon’s profile ↗
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑
May 18, 2026 · AB 2352 · Medi-Cal providers: nonprofit public benefit corporations. · Amended Assembly
California Legislature · AB 2352

Medi-Cal providers: nonprofit public benefit corporations.

May 18, 2026 · Amended Assembly

Asm. Avelino Valencia · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is in part governed by, and funded pursuant to, federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law sets forth various procedures, including the submission of an application package, for provider enrollment, continuing enrollment, or enrollment at a new location or a change in location under the Medi-Cal program.

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on May 18, 2026: Amended Assembly.

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses Medi-Cal, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on California's under-65 uninsured rate.

Retained California evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

This bill would also apply the above-described provision to a nonprofit public benefit corporation that has been granted tax-exempt status and through which licensed providers enumerated in the Medicaid state plan provide nonspecialty mental health services, as specified.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Asm. Avelino Valencia’s profile ↗
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑
Apr 29, 2026 · H.R. 8572 · Gas Prices Relief Act of 2026 · Introduced
U.S. Congress · California delegation · H.R. 8572

Gas Prices Relief Act of 2026

Apr 29, 2026 · Introduced

Rep. Josh Harder · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

H.R. 8572 would set the federal gasoline tax and related underground-storage-tank financing rate to zero from enactment through December 31, 2026, replace trust-fund revenue from the General Fund, and direct that the tax reduction benefit reach consumers.

Introduced on April 29, 2026, and referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Why this record is included

The bill would directly set the federal gasoline excise-tax rate to zero through the end of 2026 and states a policy that the benefit should reach consumers. It was introduced and referred to committee, so the proposal did not itself change the displayed price.

Retained California evidence context: Regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

In the case of gasoline removed, entered, or sold on or after the date of the enactment of this Act and before January 1, 2027 ... the rate of tax ... shall be zero.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Open in FactVote →Rep. Josh Harder’s profile ↗
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑
Apr 29, 2026 · AB 2389 · Property taxation: active solar energy systems: customer sited: extension. · Amended Assembly
California Legislature · AB 2389

Property taxation: active solar energy systems: customer sited: extension.

Apr 29, 2026 · Amended Assembly

Asm. Jacqui Irwin · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

The California Constitution generally limits the maximum rate of ad valorem tax on real property to 1% of the full cash value of the property and defines “full cash value” for these purposes as the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment.

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on April 29, 2026: Amended Assembly.

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses renewable electricity generation, a named renewable resource, net metering, or storage tied to the electric grid. It does not establish an effect on California's displayed renewable-generation share.

Retained California evidence context: In-state electricity generated from renewable resources. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

This bill would extend, for lien dates commencing on or after January 1, 2027, and before January 1, 2031, the above-described exclusion for the addition of customer-sited, active solar energy systems with a system size of less than or equal to 10 kilowatts and for customer-sited, active solar energy systems that are sited on the property of a public entity customer.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Asm. Jacqui Irwin’s profile ↗
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑
How California action records are selected

Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified California officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about income, wages and tax policy from FactVote’s California candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.

298 statements from 84 candidates

2026 California Attorney General — General Election

2 candidates with matching statements · 2 statements

Michael E. Gates

1 statement

Republican · Attorney General · CA

Taxes & tax policy

We need a new Attorney General. According to FBI data, California ranks 6th highest in the nation for violent crime. Every Californian deserves to feel safe—in their neighborhoods, at school, walking to the store. Too many families don’t feel that way today. Fentanyl is taking our kids. Retail theft…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Fully enforce Proposition 36

Government-published candidate material

We need a new Attorney General. According to FBI data, California ranks 6th highest in the nation for violent crime. Every Californian deserves to feel safe—in their neighborhoods, at school, walking to the store. Too many families don’t feel that way today. Fentanyl is taking our kids. Retail theft is closing the stores we count on. Nearly half of all homeless Americans live in California. And crime always hits working families hardest. I am a husband of 30 years and father of five. I have spent my career trying cases in courtrooms, not politics, as a trial attorney and prosecutor. I enforced Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice and am admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. As a City Attorney, I built a local prosecution program that cut crime by double digits in its first year and made Huntington Beach one of California’s safest cities. I brought residents, leaders, and law enforcement together, and I will do the same as your Attorney General. Californians voted for Prop. 36 overwhelmingly to restore accountability for repeat theft and drug offenses. I will fully enforce it and will prosecute the traffickers poisoning our communities, protect victims, help people off the streets and into treatment, and make sure your tax dollars are spent honestly and effectively. Safe streets and equal justice belong to every community, whatever your zip code or last name. Public safety is not a partisan issue, and I will never treat it like one. www.Gates4AG.com

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026

Attorney General Candidate Statements | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State ↗
Original source ↗
Candidate profile →

Rob Bonta

1 statement

Democratic · Attorney General · CA

Income & wages

Too many workers in California are trafficked in the underground economy and denied all the protections they are entitled to under California law. That’s why Attorney General Bonta has prioritized bringing cases against employers who abuse workers, steal their wages and create unfair and unsafe work…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Enforce wage and workplace protections

Candidate campaign source

Too many workers in California are trafficked in the underground economy and denied all the protections they are entitled to under California law. That’s why Attorney General Bonta has prioritized bringing cases against employers who abuse workers, steal their wages and create unfair and unsafe working conditions. California has some of the strongest worker protections in the country and every California worker should benefit from them.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026

Issues - Re-elect Rob Bonta Attorney General of Californiahamburger menu_alternativehamburger menu_alternative ↗
Original source ↗
Candidate profile →

2026 California Board of Equalization Member District 1 — General Election

2 candidates with matching statements · 12 statements

Nelson Esparza

4 statements

Democratic · Board of Equalization Member District 1 · CA

Taxes & tax policy

Nelson Esparza is a dedicated public servant and proven champion for California’s working families and small business owners. Raised in California’s Central Valley, Nelson’s life and career have been shaped by a deep commitment to opportunity, fairness, and economic prosperity for all. Nelson is run…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Close loopholes and enforce tax collection

Government-published candidate material

Nelson Esparza is a dedicated public servant and proven champion for California’s working families and small business owners. Raised in California’s Central Valley, Nelson’s life and career have been shaped by a deep commitment to opportunity, fairness, and economic prosperity for all. Nelson is running for the State Board of Equalization to ensure a fair tax system for all Californians. Nelson will fight to close tax loopholes and crack down on tax evaders so that our local governments can continue to invest in public safety, infrastructure, education, healthcare, and economic development. As a long-time educator and economist, Nelson will bring real-world financial expertise to California’s state tax board. On the Fresno City Council, he serves as Chair of the Finance & Audit Committee, where he deals with complex financial issues every day. Additionally, he has secured hundreds of millions in investment for our communities. Nelson will oppose new taxes on middle class and working class families as well as small businesses that are already struggling to make ends meet. He’ll fight for more transparency in our tax system, and for fair impartial property tax assessments. Nelson is supported by local law enforcement, teachers, nurses, construction workers, and leaders at the local, state, and federal levels across California—because they know that he has the experience and the drive to protect our tax dollars and our public services. By November 3rd, Vote Nelson Esparza for State Board of Equalization. Learn more at nelsonesparza.com.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Board of Equalization Candidate Statements | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State ↗
Original source ↗
View 3 more statements from Nelson Esparza
Taxes & tax policy

Approach tax administration as a public responsibility that protects people, values, and public resources.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Tax Administration

Candidate campaign source

Approach tax administration as a public responsibility that protects people, values, and public resources.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

ABOUT | Nelson Esparza ↗
Original source ↗
Taxes & tax policy

Use the Board of Equalization role to protect California taxpayers and their tax dollars.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Taxpayer Advocacy

Candidate campaign source

Use the Board of Equalization role to protect California taxpayers and their tax dollars.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

ABOUT | Nelson Esparza ↗
Original source ↗
Taxes & tax policy

Now, Nelson is running for the California Board of Equalization to protect the people of California, our values and tax dollars, so that our state can invest in our people, from education, to healthcare, public safety to economic development, and more.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Invest tax dollars in public services

Candidate campaign source

Now, Nelson is running for the California Board of Equalization to protect the people of California, our values and tax dollars, so that our state can invest in our people, from education, to healthcare, public safety to economic development, and more.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

HOME | Nelson Esparza for Board of Equalization ↗
Original source ↗
Candidate profile →

Shannon Grove

8 statements

Republican · Board of Equalization Member District 1 · CA

Taxes & tax policy

Oppose state tax increases through the Board of Equalization role and related advocacy.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Tax Increases

Candidate campaign source

Oppose state tax increases through the Board of Equalization role and related advocacy.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026

Board of Equalization - Shannon Grove ↗
Original source ↗
View 7 more statements from Shannon Grove
Taxes & tax policy

Cites a past record of supporting California's Proposition 13 property-tax limits in her Board of Equalization campaign.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Proposition 13

Candidate campaign source

Cites a past record of supporting California's Proposition 13 property-tax limits in her Board of Equalization campaign.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026

Board of Equalization - Shannon Grove ↗
Original source ↗
Taxes & tax policy

I am running to protect the American Dream for you. I didn’t grow up with a lot. I was born in rural Kern County, enlisted in the U.S. Army, came home, and built a small business from nothing. But what I am most proud of is that through my small business, I helped thousands of Californians start the…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Defend Proposition 13

Government-published candidate material

I am running to protect the American Dream for you. I didn’t grow up with a lot. I was born in rural Kern County, enlisted in the U.S. Army, came home, and built a small business from nothing. But what I am most proud of is that through my small business, I helped thousands of Californians start their careers with good-paying jobs. That has been my life’s work. I had the opportunity to live the American Dream, so I keep fighting for others to live theirs. In the California Legislature, I fought for the family trying to buy their first home. The small business owner drowning in red tape and taxes. And the children whose dreams were taken away from them because dangerous sex offenders weren’t being held accountable for their actions. It never mattered what political party you belonged to. What mattered was getting things done. Now, I am asking to be your watchdog on the Board of Equalization. To be your tax fighter. To make sure the government doesn’t overtax your home, your business, or your property. To defend taxpayer protections like Proposition 13 that keep people in their homes. And most importantly, to support economic growth that puts the American Dream within reach for every Californian. Whether you live in the North State, Sacramento, the Central Valley, or the High Desert, your dreams are worth fighting for. I’ve spent my life proving that. I hope you give me the chance to keep proving it, for you.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026

Board of Equalization Candidate Statements | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State ↗
Original source ↗
Taxes & tax policy

Isn't it time normal people had a voice when they needed help from our state government in Sacramento? That's why I'm running for the Board of Equalization. It's an office you may have never heard of that is tasked with helping people when they think the government has unfairly taxed them. First, a …

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Help taxpayers contest unfair taxation

Government-published candidate material

Isn't it time normal people had a voice when they needed help from our state government in Sacramento? That's why I'm running for the Board of Equalization. It's an office you may have never heard of that is tasked with helping people when they think the government has unfairly taxed them. First, a little about me. I grew up in Kern County. After high school, I joined the U.S. Army, then after my service, I started a small business that helps local people find good-paying jobs. As a business owner, I've had my share of trying to work through endless government regulations and red tape. Later, I ran for and won a seat in the Assembly, and later, the State Senate. In the legislature, I was known for being a strong, bipartisan voice for public safety. Specifically, I led the charge to make sex trafficking children a felony. This was signed into law and now helps protect our most vulnerable Californians. I've also been a voice for small business owners, farmers, and ranchers. These businesses, often run by families, are the heart of our state. I've worked hard to reduce unfair rules, taxes, and fees, and make it easier for businesses to start, to grow, and to hire more people. As your representative on the Board of Equalization, my goal is clear: to make sure that you have somewhere to turn when you believe you were unfairly taxed and need some help. That's my pledge to you.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026

Board of Equalization Candidate Statements | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State ↗
Original source ↗
Taxes & tax policy

With such broad powers, Californians need a strong taxpayer advocate on the Board of Equalization like small business owner Shannon Grove. Taxpayer groups, business owners, families and elected officials at all levels support Shannon Grove for the Board of Equalization, 1st District because of her p…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Oppose tax increases

Candidate campaign source

With such broad powers, Californians need a strong taxpayer advocate on the Board of Equalization like small business owner Shannon Grove. Taxpayer groups, business owners, families and elected officials at all levels support Shannon Grove for the Board of Equalization, 1st District because of her proven record at stopping tax increases and fighting for taxpayers, including protecting Proposition 13. Shannon Grove is the leader California taxpayers need on the BOE to provide proven leadership, stop tax increases, reduce burdensome regulations and create jobs.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026

Board of Equalization - Shannon Grove ↗
Original source ↗
Taxes & tax policy

Shannon Grove has spent her legislative career fighting to reduce burdensome regulations while increasing government transparency and accountability. As a small business owner, she knows how important it is to protect taxpayer interests and fight for those she serves. While inflation continues to so…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Increase government transparency and accountability

Candidate campaign source

Shannon Grove has spent her legislative career fighting to reduce burdensome regulations while increasing government transparency and accountability. As a small business owner, she knows how important it is to protect taxpayer interests and fight for those she serves. While inflation continues to soar, tax dollars are more precious than ever and cannot be wasted on failed government programs. Shannon Grove believes government should be beholden to the taxpayer, not the other way around.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026

Meet Shannon - Shannon Grove ↗
Original source ↗
Taxes & tax policy

Promote tax-administration decisions that support job creation in California.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Jobs

Candidate campaign source

Promote tax-administration decisions that support job creation in California.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026

Board of Equalization - Shannon Grove ↗
Original source ↗
Taxes & tax policy

Use the Board of Equalization seat to represent taxpayers in property-tax administration and appeals.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Taxpayer Advocacy

Candidate campaign source

Use the Board of Equalization seat to represent taxpayers in property-tax administration and appeals.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026

Board of Equalization - Shannon Grove ↗
Original source ↗
Candidate profile →

2026 California Board of Equalization Member District 2 — General Election

2 candidates with matching statements · 5 statements

John Pimentel

3 statements

Democratic · Board of Equalization Member District 2 · CA

Taxes & tax policy

“I will close unfair loopholes so billionaires and corporations pay their fair share, strengthen oversight to stop corruption and favoritism, and fight to end sales tax on restaurant, prepared, and delivered food.”

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: End sales tax on restaurant and prepared food

Candidate campaign source

“I will close unfair loopholes so billionaires and corporations pay their fair share, strengthen oversight to stop corruption and favoritism, and fight to end sales tax on restaurant, prepared, and delivered food.”

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026

John Pimentel for Board of Equalization | Take Action Now for Affordability. Equity. Fairness. ↗
Original source ↗
View 2 more statements from John Pimentel
Taxes & tax policy

The Board has failed to stop corruption and favoritism at the county-assessor level and has rubber-stamped sweetheart tax breaks for powerful utilities. John will strengthen oversight, increase transparency, and reform the Board so it operates effectively and earns back the public’s trust.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Strengthen oversight of assessments and utilities

Candidate campaign source

The Board has failed to stop corruption and favoritism at the county-assessor level and has rubber-stamped sweetheart tax breaks for powerful utilities. John will strengthen oversight, increase transparency, and reform the Board so it operates effectively and earns back the public’s trust.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026

John Pimentel for Board of Equalization | Take Action Now for Affordability. Equity. Fairness. ↗
Original source ↗
Taxes & tax policy

(2) Close tax loopholes so that large corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share. The Water’s Edge Election, Invest/Borrow/Die, and Carried Interest top my list.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Close corporate tax loopholes, including Water’s Edge

Candidate campaign source

(2) Close tax loopholes so that large corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share. The Water’s Edge Election, Invest/Borrow/Die, and Carried Interest top my list.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026

John's Plan — Pimentel for Board of Equalization ↗
Original source ↗
Candidate profile →

Sally J. Lieber

2 statements

Democratic · Board of Equalization Member District 2 · CA

Taxes & tax policy

I am honored to serve as your representative and as Chair of the State Board of Equalization, California’s elected property tax oversight board. On the Board, I have worked to expand access to property tax relief, including tax credits for Veterans and low-income families, increased public informati…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Ensure equitable assessments and taxpayer assistance

Government-published candidate material

I am honored to serve as your representative and as Chair of the State Board of Equalization, California’s elected property tax oversight board. On the Board, I have worked to expand access to property tax relief, including tax credits for Veterans and low-income families, increased public information on Proposition 19, and advanced consumer protections for homeowners’ insurance. I have fought for affordable housing, supported identity theft protections for property owners, and worked to ensure that the Board is efficient, accountable and transparent. I do not accept contributions from corporate PACs and will always insist that wealthy interests pay what they owe. As a member of the Board, I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and California, including Proposition13. Over the next four years, I will continue to work for accurate and equitable property tax assessments, expanded taxpayer assistance, and policies that support housing affordability, rapid disaster recovery, and economic stability for working families. Before election to the Board, I served in local, regional, and state government. In the California State Assembly, I authored legislation to raise the statewide minimum wage, protect our coast and the San Francisco Bay, expand renewable energy, increase CalGrant scholarships, and worked to preserve free community college access statewide. I am endorsed by Teachers, Nurses and Firefighters statewide, by the California Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood California, the Sierra Club California, and over forty congressional, state executive and legislative leaders. I am thankful for the support of more than 1.3 million voters in the primary election. I respectfully ask for your vote. www.sallylieber.org

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026

Board of Equalization Candidate Statements | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State ↗
Original source ↗
View 1 more statement from Sally J. Lieber
Taxes & tax policy

I will work to ensure that we have a broader diversity of housing providers for families and individuals experiencing homelessness or housing instability, and that we seek out new models from other states and jurisdictions that are proven to produce stable housing that is affordable and safe. Use of…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Broaden housing providers and models

Candidate campaign source

I will work to ensure that we have a broader diversity of housing providers for families and individuals experiencing homelessness or housing instability, and that we seek out new models from other states and jurisdictions that are proven to produce stable housing that is affordable and safe. Use of our State's tax credits must be transparent, sustainable and fair.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 14, 2026

Sally Lieber — priorities ↗
Original source ↗
Candidate profile →
Race groups · Page 1 of 18
How statements are selected

This section matches specific income, wages and tax policy terms in retained, attributed source text from published California candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.

Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.

California incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current California legislators and California’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from California’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.

73 matching sponsorships or proposals · 54 California incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Asm. Ash Kalra

California State Assembly · District 25 · D–CA

1 proposal
View proposals from Asm. Ash Kalra
California Legislature · AB 1516

Labor and Workforce Development Agency: working group: minimum wage.

Jan 25, 2024 · Session ended · final outcome unverified

Asm. Ash Kalra · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law establishes the Department of Industrial Relations within the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to, among other things, foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of California, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment. Existing law establishes the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement under the direction of the Labor Commissioner within the Department of Industrial Relations, and requires the division to ascertain the wages paid to all employees in this state, to ascertain the hours and conditions of labor and employment in the various occupations, trades, and industries in which employees are…

The 2023–2024 regular session ended on November 30, 2024. The retained bill text is dated January 25, 2024 and records: Senate - Died - Appropriations. Its final disposition and action date still require the official bill history; this measure is not shown as currently pending.

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses wages, household-income support, the earned income tax credit, or unemployment insurance. It is household-income context and does not establish an effect on California's median household income.

Retained California evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

This bill would require the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to convene a working group to study and evaluate topics related to the minimum wage in California.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Asm. Ash Kalra’s profile ↗

Asm. Avelino Valencia

California State Assembly · District 68 · D–CA

1 proposal
View proposals from Asm. Avelino Valencia
California Legislature · AB 2352

Medi-Cal providers: nonprofit public benefit corporations.

May 18, 2026 · Amended Assembly

Asm. Avelino Valencia · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is in part governed by, and funded pursuant to, federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law sets forth various procedures, including the submission of an application package, for provider enrollment, continuing enrollment, or enrollment at a new location or a change in location under the Medi-Cal program.

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on May 18, 2026: Amended Assembly.

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses Medi-Cal, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on California's under-65 uninsured rate.

Retained California evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

This bill would also apply the above-described provision to a nonprofit public benefit corporation that has been granted tax-exempt status and through which licensed providers enumerated in the Medicaid state plan provide nonspecialty mental health services, as specified.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Asm. Avelino Valencia’s profile ↗

Asm. Buffy Wicks

California State Assembly · District 14 · D–CA

1 proposal
View proposals from Asm. Buffy Wicks
California Legislature · AB 2184

Unemployment insurance: benefits: eligibility.

Mar 31, 2022 · Session ended · final outcome unverified

Asm. Buffy Wicks · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law provides that an unemployed individual is eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits with respect to any week only if the Director of Employment Development makes certain findings, including that the person was able to work and was available for work that week. Under existing law, unemployment compensation benefits are paid from the Unemployment Fund, which is continuously appropriated for this purpose.This bill would prohibit an unemployed individual who is otherwise eligible for unemployment compensation benefits from being deemed ineligible, and would require that individual to be considered as being able to and available for work, for any week in which the…

The 2021–2022 regular session ended on November 30, 2022. The retained bill text is dated March 31, 2022 and records: Assembly - Died - Insurance. Its final disposition and action date still require the official bill history; this measure is not shown as currently pending.

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses wages, household-income support, the earned income tax credit, or unemployment insurance. It is household-income context and does not establish an effect on California's median household income.

Retained California evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Unemployment insurance: benefits: eligibility.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Asm. Buffy Wicks’s profile ↗

Asm. Catherine Stefani

California State Assembly · District 19 · D–CA

2 proposals
View proposals from Asm. Catherine Stefani
California Legislature · AB 2208

Medi-Cal: cost sharing and accessibility.

Jul 2, 2026 · Amended Senate

Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is in part governed by, and funded pursuant to, federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing federal law, enacted on July 4, 2025, sets forth various changes to Medicaid eligibility with regard to community engagement reporting, redeterminations, cost sharing, and retroactive coverage, among other factors, for certain Medicaid populations, including beneficiaries between 19 and 64 years of age, inclusive, with income up to 138% of the federal poverty level, commonly known as…

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on July 2, 2026: Amended Senate.

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses Medi-Cal, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on California's under-65 uninsured rate.

Retained California evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Existing federal law, enacted on July 4, 2025, sets forth various changes to Medicaid eligibility with regard to community engagement reporting, redeterminations, cost sharing, and retroactive coverage, among other factors, for certain Medicaid populations, including beneficiaries between 19 and 64 years of age, inclusive, with income up to 138% of the federal poverty level, commonly known as Medicaid expansion adults.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Asm. Catherine Stefani’s profile ↗
California Legislature · AB 699

Elections: local tax measures.

Sep 16, 2025 · Enrolled

Asm. Catherine Stefani · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Under existing law, if a proposed local measure imposes a tax or raises the rate of a tax, the ballot must include the amount of money to be raised annually by the tax and the rate and duration of the tax.

The latest official California Legislative Information version records this action on September 16, 2025: Enrolled.

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses voter registration, ballots, voting access, or election administration. It does not establish an effect on California's displayed turnout rate.

Retained California evidence context: Registered-voter turnout. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Elections: local tax measures.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Asm. Catherine Stefani’s profile ↗

Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry

California State Assembly · District 4 · D–CA

4 proposals
View proposals from Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry
California Legislature · ACA 10

Local government financing: affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval.

Jun 27, 2024 · Resolution adopted

Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 1 of the 2023–24 Regular Session (ACA 1) would, if adopted by the people, amend Section 4 of Article XIII A, Section 2 of Article XIII C, and Section 3 of Article XIII D of, and would add Section 2.5 of Article XIII C to, the California Constitution, relative to local finance. Under these provisions, ACA 1 would condition the imposition, extension, or increase of a sales and use tax or transactions and use tax imposed in accordance with specified law or a parcel tax by a local government for the purposes of funding the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, including downpayment…

The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on June 27, 2024: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Res. Chapter 134, Statutes of 2024..

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses residential rent, rental housing, tenant protections, housing assistance, or housing supply. It is housing-cost context and does not establish an effect on California's median gross rent.

Retained California evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

… interest and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness incurred by a city, county, or special district, as defined, to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, including downpayment assistance, or permanent supportive housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, city and county, or special district, as applicable,…
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry’s profile ↗
California Legislature · ACA 1

Local government financing: affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval.

Sep 20, 2023 · Resolution adopted

Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

(1) The California Constitution prohibits the ad valorem tax rate on real property from exceeding 1% of the full cash value of the property, subject to certain exceptions.This measure would create an additional exception to the 1% limit that would authorize a city, county, city and county, or special district to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, including downpayment assistance, or permanent supportive housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters…

The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on September 20, 2023: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Res. Chapter 173, Statutes of 2023..

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses residential rent, rental housing, tenant protections, housing assistance, or housing supply. It is housing-cost context and does not establish an effect on California's median gross rent.

Retained California evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

… county, city and county, or special district to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, including downpayment assistance, or permanent supportive housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, city and county, or special district, as applicable, and the…
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry’s profile ↗
California Legislature · ACA 1

Local government financing: affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval.

Dec 7, 2020 · Session ended · final outcome unverified

Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

(1) The California Constitution prohibits the ad valorem tax rate on real property from exceeding 1% of the full cash value of the property, subject to certain exceptions.This measure would create an additional exception to the 1% limit that would authorize a city, county, city and county, or special district to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, or city and…

The 2021–2022 regular session ended on November 30, 2022. The retained bill text is dated December 7, 2020 and records: Assembly - Died - Local Government. Its final disposition and action date still require the official bill history; this measure is not shown as currently pending.

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses residential rent, rental housing, tenant protections, housing assistance, or housing supply. It is housing-cost context and does not establish an effect on California's median gross rent.

Retained California evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

… county, city and county, or special district to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, or city and county, as applicable, and the proposition includes specified accountability…
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry’s profile ↗
California Legislature · ACA 1

Local government financing: affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval.

Nov 30, 2020 · Died

Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

(1) The California Constitution prohibits the ad valorem tax rate on real property from exceeding 1% of the full cash value of the property, subject to certain exceptions.This measure would create an additional exception to the 1% limit that would authorize a city, county, or city and county city and county, or special district to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure or infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the…

The official California Legislative Information history records this action on November 30, 2020: Died on unfinished business file, reconsideration pending..

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses residential rent, rental housing, tenant protections, housing assistance, or housing supply. It is housing-cost context and does not establish an effect on California's median gross rent.

Retained California evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

… county, or special district to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure or infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, or city and county, as applicable, and the proposition includes specified accountability…
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Asm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry’s profile ↗

Asm. Christopher M. Ward

California State Assembly · District 78 · D–CA

1 proposal
View proposals from Asm. Christopher M. Ward
California Legislature · AB 84

Property tax: welfare exemption: affordable housing.

Oct 11, 2023 · Enacted

Asm. Christopher M. Ward · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

(1) Existing property tax law, in accordance with the California Constitution, provides for a “welfare exemption” for property used exclusively for religious, hospital, scientific, or charitable purposes and that is owned or operated by certain types of nonprofit entities, if certain qualifying criteria are met. Existing law defines “property used exclusively for religious, hospital, or charitable purposes” to include facilities in the course of construction on or after the first Monday of March 1954, as specified.Under existing property tax law, property that meets the above-described requirements that is used exclusively for rental housing and related facilities is entitled to a partial…

The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on October 11, 2023: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 734, Statutes of 2023..

Why this record is included

The official record directly addresses residential rent, rental housing, tenant protections, housing assistance, or housing supply. It is housing-cost context and does not establish an effect on California's median gross rent.

Retained California evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

… occupied by a lower income household for these purposes if the occupants were lower income households on the lien date in the fiscal year in which their occupancy of the unit commenced and the unit continues to be rent restricted, notwithstanding an increase in the income of the occupants of the unit to 140% of area median income, adjusted for family
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Asm. Christopher M. Ward’s profile ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current California officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.

Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a California statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.

Sources & methods

Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.

#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.

California snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to California, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.

Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.

← All California individual facts