When state lawmakers return from spring break Monday, they will immediately hold hearings on tax increases that would make our state even less affordable for our neighbors and friends who continue to see the California dream slip away.

The proposals include income tax increases, a tax on advertising, a tax that would punish business property owners when they can’t find tenants, and a tax enforcement scheme that would raise taxes by encouraging shakedown lawsuits.

In addition to being bad from a policy standpoint, these tax hikes are unnecessary. State Controller Malia Cohen reported that through the first nine months of the current fiscal year, revenue is $4.5 billion above the amount anticipated in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s January budget and spending is $6.9 billion lower than anticipated.

Each tax increase is described by proponents as being needed to fund some important program or advance a worthy cause. These arguments ignore the reality that California’s biggest problem is that the state has become unaffordable – and high taxes are part of the problem, not the solution.

A tax on social media platform advertising (AB 796, to be heard Tuesday in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee) would increase costs for small businesses, as platforms would pass along the tax. Some local restaurants and shops may have to reduce their advertising, limiting their reach to consumers and leaving chains and franchises as the only places that can afford to advertise online.

The proposal for higher income taxes (AB 1428) was introduced despite the fact that California already has the highest top tax rate in the nation (13.3%, increasing to 14.5% for income subject to the State Disability Insurance tax). AB 1428, to be heard Monday in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee, would impose a new 0.5% tax on millionaires and targeted businesses if they have employees and don’t provide or reimburse for “comprehensive childcare services.”

“They can afford to pay,” proponents say. Perhaps, but the real question is whether the state can afford to risk losing its largest source of revenue by going to the well too many times. The people in the highest 5% of earners already pay 62% of California’s income tax revenue, and if these taxpayers leave the state or have a bad year financially, the tax burden will be shifted to Californians who already are struggling with the high cost of living.

Another tax hike (SB 789, to be heard Wednesday in the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee) proposes an annual $5-per-square-foot exaction on any commercial property that was vacant for 182 days or more the previous year, consecutive or not, with limited exceptions for “active renovations,” natural disasters and “legal or regulatory barriers.” In many cases, the tax will cost more than the amount an owner can charge to rent the space.

Landlords are in the business of renting buildings, so they already have plenty of incentive to fill vacancies. The problem is that California’s commercial real estate market continues to grapple with the lasting impacts of the pandemic, including widespread adoption of remote work, office downsizing, and the departure of several major employers from the state. These shifts have contributed to vacancy rates exceeding 20% in some regions, according to county assessors.

In addition to making the challenges worse, SB 789 would have negative consequences on property tax revenue from new commercial property sales due to the factors used to determine their assessed value.

Finally, there is legislation that would encourage bounty-hunter attorneys to file suits alleging that legitimate tax positions are “fraud,” even after California’s tax agencies determine that no fraud occurred (SB 799, to be heard Wednesday in the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee). This would add costs to businesses and result in job losses and higher costs for consumers.

The litigation measure is unnecessary, since the state’s tax enforcement agencies — the Franchise Tax Board and California Department of Tax and Fee Administration – have experience successfully and aggressively pursuing tax fraud, understand California’s tax laws, and are best equipped to investigate and prosecute tax evasion. SB 799 would give rise to the types of harassing lawsuits that we have seen plague our communities under the Private Attorneys General Act, disability access laws, and Proposition 65. The real goal of SB 799 is to empower trial attorneys and scare taxpayers into settling lawsuits so lawyers can get big payouts.

Taxes are necessary to pay for roads, schools, police, firefighters and other government services, but excessive taxation creates real harm, including job losses and financial strain on people who are trying to experience the California dream.

When California’s legislative leaders called the 2025-26 session to order, they urged their colleagues to draft their legislation through a lens of affordability, telling reporters that keeping the cost of living in check would be a key priority for the new year.

Taxpayers are still waiting for these affordability messages from leadership to make their way to rank-and-file lawmakers. If affordability is still a priority for the legislative session — and it should be — then lawmakers can take the first step and stop these harmful tax proposals.

Robert Gutierrez is president of the California Taxpayers Association.