Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more in the state budget than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration.
Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers. More recent carve-outs in the law also allow leaders to direct excess funds to infrastructure and local government.
The limit applies to most other appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the “rainy day” fund and other reserves.
California voters also have capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund at 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.
The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short-term reserve, called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.
In effect, the measure would allow the governor and the Legislature to put more money into budget reserves, creating another option to avoid triggering rebates.
For example, if the spending limit is $400 billion for the year, and revenue hits $410 billion, the measure would give lawmakers the option to deposit the $10 billion above the spending limit into the rainy day fund, direct the money to infrastructure or give it to local governments, instead of returning the funding to taxpayers and increasing funding for schools.
Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more in the state budget than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration.
Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers. More recent carve-outs in the law also allow leaders to direct excess funds to infrastructure and local government.
The limit applies to most other appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the “rainy day” fund and other reserves.
California voters also have capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund at 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.
The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short-term reserve, called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.
In effect, the measure would allow the governor and the Legislature to put more money into budget reserves, creating another option to avoid triggering rebates.
For example, if the spending limit is $400 billion for the year, and revenue hits $410 billion, the measure would give lawmakers the option to deposit the $10 billion above the spending limit into the rainy day fund, direct the money to infrastructure or give it to local governments, instead of returning the funding to taxpayers and increasing funding for schools.
Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more in the state budget than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration.
Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers. More recent carve-outs in the law also allow leaders to direct excess funds to infrastructure and local government.
The limit applies to most other appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the “rainy day” fund and other reserves.
California voters also have capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund at 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.
The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short-term reserve, called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.
In effect, the measure would allow the governor and the Legislature to put more money into budget reserves, creating another option to avoid triggering rebates.
For example, if the spending limit is $400 billion for the year, and revenue hits $410 billion, the measure would give lawmakers the option to deposit the $10 billion above the spending limit into the rainy day fund, direct the money to infrastructure or give it to local governments, instead of returning the funding to taxpayers and increasing funding for schools.
Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more in the state budget than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration.
Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers. More recent carve-outs in the law also allow leaders to direct excess funds to infrastructure and local government.
The limit applies to most other appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the “rainy day” fund and other reserves.
California voters also have capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund at 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.
The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short-term reserve, called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.
In effect, the measure would allow the governor and the Legislature to put more money into budget reserves, creating another option to avoid triggering rebates.
For example, if the spending limit is $400 billion for the year, and revenue hits $410 billion, the measure would give lawmakers the option to deposit the $10 billion above the spending limit into the rainy day fund, direct the money to infrastructure or give it to local governments, instead of returning the funding to taxpayers and increasing funding for schools.
Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more in the state budget than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration.
Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers. More recent carve-outs in the law also allow leaders to direct excess funds to infrastructure and local government.
The limit applies to most other appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the “rainy day” fund and other reserves.
California voters also have capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund at 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.
The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short-term reserve, called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.
In effect, the measure would allow the governor and the Legislature to put more money into budget reserves, creating another option to avoid triggering rebates.
For example, if the spending limit is $400 billion for the year, and revenue hits $410 billion, the measure would give lawmakers the option to deposit the $10 billion above the spending limit into the rainy day fund, direct the money to infrastructure or give it to local governments, instead of returning the funding to taxpayers and increasing funding for schools.
Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more in the state budget than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration.
Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers. More recent carve-outs in the law also allow leaders to direct excess funds to infrastructure and local government.
The limit applies to most other appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the “rainy day” fund and other reserves.
California voters also have capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund at 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.
The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short-term reserve, called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.
In effect, the measure would allow the governor and the Legislature to put more money into budget reserves, creating another option to avoid triggering rebates.
For example, if the spending limit is $400 billion for the year, and revenue hits $410 billion, the measure would give lawmakers the option to deposit the $10 billion above the spending limit into the rainy day fund, direct the money to infrastructure or give it to local governments, instead of returning the funding to taxpayers and increasing funding for schools.
Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more in the state budget than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration.
Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers. More recent carve-outs in the law also allow leaders to direct excess funds to infrastructure and local government.
The limit applies to most other appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the “rainy day” fund and other reserves.
California voters also have capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund at 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.
The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short-term reserve, called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.
In effect, the measure would allow the governor and the Legislature to put more money into budget reserves, creating another option to avoid triggering rebates.
For example, if the spending limit is $400 billion for the year, and revenue hits $410 billion, the measure would give lawmakers the option to deposit the $10 billion above the spending limit into the rainy day fund, direct the money to infrastructure or give it to local governments, instead of returning the funding to taxpayers and increasing funding for schools.
Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more in the state budget than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration.
Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers. More recent carve-outs in the law also allow leaders to direct excess funds to infrastructure and local government.
The limit applies to most other appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the “rainy day” fund and other reserves.
California voters also have capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund at 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.
The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short-term reserve, called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.
In effect, the measure would allow the governor and the Legislature to put more money into budget reserves, creating another option to avoid triggering rebates.
For example, if the spending limit is $400 billion for the year, and revenue hits $410 billion, the measure would give lawmakers the option to deposit the $10 billion above the spending limit into the rainy day fund, direct the money to infrastructure or give it to local governments, instead of returning the funding to taxpayers and increasing funding for schools.
