Housing affordability. Property taxes. Inherited homes. Retirement savings. A billionaire wealth tax. Behind the competing promises of California’s November election lies a more personal question: What will these decisions mean for the financial security of families and the wealth they hope to leave behind?
California voters will decide 14 statewide propositions on November 3, 2026, alongside local measures that could affect property taxes, public services and the cost of living.
From Inglewood’s family homes to Los Angeles’ multimillion-dollar properties, November’s ballot raises a consequential question: Who will be able to build wealth, who will be able to keep it, and what will happen when it passes to the next generation?
For many Los Angeles families, the family home represents far more than four walls and a roof.
It represents decades of mortgage payments, sacrifice, rising property values and the hope that children and grandchildren will inherit something their parents worked a lifetime to build.
But the value of an inheritance is not simply what a property is worth. It is what remains after taxes, debts, administrative expenses and other obligations are paid — and whether the people receiving it can afford to keep it.
That distinction is especially important as California approaches its November 3, 2026, election.
Voters will consider measures addressing housing affordability, income taxes, accumulated wealth, local taxation and public investment. In Inglewood, voters will also weigh a school bond proposal that could increase property tax bills. Within the City of Los Angeles, another measure would provide targeted transfer-tax relief to certain wildfire victims.
None of these proposals replaces the need for a will, trust or other estate-planning documents. But several could change the financial circumstances in which those plans eventually operate.
For Attorney Caprice L. Collins and Collins Law Group, the connection is particularly important: An estate plan must do more than identify who inherits an asset. It should anticipate the financial, legal and practical challenges that could determine whether the inheritance is preserved.
The family home: California’s most important inheritance is also one of its most vulnerable
Consider a hypothetical Inglewood couple who purchased their home decades ago for $150,000.
Today, that home might be worth $950,000. The couple has paid off the mortgage, established a living trust and named their two adult children as beneficiaries.
On paper, the family appears well-positioned to transfer nearly $1 million in property.
But several questions remain unanswered.
Will either child live in the home? Will the property qualify for an exclusion from reassessment? Can the beneficiaries afford insurance, repairs and property taxes? What happens if one child wants to sell while the other wants to keep the house?
And if one parent develops dementia before either parent dies, who has authority to manage the property, pay bills and make decisions?
Those questions expose a crucial limitation of estate planning based solely on documents.
A living trust may allow property to transfer without probate, but it does not automatically prevent tax reassessment, resolve family disagreements or provide the money needed to maintain an inherited home.
California’s Proposition 19, approved in 2020, makes this particularly significant. The law narrowed the parent-child property tax exclusion, generally requiring a qualifying inherited family residence to become the child’s principal residence to preserve an eligible portion of the parent’s assessed value.
A child who inherits a home but cannot satisfy the exclusion requirements may face reassessment based on current market value.
That can substantially increase the annual cost of ownership.
The 2026 ballot does not repeal Proposition 19. Nevertheless, its proposals concerning housing, local taxes and accumulated wealth intersect with the same fundamental question: Can families afford to retain the assets they inherit?
Housing Propositions 1 and 37: Building wealth begins with being able to own a home
Proposition 1 would authorize $11.25 billion in bonds for housing affordability programs, while Proposition 37 would establish a financing program for eligible middle-income buyers purchasing qualifying new homes.
The measures take different approaches, but both address a major obstacle to generational wealth: access to housing.
For families who already own property, the home may be their largest asset. For younger Californians priced out of the market, that opportunity to accumulate equity may never begin.
Supporters of Proposition 1 argue that public financing can help preserve and create affordable housing, reduce displacement and improve stability. Supporters of Proposition 37 contend that financing assistance can help eligible households overcome the substantial upfront costs of buying a home.
From an estate-planning perspective, that opportunity matters.
A home purchased today may eventually become an inheritance. Equity accumulated over decades may help finance retirement, support surviving spouses or provide financial security to children.
But the opposing arguments deserve equal attention.
Proposition 1 requires public borrowing, and debt repayment can place demands on future state budgets. Its affordable rental housing programs may provide stability without creating privately inheritable equity.
Proposition 37, meanwhile, could help more buyers compete for homes without necessarily producing enough additional housing to meet demand. If prices rise as a result, some of the financial assistance could ultimately benefit sellers.
The measure’s financing would also come with repayment and eligibility requirements that homeowners must understand.
Source: California Secretary of State
The estate-planning connection: Helping a family acquire property is only the first step. Preserving that property requires planning for ownership, debt, taxes, incapacity and eventual transfer.
Parents assisting children with home purchases should also consider whether contributions are gifts or loans, how ownership will be titled and whether their arrangements are properly documented.
An informal agreement between family members may work perfectly while everyone gets along. It can become considerably more complicated after a death, divorce or financial hardship.
Propositions 3, 40, 41 and 42: Who should pay taxes on wealth — and how does that affect inheritance?
Four statewide propositions raise interconnected questions about taxation, public services and the preservation of private assets.
Proposition 3 would permanently extend existing higher income tax rates on high-income Californians. Proposition 40 would impose a one-time tax on certain billionaires and trusts. Propositions 41 and 42 would establish restrictions that could interfere with the billionaire tax’s implementation.
These measures deserve to be considered together because the outcome of one could affect the practical consequences of another.
The case for additional taxation
Supporters argue that tax revenue can sustain public education, healthcare and other services that help families remain financially stable.
A family’s inheritance is not protected in isolation from the wider economy.
An older adult who cannot afford healthcare may deplete retirement savings. A family caring for a relative with dementia may face substantial financial pressures. A household struggling with housing costs may have little opportunity to accumulate assets.
From this perspective, public investment can help preserve family resources by reducing financial hardship.
Proposition 40’s proposed billionaire tax illustrates that argument. It would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on covered wealth exceeding the qualifying threshold, including certain business interests, securities and other assets. Real property and some retirement assets would be excluded.
Source: California Secretary of State
Supporters believe the revenue could help sustain healthcare services without directly increasing taxes on most households.
The case against additional taxation
Opponents emphasize the importance of predictability, private investment and liquidity.
Accumulated wealth is not always held in cash. It may consist of a privately owned company, investments or intellectual property that cannot easily be sold.
A tax based on the estimated value of those assets can create obligations even when the owner has not realized income from them.
Critics also warn that high-income or high-net-worth residents may relocate, potentially reducing other California tax revenues. Economists disagree about the scale of that risk, and the unusual design of Proposition 40 makes the outcome difficult to predict.
Proposition 42 approaches the issue from the opposite direction. It would restrict certain new state taxes on personal property, including financial assets, business interests and retirement accounts.
Supporters argue that this would protect long-term savings and prevent future taxes on ownership itself.
Opponents argue that it would constitutionally restrict future policymakers and protect extremely large fortunes from potential wealth taxation. The Los Angeles Times also identifies Proposition 42 as a measure that could block Proposition 40.
Proposition 41 would require audits associated with certain special taxes and impose restrictions related to California’s spending limit. Supporters emphasize accountability; opponents argue that the measure could prevent voters’ intended healthcare funding from taking effect.
Source: Los Angeles Times
Why this matters to trusts and estates
Taxes on income, accumulated wealth and inheritances are not interchangeable.
California does not currently impose a general state inheritance tax or state estate tax. Federal estate tax rules may apply to sufficiently large estates, while capital gains and property taxes can affect a much broader group of families.
A properly designed estate plan should account for the different types of assets a family owns and the applicable tax rules.
For example, a family-owned business may need succession planning, valuation provisions and a strategy for providing liquidity without forcing a sale.
A family with substantial retirement accounts may need coordinated beneficiary designations and distribution planning.
A family whose wealth is concentrated in a residence may face a very different set of problems, particularly when beneficiaries cannot afford ongoing property expenses.
The central estate-planning lesson is not that higher taxes are always harmful or that lower taxes are always beneficial. It is that tax policy can affect how much wealth families retain, how assets are managed and what financial obligations beneficiaries may eventually inherit.
Inglewood Measure MM and Proposition 43: The cost of keeping a family home
For many longtime Inglewood homeowners, the most immediate financial concerns are not billionaire taxes or complex investment portfolios.
They are monthly expenses.
Property taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance and repairs can become increasingly difficult to manage on a fixed retirement income.
Inglewood’s Measure MM would authorize $396 million in school bonds, with an estimated annual property tax of $60 per $100,000 of assessed value.
Supporters argue that the money is needed to repair and modernize school facilities, improve safety and address aging infrastructure.
Those improvements could benefit students and the broader community.
Opponents raise concerns about additional taxpayer obligations, outstanding bond debt, district enrollment trends and accountability for previous spending.
Proposition 43 raises a related statewide question about local taxation. It would make certain local tax increases more difficult to approve by requiring a two-thirds vote.
Supporters argue that this provides stronger taxpayer protection. Opponents contend that it would make it harder for communities to finance services and infrastructure even when a majority of voters supports them.
Source: California Secretary of State
Why these decisions matter to heirs
Suppose a daughter inherits her parents’ fully paid-off home.
She may have no mortgage, but she still needs to pay annual property taxes, insurance and maintenance expenses.
If the property is reassessed, those costs could increase substantially.
Additional local assessments may further affect affordability.
A family may discover that the inherited home is worth nearly $1 million but that keeping it requires more annual cash than the beneficiary can reasonably provide.
Selling may become the only practical option.
This is why estate planning should include conversations about the future use of real estate.
Does the family intend to retain the property? Will one beneficiary live there? Should another beneficiary receive a different asset? Could the trust provide instructions for a sale or a beneficiary buyout?
Without clear planning, a valuable inheritance can become the source of expensive disputes.
Los Angeles Proposition TE: What happens when disaster destroys the asset a family intended to leave behind?
The January 2025 Palisades fire demonstrated how quickly decades of accumulated property wealth can be threatened.
Proposition TE would create a limited exemption from the City of Los Angeles’ Measure ULA transfer tax for qualifying residential properties damaged or destroyed by that fire.
Supporters argue that homeowners who have already suffered catastrophic losses should not face an additional substantial transfer tax when selling damaged property.
Opponents argue that the exemption could also benefit wealthy landlords and investors while reducing revenue for affordable housing and homelessness programs.
Source: Los Angeles Times
The measure is geographically limited and does not automatically apply to Inglewood properties.
Nevertheless, its estate-planning implications are broader.
A wildfire, earthquake or other disaster can change a family’s financial circumstances almost overnight.
A residence intended to pass to children may be destroyed. Insurance proceeds may become the estate’s most important asset. A surviving spouse may need to relocate. A trustee may have to decide whether rebuilding is financially realistic.
If the property owner becomes incapacitated, properly authorized decision-makers may need to act immediately.
An estate plan should anticipate not only who receives property after death, but also who can protect, manage, insure or sell that property when circumstances change.
For California homeowners, that means reviewing trust provisions, powers of attorney, insurance coverage and the authority of successor trustees.
The often-overlooked connection: Incapacity can threaten a family’s wealth before death
Estate planning is frequently described as preparing for what happens after someone dies.
But many of the most consequential financial decisions occur while a person is still alive.
A parent develops cognitive impairment. A spouse suffers a serious illness. An aging homeowner can no longer manage bills or maintain the family residence.
Without appropriate legal documents, loved ones may encounter significant obstacles in accessing accounts, managing property or making necessary decisions.
In some situations, a court-supervised conservatorship may become necessary.
That can involve additional expense, delay and reduced privacy.
Healthcare funding debates, including those surrounding Proposition 40, therefore have a meaningful connection to estate planning.
Public healthcare policy can influence the financial pressures families face when caring for older adults and relatives with serious illnesses.
But regardless of which tax proposals voters approve, families still need to establish who can act on their behalf.
A comprehensive estate plan may include a revocable living trust, a durable financial power of attorney, an advance healthcare directive, appropriate beneficiary designations and other documents suited to the family’s circumstances.
These instruments serve different purposes.
A successor trustee manages assets held in the trust under its terms. An agent under a financial power of attorney may handle other authorized financial matters. A healthcare agent can make medical decisions when the legal conditions for doing so are met.
Together, they can help preserve continuity when an individual can no longer act independently.
What Attorney Caprice L. Collins wants families to consider
For more than four decades, Attorney Caprice L. Collins has worked with families seeking to protect their assets and preserve their legacies.
The central issue raised by California’s ballot is not simply whether one proposition will increase or reduce taxes.
It is whether families have prepared for the financial and legal realities that could affect their property over time.
A family may have worked for decades to purchase a home. Its value may have appreciated substantially. Parents may believe that leaving the property equally to their children is sufficient.
But an equal inheritance does not necessarily produce an equal or practical outcome.
One child may need the proceeds from a sale. Another may want to live in the house. A third may lack the resources to contribute to taxes and repairs.
A trust that identifies beneficiaries without adequately addressing these possibilities may leave difficult decisions unresolved.
Likewise, an estate plan created years ago may no longer reflect current family circumstances, property ownership or legal requirements.
Marriage, divorce, the death of a beneficiary, a new home purchase or changes in health can all warrant review.
And California’s property tax rules make it especially important to understand the consequences of transferring real estate.
Seven questions every California homeowner should ask
- If I died tomorrow, would my home transfer through probate or through an appropriate trust or other legal arrangement?
- Could my children face a property tax reassessment when they inherit?
- Would my beneficiaries be financially able to maintain the property?
- If one child wanted to keep the home and another wanted to sell, how would that decision be handled?
- Who would manage my property and finances if I developed dementia or another incapacitating condition?
- Are my assets properly titled and my beneficiary designations coordinated with my estate plan?
- Has my estate plan been reviewed since major changes in California property law or my family’s circumstances?
These questions remain important regardless of the election results.
The larger lesson of California’s ballot: Building wealth and preserving wealth are not the same thing
The 2026 election highlights two different stages of financial security.
For younger households, the challenge may be acquiring property in the first place.
For older homeowners, the challenge may be maintaining that property and ensuring it can pass efficiently to the next generation.
For families caring for aging relatives, the immediate concern may be preserving financial resources while meeting healthcare needs.
And for business owners or investors, the concern may involve taxation, succession and the liquidity needed to transfer assets without unnecessary disruption.
California’s ballot measures address parts of these problems through public policy.
Estate planning addresses them at the family level.
The two are connected, but they are not substitutes for one another.
A housing program cannot determine who manages a parent’s finances after incapacity.
A restriction on new taxes cannot guarantee that beneficiaries will avoid probate.
A living trust cannot eliminate every property tax obligation or protect a family against every change in the law.
What careful planning can do is help families understand their options, establish clear legal authority and reduce avoidable complications.
A legacy should not depend on what happens after the fact
On November 3, Californians will make decisions that could influence housing opportunities, public services, taxation and the cost of property ownership for years to come.
Some proposals may provide financial relief. Others may require additional public investment or impose new obligations. The benefits and burdens will not be distributed equally.
For Los Angeles and Inglewood families, the most important question is what those changes mean for their own circumstances.
A home that has appreciated for 40 years can represent a remarkable financial achievement. But its value alone does not ensure that it will remain in the family.
That requires understanding the law, anticipating expenses, preparing for incapacity and establishing a clear plan for the future.
The goal of estate planning is not merely to leave something behind. It is to give the people you love the best possible opportunity to preserve what you worked so hard to build.
At Collins Law Group, estate planning begins with that understanding: Protecting a family’s legacy requires preparation for life’s expected milestones and its unexpected challenges.
Before California’s next chapter is written at the ballot box, families have an opportunity to examine their own plans — and determine whether those plans are prepared for what comes next.
Collins Law Group | Estate Planning & Generational Wealth
3330 W. Manchester Boulevard, Inglewood, CA
(310) 677-9787 | collinslawgroup.com
This article is intended for general educational purposes and does not constitute legal, tax or voting advice. Collins Law Group does not endorse or oppose any ballot measure in this analysis. Proposed laws may change through implementation, litigation or subsequent legislation. Individuals should consult qualified legal and tax professionals regarding their circumstances.
- California’s 2026 Ballot: What Los Angeles and Inglewood Families Stand to Gain — and Lose - October 21, 2026
- The Family Compound Can Become a Family Trap - October 15, 2026
- The Great Wealth Transfer Can Still Become a Family Mistake - October 15, 2026
