Sacramento family speaks out against Measure C, urging residents to vote ‘no’
As Sacramento residents began receiving their ballots this week, a family opposed to a city-backed tax initiative called for voters Tuesday to reject Measure C.
Measure C, approved by the City Council on Nov. 14, calls for a business tax levied upon categories of professionals who hold state licenses, increasing their payment by about double. The city of Sacramento faces a $50 million budget deficit and created the ordinance to raise money while adjusting for inflation.
If approved, the ballot measure would be the first increase to the city’s tax codes since 1991. The measure would raise an estimated $3.7 million in the first year and $6 million by its fifth fiscal year to boost city revenue.
Speaking in front of City Hall, Sacramento attorney Tiffany Clark urged constituents to consider how the ballot initiative would affect small businesses through its regressive structure.
“We need the city to look out for the smallest of small businesses,” she said. “And, that did not happen here.”
Jennifer Singer, a spokeswoman with the city of Sacramento, said a majority of the businesses that paid gross receipts will get a tax cut under Measure C, such as businesses with gross receipts between $60,001 and $12,475,000.
But Clark noted people who qualify under the “professionals” category under Measure C will get a $684 flat rate tax, no matter how much money they earn. Measure C separates earners into different categories, such as professionals and individuals filing taxes with gross receipts.
Clark, who worked part-time last year and said she made under $3,700, said she would pay $684 as a licensed attorney under the increase. Under the current tax structure, she pays $300 after working for seven years as a professional and normally tallies a $10,000 annual salary.
The current tiered system requires professionals — defined as accountants, architects, lawyers, veterinarians and several other categories — to pay $75 if they’ve worked for three years or less, $150 after working for more than three years but less than seven years and $300 if they’ve worked seven years or more.
Clark noted her husband, a consultant, would pay $138 despite earning more than $300,000. His taxes are calculated based on gross receipts and not his occupation.
The highest-earning businesses could be subject to a $125,000 increase from $5,000 over five years, according to previous Bee reporting. Big box retailers could face a maximum yearly payment of $25,000 which could grow to $75,000 annually by 2026.
Councilwoman Katie Valenzuela said she understands the concerns residents have raised with professional fees, but said Measure C’s greatest impact will be felt by businesses that could owe $125,000 to the city.
Clark’s son, Keegan Clark, said he made $22.17 last year as a professional musician and more than half his income would be eaten up by the city’s new tax structure.
“(I am) losing more than I am gaining with this business venture and that would suck,” Keegan Clark, 24, said.
This story was originally published February 13, 2024 at 2:14 PM.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly said that the majority of businesses in the city have annual gross receipts of less than $10,000. According to information provided in a city staff report, 6,433 out of 20,878 businesses earn less than that amount. Due to a typo, the sentence should have said the majority of businesses make less than $100,000. According to city documents, 12,305 businesses in the city (58.9% of all licensed businesses) make less than $100,000. This information was subsequently removed for clarity. Also, the story previously stated the measure would generate $4.2 million in revenue for the city in the first year and $6.7 million annually by the fifth year. The figures were provided in the original city staff report about the measure; a revised staff report set those estimates at $3.7 million and $6 million, respectively. Additionally, the story incorrectly said when the City Council voted to put the ordinance on the ballot — it was Nov. 14, not Nov. 15.
