Assembly Standing Committee on Revenue and Taxation

I want to say good afternoon to each and every one of you. To the hear- oh, you didn't hear me first. Okay. No, no. Got it. Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome to the hearing for the Assembly Committee on Revenue Taxation Advocates.

Just want to remind you please remember to submit your position letter through the the porthole at least one week prior to the hearing in order for your organizational position to be reflected in the bill analysis.

I also want to remind everyone that pursuant to the Committee rules adopted at our very first meeting and this is our third hearing, we've, we have instituted the suspense file.

So bills with a fiscal impact plus or minus $150,000 will be eligible for a vote, not be eligible for a vote immediately after the presentation instead will be referred to the suspense file.

This will enable the committee to holistically consider proposals before us to better prioritize policy changes. Accordingly, every bill today that's on the agenda, it will be referred to our suspense file. Madam Clerk. Madam Secretary, please, please call the roll.

[Roll Call] We have a quorum.

Thank you very much. A quorum has been established. We will now move to our first Bill on the agenda, AB 814. Mrs. Schiavo, would you please come. Member Schiavo. And please present when ready to your witnesses.

You have two minutes each, your two primary witnesses to each if you have two individuals and you may commence when ready.

Thank you so much. Mr. Chair and Members. I am appreciate the opportunity to present AB814 today. Law enforcement is one of the toughest careers to enter. We know that the mental health and physical toll that peace officers take can be immense and that often they respond to those experiencing really their worst moments.

However, we lose a number of these vital community Members to high taxes. CalPERS provided data to our office showing that out of 107 total law enforcement retirees, over 27,000 live outside of California. So that's 27,000 lives who could be helping to protect our communities as active Members in their community and contributing to our local economy.

We know that times are incredibly difficult, that everyone is figuring out how to make sure they keep a roof over their head and put food on the table and live into retirement with dignity.

This is a way that we can help to ensure that those in law enforcement who've served our communities are able to do that the California Highway Patrol, local police departments and sheriff's offices report that they are having reductions in recruitment and difficulty in retaining police officers.

And we're hoping that this can also help in that regard to be able to recruit and train more law enforcement that we need in our community. AB 814 will help with that recruitment, retention and even more. It gives individuals an incentive to become a public servant.

Joining me today for their testimony is Ryan Sherman who's with the California Narcotics Officers Association.

Please proceed when ready.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association Support all. Also, let me go through a quick list of other police officer associations in support.

Riverside Sheriff's Association, the Santa Ana Police Officers Association, California Reserve Peace Officers, Riverside POA and the other police officer associations from Culver City, Claremont, Pomona, Palos Verdes, Newport Beach, Murrieta, Corona, Fullerton, Nevada, Burbank, Brea, Arcadia, Louisiana.

School Police, LA School Police Management Association, California Association of School Police Chiefs and and the California Coalition of School Safety Professionals all in support of AB814. California's law enforcement organizations are in strong support of this Bill to support the retention of retired peace officers in California by exempting law enforcement pensions from state income tax.

As the Assembly Member stated, Over 27,000 peace officers have moved out of state after retirement where they provide significant public safety related benefits in their new communities through neighborhood watch programs as well as numerable civic organizations, sports coaching and providing other uplifting volunteer services.

Additional thousands of other peace officers have retired and who currently receive their pensions from various local retirement systems have also left the state. Many more officers are approaching retirement age and are also planning to move out of state at the end of their career.

AB814 can help keep these valued public servants in our communities, spending their money here and providing public safety expertise and leadership. For these reasons we strongly support AB 814. Thank you.

Thank you very much. For those in the room, if you would like to come and add on. If you could just please step to the microphone. Please give me your name, organization, your position. We are in support at this particular time, please. Sure.

Chair Members, Jonathan Feldman California Police Chiefs Association is Sorry our letter didn't get in on time. We just took our position last week. But strong support. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Darrell Lucian on behalf of the LA Police Protective League and strong support.

Thank you. Great. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to File item number one, AB14 would you please come to the table and have a seat. Hearing and seeing none anyone in the Audience wishing to express their opposition to AB814, the same right as yours. Seeing none, we bring it back to the Committee.

Any Members wishing to speak, having questions, hearing and seeing none. Ms. Sho, you may close if you wish.

Thank you. I just appreciate the opportunity to present and respectfully request an I vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. This Bill is a success. Suspense candidate and we will see you again. Thank you very much. This Bill is formally being referred to the suspense file. Thank you. Next. Ms. Ransom, we have filed item number two, AB981. Thank you very much. Your primary witnesses? Yes. Great. You may proceed when ready.

And your primary witness has two minutes.

All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 918. As you all know, California natural. Natural disasters are becoming more frequent and more severe, putting immense pressure on our mutual aid system.

We need to only look to the recent Los Angeles fires to see the importance of a robust mutual aid system. Even before these catastrophic events, CAL FIRE warned that mutual aid is stretched to its limits throughout our state, which forces local agencies to juggle their own needs while responding to large scale disasters in other jurisdictions.

I can tell you from firsthand experience as a previous chair of South County Fire Authority that our local communities send a lot of efforts locally to deploy their resources to other communities.

Most recently, when I was visiting the Los Angeles fires, I was running into folks right from Northern California and the Central Valley who were there to provide mutual aid. Our local first responders are the heart of our system, often leaving their communities to provide this life saving assistance around the clock when the emergencies strike.

Despite the extraordinary demands and the need for service, their mutual aid earnings are taxed as regular income. This Bill, Assembly Bill 918, provides a targeted income tax exemption for pay earned by California's local first responders while being deployed to respond with mutual aid within the state for the duly declared emergencies.

This Bill ensures that our first responders are financially supported, encourages continued participation in mutual aid efforts, and helps sustain emergency response systems that we all rely on. As our disasters intensify. We must do everything we can to strengthen our response and resilience.

And that starts by supporting the heroes that are on the front lines, the people that we can rely on. I respectfully ask for your. I vote at the appropriate time. And at this time I would like to introduce Mr. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Two minutes. Yeah. Chair Members Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association and strong support. I think this is a targeted measure that really focuses on some of the most critical work that our first responders undertake during these mutual aid natural disasters. And I can also speak firsthand from having been a wildland firefighter for five years.

You know, when you put on the fire line or out there during one of these emergencies, you're working 24 hours until the emergency is at rest. And the amount of stress and time and danger that is undertaken in order to overcome those situations, it's incredible.

And we have to reward that in order to strengthen the mutual aid system, incentivize that work, incentivize from the police side of things, officers to stay in the state and continue to do that work. We are losing officers to competitive job markets for first responders in other states.

So this being a targeted approach to really reward those for the work that they've done in those situations, I think again is well worth it. And we ask for your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. For those in a room with you wishing to speak in support of AB918, would you please line up and state your name, your organization and your position. This is a support.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association, Riverside Sheriff Association and behalf of the all the other POAs previously stated. We're in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Great. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition, would you please primary please come to the table. Seeing none. Anyone wishing in the room to speak in opposition to AB918, you have the same right. Hearing and seeing none. I want to bring it back to the Committee.

I'll ask the question just for clarifying purposes to the to the Member. Could you please share more about why this Bill only applies to employees of local agencies?

Thank you. This Bill applies to employees of local agencies because it only applies to local agencies for people who are deployed out of their community to respond to an emergency. And that is because those agencies, those folks are going above and beyond their everyday ask. They're pulling themselves away from their communities.

Oftentimes if you visited the sites, they're sleeping outside, they're sleeping in conditions pretty much wildlife conditions, looks like camping.

So we want to really look at the folks who are going above and beyond and being pulled out of the local communities to do a job that's above and beyond what they are tasked with doing in their daily work.

Great. Thank you very much. At this point in time, you feel free to close.

Awesome. Again, Assembly Bill 918 seeks to make sure that we are strengthening our mutual aid system. We are Already asking folks to to show up and do this work for us. This is a work that we could not survive without as a state.

Our state would be in much less shape and condition if these people did not show up. And so it's important that we show up on their behalf as they are taking their sales away from their community.

We were very careful to make sure that this Bill had minimal impact when we look at taxation by only making applying it to the folks who are truly going above and beyond, not folks that are responding as part of their daily responsibilities.

So thank you very much for the opportunity to present this Bill and we hope that you do give it strong consideration on behalf of the men and women who are responding to strengthening our mutual aid system. Thank you, sir.

And again, thank you very much for bringing this Bill before us. This Bill is will be referred to our suspense file. So we'll see you soon. Thank you very much. We have Member Faras, file item number Pharaoh. Excuse me, File item number three, AB976. Well, there she is right there.

Yes.

Okay, but that's the right order.

Yes. Okay.

Thank you very much for being here and you may proceed when ready.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. AB 970 would establish a tax credit program to provide a non refundable tax credit to small retailers in disadvantaged communities who purchase or install security equipment. California is experiencing a wave of retail crime that not only robs businesses and consumers, but it also fuels in store violence and costs victims their lives.

In response to recent increases in retail theft, the Legislature enacted a series of bipartisan bills to address retail crime and stop retail crime rings while preserving criminal justice reforms that make communities safer and avoid mass incarceration policies of the past. However, penalties for these convicted of theft are only part of the solution.

Some retail businesses, particularly those in disadvantages communities, struggle to implement measures needed to protect their employees, their merchandise and their livelihoods. It is estimated that 23% of small businesses have installed in monitoring security systems and reasonably believe the number of the lower among smaller businesses operate disadvantaged communities due to upfront costs of equipment.

Similar legislation has also been enacted in the State of New York in order to help small businesses afford expenses associated with installing the security and alarm systems.

Recognizing that the current budget status of AB76 is narrowly tailored to give space small businesses and disadvantages communities another tool to to afford a one time cost associated with the purchase and installation of a new security equipment. Testifying with me today in support of this Bill is George Sewell from the security industry.

Good afternoon. Chair Gibson and fellow Members of the Committee. My name is George Sewell and I am speaking on behalf of the Security Industry Association. SIA represents more than 200 companies headquartered in California that provide a wide range of products for protecting the physical safety of people, property, businesses, schools and critical infrastructure.

Our Members are committed to safeguarding small businesses, ensuring that patrons feel safe and owners have one less thing to worry about. As many of you are aware, California is experiencing a wave of retail crime that not only robs businesses and consumers, but also fuels in store violence and costs victims their lives.

According to a recent study by Forbes magazine, the vast majority of small retailers nationwide, around 90% have experienced theft at their stores and around 83% believe that retail theft is at least somewhat of a major issue. The public as well is understandably concerned about safety in stores.

Since 2022, criminals have killed more than 1,100 customers, employees and security personnel in retail settings, often related to theft. The human cost is far beyond these victims as organized retail crime fuels drug smuggling, human trafficking and other criminal enterprises.

Small retail businesses, particularly those in disadvantaged communities where criminal activity tends to be higher, struggle to implement measures needed to protect their employees, their merchandise and their livelihoods.

It is estimated that only 23% of small businesses have installed monitored security alarm systems, and it is reasonable to believe that the number is lower among small businesses that operate in disadvantaged communities due to upfront cost of new equipment.

Theft from small retailers harms more than business owners, Customers are forced to pay higher prices to make up the business's losses, and state and local government lose tax revenue when items are stolen and potentially resold on the black market.

As recently reported by the Department of Homeland Security, they estimate that organized retail theft cost the average family more than $500 a year to make up for the total cost of massive theft, which in California totals to $7.83 billion per year in direct losses and another 568 million lost in tax revenue.

Assembly Bill 976 will create a tax credit program modeled on the New York Commercial Security Tax Credit Program, but narrower in scope, focused solely on small retail businesses operating in disadvantaged communities to assist them with one time costs associated with purchase installation of new security equipment.

I urge the Committee to move this Bill forward and I'm happy to address any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. For those in the room, if you're wishing to add on and support, would you please step to the microphone? Your name, your organization and your position. This is support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Annalee Augustine here on Behalf of the Family Business Association of California in support.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Ryan Sherman with the California Retailers Association in support. Thank you. Thank you. Trent Smith on behalf of the California Alarm Association and support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Tony Gonzalez on behalf of ADT Securities Services in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Primary witness in opposition hearing and seeing none. Okay, any. Okay, we'll bring it back to the, to the dais, please. Mr. DeMaio.

You know, generally speaking, I, I like where the Bill is going and I appreciate you being in tune to our small businesses that are being hit in this state by a crime wave. I'm thankful that voters saw that wave and responded with Prop 36 so that we can actually arrest and prosecute repeat offenders.

But I have to point out kind of the treating the symptom approach here of us saying, okay, we have a crime wave in the state, we have a Governor that refuses to Fund Prop 36. I am concerned that we may have a Legislature that won't force him to Fund Prop 36 in this budget.

And so what we're doing is we're going to the crime victim saying, well, we know you're higher risk for your business getting hit by crime, so we'll give you a tax credit if you try to take matters into your own hand and defend yourself.

Again, there's a lot in this Bill, given the crime wave, that we should support, but I would encourage us all to focus on the root cause, which is that crime wave. And we have a great opportunity with Prop 36. We have a statewide mandate that the voters have given us.

Prop 36 passed in every single county, including San Francisco. But it is really going to boil down to whether we take the will of the voters and execute that through our budget. And right now, this budget undercuts, eviscerates the voter mandate with Prop 36.

The question I have is on the narrow nature of this Bill when compared to the New York Bill. The New York tax credit, I believe, is $3,000 and that would be for any small business in New York that has a covered expense.

Shouldn't we expand the Bill to, rather than being just to the disadvantaged communities with 25 or fewer employees, why not just take it statewide?

So it's a sunset Bill of two years and it's at the cost of $10 million. So we would want to implement first and then reassess. And reassessing is also seeing what the demand is through throughout the State of California.

If we're modeling it after New York My understanding is that this has been relatively successful and the businesses have benefited by having these systems in New York. So I think we have a pilot, right, with New York State.

Yes. But again, two different states, different economic forces, and we are targeting disadvantaged communities. So from an economic development perspective, I think having the sunset and then reevaluating would be a wonderful opportunity to do that versus deploying something bigger and then not having the bandwidth economically. And it also, the Bill allows for us to.

The tax credit would decrease if the demand is higher. We don't know what's going to happen in California.

So I think it gets to my point, though. We're doing it because we don't have. We're narrowing it down because we don't have the fiscal means to do what New York's doing. New York is covering all their small businesses. You want to make the cost as little as possible up front.

Presumably we would want to expand it, but since it's already been tested in New York, it really is. The Bill recognizes we have a very tight fiscal situation.

So my question becomes, why would we, knowing that this helps protect these small businesses, knowing that it's been successful in New York, why would we limit it to just these small communities, these narrow communities, as defined. At some point, someone pays the price of a crime wave.

So we either put the money into Prop 36 and perhaps do this as well, or we're picking winners and losers. And my concern is, again, it helps.

I'm sure these businesses that would receive the tax credit would be very grateful, but at some point, it costs us in the state budget in the form of crime, it costs our constituents.

And so I think we need to have a conversation about Prop 36 funding and potentially expand this beyond just the narrow universe that's in the Bill. Again, if all we can do is this, it'll have my support. But I think New York has demonstrated that it's a successful program.

We might want to go ahead and implement it in full. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Any additional comments from Members? Let me say thank you very much. I certainly read the Bill and certainly believe in the direction you're going.

Appreciate the sunset that exists in the Bill and, and just want to underscore California is not like New York, but certainly appreciate your hard work and your thoughtfulness in terms of, you know, moving this out with the sunset and then the evaluation that you bring after you can measure it. Right.

And so we again, appreciate your work in terms of this. Please feel free to close if you will.

I basically want to thank you all for your time. I currently have no opposition to this Bill and I respect you ask for your support and also any feedback as we move through this process. I would welcome. So thank you.

Well again, thank you very much for your close. This bill will be referred to our suspense file. And thank you very much your witness for being here as well. Thank you so much. Thank you. We have Member Nguyen, item file, item number four, AB 984, personal income tax deductions. Good afternoon. Thanks for being here to your witnesses.

We have two minutes each, so you may commence when you're ready.

Great. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Members. As we are celebrating March as developmental Disabilities Awareness Month, I'm proud to present AB984 which will allow state tax deductions on contributions made to Calable savings account. Calable savings accounts are primarily used by low income individuals with disabilities, with 71% of account holders being eligible for SSI or SSDI.

Here to testify and support or answer any questions is Thomas from office of Treasurer, State Treasurer Fiona Ma's office, and Charles, who is a Calable account holder.

Thank you very much. Two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for having us here. So again, my name is Thomas Martin. I am the Executive Director of Calable. With me is Charles Beckham, an account holder with Calable. So Calable is very important for both of our families. So I'm, I'm autistic. So are both of my kids.

And this is really the primary, the primary means with which I can support them when they become adults. As Assemblymember Nguyen stated, this is. This is effectively the only vehicle for people with disabilities who rely on ssi in particular supplement security income to be able to save any realistic amount of money.

Ordinarily, there's a cap of $2,000 on what they can own, which is not enough to save for anything. But with calable, Calable is exempt by federal law up to $100,000.

So it's the only mechanism to really save in the name of someone with a disability and be able to plan for greater expenses, living expenses, anything that might, that might come up. People with disabilities have a 29% higher cost in order to have the same standard of living as people without disabilities.

They're also far less likely to be employed. And for those who are employed, they're also far less likely to be paid on par with someone without a disability. So it's really important to be able to have this mechanism for people to be able to save. And so AB984 would again allow those contributions to be tax deductible.

It allow people to be able to support themselves, save for themselves, and would also allow other people to be able to save for them, to support them in doing so.

Putting money in the name of the person with a disability not held by someone else, not held in a trust, it would be held by the person with a disability. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions the Committee has appreciate your consideration for this.

Thank you very much.

Next witness.

Yeah, thank you for giving me the time. So I'm an authorized legal representative for a now 8 year old grandson named Henry. Henry is severely autistic, is non verbal and has cerebral palsy. And the amount of resources it takes to take care of him are really, really immense.

But calable has become a really important tool for us to provide and save for his future. We do use calable for some things like assistive technology to help him learn to communicate. But primarily in his case, we really seen it as a tool to allow us to save for his future.

Because those immense resource needs aren't going to change in 10 years or 20 years. They're still going to be there. So Cal bowl is really important tool for us to think about saving for that future.

But there's quite a bit of tension in our family and extended family in terms of providing for taking care of him today and being able to save and being able to support the other families at the same time. So any, any amount of tax deductibility to contributions would help us to incrementally contribute more to those savings.

It's not a case where we have the means to just do it. It's the case of we need tools and leverage and mechanisms that help us save a little bit more to try and go towards that goal for providing for resources for him when he's 182838.

And so any tax deductibility would be an immense, immense benefit for our family to care for him. And we really feel the responsibility to take care of him.

And we know that the more we can save for his future, the less overall burden that will be on public services and him having to, you know, try to get those services to take care of his needs. So I strongly support that based upon our experiences with calable.

Thank you very much for your testimony here today. I want to open up to the audience. Anyone wishing in the room wishing to speak in support of Assembly Bill 984, would you please come to the microphone. Your name, organization and this is support.

Hi, Connie Chan. On behalf of California State Treasurer Fiona Ma, proud sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Primary witness in opposition to AB984. Hearing and seeing none. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak in opposition to this Bill? Hearing and seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? No questions. Thank you very much for bringing this Bill before us. Ms. Member Wynn.

And appreciate your witnesses for one, educating us in the importance of this particular Bill you may wish to close.

zero, appreciate your support when we get the chance to be able to get this out the door. AB984. Get this out the door.

Thank you very much. This bill will be referred to our suspend file. Thank you very much for appearing to your witnesses as well. Thank you. Next up we'll have Member Gonzalez File item number five, AB 1282. Member Gonzalez, do you have any witnesses? No. Okay. You may proceed when ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm thankful the opportunity to present AB 1282. 1282. And I'm honored that my first Bill as an Assemblyman increases medical affordability for all Californians. This Bill provides additional flexibility, financial flexibility to Californians when it comes to securing medical services and treatment.

Specifically, AB 1282 creates a tax deduction for out of pocket medical costs that shall not exceed 5,000 until 2030. Despite being the fifth largest economy in the world, California has an extremely high poverty rate.

Californian supplemental poverty rate, a measure which takes cost of living and government aid into account, is 15%, which is the highest in the nation. 2023 studies found that 31.1% of Californians were living at or near poverty and that 38% of Californians are suffering from medical debt.

This high rate of medical debt shows that current tax benefits provided for medical cost is not sufficient. Existing tax law includes a deduction of itemized medical and dental expenses that exceed 7.5% of federal adjusted gross income. But for many low income families, that is simply not enough.

This legislation provides additional assistance to those who are struggling to pay their medical bills. The bottom line is that Californians are suffering and we as legislators have the power to enact meaningful change. This Bill is not meant to completely solve the affordability crisis, but it is meant to provide some much needed relief.

I'm thankful for the opportunity to present AB 1282 on behalf of low income families that are struggling financially and I look forward to your support.

Thank you very much. Anyone wishing to add your support onto Assembly Bill 1282, would you please come to the microphone. Hearing and seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition to this Bill 1282, seeing and hearing none. Anyone wishing in the room to oppose this bill? Hearing and seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee.

Anyone have any questions?

Yes. I really appreciate the author for introducing this bill because we're all aware that medical expense is one of the legal burden for everyone who live in California. And I think that this bill is really helpful for the low income family. It is affordability. I really appreciate the other for his dedication. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I want to say thank you very much for presenting. zero, sure. Ms. Member McKenna.

Thank you, Chair. I really am proud of the Assembly Member on this bill. This is really a good bill. We do need help. The poor folks in California do need help on their medical. So I appreciate this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Just one question. Since the passage of the TCJA, many more taxpayers take standard deductions instead of the itemizing. Is there any reason under your structure that you want to itemize under the deduction itself?

Is there any reason why I want to itemize under, change it from a standard deduction?

One of the things that I found, especially being a special needs parent and someone who goes through this every year, is when itemizing it allows me and my CPA to see everything line by line and then we're allowed to actually account for more things that I, you know, would have done in a, in a standard.

Yes.

So for me and in my family, it presents a, a clearer picture.

Great. Well, again, thank you very much for bringing this, this Bill before us today. Really appreciate all the efforts. Again, you can speak directly from someone who lived and you know, on this journey and we appreciate it. I want to give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you for your time.

Well, thank you very much.

So this be bold, be brief, be seated.

Yeah. This Bill will be referred to our suspense file. So thank you very much for appearing. Next and final, we'll ask our Vice Chair, Chair Member Todd, would you please. This Bill is filed item number six, AB838. And when you're ready, Mr. Vice Chair, please feel free.

Good afternoon, Chair, Member of the Committee. I'm here, I'm here today to present ABA 38 Bill that alleviate rent burden in the State of California. California, current rental tax rate only $60 for a single filer and only $120 for the joint filers.

And it has not been enriched in over 40 years despite of the constantly rising cost of living. AB838 only applied to residents who rent California for more than half of the half the year who and who qualify for this Reddit People rent because that is all they can afford.

The high cost of rent means less money for food, basic need, health care and gasoline. Many rents in California can see the cost burden because they spend 30 to 50% of their income on housing. According to the Public Policy Institute California, over 56% of Latinos and over 6063% of black renters are cost burdened.

Calmetta state that black rental households were twice as likely as white rental household to be severely cost burdened. Since 2020 alone, Southern California has seen the cost of rent rise as high as 440% for some counties. The Lao state that the monthly household rent for typical property in 2023 was roughly $2,704.

The rental tax credit has not been adjusted for inflation and has not considered the dramatic increases in rent on high cost of living. This Bill will raise a single filer rated $2,000 and for the joy filer rating tool, $2,000 for rentals.

We find this number reasonable given the average rent and how difficult it is to save for housing. Working families in our state deserve better. And while the CFT has expressed opposition to tax Reddit, I strongly believe that their Members will directly benefit from this Reddit and would support my view.

I'm honored to introduce my witnesses, Angie Manetti from California Palm Association and Mr. Kupo of Howard Chavez Taxpayer Association.

Thank you very much. First witness. Each witness has two minutes.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Angie Manetti here representing the California Apartment Association. The California Apartment Association is the largest statewide rental housing trade Association in the country. We represent over 60,000 single family and multifamily apartment owners and property managers who are responsible for over 2 million affordable end market rental units throughout the state.

Just as homeowners are enjoying a mortgage interest deduction, CAA believes it's fair that renters also receive a tax credit as proposed here, equal to $2,000 for spouses and 1,000 for individuals as defined.

The current tax credits for renters have not kept place with inflation and AB838 addresses this by increasing it for the first time in 40 years to help our lowest wage earners. We thank Assemblymember TRA for this legislation and urge your support today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Mr. Chairman, John Kapal, head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. We We have 200,000 Members, most of whom are homeowners. So you may be wondering what we're doing here supporting a renter's tax credit, but we have traditionally supported an increase in the homeowners exemption, but it's usually conditioned on support for the renters increase as well.

But I think just looking at the renter's tax credit in isolation, number one, it's indisputable that we'll bring modest, very modest tax relief to low income and middle income homeowners.

But the other thing from our perspective is I think a lot of us would like to see renters become homeowners, and this might help a little bit at the margin, help some of those renters take the next step. Because as we all know, home ownership in California lags way behind other states. So.

So we proudly support this Bill.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room wishing to speak in support of AB838, please step to the microphone. Seeing none. Any primary witness against in opposition to this measure. Hearing and seeing none. Anyone in the audience wishing to express their opposition to the Bill? You have the same right. Hearing and seeing none.

I want to bring it back to the Committee hearing. Anyone wishing to. Hearing and seeing none on the Committee. Mr. Todd, thank you very much for bringing this Bill before us. And you may close.

I respectfully actual annual. When the time comes. Thank you very much.

Let me turn that. That Bill will refer to the suspense file. Thank you very much, Madam Secretaries. Anything I'm forgetting?

Getting, sir.

Okay. Revenue and Taxation Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.