California voters appear ready to make the state’s “temporary” tax on top earners permanent, even as support for a first-in-the-nation billionaire wealth tax collapses, according to a new poll released less than a week before Election Day.

Proposition 3 would make permanent the tax rates on individuals earning more than $371,000 a year. Voters first approved them in 2012 as a temporary measure and extended them in 2016.

Fifty-eight percent of likely voters said they would vote yes after reading the ballot title and label, according to the Public Policy Institute of California survey. Four in 10 said they would vote no.

That support has not changed.

PPIC’s September survey found the same split, 58% yes and 40% no.

Most Democrats and independents back the measure, while most Republicans oppose it.

Support is strongest among likely voters earning less than $40,000 (77%), those aged 18 to 34 (73%) and renters (69%).

Majorities in every region support Prop. 3, but the Central Valley is close to evenly split, with 51% yes and 48% no.

One of the largest teachers union has bankrolled the yes campaign.

The California Teachers Association has poured $58.3 million into the campaign for Prop. 3, which helps fund public schools and community colleges. The union’s contributions make up 87% of the Yes on 3 campaign’s funding.

CTA warned of steep cuts if the measure fails.

“Failing to pass Prop. 3 and extend this funding would mean an immediate 15% cut to funding for public schools and community colleges, with one in every six educators potentially losing their jobs,” the union said in a statement. “Prop. 3 will not raise taxes on anyone – it extends the current tax applied to couples earning more than $740,000 a year.”

Opponents admit they are outgunned.

David Kline, vice president of communications and research at the California Taxpayers Association, said the “yes” side’s huge spending made the fight “an uphill battle.”

He said he hopes voters will reject what he called an unnecessary tax increase that would drive up the cost of living.

“One of the biggest problems with Prop. 3 is that it would put a tax increase in the California Constitution five years in advance — taking effect in 2031, when the state’s finances could be dramatically different than they are today,” Kline told the California Post.

“Voters should leave their options open and monitor how their existing tax dollars are being spent, not rush into a premature tax increase that makes our state less competitive,” he added.

Kline said the rates were sold as temporary taxes to address a fiscal emergency, and that emergency is over. He pointed to big gains in state revenue and record school spending as reasons to let the taxes expire on schedule.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association urged a no vote in its voter guide.

It said the 2012 tax was pitched as temporary “for the schools” and that this measure would make it permanent.

“California has the highest income tax rates in the nation, and every year the state has a bigger budget and a higher cost of living to show for it. These “temporary” income tax rate hikes should not be a backdoor method for permanent tax increases.”

Sonja Shaw, the Republican-backed candidate running to be California’s superintendent of public instruction, told the Post her answer is “Heck no.”

“We are in the middle of a serious crisis in this state as it relates to cost of living. Families are struggling,” Shaw said. “Now is not the time to raise taxes. We need actual accountability and better spending discipline, not a deeper slush fund for Sacramento insiders.”

Election Day is Nov. 3, with hundergrds of 100,00s of mail-in ballos alredady ebing processed.