California Wage Garnishment Calculator 2026

How California Wage Garnishment Is Calculated in 2026 — The CCP § 706.050 Dual Formula

Every standard consumer wage garnishment in California runs through a two-part test. The creditor receives the lesser of two independently calculated amounts — whichever is smaller is the legal maximum they can take. This dual-formula structure, established under CCP § 706.050 as modified by Senate Bill 1477, is what makes California one of the most debtor-protective garnishment regimes in the country.

The first calculation — Option A — caps the garnishment at exactly 20% of the employee's disposable earnings for that pay period. A person taking home $2,000 in disposable weekly pay cannot lose more than $400 to a consumer creditor, regardless of the debt size or how long the judgment has been outstanding.

The second calculation — Option B — applies a 40% marginal rate, but only to the portion of disposable earnings that exceeds a protected floor. That floor is set at 48 times the applicable hourly minimum wage per weekly pay cycle. To compute this base across different shifts, refer to our California hourly paycheck estimates. At California's 2026 state baseline of $16.90 per hour, the weekly floor is $811.20. Any disposable earnings at or below that amount are completely untouchable — no consumer creditor can reach them.

The garnishment amount is whichever of those two results is lower. For lower-to-moderate earners, Option B typically produces the binding figure. For higher earners whose disposable pay clears the breakeven threshold of $1,622.40 per week, Option A's 20% flat cap takes over and governs the maximum withholding.

The Three Earnings Zones

Every worker's weekly disposable pay falls into one of three calculation zones, each with a distinct outcome:

• Zone 1 — Fully Exempt: Weekly disposable earnings at or below $811.20. The garnishment amount is $0.00. The creditor receives nothing from that paycheck, even if an active Earnings Withholding Order is on file with the employer.
• Zone 2 — Option B Governs: Weekly disposable earnings between $811.21 and $1,622.40. Option B produces the smaller result. The worker pays a 40% marginal rate on the excess above $811.20, meaning the effective garnishment rate on total disposable earnings is less than 20%.
• Zone 3 — Option A Governs: Weekly disposable earnings above $1,622.40. Option A's 20% flat cap produces the smaller result. From this point, every additional dollar earned adds exactly $0.20 to the garnishment amount — no more.

Disposable Earnings: What Gets Subtracted and What Does Not

The single most common calculation error — made by debtors and payroll administrators alike — is confusing disposable earnings with net take-home pay. They are not the same figure. California Code of Civil Procedure § 706.011 defines disposable earnings precisely: gross earnings minus only those deductions required by law. Voluntary deductions stay in the garnishable pool.

Deductions That Reduce Your Garnishable Base

These items are subtracted from gross pay when computing disposable earnings, because they are mandated by federal or state law — the employee has no legal ability to opt out of them. To estimate your exact tax burden across California paycheck deduction brackets, use our master paycheck calculator.

• Federal income tax withholding — based on your W-4 filing status and allowances.
• California state income tax withholding — withheld per your DE-4 form elections.
• Social Security (OASDI) — 6.2% of gross earnings up to the annual wage base.
• Medicare (HI) — 1.45% of all gross earnings (plus 0.9% additional Medicare tax for high earners above $200,000).
• California State Disability Insurance (SDI) — a California SDI tax deduction of approximately 1.1% of gross wages in 2026.
• Mandatory public employee retirement contributions — applies to CalPERS and CalSTRS members only, where participation is legally required as a condition of employment.

Deductions That Do NOT Reduce Your Garnishable Base

These deductions reduce your paycheck but do not reduce your disposable earnings for garnishment purposes. They remain in the calculation base even though they lower your actual take-home amount:

• Health insurance premiums — even employer-sponsored plans with pre-tax deductions.
• 401(k) and 403(b) contributions — including employer-matched amounts you elect to contribute.
• IRA contributions — traditional or Roth, regardless of tax treatment.
• Union dues
• Flexible Spending Account (FSA) contributions
• Charitable payroll deductions
• Voluntary life insurance premiums
• Garnishment amounts from a prior order — if a second creditor's order arrives, the first garnishment does not reduce the base for the second calculation.

A Practical Example

Consider a biweekly earner with $3,200 in gross pay. After subtracting federal tax ($320), California state tax ($128), Social Security ($198.40), Medicare ($46.40), and SDI ($35.20), the mandatory deduction total is $728. Disposable earnings are $3,200 − $728 = $2,472. The health insurance premium of $180 and the 401(k) contribution of $160 that also appear on the paystub do not reduce this figure — disposable earnings remain $2,472, not $2,132.

Running the formula at the state baseline ($16.90/hr, biweekly multiplier of 96):

• Protected floor: 96 × $16.90 = $1,622.40
• Option A: 20% × $2,472 = $494.40
• Option B: 40% × ($2,472 − $1,622.40) = 40% × $849.60 = $339.84
• Maximum garnishment: $339.84 (Option B governs — it is lower)
• Estimated net take-home after garnishment: $2,472 − $339.84 = $2,132.16

Your City's Minimum Wage Changes Your Garnishment — Here Is Why

California Code of Civil Procedure § 706.050(a)(2) contains a provision that competitors consistently ignore: if the judgment debtor performs work in a city or county where the local minimum wage exceeds the state baseline, the calculation must use the local rate. This is not optional. The statute mandates it. Yet not a single competing calculator available on Google in 2026 dynamically adjusts for municipal wage ordinances.

The practical effect is significant. A worker in West Hollywood earning $20.25 per hour has a weekly protected floor of $972.00 — $160.80 more per week shielded from garnishment than a worker in an unincorporated county area subject to the $16.90 state baseline. Over a full year of biweekly pay cycles, that difference in protected income exceeds $4,180. A calculator that ignores this provision is not calculating California law — it is calculating a simplified approximation of it.

The same logic extends to sector-specific wage floors. California's fast food minimum wage of $20.00 per hour means a fast food worker's weekly disposable earnings must clear $960.00 before a consumer creditor can touch a single dollar. A healthcare worker subject to the $19.28 sector minimum has a weekly floor of $925.44. These workers carry substantially more protection than the state baseline figure suggests.

How the Municipal Rate Changes Your Calculation

The city rate replaces the state rate in both the protected floor and the breakeven threshold calculation. Everything else in the formula stays identical. Using San Francisco's $19.61 per hour rate as an example for a weekly earner with $1,000 in disposable earnings:

• Protected floor: 48 × $19.61 = $941.28 (vs. $811.20 at state baseline)
• Option A: 20% × $1,000 = $200.00
• Option B: 40% × ($1,000 − $941.28) = 40% × $58.72 = $23.49
• Maximum garnishment: $23.49

The same worker calculated at the state baseline would face a garnishment of $75.52 — more than three times higher. Selecting your actual city in the calculator above is the single most impactful input adjustment a low-to-moderate earner in a high-wage city can make.

Consumer Debt vs. FTB Tax Debt vs. Child Support — How the Rules Differ

Not all garnishments follow the same formula. California law establishes separate caps, separate calculation methods, and a strict priority hierarchy depending on the type of debt underlying the withholding order. A paycheck can simultaneously carry multiple garnishment orders — but the rules governing each one differ sharply.

Consumer Debt — CCP § 706.050 (Lowest Priority)

Standard commercial debts — credit cards, medical bills, personal loans, unpaid rent judgments — are subject to the dual-formula cap described throughout this page. These creditors must first win a lawsuit, obtain a civil judgment from a California Superior Court, and then apply for a writ of execution before an Earnings Withholding Order can be served on the employer. The maximum legal withholding is the lesser of 20% of disposable earnings or 40% of the excess above the applicable minimum wage floor.

Consumer debt garnishments hold the lowest legal priority. If a child support order or FTB tax levy is already in place, the consumer creditor must wait until sufficient headroom exists — and in many cases, the child support order alone fully absorbs the available garnishment space.

FTB State Tax Debt — Earnings Withholding Order for Taxes (EWOT)

The California Franchise Tax Board operates under a separate statutory framework. For unpaid personal income taxes, the FTB can issue an Earnings Withholding Order for Taxes directly to an employer without first obtaining a court judgment. The calculation does not use the dual-formula structure — the FTB applies a flat cap of 25% of disposable earnings, and uses its own published withholding tables rather than the Option A / Option B structure of CCP § 706.050.

This 25% flat cap makes FTB garnishments meaningfully more aggressive than consumer debt orders at high income levels — a worker with $4,000 in weekly disposable earnings faces an $800 consumer debt cap (20%) versus a $1,000 FTB cap (25%). Debtors with FTB tax liabilities should request a payment plan or installment agreement through the MyFTB portal before wages begin to be withheld. Active installment agreements generally prevent the FTB from proceeding with wage garnishment. Debtors with FTB tax liabilities should request an installment agreement through the MyFTB portal at ftb.ca.gov before wages begin to be withheld.

Child Support and Spousal Support — Family Code § 5246 (Highest Priority)

Support-based Income Withholding Orders hold absolute priority over every other garnishment type. The caps are set by federal law under the Consumer Credit Protection Act and enforced through Family Code § 5246 — they are dramatically higher than anything available to commercial creditors:

• 50% of disposable earnings — if the employee is supporting another spouse or child and is current on payments.
• 55% — if supporting another family and is 12 or more weeks in arrears.
• 60% — if not supporting another family and is current on payments.
• 65% — if not supporting another family and is 12 or more weeks in arrears.

A worker carrying a child support order at the 65% cap has virtually no disposable income available for commercial creditors. Because support orders are processed first, the remaining garnishable headroom after a 65% support withholding is often zero — commercial creditors receive nothing even with a valid writ of execution on file. For the full breakdown of support priority rules, see the California Courts Wage Garnishment Self-Help Guide.

Federal Student Loans — Administrative Wage Garnishment (AWG)

Defaulted federal student loans are subject to Administrative Wage Garnishment under 31 CFR 285.11. The Department of Education (or its designated servicer) can garnish up to 15% of disposable pay without a court order. Federal student loan garnishment sits below child support and tax debt in priority, but above standard consumer judgment creditors in most administrative sequencing. Rehabilitation of the loan or consolidation into an income-driven repayment plan stops AWG immediately.

How to Stop or Reduce a Wage Garnishment in California — The Claim of Exemption Process

A wage garnishment is not final the moment an Earnings Withholding Order reaches your employer. California law provides a structured legal mechanism to stop or reduce the withholding before it causes lasting financial harm — the Claim of Exemption, filed under CCP § 706.051. This is the primary defensive tool available to any debtor whose garnishment leaves insufficient income to cover basic household necessities.

The legal standard for a successful exemption claim is financial hardship — specifically, that the garnished amount is necessary for the support of the debtor and their dependents. Courts look at total household income, reasonable monthly expenses, and whether the reduced take-home pay leaves the family unable to meet basic living costs. Having a budget that shows a genuine shortfall, supported by documented evidence, is the foundation of every successful claim.

Step 1 — Complete the Required Forms

Two official California Judicial Council forms are required. Both must be completed before filing — submitting one without the other is grounds for rejection:

• Form WG-006 — Claim of Exemption: The formal declaration stating that the garnishment causes financial hardship and requesting that the court reduce or stop the withholding order. Available at courts.ca.gov.
• Form WG-007 — Financial Statement: A detailed schedule of all household income sources, monthly expenses, assets, and liabilities. Every line must be completed accurately — courts treat blank lines as a failure to disclose. Supporting documents for each expense line strengthen the claim significantly.

Step 2 — Gather Your Supporting Evidence

A Financial Statement without documentation is difficult for a judge to credit. Gather the following before filing:

• Three months of recent pay stubs (for all household earners)
• Three months of bank statements showing actual cash flow
• Current rent or mortgage statement showing monthly housing cost
• Utility bills (electricity, gas, water, internet) for the past two months
• Grocery receipts or monthly food cost estimate with supporting evidence
• Medical bills or prescription receipts for recurring health expenses
• Childcare receipts or school cost documentation if applicable
• Vehicle payment and insurance statements if a car is required for employment

Step 3 — File Directly With the Levying Officer

This is the step where many debtors make a critical procedural error. The Claim of Exemption package — original WG-006, original WG-007, and one complete copy of both — must be filed directly with the Levying Officer named on the Earnings Withholding Order. The Levying Officer is typically the county sheriff's civil division. Do not file with the court clerk. Do not submit to the creditor's attorney. Do not give the forms to your employer. Filing in the wrong location wastes the filing window and may allow the garnishment to continue unchallenged.

Step 4 — The 10-Day Opposition Window

After the Levying Officer receives your Claim of Exemption, they forward a copy to the creditor's attorney. The creditor then has exactly 10 calendar days to file a Notice of Opposition (Form WG-009) and request a court hearing. Two outcomes are possible:

• No opposition filed: The garnishment is automatically stopped or reduced to the amount you claimed in WG-006. The employer is notified. No court appearance is required.
• Opposition filed: A hearing date is set at the local Superior Court. Both parties present their evidence to a judge, who issues a binding ruling on the garnishment amount going forward.

Step 5 — The Court Hearing

If the creditor opposes your claim, attend the hearing fully prepared. File a written reply using Form MC-030 at least five court days before the scheduled hearing date. Check the court's online case portal the afternoon before the hearing for any tentative ruling — many California Superior Courts post preliminary decisions online before scheduled hearings. If a tentative ruling goes against you, you generally must call both the court clerk and the creditor's attorney before the posted deadline that afternoon to request oral argument; failing to do so allows the tentative ruling to become final automatically.

At the hearing, present your physical evidence — pay stubs, bills, bank statements — organized clearly. Judges review dozens of these hearings. A clean, documented presentation of a genuine shortfall carries more weight than an unsubstantiated verbal account of financial difficulty.

For a complete step-by-step walkthrough of the WG-006 and WG-007 filing process, including which boxes to complete, what supporting documentation is most persuasive, and how to handle the hearing if the creditor objects, see the Form WG-006 and WG-007 official Judicial Council documents at courts.ca.gov.

Employer Obligations When an Earnings Withholding Order Arrives — AB 774, WG-002, and WG-005

Receiving an Earnings Withholding Order is not optional reading for a payroll department. Under California law, specific actions are required within defined timeframes — and failures carry personal liability exposure for the employer, not just administrative penalties. The 2026 regulatory environment adds new documentation requirements under Assembly Bill 774 and the FTB's expanding eGarnishment program under Senate Bill 642.

Upon Receipt of Form WG-002

When the Earnings Withholding Order (Form WG-002) is served on the employer, the following obligations activate immediately:

• Begin withholding within the first pay period ending at least 10 days after service. The employer may not defer or delay withholding beyond this point without legal exposure.
• Serve Employee Instructions (Form WG-003) on the employee within 10 days of receiving the EWO. The employee must be notified in writing. Verbal notification does not satisfy this requirement.
• Complete and return the Employer's Return (Form WG-005) to the Levying Officer within 15 days of service. This form confirms whether the named employee works for the employer, their pay period, their gross pay, and any pre-existing withholding orders already in effect. Missing this 15-day deadline creates employer liability.

AB 774 — New Documentation Requirements Effective July 1, 2026 [Source: leginfo.ca.gov]

Assembly Bill 774 adds a record-keeping mandate that payroll administrators must treat as a new compliance checkpoint. For every Earnings Withholding Order served on or after July 1, 2026, the employer must document:

• The name and job title of the specific personnel who received the EWO
• The exact date the EWO was received
• The method of service — physical delivery, certified mail, or electronic transmission
• The date employee notification (WG-003) was served on the affected employee
• The date the Employer's Return (WG-005) was completed and transmitted to the Levying Officer

Retain this documentation for the minimum period California employment law requires. If a creditor later challenges the garnishment on procedural grounds, this paper trail is the employer's primary compliance evidence. Payroll service providers handling garnishments on behalf of client companies should update their intake workflows before July 1, 2026 to capture these fields automatically.

SB 642 — FTB eGarnishment Program [Source: leginfo.ca.gov]

Senate Bill 642 authorizes the Franchise Tax Board to serve Earnings Withholding Orders for Taxes electronically — directly to employers and payroll service providers — bypassing physical mail delivery. Under the eGarnishment program, participating payroll processors receive FTB withholding orders through a secure digital channel and must process them with the same 10-day response timeline as physically served orders. Employers using third-party payroll providers should confirm that their provider is enrolled in or compliant with the FTB's eGarnishment protocols, as missed electronic orders carry the same liability as missed physical orders.

Priority Stacking for Employers

When multiple withholding orders arrive for the same employee, the employer is responsible for applying them in the correct legal order. Processing orders out of sequence — for example, paying a consumer creditor ahead of an active child support order — exposes the employer to liability for any unpaid support amounts. The correct sequencing is:

1. Child support and spousal support Income Withholding Orders (IWOs) — always first, regardless of when they arrived
2. FTB Earnings Withholding Orders for Taxes (EWOTs)
3. Federal student loan Administrative Wage Garnishment (AWG) orders
4. Standard consumer judgment Earnings Withholding Orders (EWOs) — only if garnishment headroom remains after higher-priority orders are satisfied

If satisfying a higher-priority order consumes the full available garnishment capacity, lower-priority orders receive nothing for that pay period. The employer should notify the lower-priority Levying Officer in writing when this occurs using the Employer's Return form, documenting that higher-priority withholding prevented compliance with the secondary order.

Multiple Garnishment Orders — Priority Stacking, Headroom, and What Happens When the Queue Fills Up

A single employee can carry multiple active withholding orders simultaneously — and in households with complex debt histories, this is common. When more than one order exists, the calculation does not simply add the garnishment amounts together. Each order type has a defined legal position in a priority hierarchy, and lower-ranked creditors receive only what remains after higher-ranked orders are satisfied. When the stack is full, late arrivals receive nothing until space opens.

The Federal CCPA Ceiling — The Hard Cap Above All Orders

The Consumer Credit Protection Act imposes an absolute federal ceiling that governs the total amount any combination of orders can extract from a single paycheck. For standard consumer debt, that ceiling is 25% of disposable earnings — even if multiple orders stack, the combined withholding for consumer debts cannot exceed 25% of disposable pay. California's state law sits below this federal ceiling (at 20% per order), so in practice the California limit governs for most consumer debt stacking scenarios.

For child support and alimony, the federal CCPA ceiling rises to 50%–65% of disposable pay depending on arrearage and dependent status — as detailed in the debt type section above. The practical effect: a worker with a 60% child support order and a valid consumer debt EWO has zero garnishable headroom remaining for the consumer creditor. The support order absorbs the full legal capacity of the paycheck.

Scenario: Child Support Order Meets a Consumer Debt EWO

Consider a weekly earner with $1,500 in disposable earnings and two active orders — a child support Income Withholding Order at 50% and a consumer debt EWO from a credit card judgment:

• Step 1 — Apply child support first (absolute priority): 50% × $1,500 = $750.00 withheld.
• Step 2 — Calculate consumer debt garnishment limit: Max under CCP § 706.050 = MIN(20% × $1,500, 40% × ($1,500 − $811.20)) = MIN($300.00, $275.52) = $275.52.
• Step 3 — Check remaining CCPA headroom: Federal ceiling for consumer debt is 25% of disposable earnings = $375.00 total. Amount already withheld for support = $750. The support order alone exceeds the consumer debt ceiling. The consumer creditor receives $0.00 for this pay period.

The consumer creditor's EWO remains on file with the employer and will activate in future pay periods if the support order is modified, terminated, or reduced. The employer documents the non-payment to the Levying Officer for the consumer order.

Scenario: FTB Tax Order Meets a Consumer Debt EWO

A biweekly earner with $3,000 in disposable earnings carries an active FTB Earnings Withholding Order for Taxes and a consumer debt EWO filed by a judgment creditor:

• Step 1 — Apply FTB order first (higher priority than consumer debt): 25% × $3,000 = $750.00 withheld.
• Step 2 — Consumer debt maximum under CCP § 706.050 (biweekly, $16.90 base): MIN(20% × $3,000, 40% × ($3,000 − $1,622.40)) = MIN($600.00, $551.04) = $551.04.
• Step 3 — Check federal CCPA headroom: The CCPA allows up to 25% of disposable for consumer debt = $750.00. FTB already consumed $750.00. Zero headroom remains under the CCPA ceiling. The consumer creditor receives $0.00.

Scenario: Two Consumer Debt EWOs — Which Creditor Gets Paid?

When two consumer debt EWOs exist for the same employee, only one can be active at a time — the one served first in time. California follows a first-in-time priority rule for same-category consumer debt orders. The first creditor receives the maximum garnishment allowed under CCP § 706.050. The second creditor's order sits on hold until the first order is either satisfied (the judgment is paid in full) or released.

A biweekly earner with $2,500 in disposable earnings and two consumer debt EWOs receives this outcome:

• First EWO: MIN(20% × $2,500, 40% × ($2,500 − $1,622.40)) = MIN($500.00, $351.04) = $351.04 withheld.
• Second EWO: $0.00 — no remaining garnishment capacity under the first-in-time rule for same-category orders.
• Net take-home: $2,500 − $351.04 = $2,148.96.

AB 2837 — Address Verification and the Right to Challenge Service

The Post-Judgment Fairness Act introduced a creditor obligation that creates a potential challenge point for debtors facing garnishment. Before seeking execution on a judgment, a creditor must file a declaration verifying the debtor's current address using public or commercial verification databases. If the creditor used an outdated or incorrect address, the debtor may petition for an immediate ex parte stay and the return of funds garnished during the preceding six months.

Debtors who were never properly notified of the underlying lawsuit — because the creditor served documents at a stale address — may also have grounds to vacate the judgment entirely. Reviewing the proof of service on file with the Superior Court is a key first step in any garnishment defense. If the address on the proof of service does not match where you actually lived at the time of service, consult an attorney about a motion to quash or vacate. Reviewing the proof of service on the Superior Court case portal is a key first step in any garnishment defense. Consult a California consumer attorney if the address on the proof of service does not match where you actually lived at the time of service.