|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Ask your friends to join too |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
CLT UPDATE
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Grad Tax ballot question clears
the AG
|
Twenty petitions proposing new laws that would,
among other things, legalize recreational marijuana, expand the
state's authority to license charter schools and protect whales from
fishing nets, passed their first legal test after Attorney General
Maura Healey on Wednesday certified the initiative petitions,
clearing a path toward the 2016 ballot.
Healey also certified two proposed amendments to
the state constitution that would impose a higher income tax on
earnings over a million dollars to help fund education and
transportation and another clarifying that no part of the
constitution requires public funding of abortion.
The citizen-generated constitutional amendments
have a longer road to the ballot than the other petitions, requiring
at least a quarter of the Legislature to back the measures in 2016
and again in the 2017-2018 session before they could possibly appear
before voters in 2018.
State House News Service
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Hurdles remain, but 2016 ballot question landscape is taking shape
Attorney General Maura Healey on Wednesday
declared that ballot initiatives to raise taxes on the wealthy,
legalize marijuana, and create restrictions aimed at curbing cruelty
to farm animals should be allowed to move forward....
Supporters of higher taxes on incomes greater
than $1 million will move forward with petitions calling for a
constitutional amendment. Similar ballot measures have failed five
times, the last in 1994. The current proposal would scrap the flat
state income tax — everyone currently pays at a rate of 5.15 percent
— and create a two-tiered system, with all earnings over $1 million
taxed at a rate 4 percentage points higher.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 3, 2015
AG rejects proposed ballot question on fireworks
Healey certifies ballot initiatives on taxes, marijuana
Voters could get a chance to decide on a
change to the income tax rate where people who make over $1
million a year would be taxed at a higher rate on the amount
over $1 million, with the additional state revenue dedicated to
education and transportation.
"What this ballot question would do is
require anyone in Massachusetts who makes more than a million
dollars a year — and that's not many people — to pay an
additional four percentage points on their income tax, and that
money would be dedicated to improving our public schools our
roads and bridges and our public transportation," Steve
Crawford, a spokesman for the group Raise Up Massachusetts, told
WGBH News Wednesday.
Expect resistance to the million-makers' tax
from the anti-tax increase crusaders at Citizens for Limited
Taxation, the group that's been fighting any kind of
graduated income tax in Massachusetts for decades. Though
Healey's sign-off certifies that the question's language meets
the requirements set out in the state constitution for
initiatives, opponents could still argue that it violates
certain provisions of the constitution itself.
WGBH PBS TV-2
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Healey Gives Stamp Of Approval For Million-Dollar Tax,
Marijuana Legalization Ballot Questions
The Argument: Should the state adopt the
proposed tax on top earners to raise money for education and
transportation?
YES
— State
Representative Jay R. Kaufman (A Lexington Democrat, House
chairman of the Joint Committee on Revenue)
NO — State Representative Kevin J.
Kuros (An Uxbridge Republican whose district also includes
Bellingham, Blackstone, and Millville)
Read their debate
reproduced below . . .
The Boston Globe —
West edition
Wednesday, August 6, 2015
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The Boston Globe reported: "The current
proposal would scrap the flat state income tax — everyone currently
pays at a rate of 5.15 percent — and create a two-tiered system . .
."
This is precisely the problem with any potential
graduated income tax: It must "scrap the flat state income
tax." Under any guise, pretext, or for any
reason, well-intentioned or otherwise, it is but a stepping stone to
a full-blown "progressive" income tax. This proposal would end
the historic flat tax and replace it with two different tax rates
depending on income — creating the
first graduated income tax in the long history of Massachusetts.
To break with this long-accepted history of the
ultimate in tax fairness — everyone
paying the same rate of taxation regardless of income
— the tax-borrow-and-spend cabal is
initially targeting only those making a million dollars or more
— for now.
What will they do when those highly-mobile
millionaires pack up and move to a no- or low-tax state
— say 'distant' New Hampshire a few miles
north — with Massachusetts losing all that revenue?
What will happen when there's not enough revenue to fund the state's
ever-expanding annual budgets? Why they'll just promote a new
tax bracket of victims to tax at a higher rate
— the new high-earners. After all, the vast
middle-class is where the real money is!
The State House News Service reported:
"Though ballot questions are prohibited from allocating money to
specific programs, Healey determined that the language setting aside
the millionaires tax revenue for the broad categories of education
and transportation passed legal muster."
This is another ruse they're attempting to sell
— that all that new revenue they hope to
extract from "millionaires" will be spent on "education and
transportation." They quietly added "subject to appropriation
by the Legislature" — because initiative petitions are
constitutionally forbidden from appropriating money. They
could have just as deceptively promised a unicorn for every family,
or a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow — "subject to
appropriation by the Legislature"!
All
revenue that comes into the state treasury is deposited into the
state's general fund, from which the Legislature alone makes
appropriations to fund government. The tax-borrow-and-spend
cabal cannot make any promises of how or where that new revenue
would be spent.
Saying otherwise is simply
a deception, a lie, a scam.
CLT has defeated assaults
on fair taxation before; past grad tax assaults have been defeated
by the voters every time, in
1962, 1968, 1972, 1976,
and 1994.
With your support, if need be we're ready to take on a sixth
assault.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Hurdles remain, but 2016 ballot question landscape is taking shape
By Matt Murphy
Twenty petitions proposing new laws that would, among other things,
legalize recreational marijuana, expand the state's authority to
license charter schools and protect whales from fishing nets, passed
their first legal test after Attorney General Maura Healey on
Wednesday certified the initiative petitions, clearing a path toward
the 2016 ballot.
Healey also certified two proposed amendments to the state
constitution that would impose a higher income tax on earnings over
a million dollars to help fund education and transportation and
another clarifying that no part of the constitution requires public
funding of abortion.
The citizen-generated constitutional amendments have a longer road
to the ballot than the other petitions, requiring at least a quarter
of the Legislature to back the measures in 2016 and again in the
2017-2018 session before they could possibly appear before voters in
2018.
The coalition behind last fall's successful campaign to mandate
paid, earned sick time for most workers across Massachusetts are now
pushing a constitutional amendment to tax millionaires an additional
4 percent on earnings above $1 million. Though ballot questions are
prohibited from allocating money to specific programs, Healey
determined that the language setting aside the millionaires tax
revenue for the broad categories of education and transportation
passed legal muster.
In her review of the constitutionality of the proposed ballot
questions, Healey knocked 10 petitions off the list, essentially
taking them out of play for next year's elections unless her
decisions get challenged by proponents in the Supreme Judicial
Court.
Petitions that were not certified deal with the proposed
legalization of fireworks, an attempt to regulate corporate campaign
contributions, the definition of a "public body," and a planned
study of radiation health and safety risks.
Reflecting discontent with their inability to pass bills through the
Legislature, groups earlier this summer filed 35 separate petitions
proposing 26 new laws and nine constitution amendments. The number
of filings this year were the most since 1994 when 42 petitions were
filed and seven eventually made it to the ballot.
The next step in the process requires proponents of the individual
ballot petitions to collect by late November 65,760 valid signatures
in order to refer the petition to the Legislature for consideration.
The Secretary of State's office must make the signature sheets
available to petitioners no later than Sept. 16, but some groups
said they expected they would available sooner.
"We've been given the green light to proceed, and what happens next
is up to you!" wrote Agatha Bodwell, the signature drive director
for the campaign to force Massachusetts to withdraw from the Common
Core curriculum standards.
The Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education issued a statement
expressing disappointment in Healey's decision to certify the Common
Core repeal petition, calling it a "legally dubious question" to put
before voters.
"This [is] a reckless and irresponsible ballot measure that would
turn back the clock on critical improvements that the majority of
teachers and principals support. It would cause mass confusion in
our schools, undo the hard work of thousands of Massachusetts
educators and put our children far behind their peers in other
states," said Linda Noonan, the executive director of the alliance,
in a statement.
Another successful petitioner - The Humane Society of the United
States - cheered their clearance of the legal hurdle on the path to
the 2016 ballot. The Humane Society is one of the groups behind a
proposed ballot question that would outlaw the "extreme confinement"
of farm animals. The measure is opposed by some farming groups who
say the types of cages targeted by animal rights activists are not
used in Massachusetts, and argue that the petition would drive up
food prices by restricting the sale of meat and dairy products from
other states where the cages might be used.
"We're heartened to have the opportunity to begin talking with
Massachusetts voters about how they can help prevent animal cruelty,
promote food safety and aid family farmers by signing petitions to
put this measure on next year's ballot," said Stephanie Harris,
Massachusetts state director of The Humane Society of the United
States.
Other ballot questions progressing forward include multiple
proposals by competing groups to legalize recreational marijuana,
Secretary of State William Galvin's proposal to reform the state's
public records laws, petitions dealing with euthanasia of animals in
shelters, and a worker's rights petitions that would require fast
food restaurants and retail stores to pay an employee one to four
hours of extra pay whenever it changes that employee's work schedule
within 14 days of a scheduled work shift.
Four separate questions drafted by two different groups to legalize
recreational marijuana were all certified on Wednesday, raising the
specter of potentially two ballot questions regarding pot going
before voters in 2016.
Jim Borghesani, a spokesman for the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana
Like Alcohol, said his group has not reached any agreement with Bay
State Repeal, the other group with three different proposals, on
combining forces.
"We're pleased and looking forward to the signature drive and making
a compelling case to the people of Massachusetts," Borghesani said.
A group of charter school, business and education advocates also got
the green light to move ahead with a petition to allow the Board of
Elementary and Secondary Education to authorize up to 12 new public
charter schools or existing school expansions each year. While the
proposed change would leave existing caps on charter school seats by
district in place, the board could license charter schools in excess
of the cap in certain districts if it determines the need for choice
is great enough.
During an unrelated event at Boston City Hall, Mayor Martin Walsh
said he was a charter school supporter and said he had discussed the
issue a couple of weeks ago during a meeting with Gov. Charlie
Baker.
"I would much rather increase the cap through the legislative
process and not through the ballot question initiative," Walsh said,
suggesting a bill crafted on Beacon Hill would be a more precise way
to make sure cap increases occur in communities that need them.
Antonio Caban contributed reporting
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 3, 2015
AG rejects proposed ballot question on fireworks
Healey certifies ballot initiatives on taxes, marijuana
By Jill Terreri Ramos
Attorney General Maura Healey on Wednesday declared that ballot
initiatives to raise taxes on the wealthy, legalize marijuana, and
create restrictions aimed at curbing cruelty to farm animals should
be allowed to move forward.
But she rejected proposals legalizing fireworks and seeking to limit
the influence of corporate spending in elections.
The fireworks petition sought to end the state ban on the possession
and sale of consumer fireworks. But Healey’s office ruled that the
measure would also repeal parts of state law regulating any
explosive material, not just fireworks, and that the parts of the
petition were not substantially related, which could lead to
confusion for voters.
The initiative’s proponent, former state representative Richard
Bastien of Gardner, said Wednesday he was surprised by Healey’s
decision and would push for approval of fireworks sales through the
Legislature. If lawmakers don’t act, he said, he would file the
initiative again in 2018.
Petitions to legalize another banned substance, recreational
marijuana, were approved. Two groups are supporting separate
measures, meaning that Massachusetts voters could see two ballot
questions on the topic in 2016.
One group, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in
Massachusetts, is pushing for highly regulated production facilities
and retail outlets, and additional taxes on marijuana sales. It is
also calling for residents to be able to grow a small amount of
marijuana in their homes and for adults to possess up to an ounce of
marijuana.
“If Massachusetts can successfully regulate and tax alcohol, it can
successfully regulate and tax a less harmful substance like
marijuana,” said campaign manager Will Luzier.
Bay State Repeal is not looking to impose additional regulations on
marijuana and would not create a bureaucracy or impose taxes in
addition to sales taxes, said spokesman Steve Epstein. The proposal
would also not limit the amount of marijuana cultivated in private
homes for personal use.
On Wednesday, representatives of both groups said they would move
forward separately.
Supporters of higher taxes on incomes greater than $1 million will
move forward with petitions calling for a constitutional amendment.
Similar ballot measures have failed five times, the last in 1994.
The current proposal would scrap the flat state income tax —
everyone currently pays at a rate of 5.15 percent — and create a
two-tiered system, with all earnings over $1 million taxed at a rate
4 percentage points higher.
A measure backed by the Humane Society of the United States and the
Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
which would make it illegal for Massachusetts businesses to sell
some meat and eggs from animals kept in small crates, was also
certified. Opponents have said it would hurt family farms and raise
prices.
Two union-backed proposals that would boost insurance payments to
small hospitals and lower payments to large ones were also
certified. Service Employees International Union 1199 maintains that
its proposals would level the playing field between institutions run
by Partners’ Healthcare and community hospitals.
A proposed law to strengthen access to public records filed by
Secretary of State William F. Galvin was also certified. Galvin has
said he would prefer the Legislature to act on its own — and that he
would withdraw the ballot initiative if it does so. Galvin’s measure
would decrease the cost of black and white copies to 15 cents per
page, allow citizens to recover attorney’s fees if an agency is
found to be withholding public records in bad faith, and institute
fines of up to $1,000 for public officials that improperly deny
access to records.
In all, more than 30 initiative petitions were filed. Healey’s
rulings Wednesday were just one step in a long process to put the
measures before state voters.
Supporters of certified petitions must now collect tens of thousands
of signatures. Supporters of petitions that were not certified can
appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court, which has the last word.
Opponents to the ballot initiatives can also challenge the measures
in court.
The group Pass Mass Amendment, which is trying to pass a
constitutional amendment declaring that corporations are not people
and that money is not speech, filed six petitions, in the hope that
one would be acceptable to the attorney general. The group was among
the disappointed petitioners Wednesday. A similar petition was
rejected by former attorney general Martha Coakley’s office.
“They’re saying again that corporations are individuals,” said
organizer Nicholas J. Bokron. “It just doesn’t make sense.” The
group is planning to go ahead with collecting signatures and is
hoping for a different ruling in court.
Initiative petitions aimed at reducing euthanasia in animal
shelters, ending Common Core education standards, and increasing
access to charter schools were also certified.
The Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education stated its
opposition to the proposal to end Common Core. The group, which is
funded by businesses and foundations, said it hasn’t decided whether
it would challenge the initiative in court, said Executive Director
Linda Noonan.
A constitutional amendment stating that nothing in the constitution
should be “construed as requiring the public funding of abortion,”
was also certified.
WGBH PBS TV-2
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Healey Gives Stamp Of Approval For Million-Dollar Tax,
Marijuana Legalization Ballot Questions
By Mike Deehan
Your 2016 Massachusetts ballot might turn out to be a crowded one,
after Attorney General Maura Healey signed off Wednesday on almost
two dozen ballot questions that could be headed for public approval
when voters go to the polls in 2016.
Healey certified that 22 potential ballot initiatives meet the
constitutional standards for appearing on the ballot, setting up
several proposals that could develop into big campaigns for 2016.
Voters could get a chance to decide on a change to the income tax
rate where people who make over $1 million a year would be taxed at
a higher rate on the amount over $1 million, with the additional
state revenue dedicated to education and transportation.
"What this ballot question would do is require anyone in
Massachusetts who makes more than a million dollars a year — and
that's not many people — to pay an additional four percentage points
on their income tax, and that money would be dedicated to improving
our public school sour roads and bridges and our public
transportation," Steve Crawford, a spokesman for the group Raise Up
Massachusetts, told WGBH News Wednesday.
Expect resistance to the million-makers' tax from the anti-tax
increase crusaders at Citizens for Limited Taxation, the
group that's been fighting any kind of graduated income tax in
Massachusetts for decades. Though Healey's sign-off certifies that
the question's language meets the requirements set out in the state
constitution for initiatives, opponents could still argue that it
violates certain provisions of the constitution itself.
There are also questions on marijuana legalization that would pit
two very different policies against each other: one question would
fully legalize the drug for those over — with few regulatory strings
attached — while another would legalize and heavily tax it just like
we do now with booze.
Jim Borghesani from the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol
doesn't see the two measures coming into conflict until much further
down the road.
"It's not a complication until both ballot measures actually make
the ballot," Borghesani said. "So I think that question is better
asked when we know who has been successful in collecting the
required amount of signatures, which is a tall task."
But the Georgetown, Mass., attorney behind the competing initiative,
Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition founder Stephen Epstein,
says he won't back down in the face of the less radical proposal.
Epstein wants to wait and see which proposal gains more traction
with voters before election day.
"If I were them, and we're polling as well as they are, to save face
nationally, they better jump on our bandwagon," Epstein said.
Even so, it's unlikely both questions could co-exist on the 2016
ballot recommending different marijuana policies.
Healey rejected several potential ballot initiatives, mostly on
constitutional grounds. These include questions on limiting
political spending, radiation health risks and government
accountability.
Another victim of Healey's decisions is the burgeoning campaign to
legalize fireworks and sparklers in the state. The petition from
former Gardner Rep. Richard Bastien turned out to be a dud in
Healey's eyes because it covered too much policy ground. Bastien's
petition not only loosened restrictions on fireworks, it would have
rewritten the state's law on how all explosives could be
transported. Healey ruled that the transportation topic was not
associated closely enough to the main topic of fireworks, so the
petition didn't meet the definition of a proper ballot question.
"Obviously, [I] disagree with today's decision to not certify our
petition," Bastien told WGBH News in an email. "Our position is that
all of the provisions are germane and necessary to legalizing
consumer fireworks."
Campaigns behind the questions will have to gather over 75,000 more
signatures in order to secure a place on the 2016 ballot.
The Boston Globe -- West edition
Wednesday, August 6, 2015
The Argument: Should the state adopt the proposed tax on top earners
to raise money for education and transportation?
YES —
State Representative Jay R. Kaufman
A Lexington Democrat, House chairman of the Joint Committee on
Revenue
Our roads, bridges, and public transit systems are desperately in
need of investment.
Many children in the Commonwealth don’t get the preschool education
that is the single greatest key to later success.
Visit our public colleges and you’ll find crumbling buildings and
students accumulating unsustainable debt.
Look at our tax system and you’ll find that 80 percent of us —
anyone making less than $118,000 — pay around 10 percent of
household income in state and local taxes, while the wealthiest pay
half that rate, under 5 percent.
On Nov. 6, 2018, we’ll have a chance to change all this.
We’ll vote on an amendment to the state’s Constitution so that we
can have a fairer tax system and a more sustainable way to raise the
revenues we need for the Commonwealth we want. We’ll consider a
proposal for a 5 percent tax rate on income under $1 million and an
additional 4 percent on income over $1 million. Funds raised from
this new tax bracket will be reserved for critical education and
transportation investments.
Unlike most states, we have a constitutionally-mandated flat tax.
That means when we need to raise revenue for any of our public
services or investments, we have no choice but to increase sales or
property taxes or raise the statewide income tax rate. Any of these
puts a disproportionate weight on the poor and middle class, while
the wealthiest feel the pinch the least.
More than unfair, our current tax system is unsustainable. Standard
& Poor’s, not exactly an organ of the liberal left, has concluded
that the nation’s wealth and income divide poses a significant
danger to the long-term economic health of states. The credit-rating
authority affirms that states like Massachusetts with a flat income
tax have one less critical tool for addressing that unfairness and
unsustainability.
I am confident that we are bigger than the “just say ‘no’ to taxes”
or “you can’t trust politicians” noise that will certainly
complicate the healthy debate we need. I am confident, too, that a
majority of us will conclude that we need and deserve good public
services and fairer tax system. I welcome the conversations we’ll
have between now and 2018.
NO —
State Representative Kevin J. Kuros
An Uxbridge Republican whose district also includes Bellingham,
Blackstone, and Millville
While it’s no laughing matter, attempts to implement a Massachusetts
graduated income tax feel like the Bill Murray movie “Groundhog
Day.’’ In the movie, Murray’s character is trapped in a time warp,
doomed to relive the same day over and over. Similarly, in 2018
voters may once again have to relive efforts to change the state
Constitution to allow a progressive income tax rate.
Article 44 requires taxes “be levied at a uniform rate throughout
the Commonwealth upon incomes derived from the same class of
property.” Clearly, the Constitution’s framers understood a uniform
tax rate means those earning more pay correspondingly more. Taxing
at higher rates punishes success while doing little to help the less
fortunate.
Proponents want to “modernize” the Constitution and implement a
progressive tax on those earning over $1 million annually. I contend
the Constitution has it correct, for several reasons:
First, $1 million is an arbitrary number requiring regular updating
to reflect inflation. Presently, it is about 30 times the per capita
average. In 1780 when per capita income was $400, the cap would’ve
been $12,000. How often would we have had to amend our Constitution
to “modernize” it since then?
Second, not all income is created equally. Many small-business
owners operate as a sole proprietorship or as an S-corporation. From
a tax perspective, their business revenue looks like income, so an
owner with $2 million in revenue and $1.95 million in expenses would
be taxed at the higher rate despite profiting only $50,000. This is
inequitable to small-business owners, who create two out of every
three jobs in Massachusetts.
Finally, if the objective is to close an income inequality gap,
let’s consider the earned income tax credit. The fiscal 2016 budget
increases the Massachusetts credit from 15 to 23 percent of the
federal credit, allowing 400,000 qualifying residents an annual
credit of up to $1,412. This has an immediate impact on reducing
income inequality, can be easily updated by the Legislature, and
doesn’t require a constitutional amendment.
Voters rejected previous graduated tax efforts in 1962, 1968, 1972,
1976, and 1994. I trust that groundhog day will repeat at the polls
in 2018.
Globe West commentary
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Taxing top earners: Round 2
Each of the two primary arguments made by Rep. Kevin Kuros
(R-Uxbridge) against the question “Should the state adopt the
proposed tax on top earners to raise money for education and
transportation?” (Aug. 9) depends on a significant factual error.
The tax referenced in the question is in a proposed constitutional
amendment that would establish a new 4 percent tax applying only to
that portion of a taxpayer’s income that is in excess of $1 million.
The new revenues would be used for essential investments in public
education and transportation.
First, the proposed measure will NOT require regular updating to
reflect inflation, as Rep. Kuros claims. The proposed constitutional
amendment itself provides for annual adjustments in the million
dollar threshold to reflect increases in the cost of living.
Second, Rep. Kuros argues that the measure will unfairly impose the
additional tax on small business owners, if their business has
revenues of over a million dollars, even if most of that revenue
goes to cover the business’s expenses. But in fact, a small
businessperson is taxed on profits, not revenue. So in Rep. Kuros’s
example, a businessperson with $2 million in revenue but only
$50,000 of profit would only report $50,000 of income (not $2
million) and would be unaffected by the new tax, unless he or she
had more than $950,000 of other taxable income.
Currently, while the rest of us pay roughly 10 percent of our
incomes in state and local taxes, the wealthiest residents pay only
about 6.5 percent. The proposed constitutional amendment would make
our Commonwealth’s tax system fairer and will provide critically
needed revenues for important investments in preschool, public
education, our state colleges and universities, and roads, bridges,
and public transportation.
John A. Lippitt
Reading
Member of the Leadership Team
Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts
http://www.progressivemass.com/20237
Rep. Kuros responds:
I wanted to clarify some confusion over my recent opinion piece
opposing the proposed graduated income tax. First, I objected to
including an arbitrary number such as $1 million in our
Constitution, requiring regular updates to reflect inflation. While
the proponents have included an automatic escalator in the final
language of their ballot question, my piece was written before the
final language was published. I falsely assumed that the proponents
would agree that our Constitution is bigger than including language
to address specific tax thresholds, which should be left to
legislative policy.
Second, I wanted to better explain the example I cited for the
potential tax impact for small businesses (S-Corps and Sole
proprietorships). Many owners draw only a reasonable salary, say
$50,000, out of their business each year and reinvest the bulk of
their profits back into the business. However, an owner who sets $1
million in profits from her business aside in a capital account, for
future expansion or to guard for a rainy day, will pay the increased
tax rate if her salary plus capital reserves exceed $1 million in a
year even if her personal salary is a modest $50,000. This
effectively becomes a tax on savings in the year the capital assets
are set aside.
Finally, while most businesses won’t leave the US over tax policy,
many will leave a state over tax policy. Currently, business owners
with a combined $1 million in salary and capital savings in a year
in Massachusetts pay 5.15 percent income tax on the amount over $1
million. In Rhode Island, they pay 5.99 percent. In Connecticut, 6.7
percent. In Maine, they pay 7.95 percent, in New York, 8.82 percent
and in Vermont, they pay 8.95 percent. If the ballot question
passes, the same owner will pay 9.15 percent in Massachusetts,
moving us from first to worst. It’s just bad policy. Vote NO.
State Representative Kevin J. Kuros
An Uxbridge Republican whose district also includes Bellingham,
Blackstone, and Millville
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|