|
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
Friday, October 30, 2015
Grad Tax spokesman's denial
confirms CLT's charge
|
Opponents of a proposed additional income tax on
millionaires claim the group pushing for a new tax on those with
incomes above $1 million a year are potentially misleading voters
with claims that new tax revenues will only be spent on
transportation and education.
"You can't specify where the money's going in a
ballot question. That's forbidden," Chip Faulkner of Citizens for Limited Taxation told the News Service Monday after
CLT issued a press release asserting that supporters of the tax "can just as
honestly promise a unicorn for every family, a pot of gold at the
end of every rainbow." ...
Asked about the assertions from CLT, Raise Up
Massachusetts spokesman Steve Crawford said in an email to the News
Service that Attorney General Maura Healey "disagrees" with CLT
since her summary of the proposed question says, "Revenues from this
tax would be used, subject to appropriation by the state
Legislature, only for public education, public colleges and
universities, the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges, and
public transportation."
"The proposed amendment clearly says that this
money will be dedicated to public transportation and education needs
of the commonwealth and that is supported by the summary issued by
the attorney general," Crawford told the News Service. Asked about
the "subject to appropriation" clause, Crawford said "the specific
projects are the purview of the Legislature."
The Legislature over the years has delivered on
some of its spending promises and come up short on others in the
face of rising and falling revenues and scores of competing demands
for appropriations.
"We are extremely confident that it will be spent
on the purposes designated in the amendment," Crawford told the News
Service.
State House News Service
Monday, October 26, 2015
CLT questions claims made by backers of higher tax on millionaires
Attorney General Maura Healey told the News
Service two weeks ago when the Raise Up coalition signaled their
intention to file this amendment that she looked forward to learning
more about it.
"We know the very real problem with income
inequality in our country and how important it is to address issues
of income inequality for families, not just in our state but across
this country so I support efforts to address income inequality. I
take that seriously as attorney general," Healey said....
While constitutional amendments to impose a graduated income tax
have failed at the ballot box in the past and in recent years have
failed to generate much real debate on Beacon Hill, the climate may
have changed slightly with Senate President Stanley Rosenberg
assuming control of that branch.
"I'm a big supporter of graduated income tax," Rosenberg
recently told the News Service. "I haven't studied this particular
proposal, but I understand they've done a lot of hard work and a lot
of thinking about why it failed and how it failed in previous
attempts and sort to address the concerns of voters as they
understood them from previous efforts."
Rosenberg, in his capacity as president, now wields the gavel
during the Constitutional Convention, a joint session of the House
and Senate where amendments such as this one can be, but are not
always, debated.
"I would love to see the Convention debate the issue. I think it
fits into the broad theme of income inequality and insecurity in
Massachusetts," Rosenberg said.
State House News Service
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Constitutional amendment proposed for millionaire tax
Advocates for higher taxes in Massachusetts have
learned and are applying a basic strategic principle: divide and
conquer.
The tax advocacy group Raise Up Massachusetts has
proposed an amendment to the state constitution that would create a
4 percent surtax on those with incomes greater than $1 million. The
measure will appear as a question on the November 2016 statewide
ballot.
Progressives have long desired to establish a
graduated tax rate in Massachusetts, under which those who earn more
pay a higher tax rate. Under the state constitution, Massachusetts
has a flat tax rate, currently at 5.15 percent. So the surtax on
higher incomes requires a constitutional amendment to be lawful.
Past attempts to establish a graduated tax rate
have been strongly rejected by voters. The current effort differs in
two notable ways: It attacks only the very highest earners and it
promises that the revenues generated -- estimated at $1.4 billion to
$1.5 billion annually -- will be dedicated only to education and
transportation uses.
These are both lies....
It is a lie just as the promise that the
underground storage tank surcharge on the state gas tax would be
used only to remove leaking gas tanks. Instead, the money raised
goes into the state's general transportation fund.
Given access to a new pile of cash, the
Legislature will use it for whatever purposes it pleases, promises
be damned. Legislators cannot be trusted....
There is no figure, no amount of money, that will
be enough for legislators and advocates of ever-higher levels of
spending. They are insatiable....
The proposed amendment is nothing more than an
underhanded attempt to rake $1.4 billion from the wallets of
taxpayers first, and untold billions more in the future.
Massachusetts residents ought to oppose this effort with all their
might, and make their displeasure known, vehemently, to their
representatives.
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Grad tax advocates launch another push
Section 2. Excluded Matters. -
No measure that relates to religion, religious
practices or religious institutions; or to the
appointment, qualification, tenure, removal, recall or
compensation of judges; or to the reversal of a judicial
decision; or to the powers, creation or abolition of
courts; or the operation of which is restricted to a
particular town, city or other political division or to
particular districts or localities of the commonwealth;
or that makes a specific appropriation of money from
the treasury of the commonwealth, shall be proposed by
an initiative petition; but if a law approved by the
people is not repealed, the general court shall raise by
taxation or otherwise and shall appropriate such money
as may be necessary to carry such law into effect....
Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts
Article XLVIII
The Initiative.
II. Initiative Petitions
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
According to the State House News Service's
report on Monday:
Steve
Crawford said in an email to the News Service that
Attorney General Maura Healey "disagrees" with CLT since
her summary of the proposed question says, "Revenues
from this tax would be used, subject to appropriation by
the state Legislature, only for public education, public
colleges and universities, the repair and maintenance of
roads, bridges, and public transportation."
This isn't a disagreement with CLT
— it's positive affirmation of
our charge of deception. It's reinforcement for our
assertion that the tax-borrow-and-spend cabal is outright lying
when it claims the proposed new revenue generated by its scheme
will or even can be dedicated to ANY specific spending.
Steve Crawford —
perennial spokesman for any Gimme Lobby assault on taxpayers — uses Attorney General Maura Healey's
certification of the initiative amendment as a slick diversion, but
"subject to
appropriation by the state Legislature" is what it is.
The AG was questionably a neutral arbiter when deciding her
certification of the petition as an apparent advocate for "income
equality" — whatever that is.
From an earlier State House News Service report
(Aug. 4, 2015; "Constitutional amendment proposed for millionaire
tax"):
Attorney General
Maura Healey told the News Service two weeks ago when
the Raise Up coalition signaled their intention to file
this amendment that she looked forward to learning more
about it.
"We know the
very real problem with income inequality in our country
and how important it is to address issues of income
inequality for families, not just in our state but
across this country so I support efforts to address
income inequality. I take that seriously as attorney
general," Healey said....
You can count on Steve Crawford to spring out
whenever a proposal to fleece taxpayers arises. He's the
deep-pockets Gimme Lobby's go-to spokesman, has been for years.
I debated him in 2008 when he opposed Carla Howell's
Committee for Small Government repeal of the income tax.
If it hurts taxpayers and benefits the tax-borrow-and-spend
cabal, count on Crawford to be its mouthpiece.
On April 13, 2013 the Boston Herald's Erin Smith
reported ("Pushing
tax hike, shielding T fund; Operative works for pension firm, group
backing gov"):
A political
operative who represents the MBTA’s secret pension fund
also does public relations for a union-backed group that
has pushed Gov. Deval Patrick’s massive tax hike plan to
boost transportation spending.
Steve Crawford, an independent public relations flack
working for the MBTA Retirement Fund, would not say who
pays his salary at Campaign for Our Communities, an
organization which corralled the endorsements of various
unions and groups to support boosting the state income
tax rate to funnel more money to MBTA projects and
education.
“I’m not going to tell you that,” Crawford told the
Herald when asked who funds the Campaign for Our
Communities.
Crawford is a well-paid man of many hats when
it comes to fleecing taxpayers. When Steve Crawford opens
his mouth, grab your wallet.
The Eagle-Tribune editorial described the
confusing process mechanics of an initiative amendment incorrectly.
The State House News Service (Aug. 4, 2015; "Constitutional
amendment proposed for millionaire tax") accurately reported:
The process for
amending the constitution, unlike more traditional
ballot initiatives, takes years to move through a series
of signature goals and required votes of the
Legislature. If the language is approved by Healey,
petitioners must collect 67,750 signatures by November
to send the question to the Legislature.
Twenty-five
percent of a joint meeting of the House and Senate, or
50 votes, must then support the measure before the end
of formal sessions on July 31, 2016. A second
affirmative vote of 50 or more lawmakers would be
required the following session ending July 31, 2018 in
order for the question to appear on the 2018 ballot.
Unlike most citizen-proposals for
constitutional amendments —
usually smothered in the crib by the Legislature
— this one is likely on the fast
track for passage in the Legislature. A graduated income
tax has been a goal for the new Senate President for a very long
time. From the State House News Service report of Aug. 4:
While constitutional amendments to impose a graduated
income tax have failed at the ballot box in the past and
in recent years have failed to generate much real debate
on Beacon Hill, the climate may have changed slightly
with Senate President Stanley Rosenberg assuming control
of that branch.
"I'm a big supporter of graduated income tax," Rosenberg
recently told the News Service. "I haven't studied this
particular proposal, but I understand they've done a lot
of hard work and a lot of thinking about why it failed
and how it failed in previous attempts and sort to
address the concerns of voters as they understood them
from previous efforts."
Rosenberg, in his capacity as president, now wields the
gavel during the Constitutional Convention, a joint
session of the House and Senate where amendments such as
this one can be, but are not always, debated.
"I
would love to see the Convention debate the issue. I
think it fits into the broad theme of income inequality
and insecurity in Massachusetts," Rosenberg said.
The Eagle-Tribune editorial sums up the Gimme
Lobby's assault succinctly:
Advocates
for higher taxes in Massachusetts have learned and are
applying a basic strategic principle: divide and
conquer....
T he
proposed constitutional amendment is simply a backdoor
to a graduated income tax. It is made palatable by
targeting first a group of citizens sure to be viewed
unsympathetically by voters — the "rich" who make $1
million or more a year, estimated at just 14,000 state
residents.
But once the principle of a graduated tax is
established, it will not be long before other, less
well-off citizens become marks for the taxman's long
fingers.
This is a state that spends more than $30 billion
annually. Prudently managed, that is more than enough to
meet all our education and transportation needs. But
prudent management is not in the legislative
leadership's interest. Power accrues to them by their
ability to direct how money is spent, not from how much
can be saved.
There is no figure, no amount of money, that will be
enough for legislators and advocates of ever-higher
levels of spending. They are insatiable.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Monday, October 26, 2015
CLT questions claims made by backers of higher tax on millionaires
By Michael Norton
Opponents of a proposed additional income tax on millionaires claim
the group pushing for a new tax on those with incomes above $1
million a year are potentially misleading voters with claims that
new tax revenues will only be spent on transportation and education.
"You can't specify where the money's going in a ballot question.
That's forbidden," Chip Faulkner of Citizens for Limited
Taxation told the News Service Monday after CLT issued a
press release asserting that supporters of the tax "can just as
honestly promise a unicorn for every family, a pot of gold at the
end of every rainbow."
At issue is the inclusion in the proposed constitutional amendment
of the phrase "subject to appropriation by the Legislature," a
caveat that CLT believes will give lawmakers ample opportunity to
direct new revenues from higher taxes to whichever spending accounts
they wish.
The coalition Raise Up Massachusetts is proposing to add a 4 percent
tax on incomes over $1 million, on top of the state's flat 5.15
percent income tax rate. Sponsors estimate about 14,000 individuals
would end up generating between $1.3 billion and $1.4 billion in new
revenue for state government.
Asked about the assertions from CLT, Raise Up Massachusetts
spokesman Steve Crawford said in an email to the News Service that
Attorney General Maura Healey "disagrees" with CLT since her summary
of the proposed question says, "Revenues from this tax would be
used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, only for
public education, public colleges and universities, the repair and
maintenance of roads, bridges, and public transportation."
"The proposed amendment clearly says that this money will be
dedicated to public transportation and education needs of the
commonwealth and that is supported by the summary issued by the
attorney general," Crawford told the News Service. Asked about the
"subject to appropriation" clause, Crawford said "the specific
projects are the purview of the Legislature."
The Legislature over the years has delivered on some of its spending
promises and come up short on others in the face of rising and
falling revenues and scores of competing demands for appropriations.
"We are extremely confident that it will be spent on the purposes
designated in the amendment," Crawford told the News Service.
State House News Service
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Constitutional amendment proposed for millionaire tax
By Matt Murphy
The coalition behind last year's successful push to guarantee earned
sick time for Massachusetts workers has taken the first step on
Tuesday toward amending the state's constitution to tax income over
$1 million at a higher rate.
Raise Up Massachusetts, a coalition of organized labor, community
groups and religious leaders, filed a petition on Tuesday with the
Attorney General's office seeking to impose an additional 4 percent
income tax on all earnings above $1 million, with the revenue
generated dedicated to the broad categories of public education,
infrastructure and transit.
Because the new tax bracket would require an amendment to the state
constitution, a document that prohibits tiered income taxes, the
earliest the question could go before voters would be 2018. Many
hurdles, however, remain before that could happen, including the
Legislature voting to advance the petition in two consecutive
constitutional conventions.
"Massachusetts has one of the largest income inequality problems in
the country, and it's getting worse. Yet out highest-income
residents, who have been the biggest winners in the economy, pay the
smallest share of their income in state and local taxes," UMass
Boston economics professor Arthur MacEwan said in a statement
provided by the Raise Up coalition.
The 10 co-signers of the initial petition include a mix of wealthy
businessmen such as former Stride Rite President Arnold Hiatt and
small business owners such as Debbie Frongiero, who owns 7 Seas
Whale Watch in Gloucester. Other petition signatories include
Lawrence personal care attendant Islandia Aquino; Fall River teacher
Rebecca Cusick; Christian Community Church pastor Rev. Jose
Encarnacion of Worcester; former Northampton Mayor Clair Higgins;
Marven-rhode Hyppolite, the former president of the Student
Government Association at UMass Dartmouth; Peabody senior activist
Barbara Mann; Bus Riders United organizer Sigute Meilus, of New
Bedford; and Mary Ann Stewart, the parent representative on the
Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
The amendment would do away with the state's flat income tax rate -
currently set at 5.15 percent - replacing it with a tiered system.
The current income tax rate, set to gradually fall to 5 percent,
would remain in place for Massachusetts earners. An additional 4
percent tax would be levied on earnings over $1 million, or 9.15
percent under current tax structure.
The income level subject to the higher tax rate would be adjusted
annually the same way cost-of-living adjustments are applied to
federal tax brackets to "ensure that this additional tax continues
to apply only to the commonwealth's highest income residents."
The first step in the process requires Attorney General Maura Healey
and her office to review the language to make sure it meets the
legal requirements for a ballot initiative. While the state
constitution bans ballot questions that make specific appropriations
of state funding, proponents believe the language directing new
revenue to education and transportation is vague enough to clear the
legal hurdles.
Attorney General Maura Healey told the News Service two weeks ago
when the Raise Up coalition signaled their intention to file this
amendment that she looked forward to learning more about it.
"We know the very real problem with income inequality in our country
and how important it is to address issues of income inequality for
families, not just in our state but across this country so I support
efforts to address income inequality. I take that seriously as
attorney general," Healey said.
The process for amending the constitution, unlike more
traditional ballot initiatives, takes years to move through a series
of signature goals and required votes of the Legislature. If the
language is approved by Healey, petitioners must collect 67,750
signatures by November to send the question to the Legislature.
Twenty-five percent of a joint meeting of the House and Senate, or
50 votes, must then support the measure before the end of formal
sessions on July 31, 2016. A second affirmative vote of 50 or more
lawmakers would be required the following session ending July 31,
2018 in order for the question to appear on the 2018 ballot.
While constitutional amendments to impose a graduated income tax
have failed at the ballot box in the past and in recent years have
failed to generate much real debate on Beacon Hill, the climate may
have changed slightly with Senate President Stanley Rosenberg
assuming control of that branch.
"I'm a big supporter of graduated income tax," Rosenberg recently
told the News Service. "I haven't studied this particular proposal,
but I understand they've done a lot of hard work and a lot of
thinking about why it failed and how it failed in previous attempts
and sort to address the concerns of voters as they understood them
from previous efforts."
Rosenberg, in his capacity as president, now wields the gavel during
the Constitutional Convention, a joint session of the House and
Senate where amendments such as this one can be, but are not always,
debated.
"I would love to see the Convention debate the issue. I think it
fits into the broad theme of income inequality and insecurity in
Massachusetts," Rosenberg said.
The Eagle-Tribune
Thursday, October 29, 2015
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Grad tax advocates launch another push
Advocates for higher taxes in Massachusetts have learned and are
applying a basic strategic principle: divide and conquer.
The tax advocacy group Raise Up Massachusetts has proposed an
amendment to the state constitution that would create a 4 percent
surtax on those with incomes greater than $1 million. The measure
will appear as a question on the November 2016 statewide ballot.
Progressives have long desired to establish a graduated tax rate in
Massachusetts, under which those who earn more pay a higher tax
rate. Under the state constitution, Massachusetts has a flat tax
rate, currently at 5.15 percent. So the surtax on higher incomes
requires a constitutional amendment to be lawful.
Past attempts to establish a graduated tax rate have been strongly
rejected by voters. The current effort differs in two notable ways:
It attacks only the very highest earners and it promises that the
revenues generated -- estimated at $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion
annually -- will be dedicated only to education and transportation
uses.
These are both lies.
The promise that the revenue generated will be used solely for
education and transportation is a lie just as was the promise that
the state income tax hike enacted in 1989 would be "temporary." Yet
here we are 26 years later and the income tax rate still has not
returned to its "permanent" level of 5 percent.
It is a lie just as the promise that the underground storage tank
surcharge on the state gas tax would be used only to remove leaking
gas tanks. Instead, the money raised goes into the state's general
transportation fund.
Given access to a new pile of cash, the Legislature will use it for
whatever purposes it pleases, promises be damned. Legislators cannot
be trusted.
The proposed constitutional amendment is simply a backdoor to a
graduated income tax. It is made palatable by targeting first a
group of citizens sure to be viewed unsympathetically by voters
— the "rich" who make $1 million or
more a year, estimated at just 14,000 state residents.
But once the principle of a graduated tax is established, it will
not be long before other, less well-off citizens become marks for
the taxman's long fingers.
This is a state that spends more than $30 billion annually.
Prudently managed, that is more than enough to meet all our
education and transportation needs. But prudent management is not in
the legislative leadership's interest. Power accrues to them by
their ability to direct how money is spent, not from how much can be
saved.
There is no figure, no amount of money, that will be enough for
legislators and advocates of ever-higher levels of spending. They
are insatiable.
Fortunately, next year's ballot question is just the start of a
complicated process. For the constitution to be amended, 50 of the
state's 200 legislators must approve of the measure in two
consecutive sessions. If that hurdle is passed, the measure would go
before voters in 2018, needing a majority to pass.
The proposed amendment is nothing more than an underhanded attempt
to rake $1.4 billion from the wallets of taxpayers first, and untold
billions more in the future. Massachusetts residents ought to oppose
this effort with all their might, and make their displeasure known,
vehemently, to their representatives.
|
| |
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
|