Help save yourself join CLT today!

CLT introduction  and membership  application

What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone

Make a contribution to support CLT's work by clicking the button above

Ask your friends to join too

Visit CLT on Facebook

CLT UPDATE
Monday, May 23, 2016

Reactions to the first vote on 6th Grad Tax assault


Citing the need for new tax revenues and more fairness in tax policy, Massachusetts lawmakers voted 135-57 Wednesday to advance a constitutional amendment designed to generate $1.9 billion for education and transportation by assessing a new 4 percent surtax on households with incomes above $1 million.

Before recessing their Constitutional Convention until July 13, senators voted 33-7 in favor of the amendment, with House members voting 102-50. Only 50 votes were needed to advance the proposal....

In addition to being skeptical about whether the new revenues would actually be spent for the intended purposes, amendment opponents — mostly Republicans — said the surtax would drive increasingly-mobile job creators out of Massachusetts and lead to a system with varied tax brackets.

"It is the introduction of class warfare," said Rep. David Nangle (D-Lowell). He added, "It is stealing from the rich to give to the poor." He called it a "dereliction of duty" to foist the duties of lawmakers — making decisions about taxation and spending — to the ballot process....

While it attracted some votes from Democrats, an amendment aimed at guaranteeing that the $1.9 billion expected from the millionaire's tax be added to existing spending on transportation and education failed 54-138.

Predicting that new revenue from a tax on millionaires would supplant, rather than supplement, existing spending on transportation and education, Jones said the amendment would have codified the intentions of the petitioners.

"Guess, what? You can't trust us, and the track record of the Legislature proves that point," Jones said....

Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr questioned the constitutionality of the directive that new tax revenues be spent on education and transportation, and recommended seeking an opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court. Attorney General Maura Healey has certified that the question does not violate a constitutional provision preventing ballot questions from restricting the Legislature's authority to appropriate tax dollars.

State House News Service
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Mass. lawmakers advance surtax on millionaires with 135-57 vote


Massachusetts lawmakers took five recorded votes Wednesday during a Constitutional Convention where they advanced to the 2017-2018 session a proposal to add a 4 percent surtax on household incomes above $1 million. Massachusetts currently has a flat 5.1 percent income tax rate....

The measure needed 50 votes to advance, while amendments required three-quarters of lawmakers voting to be adopted.

1. On advancing the measure to the next convention: 135-57....

4. On a Rep. Brad Jones amendment aimed at guaranteeing that the estimated $1.9 billion that would be generated by the surtax not supplant existing education and transportation spending, and be in addition to that spending: 54-138.

State House News Service
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
After five recorded votes, surtax on millionaires advanced to 2017-18 session


Supporters of a proposed constitutional amendment adding a surtax on incomes over $1 million are looking ahead to a year of planning and outreach after lawmakers on Wednesday advanced the amendment to the next legislative session....

Opponents also pledged to continue their efforts. A statement released by Citizens for Limited Taxation said the group "will be prepared to fight this latest noxious proposal all the way to the 2018 ballot – as we last did successfully in 1994."

The Massachusetts Republican Party, the Massachusetts High Technology Council, the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance and others also voiced disappointment and opposition to the vote on Wednesday.

State House News Service
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Both sides readying for next stage of Millionaires Tax fight


Amendment supporters call it the "fair share" amendment, arguing that it will require wealthy people to pay their fair share for state services. They note that although high earners pay more taxes, measured in dollars, they pay a lower percentage of their income than poorer people to state and local taxes, including sales and property taxes....

State Rep. Geoff Diehl, R-Whitman, said once the tax system is divided into two brackets, that creates a precedent to adopt more brackets, "ultimately hitting the middle class the hardest once high income earners move out of state."

The ballot question says the money would be used for education and transportation. Because a ballot question cannot allocate money, opponents of the ballot question say the Legislature could divert the money elsewhere – although supporters dispute that.

Tarr said the Supreme Judicial Court should decide whether the amendment is constitutionally allowed to require future legislatures to allocate money that way. Lawmakers can ask the court for guidance, although they have not yet done so here.

State Rep. John Velis, D-Westfield, was among the Democrats who joined Republicans in voting against the amendment.

"In Massachusetts, we need to do what we can to reward our most industrious citizens," Velis said. "If we impose these new types of taxes and penalize our most industrious citizens, we run the risk of them leaving." ...

State Rep. David Nangle, D-Lowell, said the amendment "is the introduction of class warfare." If it passes, Nangle said, lawmakers are likely to continue to seek more revenue from taxpayers in lower and lower income brackets.

The amendment is being pushed by Raise Up Massachusetts, a coalition of unions, religious leaders and liberal community organizing groups.

The Springfield Republican
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Massachusetts Legislature passes 'millionaire's tax' constitutional amendment


After a fiery debate that offered a preview of the arguments for and against the levy — the urgent necessity of new cash to boost education and transportation in Massachusetts; the folly of a constitutionally unsound “penalty on success” — 135 of a combined 200 senators and representatives voted for the measure. Fifty-seven voted against it....

Notably, the vote split Democrats, with several fiscally conservative representatives and senators voting against the measure....

The constitutional language aims to direct the new infusion of revenue to only transportation and education. But Senator Bruce E. Tarr, the chamber’s top Republican, questioned whether the wording of the proposal would actually mean lawmakers could spend the cash as they saw fit.

Tarr also brought up the argument that wealthy people might just leave the state, making the new stream of revenue extremely unstable. He questioned the wisdom of substantially increasing taxes on those who are “among the most mobile in the Commonwealth in terms of their ability to move capital, move their residence, and avoid taxation all together.”

And the Gloucester Republican contended that the new tax would be a “penalty on success” and would send the message that, in this state, if you achieve success, “the reward is nearly a doubling of your taxation.”

House Republican Leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. framed the new levy on the rich as a “Trojan tax horse.” That’s because money is fungible and, he said, there’s no guarantee that the new cash will be spent in addition to money already spent on transportation and education, not in lieu of it....

Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, expressed worry that the effort would open the door to more taxes on everyone. “And when the tax doesn’t generate the expected revenue,” Craney said, “that million-dollar threshold will crash down on the rest of us.”

Polling has found voters very favorable to the idea of the surtax on the rich.

But history is on the side of opponents.

Voters have previously rejected five proposals to change the Constitution to allow for a graduated state income tax: In 1962, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1994.

The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Lawmakers give millionaires’ tax overwhelming endorsement


Massachusetts lawmakers have developed an extraordinary new appreciation for the will of the “people,” making a showy display of it yesterday during a debate on a constitutional amendment that would impose a higher income tax on the state’s millionaires.

History suggests such deference will not last....

But as Balser and her Democratic colleagues know, this “extraordinary popular movement” is, in fact, a slick political operation with financial support from — you’ll never guess — unions representing public employees.

Affiliates of the AFL-CIO. Several locals of the Service Employees International Union. The Massachusetts Teachers Association. They have all been generous contributors to the cause.

And Balser should take a few minutes to look over the most recent financial report of Raise Up Massachusetts 2018. The committee may not have paid a professional signature-gathering company, but it spent thousands on signature-gathering from all those “volunteers.”

In its organizing documents the committee defined its purpose as supporting investment in public education and transportation “by asking the wealthiest one percent to contribute their fair share.” But Rep. David Nangle (D-Lowell), who voted against the amendment, points out that in Massachusetts the “1 percent” would include anyone earning more than $860,000.

So should this amendment pass in 2018 rest assured the “popular movement” will be back for more — the will of the voters be damned.

A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, May 19, 2016
The real winners


Some of the most spirited debate, however, focused on how to ensure that lawmakers make good on the proposal’s promise to allocate the surtax revenue solely to education and transportation needs. One potential solution, proposed by Republican leaders, would have added a specific requirement to that effect.

Democrats rejected the move, arguing that it wasn’t needed and claiming that a change in the proposed ballot measure’s wording “means this would no longer be a citizen’s petition,” to quote Sen. Ruth Balser, a Newton Democrat.

“While there may be some sympathy for this amendment, I want to remind my colleagues that adopting any amendment will take this away from this very impressive popular movement,” Balser added, referring to changes sought by Republicans.

Rep. Bradley Jones, the Republican House leader from North Reading, who introduced the proposed change, argued that a safeguard is needed to show voters the Legislature is committed to directing all additional revenue raised by the measure to education and transportation improvements.

“If you truly want to represent to the voters of the commonwealth that this really isn’t a Trojan tax-horse, that this is really as intended, then you should vote for this amendment,” Jones said during the debate. His proposal failed, 54-138....

Citizens for Limited Taxation, an advocacy group that opposes the proposal, has cited a previous move by the Legislature to increase a tax for a specific purpose, saying that more than 90 percent of the revenue brought in by the change – a near doubling of the state gas tax – wasn’t spent as promised....

Citizens for Limited Taxation, the group that backed the Proposition 2½ tax-capping measure passed by voters in 1980, criticized lawmakers for rejecting a change to prevent spending money the proposed measure would raise on anything other than education and transportation.

“This would have prevented fungible revenue from being taken out of one pocket and stashed into another – leaving that additional revenue free to be spent anywhere, on the whim of any future Legislature,” the group, also known as CLT, said in a statement. “It would have locked in the proponents’ promise.”

“That such unambiguous clarity was so resoundingly defeated by so many supporters of this scheme only underscores the bait-and-switch nature of their proposal,” CLT said. “That such a majority of supporters refused to demonstrate to voters their sincerity of purpose in fact now defines their true motivation.” ...

Massachusetts voters have previously rejected all five ballot efforts aimed at changing the state Constitution in order to enact a graduated state income tax, most recently in 1994. After lawmakers adopted a higher flat rate of 5.9 percent, voters in 2000 passed a ballot measure to roll it back to 5 percent, a legislatively delayed process that continued with a cut this year to 5.1 percent from 5.15 percent in 2015.

The New Boston Post
Thursday, May 19, 2016
‘Millionaire’s tax’ wins key vote on Beacon Hill


The amendment states that all revenue raised by the millionaires’ tax must support “quality public education,” “affordable public colleges,” and “the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation,” which could mean a spending boost of around 20 percent for these priorities.

Opponents, however, are not convinced that the money will be spent as promised, pointing to legal uncertainty about whether the constitution can be used to control legislative spending.

But legal arguments aside, it’s also true that money is fungible. Even if the constitutional language is binding, and all the revenue from the millionaires’ tax goes to education and transportation, that doesn’t necessarily mean the state will make big investments in those areas. It might be able to keep the current spending levels, use the new tax dollars to cover a portion of those costs, and then do what it likes with the money that’s been freed up because there’s a new, dedicated source of education and transportation funding.

The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Mass. prepares for fight over proposed millionaires’ tax
By Evan Horowitz


If at first they don’t succeed, they will try, try again. Over and over and over.

A recent vote on Beacon Hill placed the latest incarnation of a "millionaire’s tax" on the agenda of the upcoming Massachusetts Constitutional Convention. It is called the "Fair Share Tax," sponsored by Raise Up Massachusetts, which has already brought you the new paid family leave law, and seeks to enact the $15 minimum wage along with this new tax....

The beneficiaries of this projected $2 billion in new revenue would be the usual suspects – public schools and transportation agencies, better known as "our failing public schools and crippled transportation systems." Government can become larger on the proceeds of private-sector income through spending on obscenely overpriced public construction projects, costing about 40 percent more than comparable private sector ones because of prevailing wage and other protectionist bureaucracies.

The Cape Cod Times
Thursday, May 19, 2016
'Fair Share Tax' on millionaires everything but fair
By Cynthia Stead


A coalition of labor unions and community groups are rallying around a controversial proposal to funnel more state revenue into education and transportation by imposing an additional tax on the state's wealthiest residents....

Progressive Democrats, including Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, D-Amherst, have for years pushed a graduated income tax, similar to the federal system, in which low-income taxpayers pay at a lower rate than those with larger incomes. The state's voters have rejected those efforts five times, most recently in 1994....

The state Constitution has been amended only 121 times since it was ratified in 1780, according to the Secretary of State's office. Voters most recently changed it in 2006, when they approved the state's health care law.

In 2004, Senate and House lawmakers held a contentious constitutional convention to debate same-sex marriage after the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry in the commonwealth.

That convention ended after lawmakers declined to vote on a proposal to ban same-sex marriage....

The fiscal watchdog group Citizens for Limited Taxation has criticized the proposed constitutional amendment as a "millionaires' tax" that will drive out the state's top earners and provide even less tax revenue for state coffers.

"The multi–millionaires who have been providing hundreds of thousands in state income tax revenue would then contribute ZERO," said Chip Faulkner, the group's communications director. "It would kill the golden goose."

The Salem News
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Millionaires' tax proposal clears hurdle on Beacon Hill


Citizens for Limited Taxation was out with a memo to legislators this week warning them to “kill the creature” — meaning a graduated income tax — “before it advances.”

It warns that the effort to impose a 4 percent surtax on salaries in excess of $1 million annually is just the first step toward the graduated income tax previously rejected by voters. It also points out that an effort to hike the gas tax was turned down by voters less than two years ago.

“Once the commonwealth’s historic flat tax is abolished — and that is what this proposed amendment would do — the power to constitutionally tax at different rates will have been established (and) it will be only a matter of time before the rest of us will eventually become their victims.

“Lest we forget,” the memo continues, “the usual list of suspects who opposed Proposition 2½, the reduction of the auto excise, the elimination of the 7½ percent income tax surtax, the income tax rollback ... are now behind this sixth grad tax assault.”

The Salem News
Friday, May 20, 2016
Another tax battle looms
By Nelson Benton


A day after House and Senate Republicans waged an unsuccessful fight against advancing a proposed surtax on households with incomes above $1 million in Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie Baker declined to slam the door shut on the possibility of him supporting the tax two years from now when, presumably, he will be on the ballot running for re-election.

Baker has opposed any suggestion of raising taxes during his first year-plus in office, and repeated on Tuesday that he's "not a big believer" in higher taxes to pay for new state spending.

But when pressed during a radio interview on Thursday about how he might vote should the tax proposal reach the ballot in 2018, Baker did not take the same hard line expressed by other Beacon Hill Republicans who have warned that the measure could be a jobs killer.

"I don't know. Let's see where we are when it gets there," Baker told WGBH's Boston Public Radio host Jim Braude....

Baker, who refused during his last campaign for governor to sign a no-new-taxes pledge, described himself Thursday as a "let the people decide" guy, and acknowledged that he had, in fact, signed the tax petition on the same radio show after Braude presented him with the papers. Supporters of the tax on Wednesday repeatedly cited the petition's 157,000 signers as demonstrative of support for the idea....

Rep. Geoff Diehl, a Whitman Republican, told his colleagues during debate Wednesday that "the real intent of this quote unquote millionaire's tax is nothing more than a bait and switch. It's just a way to open the door to higher income tax rates all levels. Once the tax code becomes divided between two brackets, precedent will be set for creating new brackets and making the code more and more progressive, also hitting the middle class the hardest once high income earners move themselves or their assets out of state."

State House News Service
Thursday, May 19, 2016
As GOP rips income surtax, Baker hangs on to wait-and-see approach


A day after House and Senate Republicans suggested the constitutional amendment to impose a surtax on incomes over $1 million could be unconstitutional, Attorney General Maura Healey was mum when asked about the amendment's constitutionality....

Asked Thursday morning about Tarr's concerns, the state's top prosecutor dodged the question.

"When you're talking about education, when you're talking about infrastructure, when you're talking about transportation needs, we have needs right now in our state and I think it's important that we figure out how we're going to support those efforts and fund those efforts," she said. "It's a good conversation, it's a good debate and discussion and I think it's in the right direction for where we need to go given what we need to do."

Asked again if she is satisfied that the question is constitutional, the attorney general said, "We certified, as an office, this question for the ballot and I know the debate will continue through the Constitutional Convention this year and perhaps next year as well."

Healey's office, as part of the initiative petition process, reviews all petitions to certify that they are legally eligible to appear on the ballot.

State House News Service
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Asked about constitutionality of surtax, Healey pivots to debate on issue


So perhaps Gov. Charlie Baker had been infected with a bit of that Weldian keep-'em-guessing spirit when he gently evaded a direct question on the radio about whether he would vote against a proposed new surtax on high income earners.

"I don't know," Baker said, after trying to reinforce that he's "not a big believer in raising taxes." "Let's see where we are when it gets there."

STORY OF THE WEEK: Lawmakers find it easier to say yes to higher taxes when millionaires are footing the bill.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK: "Guess what? You can't trust us." - House Minority Leader Brad Jones on whether voters should believe that revenue from a "millionaire's tax" would be used to augment, rather than supplant, current spending on transportation and education.

State House News Service
Friday, May 20, 2016
Weekly Roundup - Whetting the appetite


"Today's vote marks the first step in changing our tax code to a more equitable and fair system to fund our serious needs in transportation infrastructure and education."
Senate President Stan Rosenberg, D-Amherst, on the Legislature's vote to impose an additional 4 percent income tax on taxpayers' earnings of more than $1 million.

"Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT) will be prepared to fight this latest noxious proposal all the way to the 2018 ballot as we last did successfully in 1994."
CLT's reaction to the millionaire's tax.

Beacon Hill Roll Call
Sunday, May 21, 2016
Heard on the Hill


That’s the question being asked in a new two-year statewide clinical experiment now underway at the State House. The hackerama wants to find out what will happen if they ask taxpayers to vote for income-tax hikes — but only on “millionaires,” wink wink, nudge nudge.

It’s a grift that can only end one way, with everyone paying through the roof. The endgame is so obvious that in five previous attempts the non-working classes have tried to foist the “grad tax” on taxpayers, they’ve been crushed — never by less than 64 percent of the votes.

But the hacks haven’t gone to the well since 1994, and of late the wisdom of the electorate has been in a tailspin — Obama, Patrick, Warren, Markey, Frank, etc., etc.

“Is it finally time?” the tax-fattened hyenas ask one another, “Have we dumbed them ... just enough?” At least one poll indicates that if the hacks give the voters the blade in 2018, they’ll gladly slit their own throats....

Not only do the hacks claim that they’ll “only” hit millionaires, they also say the money will be “earmarked” for education and transportation. Yeah, right. The attempt itself may even be unconstitutional. But who cares, right? ...

The state will quickly realize that the supply of “millionaires” has failed. In order to deal with the “shortfall,” the millionaire tax will have to be adjusted downward — temporarily, of course — so that everyone making more than, say, $30,000 a year will be now designated for tax purposes as a millionaire. Look on the bright side though, it’s for the children....

The problem for the welfare-industrial complex is that no one believes anything they say. In 2000, the voters approved cutting the state income tax back to 5 percent in a 60-40 landslide — and the rate remains above 5 percent.

Rep. Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington) took umbrage to Republicans’ pointing out that fact, saying, “We will be at 5 percent as the voters have asked within two years.”

In other words, by Fiscal 2019. The Legislature will have given the voters what they demanded ... in 2000 ... and they’re bragging about it.

“Following the will of the people,” asked Rep. Jim Lyons (R-Andover), “is waiting 18 years to reduce the rate to what they voted 18 years ago?”

The Boston Herald
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Driving out the rich
Millionaire tax surcharge an end run to our wallets

By Howie Carr


Chip Ford's CLT Commentary

"Guess, what? You can't trust us, and the track record of the Legislature proves that point."

House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Andover) summed up this latest Beacon Hill money grab quite succinctly in those few words.

From the usual grubby Gimme Lobby special interests trying to scam low-information voters to feather their own nests, through the More Is Never Enough tax-borrow-and-spenders in the Legislature who've never seen a tax hike they didn't like, apparently all the way to the top where Gov. Charlie Baker is doing his usual dithering best, they're all singing from the same "progressive" hymnal.  "Trust us, we're not like the others!"

But with that one simple amendment to this latest proposed Graduated Income Tax scam Rep. Jones called their bluff and exposed their deceit.  His amendment simply would have insured that all additional revenue raised from a Grad Tax would be spent as advertised, locked into education and transportation in addition to what is already being spent in those areas, not as a substitute for current funding (which if freed-up could then be spent on other or additional "priorities" and boondoggles by this or future legislatures.

Amendment 11 Appropriated Funds

Representative Jones of North Reading, Senator Tarr of Gloucester, Representatives Hill of Ipswich, Poirier of North Attleborough, Gifford of Wareham, Frost of Auburn, and Smola of Warren move to amend the bill by inserting, after the word “purposes” in line 7, the following: “,

provided however that any funds appropriated shall be in addition to and not in lieu of funds appropriated for such purposes in the fiscal year most recently completed prior to the enactment of this amendment.”

Rep. Jones' amendment to not deceive the voters about where the new money will honestly be spent failed by a vote of 54 in favor and 138 opposed [Roll Call Vote].  The vote to move forward the actual Graduated Income Tax (aka; the "Millionaire's Tax" and/or the "Fair Share Tax") to the next legislative session before going on the 2018 ballot passed by a vote of 135 in favor to 57 opposed [Roll Call Vote].

Three more legislators voted to deceive voters than voted to actually impose a Graduated Income Tax itself.

That one vote demonstrated the real agenda behind this sixth Graduated Income Tax assault.  If there were any who naïvely believed this offense was "for the children" or an "investment in our infrastructure," they have been curtly disabused of that fiction.  The promise of "dedicated funds" being sold by the petition's advocates like so many others from the tax-borrow-and-spend cabal is nothing more than another Beacon Hill bait-and-switch scam promoted by now obvious false advertising.

As some have noted, this Grad Tax proposal has given cover to More Is Never Enough (MINE) legislators, has provided them with the best of all worlds.  They can hide behind "the voice of the people" and "let the voters decide" bromides while encouraging higher taxes on a minority.  "Hey, we didn't vote to hike taxes" will be the universal cover story if it is adopted but they're already dreaming of how they'll spend it.  Even Republican Governor Charlie Baker has assumed the position, after signing the petition while it was being circulated. Supposedly he's not in favor of hiking taxes, but . . . "Let's see where we are when it gets there" is his response.

When have the Bacon Hill powers-that-be ever listened to the voice of the people, or honored the voters' decisions when they didn't like the results?

The "temporary income tax hike" that voters overwhelmingly demanded be rolled back to 5% sixteen years ago, ten years after it was first imposed, still has not reached the voters' mandated 5% yet Rep. Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington) thinks we should be grateful that it still might, someday perhaps if decades late.

During the Constitutional Convention debate during debate of another amendment by Rep. Brad Jones to drop the income tax rate to 5%, Kaufman had the audacity to assert:

We have honored and trusted the will of the voters, as my co-chair said. We will be at 5 percent as the voters have asked within two years. There is no question that we can and do honor the will of the voters.

Rep. Jay Kaufman, the voters did not "ask" the voters ordered, they mandated.  A large majority voted for our rollback just like your constituents voted for you and you're still there.  Representative.  Consider carefully that passing and honorific title, Mr. Kaufman, recognize and appreciate what it connotes.  You work for us.  You and your colleagues in the Legislature are our employees you are "public servants."  We pay you a healthy salary and generous benefits while in our employment and beyond. You do not rule over your constituents, but serve them.

That amendment too was defeated, 147 nays to 42 in favor. [Roll Call Vote]

But we should trust them, they say.

And they wonder how and why the citizenry has ever reached this record level of public cynicism.

Constitutional Convention
H-3933 the 6th proposed Graduated Income Tax
(aka, the "Millionaire's Tax" aka, the "Fair Share Tax")
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
The Full Debate

Chip Ford
Executive Director


 

State House News Service
Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Mass. lawmakers advance surtax on millionaires with 135-57 vote
By Michael Norton, Matt Murphy and Colin A. Young


Citing the need for new tax revenues and more fairness in tax policy, Massachusetts lawmakers voted 135-57 Wednesday to advance a constitutional amendment designed to generate $1.9 billion for education and transportation by assessing a new 4 percent surtax on households with incomes above $1 million.

Before recessing their Constitutional Convention until July 13, senators voted 33-7 in favor of the amendment, with House members voting 102-50. Only 50 votes were needed to advance the proposal.

Sen. Jason Lewis said the tax change would assist lower income households who he said are paying a higher share of income in taxes. Lewis contrasted the state's "shameful" rising child poverty rate with the disproportionate share of new income and wealth that has flowed to people who are "already very rich."

"The tax structure that we have is not sufficient to support the needs of the commonwealth," said Lewis, a Winchester Democrat who asserted that years of rising health care costs have snuffed out inflation-adjusted investments in transportation, education, public health and mental health programs.

In addition to being skeptical about whether the new revenues would actually be spent for the intended purposes, amendment opponents — mostly Republicans — said the surtax would drive increasingly-mobile job creators out of Massachusetts and lead to a system with varied tax brackets.

"It is the introduction of class warfare," said Rep. David Nangle (D-Lowell). He added, "It is stealing from the rich to give to the poor." He called it a "dereliction of duty" to foist the duties of lawmakers — making decisions about taxation and spending — to the ballot process.

Massachusetts currently has a flat 5.1 percent income tax rate. If the amendment receives at least 50 votes from lawmakers meeting in another Constitutional Convention during the 2017-2018 session, the proposal would be placed before voters in November 2018 for a binding vote.

Voting 42-147, lawmakers rejected a proposal from Republicans to lock in a 5 percent tax rate on incomes of less than $1 million. House Minority Leader Brad Jones called the amendment "the best of both worlds for some here" because it preserved the millionaire's tax proposal but added language to ensure a stable tax rate on those earning less than $1 million.

While it attracted some votes from Democrats, an amendment aimed at guaranteeing that the $1.9 billion expected from the millionaire's tax be added to existing spending on transportation and education failed 54-138.

Predicting that new revenue from a tax on millionaires would supplant, rather than supplement, existing spending on transportation and education, Jones said the amendment would have codified the intentions of the petitioners.

"Guess, what? You can't trust us, and the track record of the Legislature proves that point," Jones said.

Jones also offered an amendment that would have struck out the language of the citizen's petition and replaced it with a flat income tax rate of 5 percent for all taxpayers. It failed on a 42-148 vote.

"We propose that because that is what the voters of the commonwealth voted to do 16 years ago this November," Jones said, referencing the successful 2000 ballot question to reduce the state personal income tax rate in steps over three years to 5 percent. "Let's start this debate by honoring the will of the voters, the clear and vast majority of which said they wanted a 5 percent income tax rate."

The constitutional amendment, proposed by the Raise Up Coalition which gathered 157,000 voter signatures to back up their proposal, changes a 1917 provision that requires a uniform tax rate for all citizens.

Rep. Jay Kaufman, who introduced the proposal, described the current tax system as "regressive" with higher-income earners paying a lower effective tax rate than low-income families. Kaufman, of Lexington, said the state's transportation and public education systems are chronically underfunded, holding back the state's economic growth.

"We have an unsustainable tax system. We are not able to raise the revenue needed to provide fundamental services for the citizens of our cities and towns," Kaufman said.

Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr questioned the constitutionality of the directive that new tax revenues be spent on education and transportation, and recommended seeking an opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court. Attorney General Maura Healey has certified that the question does not violate a constitutional provision preventing ballot questions from restricting the Legislature's authority to appropriate tax dollars.

Calling the measure a "success penalty," Tarr also expressed concern that millionaires would leave the state, hurting economic growth.


State House News Service
Wednesday, May 18, 2016

After five recorded votes, surtax on millionaires advanced to 2017-18 session


Massachusetts lawmakers took five recorded votes Wednesday during a Constitutional Convention where they advanced to the 2017-2018 session a proposal to add a 4 percent surtax on household incomes above $1 million. Massachusetts currently has a flat 5.1 percent income tax rate.

If the amendment secures 50 votes in the next session, it will be placed before voters statewide for a vote in November 2018. Here's a breakdown of the votes that occurred on the constitutional amendment (H 3933) during Wednesday's convention.

The measure needed 50 votes to advance, while amendments required three-quarters of lawmakers voting to be adopted.

1. On advancing the measure to the next convention: 135-57.

2. On a Rep. Brad Jones amendment striking the text of the amendment and inserting new text establishing in the state constitution a flat 5 percent income tax rate: 42-148.

3. On a Rep. Brad Jones amendment preserving the millionaire's tax language but adding language to lock in a 5 percent tax on incomes of less than $1 million: 42-147.

4. On a Rep. Brad Jones amendment aimed at guaranteeing that the estimated $1.9 billion that would be generated by the surtax not supplant existing education and transportation spending, and be in addition to that spending: 54-138.

5. On Norfolk Republican Rep. Shawn Dooley's amendment that would have set a cap ensuring that no taxpayer, regardless of additional taxes that may apply depending on the source of income, pay a rate higher than 9 percent on income over $1 million: 39-153.


State House News Service
Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Both sides readying for next stage of Millionaires Tax fight
By Katie Lannan


Supporters of a proposed constitutional amendment adding a surtax on incomes over $1 million are looking ahead to a year of planning and outreach after lawmakers on Wednesday advanced the amendment to the next legislative session.

During a Constitutional Convention, legislators voted 135-57 in favor of a petition that would assess a new 4 percent surtax on household income above $1 million, with the extra revenue intended to fund education and transportation. Another vote with at least one quarter of the legislature in favor would be needed during the 2017 to 2018 session for the measure to land on the November 2018 ballot.

Massachusetts Teachers Association president Barbara Madeloni, a supporter of the surtax campaign, said proponents will use the next year to "begin to imagine the kind of commonwealth that we want."

"We're going to be out there," Madeloni told the News Service. "We have another ConCon to move this along, but I think that it will be really important to be having conversation with the people in the commonwealth about what we want our public schools to look like, what do we want for higher education — how we can begin to imagine together the possibilities of using this funding to improve public education."

Opponents also pledged to continue their efforts. A statement released by Citizens for Limited Taxation said the group "will be prepared to fight this latest noxious proposal all the way to the 2018 ballot – as we last did successfully in 1994."

The Massachusetts Republican Party, the Massachusetts High Technology Council, the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance and others also voiced disappointment and opposition to the vote on Wednesday.


The Springfield Republican
Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Massachusetts Legislature passes 'millionaire's tax' constitutional amendment
By Shira Schoenberg


The Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday voted to pass a constitutional amendment raising taxes on income over $1 million. The vote, which came after three hours of debate, marked the first step in a long process that could change the tax code through a 2018 ballot vote.

State Rep. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington, chairman of the Joint Committee on Revenue, argued in favor of the amendment, saying the state needs more money. "We have an unsustainable tax system. We're not able to raise the money that we need to provide in order to fund fundamental services for the citizens of our cities and towns," Kaufman said.

To pass, the constitutional amendment needed 50 votes in the 200-person State Legislature at Wednesday's constitutional convention, and must pass by the same margin in a second vote next year. It must then get support from a majority of voters in the November 2018 election.

The amendment received support from 135 lawmakers in Wednesday's vote, with 57 voting against it.

Currently, Massachusetts has a flat tax, which means everyone pays 5.1 percent of their income. That is scheduled to gradually decrease to 5 percent.

The proposed constitutional amendment would raise the tax rate by 4 percentage points on income over $1 million. So if the flat tax in 2019 is 5 percent, someone earning $1.3 million would pay 5 percent on the first $1 million of income and 9 percent on the next $300,000.

The Department of Revenue estimates that the proposed tax rate would raise an additional $1.9 billion in 2019, around $1.7 million measured in today's dollars.

Amendment supporters call it the "fair share" amendment, arguing that it will require wealthy people to pay their fair share for state services. They note that although high earners pay more taxes, measured in dollars, they pay a lower percentage of their income than poorer people to state and local taxes, including sales and property taxes.

Raising taxes across the board, Kaufman said, "would disproportionately impact those least able to afford it while continuing to favor those who are most able to afford it."

State Sen. Ben Downing, D-Pittsfield, a member of the Revenue Committee who supports the amendment, said, "We need more investments in education and transportation, especially in Western Massachusetts, if we're going to grow the economy and create economic opportunities we want for everyone."

Downing said he believes the public should get a chance to vote.

Opponents say the amendment would hurt wealthy taxpayers, who are the most likely to create jobs and generate economic activity, and who are most likely to leave the state because of high tax rates.

State Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, said the proposed tax increase would place the burden of funding transportation and education on a small group of residents, who may leave. The amendment, Tarr said, would "send a message in Massachusetts if you achieve success, the reward is nearly a doubling of your taxation."

Tarr said voters previously rejected moving toward a graduated income tax, in which wealthy individuals pay a higher rate. "We have for decades embraced the theory that all the citizens of Massachusetts are equal, and taxation will be applied equally," Tarr said.

State Rep. Geoff Diehl, R-Whitman, said once the tax system is divided into two brackets, that creates a precedent to adopt more brackets, "ultimately hitting the middle class the hardest once high income earners move out of state."

The ballot question says the money would be used for education and transportation. Because a ballot question cannot allocate money, opponents of the ballot question say the Legislature could divert the money elsewhere – although supporters dispute that.

Tarr said the Supreme Judicial Court should decide whether the amendment is constitutionally allowed to require future legislatures to allocate money that way. Lawmakers can ask the court for guidance, although they have not yet done so here.

State Rep. John Velis, D-Westfield, was among the Democrats who joined Republicans in voting against the amendment.

"In Massachusetts, we need to do what we can to reward our most industrious citizens," Velis said. "If we impose these new types of taxes and penalize our most industrious citizens, we run the risk of them leaving."

Velis said residents are still hurting from the 2008 recession, and Massachusetts should be inviting businesses in, not penalizing successful business people.

"Now's not the time to dig deeper into people's wallets," Velis said.

State Rep. David Nangle, D-Lowell, said the amendment "is the introduction of class warfare." If it passes, Nangle said, lawmakers are likely to continue to seek more revenue from taxpayers in lower and lower income brackets.

The amendment is being pushed by Raise Up Massachusetts, a coalition of unions, religious leaders and liberal community organizing groups.

Steve Crawford, a spokesman for Raise Up Massachusetts, said he is optimistic the amendment will reach the ballot and pass. "I think people understand that we need to invest...in transportation and education... and that asking the wealthiest people in the state to pay a little bit more is the fair thing to do," Crawford said.

Phil Edmundson, past chair of the Alliance for Business Leadership, a progressive business group, and area chairman of Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., said, "The future strength of our economy depends on our ability to make investments in education and transportation. The fair share tax calls on the most fortunate among us to contribute a bit more to that cause, in order to help create growth and opportunity for everyone in Massachusetts."

According to 2013 Department of Revenue data, the most million-dollar earners in Massachusetts – 1,617 – lived in Boston. The communities with the highest concentrations of million-dollar earners are Weston, Dover and Wellesley, suburbs west of Boston.

Several amendments were debated on the constitutional convention floor, mostly proposed by Republicans, but none passed. Among other amendments, Tarr and House Minority Leader Brad Jones, R-North Reading, tried to require a supermajority vote any time money is spent from the state's rainy day fund and tried to lower the flat tax rate to 5 percent.


The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 19, 2016

Lawmakers give millionaires’ tax overwhelming endorsement
By Joshua Miller


The Legislature on Wednesday overwhelmingly endorsed a constitutional proposal to raise taxes on the very rich, setting the so-called millionaires’ tax on track to go before voters in 2018.

After a fiery debate that offered a preview of the arguments for and against the levy — the urgent necessity of new cash to boost education and transportation in Massachusetts; the folly of a constitutionally unsound “penalty on success” — 135 of a combined 200 senators and representatives voted for the measure. Fifty-seven voted against it.

Only 50 votes were required to move the measure forward. And if the push garners 50 votes in the next two-year legislative session, it will go before voters on Nov. 6, 2018.

Notably, the vote split Democrats, with several fiscally conservative representatives and senators voting against the measure.

But most in the majority party favored moving the effort forward, and several made an impassioned case for what proponents frame as a “fair share” tax. They see the move as part of a larger effort to address the massive gap between the very wealthy and everyone else in Massachusetts. They hope to provide resources needed to create a transportation system that can get residents to work reliably and an education system that can help students land jobs without accruing crippling debt.

“People hate taxes, we get it,” said Senator Karen E. Spilka, an Ashland Democrat. “But people should also hate the idea that our children may not be getting an adequate education to prepare them for competing in our globalized economy. They should hate the fact that their loved ones may waste hours of their lives commuting, and going on unsound bridges.”

The state’s current income tax rate is 5.1 percent for all income levels. The amendment would impose an additional tax of 4 percent on annual taxable income in excess of $1 million starting in 2019. And that level would be tied to inflation, so the extra tax would continue to apply only to very wealthy people.

Republican leaders offered several amendments to the proposal, all of which were rejected. They also offered a barrage of arguments against the measure.

The constitutional language aims to direct the new infusion of revenue to only transportation and education. But Senator Bruce E. Tarr, the chamber’s top Republican, questioned whether the wording of the proposal would actually mean lawmakers could spend the cash as they saw fit.

Tarr also brought up the argument that wealthy people might just leave the state, making the new stream of revenue extremely unstable. He questioned the wisdom of substantially increasing taxes on those who are “among the most mobile in the Commonwealth in terms of their ability to move capital, move their residence, and avoid taxation all together.”

And the Gloucester Republican contended that the new tax would be a “penalty on success” and would send the message that, in this state, if you achieve success, “the reward is nearly a doubling of your taxation.”

House Republican Leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. framed the new levy on the rich as a “Trojan tax horse.” That’s because money is fungible and, he said, there’s no guarantee that the new cash will be spent in addition to money already spent on transportation and education, not in lieu of it.

The state Department of Revenue estimates that the constitutional change would generate between $1.6 billion and $2.2 billion in additional state tax revenues in 2019. The agency estimates that 19,500 returns will be affected. That’s about 0.5 percent of all returns filed with the department.

The millionaires’ tax came before the Legislature on Wednesday after Raise Up Massachusetts, a coalition of religious, community, and union groups, gathered over 157,000 signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

“It’s absolutely clear we need to invest in improving our public schools, repairing crumbling roads and bridges, making high-quality, debt-free public college an option, and strengthening our public transportation systems,” Deb Fastino, a co-chair of Raise Up, said in a news release.

But Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, expressed worry that the effort would open the door to more taxes on everyone. “And when the tax doesn’t generate the expected revenue,” Craney said, “that million-dollar threshold will crash down on the rest of us.”

Polling has found voters very favorable to the idea of the surtax on the rich.

But history is on the side of opponents.

Voters have previously rejected five proposals to change the Constitution to allow for a graduated state income tax: In 1962, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1994.


The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 19, 2016

A Boston Herald editorial
The real winners


Massachusetts lawmakers have developed an extraordinary new appreciation for the will of the “people,” making a showy display of it yesterday during a debate on a constitutional amendment that would impose a higher income tax on the state’s millionaires.

History suggests such deference will not last.

Arguing against several proposed changes to the amendment, supporters of the tax hike insisted that even minor tinkering would violate the will of the citizens who have proposed the amendment.

Several lawmakers cited the record number of signatures gathered by supporters, and Rep. Ruth Balser (D-Newton) called on her colleagues to respect the “extraordinary popular movement” — a movement “driven by the concern for the growing income inequality in our state and in our nation.” Of the signature-gathering campaign, she gushed it was “totally armed by volunteers.”

But as Balser and her Democratic colleagues know, this “extraordinary popular movement” is, in fact, a slick political operation with financial support from — you’ll never guess — unions representing public employees.

Affiliates of the AFL-CIO. Several locals of the Service Employees International Union. The Massachusetts Teachers Association. They have all been generous contributors to the cause.

And Balser should take a few minutes to look over the most recent financial report of Raise Up Massachusetts 2018. The committee may not have paid a professional signature-gathering company, but it spent thousands on signature-gathering from all those “volunteers.”

In its organizing documents the committee defined its purpose as supporting investment in public education and transportation “by asking the wealthiest one percent to contribute their fair share.” But Rep. David Nangle (D-Lowell), who voted against the amendment, points out that in Massachusetts the “1 percent” would include anyone earning more than $860,000.

So should this amendment pass in 2018 rest assured the “popular movement” will be back for more — the will of the voters be damned.


The New Boston Post
Thursday, May 19, 2016

‘Millionaire’s tax’ wins key vote on Beacon Hill
By Evan Lips


It wasn’t a question of “if” but rather “how” lawmakers on Beacon Hill would advance the “millionaire’s tax” proposal, a measure that calls for altering the state Constitution’s flat tax to smack a surcharge on the commonwealth’s highest earners.

Needing just a combined 50 votes from the Senate and House of Representatives to move forward, the proposed ballot question breezed through the Legislature’s Constitutional Convention Wednesday, passing by 135 yeas to 57 nays. The Senate voted for the measure 33-7 while it won 102-50 among House members.

Some of the most spirited debate, however, focused on how to ensure that lawmakers make good on the proposal’s promise to allocate the surtax revenue solely to education and transportation needs. One potential solution, proposed by Republican leaders, would have added a specific requirement to that effect.

Democrats rejected the move, arguing that it wasn’t needed and claiming that a change in the proposed ballot measure’s wording “means this would no longer be a citizen’s petition,” to quote Sen. Ruth Balser, a Newton Democrat.

“While there may be some sympathy for this amendment, I want to remind my colleagues that adopting any amendment will take this away from this very impressive popular movement,” Balser added, referring to changes sought by Republicans.

Rep. Bradley Jones, the Republican House leader from North Reading, who introduced the proposed change, argued that a safeguard is needed to show voters the Legislature is committed to directing all additional revenue raised by the measure to education and transportation improvements.

“If you truly want to represent to the voters of the commonwealth that this really isn’t a Trojan tax-horse, that this is really as intended, then you should vote for this amendment,” Jones said during the debate. His proposal failed, 54-138.

The surtax may raise $1.9 billion a year, according to a Department of Revenue projection. But millionaire taxes have failed to produce the expected yield in other jurisdictions where they have been enacted, including California, where state data shows a 21 percent drop in taxes owed by those earning $1 million or more from 2012 to 2013, and their ranks thinned by 7 percent. The year before, the number of millionaire filers had risen by 26 percent and the amount they owed almost doubled.

In the debate, Jones also recalled a conversation he had with “the proponent of the underlying question” whom he didn’t identify. Jones said he asked whether advocates “felt obliged to spend the money” only on education and transportation.

“‘Well, we’re not obliged to,’” came the reply, Jones said. “So they’re already starting to talk about that Trojan Horse.”

“If you really believe the campaign rhetoric from those who support this, if you really believe it, then you absolutely should support” the proposed change to lock in the uses of the revenue, he said.

Sen. Michael J. Rodrigues, a Fall River Democrat, called Jones’ proposal “redundant.” He also cited Balser’s argument against altering the wording of the proposed initiative, saying any change would mean “that this question is no longer a citizen’s petition – this question before us becomes a legislative petition,” if the language changes.

Opponents of the proposal say that the state Constitution bars ballot measures that would seek to spend tax dollars for specific purposes. Some lawmakers on Wednesday suggested that the initiative at issue should be reviewed by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court to make sure it would be legal, if passed by voters.

The ballot proposal calling for an amendment to the state Constitution was spearheaded by Raise Up Massachusetts, a union-driven coalition that gathered about 157,000 signatures from registered voters in support of the measure. It would change a 99-year-old policy requiring a uniform income-tax rate for all taxpayers in the state.

Jones replied to Rodrigues by pointing out the Legislature’s track record, which shows that there is a small chance additional tax revenue will actually be used for prespecified needs such as transportation and education.

“What I predict will happen is that money we currently spend on education and transportation will be siphoned off elsewhere,” he said.

Citizens for Limited Taxation, an advocacy group that opposes the proposal, has cited a previous move by the Legislature to increase a tax for a specific purpose, saying that more than 90 percent of the revenue brought in by the change – a near doubling of the state gas tax – wasn’t spent as promised.

Rep. Shaunna O’Connell, a Republican from Taunton, said it was “not clear by any stretch of the imagination” that the money will be used solely for education and transportation.

“It will be a free-for-all, it will be like a new, shiny piggy bank for this Legislature to spend that money in any way that they choose,” she asserted.

Several Democrats voted against the Raise Up Massachusetts petition, including Lowell Rep. David Nangle.
“It is the introduction of class warfare,” Nangle said during the debate. “It is stealing from the rich to give to the poor.”

“We are legislators, not Robin Hood,” he added.

Just 17 Democrats in the House and two in the Senate voted against the proposal. The sole Republican vote for the measure came from Weymouth Sen. Patrick O’Connor, who was sworn in minutes before the debate began. O’Connor won a recent special election to replace outgoing Sen. Richard Hedlund.

All four changes sought by Republicans to alter the proposed ballot measure went down in defeat.

Those included one that would have locked in the flat tax rate for earners making less than $1 million, to counter an issue raised by critics that should the proposed ballot measure pass, it would usher in a fully graduated income tax structure like that imposed at the federal level.

Immediately following Wednesday’s final vote, the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a taxpayer watchdog group, ripped lawmakers who backed the proposal.

“Earmarking revenue and specifying tax brackets aren’t the sorts of things that belong in our Constitution,” Paul Craney, the group’s executive director, said in a statement. “Putting such a muddled mess on the ballot is unfair to voters.”

Citizens for Limited Taxation, the group that backed the Proposition 2½ tax-capping measure passed by voters in 1980, criticized lawmakers for rejecting a change to prevent spending money the proposed measure would raise on anything other than education and transportation.

“This would have prevented fungible revenue from being taken out of one pocket and stashed into another – leaving that additional revenue free to be spent anywhere, on the whim of any future Legislature,” the group, also known as CLT, said in a statement. “It would have locked in the proponents’ promise.”

“That such unambiguous clarity was so resoundingly defeated by so many supporters of this scheme only underscores the bait-and-switch nature of their proposal,” CLT said. “That such a majority of supporters refused to demonstrate to voters their sincerity of purpose in fact now defines their true motivation.”

The proposal still must clear more hurdles before it can reach the November 2018 ballot, including going before lawmakers and winning 50 votes at another Constitutional Convention during the next legislative session. Should voters pass it in 2018, it would take effect starting in 2019.

Massachusetts voters have previously rejected all five ballot efforts aimed at changing the state Constitution in order to enact a graduated state income tax, most recently in 1994. After lawmakers adopted a higher flat rate of 5.9 percent, voters in 2000 passed a ballot measure to roll it back to 5 percent, a legislatively delayed process that continued with a cut this year to 5.1 percent from 5.15 percent in 2015.


The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 19, 2016

Mass. prepares for fight over proposed millionaires’ tax
By Evan Horowitz


The war over a Massachusetts millionaires’ tax is about to begin.

On Wednesday, legislators gave preliminary support to the measure, firing the first shot in what could be a long, contentious fight to raise taxes on those earning more than $1 million — and use the money to make far-reaching investments in education and transportation.

Early surveys suggest broad support among voters, but victory is far from assured. For one thing, backers need something more than a new law; they need a constitutional amendment — because at present the state constitution doesn’t allow for differential tax rates.

Plus, opponents have their own arsenal of powerful arguments, including concerns that millionaires would simply move away, doubts about how the new revenue would really be spent, and a general preference for fixing the state budget by keeping taxes low and cutting wasteful spending.

What motivates this call for a millionaires’ tax?

1. Every year for the last decade, legislators have scrambled to fill a wide budget deficit, leaving little left over for investments in education or transportation.

2. With inequality on the rise, more and more of the money earned in the state ends up in the pockets of the very richest.

3. When it comes to state and local taxes, those wealthy, inequality-benefiting families actually pay a lower overall tax rate than middle-class and poorer families.

4. A tax on millionaires could therefore raise substantial new revenue while at the same time making our tax system more fair.

What, exactly, is being proposed?

Supporters want to add a paragraph to the state constitution, creating a new 4 percent surtax on all income over $1 million — and stipulating that revenue from this tax be used for public education and transportation.

Roughly 20,000 households in the state would be affected by the new tax, according to the state Department of Revenue. That means we’re talking about the top 0.5 percent of households. The remaining 99.5 percent would see absolutely no change in their tax bills.

The state could expect to raise about $1.9 billion additionally every year with this tax. Just to give some context, that’s about the same amount of money then-Governor Deval Patrick sought for his own 2013 proposal to invest in education and transportation.

Note that there’s no boundary problem here. If you make $999,999, you’re not subject to the tax. But if you cross the threshold and earn $1,000,001, only the extra dollar is taxed. So you’d owe just 4 cents for the millionaires’ tax. And to keep up with inflation, the cut-off would increase every year.

Don’t the rich already pay more in taxes?

Not when it comes to state and local taxes in Massachusetts. Like most US states, Massachusetts has a regressive tax system.

When you add together the full spectrum of taxes, including the income tax, sales tax, property tax, and excise taxes, lower-income families actually pay a higher overall tax rate than rich families.

An analysis from the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that while poor and middle-income families pay about 10 percent of their income in state and local taxes, the highest-earning families pay just 6.5 percent.

Even if the millionaires’ tax passes, the situation won’t change all that much. The top 1 percent will still pay a lower overall tax rate than the average household.

Would millionaires flee Massachusetts?

Some millionaires may leave the state if the new tax passes — particularly those with looser family and community ties.

But when you look at other states with elevated taxes on high-income folks, it turns out this effect is surprisingly small. Set against the millionaires who do take flight are others who move in and plenty of rising millionaires who choose to stay — whether for the schools, to maintain the business connections they’ve made, or to stay grounded in their home communities.

That said, the loss of just one or two super-millionaires can cause unexpected budget turmoil. That happened in New Jersey this year, when the richest state resident took off for Florida, depriving the state of hundreds of millions of tax dollars.

Will the money really be used for education and transportation?

The amendment states that all revenue raised by the millionaires’ tax must support “quality public education,” “affordable public colleges,” and “the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation,” which could mean a spending boost of around 20 percent for these priorities.

Opponents, however, are not convinced that the money will be spent as promised, pointing to legal uncertainty about whether the constitution can be used to control legislative spending.

But legal arguments aside, it’s also true that money is fungible. Even if the constitutional language is binding, and all the revenue from the millionaires’ tax goes to education and transportation, that doesn’t necessarily mean the state will make big investments in those areas. It might be able to keep the current spending levels, use the new tax dollars to cover a portion of those costs, and then do what it likes with the money that’s been freed up because there’s a new, dedicated source of education and transportation funding.

In reality, this is unlikely. A big infusion of new tax dollars will probably boost spending on education and transportation. But it’s not necessarily because of binding language in the millionaires’ tax. It’s because these are top legislative and popular priorities, areas where the Legislature would be eager to invest their new resources.

Why will this fight continue through 2018?

Amending the state constitution is a multistep process. First, a quarter of legislators have to approve the amendment, which is what’s happening Wednesday. Then, in the 2017-2018 legislative session, they have to approve it again. Only then can it go to voters in the form of a ballot initiative.

This lengthy process has a potentially worrisome correlate. If it turns out there’s an error or problem with the amendment — or merely some ambiguity requiring clarification — addressing it could require another four-year process of constitutional re-amendment.

Aren’t there better ways to free up money for public investments?

When a state budget is out of balance, there aren’t a lot of options. Either you cut spending on state programs, find temporary fixes, or raise new revenue.

Massachusetts has mostly been following the path of small cuts and temporary fixes. And we seem to be reaching the limit of that strategy. Among other things, regular raids on the state’s “rainy day” fund have drained away money that’s supposed to be reserved for tough economic times, even though we’re in the midst of a steady economic recovery.

And while it’s true that a faster-growing economy might ease our budget woes — filling state coffers with the proceeds from rising incomes and profits — the growth would have to be truly unprecedented to match the revenues from a millionaires’ tax. Something like 6 to 8 percent every year, when it’s currently more like 2 to 3 percent.

After years of chronic budget deficits, and little evidence that economic growth and state cutbacks can fix the root problem, advocates are once again making the case for new revenue.

For now, polls show that roughly 70 percent of Bay Staters support the millionaires’ tax. But, there’s plenty of time for minds to change, and history gives reason for caution. This isn’t the first time advocates have tried to create a tiered tax system via constitutional amendment, and each prior attempt ended in defeat.


The Cape Cod Times
Thursday, May 19, 2016

'Fair Share Tax' on millionaires everything but fair
By Cynthia Stead


If at first they don’t succeed, they will try, try again. Over and over and over.

A recent vote on Beacon Hill placed the latest incarnation of a "millionaire’s tax" on the agenda of the upcoming Massachusetts Constitutional Convention. It is called the "Fair Share Tax," sponsored by Raise Up Massachusetts, which has already brought you the new paid family leave law, and seeks to enact the $15 minimum wage along with this new tax.

“Our proposed constitutional amendment would create an additional tax of four percentage points on annual income above one million dollars, so only those with the highest incomes would pay a little more," according to the advocates. "The new revenue generated by this tax could only be spent on quality public education, affordable public colleges and universities, and for repair and maintenance of roads, bridges, and public transportation. To ensure that the tax continues to apply only to the highest income residents, who have the ability to pay more, the one million dollar threshold would be adjusted each year to reflect cost-of-living increases.”

So, like the gasoline tax effort, the tax will be indexed to inflation to ensure it will entrap more and more earners.

The beneficiaries of this projected $2 billion in new revenue would be the usual suspects – public schools and transportation agencies, better known as "our failing public schools and crippled transportation systems." Government can become larger on the proceeds of private-sector income through spending on obscenely overpriced public construction projects, costing about 40 percent more than comparable private sector ones because of prevailing wage and other protectionist bureaucracies. It is a bonanza for the few cities favored by the Chapter 70 education formula, which is rigged to keep education monies in urban areas. New Bedford may again receive more than 100 percent of its school funds from the state and once again fund other municipal services with the surplus.

This effort is concerned about “effective” state and local tax rates, allowing the wealthy to pay a smaller percentage of their disposable income as taxes, thus leading to wealth inequality. There are mechanisms in place to protect low earners like the Earned Income Tax Credit, the personal exemption, and the low-income credit and no tax status, but this merely protects those making the least. It doesn’t do anything to make the rich pay more, and that is what this is all about, even if in absolute dollars they do pay a greater amount. It just doesn’t hurt them enough.

This needs to go through a constitutional process because a prior generation of progressive advocates were successful. A century ago, shortly after the federal income tax was created, we changed the Constitution to impose a state income tax as well. It was placed in the Constitution so it could not easily be repealed, but in doing so it also enshrined it as a flat tax, even though the federal government later adopted a graduated income tax on higher incomes. It has been something of an obsession since then to make the Rich Pay More.

Five times since the 1960s, there have been attempts to change the flat tax to a progressive one, but it has failed by a wide margin. So a new strategy is being tried. Instead of a change in rates, a surcharge mechanism will charge a 4 percent additional tax only on incomes over a million. It resembles the Community Preservation Act property tax surcharge. It is an additional tax on top of whatever the actual rate is, and can only be spent on pre-approved categories of expense, regardless of need or deficit in other areas, like snow plowing after a major storm or an emergency reconstruction after a fire station burns down.

This was only the first step in a longer process, and Fair Tax will make the ballot in 2018 at the earliest. But remember to look at the roll call now, to see if you agree with the legislator who will be representing you then.


The Salem News
Thursday, May 19, 2016

Millionaires' tax proposal clears hurdle on Beacon Hill
By Christian M. Wade


Potholed roads, decaying bridges, a problem-plagued mass transit system and an underfunded educational system are among the state's vast fiscal woes, and advocates say new money is needed to fill the funding gaps.

A coalition of labor unions and community groups are rallying around a controversial proposal to funnel more state revenue into education and transportation by imposing an additional tax on the state's wealthiest residents.

On Wednesday, state lawmakers took the first steps toward putting a question on the November 2018 ballot that would impose an additional tax of 4 percent on people with annual incomes of $1 million or more. The extra revenue could only be spent on public schools and for repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation.

In a vote that ran mostly along party lines, the House and Senate — meeting together in a rare constitutional convention — voted to advance the proposal by a 135-57 vote. At least 50 "yes" votes from the combined 200-member Legislature were required to pass it.

Lawmakers who support the measure said the state desperately needs to come up with more tax revenue.

"We have an unsustainable tax system," said Rep. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington, a supporter of the amendment. "We are not able to raise the money we need to fund fundamental services to the citizens of our cities and towns."

"Nobody would argue that education and transportation are anything but the primary responsibility of state and local government, and we have reams of evidence that those two areas are woefully underfunded," Kaufman said.

Republican lawmakers — including Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, and Rep. Brad Hill, R-Ipswich — tried unsuccessfully to lower the proposed rate for the new tax to 3, 2 and even 1 percent through amendments to the proposal. They also filed amendments to reduce the state's personal income tax from 5.1 to 5 percent, which were also rejected.

Progressive Democrats, including Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, D-Amherst, have for years pushed a graduated income tax, similar to the federal system, in which low-income taxpayers pay at a lower rate than those with larger incomes. The state's voters have rejected those efforts five times, most recently in 1994.

"This is a tax on success ... Voters have rejected it time and time again," Tarr said in a speech on the floor of the historic House chamber, ahead of the vote. "This measure will send the message that in Massachusetts if you achieve success the reward is a doubling of your taxation. We're singling them out to pay for transportation and education."

Tarr said the state needs to cut spending, not increase taxes, to pay for education and transportation needs.

"We're engaging tax increase gymnastics," he said. "We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem."

Supporters collected more than 157,000 signatures last year in an effort to put the measure to the state’s voters.

To get on the ballot, the tax plan must pass a second vote by a newly elected Legislature when it convenes next year and survive any possible court challenges from opponents of the measure.

The state Constitution has been amended only 121 times since it was ratified in 1780, according to the Secretary of State's office. Voters most recently changed it in 2006, when they approved the state's health care law.

In 2004, Senate and House lawmakers held a contentious constitutional convention to debate same-sex marriage after the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry in the commonwealth.

That convention ended after lawmakers declined to vote on a proposal to ban same-sex marriage.

Advocates of the tax proposal say they believe the issue is important enough to galvanize lawmakers and voters.

Massachusetts needs another $1 billion a year in the next decade to maintain and upgrade its deteriorating roads, according to a recent state report. The state also must find a way to spend $684 million a year for road maintenance, which includes annual operating costs, the report found.

"Our roads are in terrible shape and we can't fix that with the existing revenue stream," said Kristina Egan, director of Transportation for Massachusetts, a coalition pushing for increased transportation funding. "It's something we seriously need to deal with, and it makes sense to get some more revenue from those who can afford to pay it."

Education advocates say the state shortchanges school districts by an average of 11.5 percent – or about $500 million annually – due to a lack of funding and the wealth-based formula that computes Chapter 70 education aid.

Proponents estimate that the tax proposal would drum up more than $2 billion a year in additional revenue.

Exactly how many households or individuals statewide would be affected by the new tax isn't clear.

A recent "Wealth Report" by the Boston Business Journal found there were hundreds of tax filers on the North Shore and in the Merrimack Valley reporting at least $1 million in income in 2013, the most-recent tax year available.

Andover topped the list in the region with 216 filers with income above the $1 million mark, followed by Marblehead, which had 153. North Andover had 104 and Beverly 91. Manchester-by-the-Sea boasted 85 filers above $1 million.

Not surprisingly, Boston had one of the largest concentrations of wealth, with 1,617 filers earning more than $1 million.

But the move to tax top-earners faces opposition from Republicans and anti-tax groups, who are vowing to fight the ballot initiative.

The state's Republican Party blasted Wednesday's vote, saying the move showed the Democrat-led Legislature is "ever at the ready" to hike taxes.

"While Beacon Hill liberals employ lofty rhetoric, voters should see today's vote for what it really is: another attempt to raise taxes on every individual at every level to satisfy Democrats' unquenchable thirst for spending," MassGOP Chairman Kirsten Hughes said in a statement.

The fiscal watchdog group Citizens for Limited Taxation has criticized the proposed constitutional amendment as a "millionaires' tax" that will drive out the state's top earners and provide even less tax revenue for state coffers.

"The multi–millionaires who have been providing hundreds of thousands in state income tax revenue would then contribute ZERO," said Chip Faulkner, the group's communications director. "It would kill the golden goose."

WHERE THE MILLIONAIRES ARE

Hundreds of tax filers on the North Shore and in the Merrimack Valley reported at least $1 million in income in 2013, the most-recent tax year available.

Andover topped the list in the region with 216 filers with income above the $1 million mark, followed by Marblehead, which had 153. North Andover had 104, Beverly 91 and Manchester-by-the-Sea 85 filers above $1 million.

Boston had one of the largest concentrations of wealth, with 1,617 filers earning more than $1 million.


State House News Service
Thursday, May 19, 2016

As GOP rips income surtax, Baker hangs on to wait-and-see approach
By Matt Murphy


A day after House and Senate Republicans waged an unsuccessful fight against advancing a proposed surtax on households with incomes above $1 million in Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie Baker declined to slam the door shut on the possibility of him supporting the tax two years from now when, presumably, he will be on the ballot running for re-election.

Baker has opposed any suggestion of raising taxes during his first year-plus in office, and repeated on Tuesday that he's "not a big believer" in higher taxes to pay for new state spending.

But when pressed during a radio interview on Thursday about how he might vote should the tax proposal reach the ballot in 2018, Baker did not take the same hard line expressed by other Beacon Hill Republicans who have warned that the measure could be a jobs killer.

"I don't know. Let's see where we are when it gets there," Baker told WGBH's Boston Public Radio host Jim Braude.

The House and Senate voted 135-57 on Wednesday in favor of advancing the proposed constitutional amendment designed to generate $1.9 billion for education and transportation by assessing a new 4 percent surtax on households with incomes above $1 million.

A recent Boston Globe/Suffolk University poll also found enthusiasm for the measure among voters, with 70 percent saying they would support the amendment.

All but one of the 40 Republicans in the House and Senate voted against advancing the question to the next legislative session in 2017-2018, where it will again need at least 50 votes to be put before voters in November 2018.

Baker, who refused during his last campaign for governor to sign a no-new-taxes pledge, described himself Thursday as a "let the people decide" guy, and acknowledged that he had, in fact, signed the tax petition on the same radio show after Braude presented him with the papers. Supporters of the tax on Wednesday repeatedly cited the petition's 157,000 signers as demonstrative of support for the idea.

"We're still working our way through the process, obviously, on that one, but I'm not a big believer in raising taxes on people in Massachusetts. They've paid a lot more taxes on a lot of things over the course of the last few years and I think it's incumbent on the commonwealth to demonstrate that we can live within our means," Baker said.

The governor pointed to the work of the MBTA Fiscal and Management Control Board, which he said has proven in less than a year that it's possible to "improve performance" and "save money at the same time."

The transit authority is dependent on significant assistance from the state budget, where many accounts are being squeezed year after year, to make fiscal ends meet.

The governor's reluctance to categorically reject the idea of taxing income over $1 million at a higher rate than other income stands in contrast to other Republicans who warned that the tax would send the wrong message to the small business community and wealthy investors that the state leans on to create jobs.

Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr of Gloucester called the proposed tax on millionaires a "success penalty."

Republican Sen. Vinny deMacedo of Plymouth told the News Service this week, "We like millionaires when they come and they build businesses and they create jobs, however we've got to be mindful of the message that tax policy sends."

Rep. Geoff Diehl, a Whitman Republican, told his colleagues during debate Wednesday that "the real intent of this quote unquote millionaire's tax is nothing more than a bait and switch. It's just a way to open the door to higher income tax rates all levels. Once the tax code becomes divided between two brackets, precedent will be set for creating new brackets and making the code more and more progressive, also hitting the middle class the hardest once high income earners move themselves or their assets out of state."

Baker senior advisor Tim Buckley, calling to clarify the governor's remarks, said Baker remains supportive of ballot referendums, but reiterated, "The governor does not believe it's a good idea to raise taxes on the people of Massachusetts, and we don't even know if we will have this decision before voters."

Massachusetts Republican Party Chairwoman Kirsten Hughes blasted Wednesday's vote of the Legislature as proof of Democrats' "unquenchable thirst for spending," and pointed to Baker's efforts last year to close a $1.8 billion deficit without raising taxes.

"Democrats in the Legislature should realize we can't tax our way to prosperity," Hughes said.

Asked about the governor's comments on Thursday, party spokesman Terry MacCormack stood behind Baker: "Governor Baker has been a strong advocate for fiscal responsibility, balancing budget deficits without raising taxes, and making state government more accountable and efficient."

Baker famously refused to sign a pledge forswearing new taxes when he ran successfully for governor in 2014 after taking the pledge four years earlier.

At the time, he said, "I'm a reform before revenue guy and I'm going to be the taxpayers' best friend on that whole question, but one of the things that I learned with respect to the pledge is that if you take the pledge you're basically signing up for the status quo."

Calling the tax code "extremely messy," Baker also said, "I would hate to put myself in a position where if we actually came up with a way to simplify and make the tax code more sensible and more business and consumer and people friendly that somehow I would have a pledge in place that would make it impossible for me to go ahead and execute on that."

Democrats who favor the tax say it would help rectify a "regressive" tax system under which many low-income families pay a higher effective tax rate than the wealthiest residents of the state. Tax supporters also say education and transportation spending needs have been chronically underfunded.


State House News Service
Thursday, May 19, 2016

Asked about constitutionality of surtax, Healey pivots to debate on issue
By Colin A. Young


A day after House and Senate Republicans suggested the constitutional amendment to impose a surtax on incomes over $1 million could be unconstitutional, Attorney General Maura Healey was mum when asked about the amendment's constitutionality.

During Wednesday's Constitutional Convention, Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr raised concerns that the so-called millionaire's tax — which adds a 4 percent surtax on personal income that exceeds $1 million and dedicates that revenue to transportation and education initiatives — violates the state's constitution.

"We know that the issue before us causes grave doubt as to constitutionality because Article 48 provides the exclusive prerogative to appropriate funding to the Legislature," Tarr said. "On one hand we are told that this money will be used for exclusive purposes but on the other hand money will only be spent ‘subject to appropriation,’ both of these cannot be simultaneously true for the measure to meet constitutional muster."

Asked Thursday morning about Tarr's concerns, the state's top prosecutor dodged the question.

"When you're talking about education, when you're talking about infrastructure, when you're talking about transportation needs, we have needs right now in our state and I think it's important that we figure out how we're going to support those efforts and fund those efforts," she said. "It's a good conversation, it's a good debate and discussion and I think it's in the right direction for where we need to go given what we need to do."

Asked again if she is satisfied that the question is constitutional, the attorney general said, "We certified, as an office, this question for the ballot and I know the debate will continue through the Constitutional Convention this year and perhaps next year as well."

Healey's office, as part of the initiative petition process, reviews all petitions to certify that they are legally eligible to appear on the ballot.


State House News Service
Friday, May 20, 2016

Weekly Roundup - Whetting the appetite
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Matt Murphy


. . . So perhaps Gov. Charlie Baker had been infected with a bit of that Weldian keep-'em-guessing spirit when he gently evaded a direct question on the radio about whether he would vote against a proposed new surtax on high income earners.

"I don't know," Baker said, after trying to reinforce that he's "not a big believer in raising taxes." "Let's see where we are when it gets there."

The governor was referring, of course, to the fact that the Legislature this week took the first of two votes required to place on the 2018 ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designed to generate $1.9 billion for education and transportation by assessing a new 4 percent surtax on households with incomes above $1 million.

House and Senate lawmakers voted 135-57 to pass the question to the 2017-2018 General Court when another vote of at least 50 lawmakers will be required to put it on the ballot.

Republicans, who voted nearly unanimously against the measure, tried in vain to make a case against the tax as an economy killer that would drive wealthy business owners and investors, whom the state relies on to create jobs, out of state.

Backers, led by Lexington Rep. Jay Kaufman, countered by calling the tax on the wealthiest of the state an "elegant" mechanism to make the tax system fairer and generate needed revenue for transportation and education priorities.

For all the pronouncements from House Speaker Robert DeLeo and other House Democrats about the "lack of appetite" on Beacon Hill, at least on the House side, for new taxes, Senate Minority Bruce Tarr aptly pointed out that it appeared the ballot amendment had served as something of an "appetite stimulant."

Any effort to amend to the measure met with strong resistance from leaders, both on the merits and a reticence to turn a citizens petition into a legislative one, and thereby increase the threshold for advancement from 50 to 100 votes.

Still, the GOP did manage to force votes on a number of proposals, including the enshrinement of a 5 percent income tax in the constitution, that could be used as fodder later this year on the campaign trail.

For now, lawmakers can only imagine what a budget with an additional $2 billion to spend might look like. Reality at the moment demands living within existing revenue streams, and for the Senate that meant a roughly $39.5 billion budget proposal from its Ways and Means Committee that looks not all that different from the budget produced by the House and Senate.

The Senate's budget debate, with over 1,100 amendments to consider, begins Tuesday morning. There are, of course, differences between the House and Senate, including almost $30 million in additional spending on higher education.

STORY OF THE WEEK:  Lawmakers find it easier to say yes to higher taxes when millionaires are footing the bill.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK:  "Guess what? You can't trust us." - House Minority Leader Brad Jones on whether voters should believe that revenue from a "millionaire's tax" would be used to augment, rather than supplant, current spending on transportation and education.


The Boston Herald
Sunday, May 22, 2016

Driving out the rich
Millionaire tax surcharge an end run to our wallets
By Howie Carr


Just how stupid have the voters of Massachusetts become?

That’s the question being asked in a new two-year statewide clinical experiment now underway at the State House. The hackerama wants to find out what will happen if they ask taxpayers to vote for income-tax hikes — but only on “millionaires,” wink wink, nudge nudge.

It’s a grift that can only end one way, with everyone paying through the roof. The endgame is so obvious that in five previous attempts the non-working classes have tried to foist the “grad tax” on taxpayers, they’ve been crushed — never by less than 64 percent of the votes.

But the hacks haven’t gone to the well since 1994, and of late the wisdom of the electorate has been in a tailspin — Obama, Patrick, Warren, Markey, Frank, etc., etc.

“Is it finally time?” the tax-fattened hyenas ask one another, “Have we dumbed them ... just enough?” At least one poll indicates that if the hacks give the voters the blade in 2018, they’ll gladly slit their own throats.

Right now the state constitution mandates a flat income tax rate — everyone pays at the same rate, just over 5 percent. The indolent have long dreamed of a “progressive rate,” making people with more income pay their “fair share.” So now they promote a “surcharge” on so-called millionaires — 4 percent on incomes of over $1 million per year.

To change the state’s constitution, they need to prevail on the ballot in 2018. They took the first step last week, winning a vote in a joint session of the legislature, 135-57, to put this latest bait-and-switch before the voters.

Not only do the hacks claim that they’ll “only” hit millionaires, they also say the money will be “earmarked” for education and transportation. Yeah, right. The attempt itself may even be unconstitutional. But who cares, right?

The bigger problem is, soaking the rich never works. Look at New Jersey. The hacks in Trenton have been trying to jack up the top marginal rate from 8.97 percent to 10.75 percent.

C’mon down, David Tepper, a 58-year-old money manager worth $10.6 billion. Last October, he legally shifted his residence from New Jersey to Miami Beach. Florida’s income tax rate is ... zero!

Then there was Maryland. They jacked up their top marginal rate and 31,000 “millionaires” instantly vanished.

The same thing will happen here. The state will quickly realize that the supply of “millionaires” has failed. In order to deal with the “shortfall,” the millionaire tax will have to be adjusted downward — temporarily, of course — so that everyone making more than, say, $30,000 a year will be now designated for tax purposes as a millionaire. Look on the bright side though, it’s for the children.

The debate in the Legislature last week broke along the usual lines. These aren’t higher taxes, they’re “investments in the future.” “Disparities” must be addressed. Transportation is “underfunded,” even though Republicans pointed out that we already spend four times what New Hampshire does to maintain our state highways — $685,000 per mile, compared to $145,000 in the Granite State.

Obviously these Republicans have no compassion for the greedy — er, I mean the needy.

The problem for the welfare-industrial complex is that no one believes anything they say. In 2000, the voters approved cutting the state income tax back to 5 percent in a 60-40 landslide — and the rate remains above 5 percent.

Rep. Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington) took umbrage to Republicans’ pointing out that fact, saying, “We will be at 5 percent as the voters have asked within two years.”

In other words, by Fiscal 2019. The Legislature will have given the voters what they demanded ... in 2000 ... and they’re bragging about it.

“Following the will of the people,” asked Rep. Jim Lyons (R-Andover), “is waiting 18 years to reduce the rate to what they voted 18 years ago?”

And that’s just one of their lies. How about Bill Clinton’s promised middle-class tax cut in 1992? Or Deval Patrick’s statewide property-tax cut in 2006? Obama’s promise in 2009 of $2,500 annual savings on health insurance under Obamacare? How about the tollbooths on the Mass Pike? They were supposed to be torn down after the bonds sold to build I-90 were finally paid off — in 1988.

Right? Right? Right? Right?

On the other hand, the voters were smart enough to vote down the automatic gas-tax increase in 2014, despite the fact that the hacks outspent the working people 30-1. And Boston 2024, another raid on the wallets of working people, went down in flames just last year.

Can working people dodge another bullet? I hope so, but I’m also relieved I already own property in Florida.

 

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