 |
and the
Citizens Economic Research Foundation
Post Office Box 1147 ●
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 ●
(508)
915-3665
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
44 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
The run-up to a take-down?
|
Two
recent studies take a deep dive into the impact of state
taxes, particularly those aimed at high-income earners, and
their ability to pick up stakes and move to more hospitable
locations. Add in the impact of the recently-passed
federal tax reform bill that severely limits the ability of
taxpayers to deduct state and local taxes on their federal
returns and you have what the Pioneer Institute, author of
one of those studies, calls an “economic time bomb” for the
state.
Pioneer and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation in its
report were both troubled by the possibility of a 4 percent
surtax on those earning $1 million or more — which could be
on the November ballot — sending those high earners fleeing
to the waiting arms of low-tax states like Florida and New
Hampshire....
Mass. Taxpayers agrees, noting “Massachusetts already has
a migration problem.” A net 475,000 people ($18.9 billion in
adjusted gross income) left the state from 1993 to 2016.
“The additional 4 percent income surtax will surely drive
more Massachusetts taxpayers to change their state of tax
residency.”
They point to four states that have enacted a surtax on
incomes over $1 million — California, Connecticut, New
Jersey and New York, which lost a combined $17.1 billion in
adjusted gross income in 2016 alone. Their report also
noted, “All four states are now re-thinking their income tax
policies in order to prevent further out-migration by their
highest earners.”
Class warfare eventually has its consequences.
Massachusetts can’t afford to go down that road.
A Boston Herald editorial
Sunday, February 18, 2018
Bay State’s golden geese
That feel-good bid to pick the pockets of the state's
highest earners just ran into another dose of reality,
courtesy of a recent study that outlined its negative
effects.
A proposed question on the November general election
ballot -- whose constitutionality remains in doubt -- would
add a 4 percent surcharge tax on annual income over $1
million. Known as Proposition 80, this "millionaires tax"
would double the bill for Massachusetts' top earners by more
than $300,000. At least that's the conclusion of a recent
report issued by the Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based think
tank....
The pro-Proposition 80 crowd dismiss the potential mass
migration of the state's wealthiest as nothing more than
fear mongering. Sure, these individuals may be reluctant to
uproot their families, but the lure of a more favorable tax
climate in a neighboring state like New Hampshire may
persuade them to relocate their business -- and jobs --
there.
And this 4 percent surcharge may just be the last straw.
And that's not idle speculation. Greg Sullivan, the
Pioneer Institute's research director, indicated that
Connecticut's high taxes were a contributing factor in
General Electric's and Alexion Pharmaceuticals' decisions to
move their headquarters to Massachusetts.
And then there's the legality of this referendum
question....
And for those who believe the state's wealthiest don't
pay their fair share, think again. In Massachusetts, that
5.1 percent income tax rate may be the same for everyone,
but 5.1 percent of $1 million generates considerably more in
revenue than the median household income for Massachusetts
-- $75,297 as of 2016.
No matter how you slice it, robbing from those who
generate jobs and already pay far more in real estate, sales
and personal-property taxes doesn't add up.
If Proposition 80 makes to the ballot, Massachusetts
voters should reject it.
A Lowell Sun editorial
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
If Prop 80 makes ballot, voters should reject it
A graduated income tax by any other name is just as
difficult to swallow, according to Citizens for Limited
Taxation.
In a recent missive to members. CLT Executive Director
Chip Ford of Marblehead, warns against buying into
efforts to modify the language attached to the proposed
income tax surcharge on the wealthy more commonly known as
the "millionaires' tax."
Notes Ford: "I can't understand why some of our allies
are intent on re-labeling this abomination 'Proposition 80.'
It was explained to us that 80 percent reflects the
percentage of income-tax increase on millionaires. We were
asked to adopt the term early in our mutual opposition but
declined, for a couple of reasons....
"At CLT we'll stick with the tried-and-true, with the
known and proven, with our past successes: It's just another
graduated income tax scheme with lipstick, another grad tax
divide-and-conquer scam."
Look for it on your November ballot....
By the way, USA Today reports that Massachusetts
currently ranks ninth in the country in terms of the
percentage of residents' income that goes to pay state and
local taxes. The figure
—
10.3 percent
—
ranks it behind New York (which is highest at 12.6 percent),
but well behind nation's lowest Alaska at 6.5 percent. Given
the influence the public employee unions wield here, expect
that figure to climb. [See
report below.]
The Salem News
Friday, February 23, 2018
A tax by any other name
By Nelson Benton, editor emeritus
If those pushing for a new tax on the state's highest
earners had followed a different, but arguably more
difficult path, they wouldn't need to wait and see whether
the state's top judges will allow their proposal to appear
on the November ballot.
With a decision that could come at any time, the
seven-member Supreme Judicial Court could send the so-called
Fair Share Amendment to the legislative scrap heap if they
determine it violates the constitution.
There would have been no legal objections to the proposal
appearing on the November ballot had the supporters of the
so-called Fair Share Amendment passed a version of it filed
by a lawmaker as a bill, according to an attorney for the
business groups who sued in an attempt to derail the
constitutional amendment....
The other difficulty facing legislative amendments to the
constitution is proponents would have to take the
responsibility for initiating the measure, and would not be
able to point to the grassroots support for the proposal
that is evident when citizens rally behind an initiative
petition.
Gov. Charlie Baker, who appointed five of the SJC
justices, has not yet taken a position on the tax proposal.
State House News Service
Friday, February 23, 2018
Attorney: Legislative income tax surtax would have avoided
challenge
The ballot proposal to raise the state's
minimum wage to $15-an-hour is non-negotiable, according to
a Raise Up Massachusetts insider who described the group's
wage-floor hike effort as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition
as legislators look to find a compromise that would keep
that question and two others off the November ballot.
A new internal poll has imbued Raise Up
Massachusetts, the coalition of labor, civic and religious
organizations behind three ballot proposals this cycle, with
strengthened confidence in its prospects for convincing
voters to embrace a $15 minimum wage and reject a reduction
in the sales tax.
While Raise Up leaders remain optimistic
that talks between lawmakers and business groups will yield
a compromise over paid family and medical leave, the
grassroots group feels no impetus to negotiate over the wage
increase, either separately or as part of a bigger deal, the
source familiar with Raise Up's strategy told the News
Service....
A poll conducted by Kiley & Company in late
January for Raise Up Massachusetts found that paid family
and medical leave would be a slam dunk at the ballot box in
November, while support for a $15 minimum wage was better
than two-to-one.
A presentation of the poll's core findings,
obtained by the News Service, also showed that despite
strong support for a third ballot question lowering the
state sales tax to 5 percent, it was vulnerable to negative
messaging.
Those results have buttressed Raise Up's
resolve to push forward with its ballot strategy for the
minimum wage increase and resist pressure to cut a deal with
business groups. The internal poll randomly sampled 600
registered and likely voters on both landlines and
cellphones.
The sales tax reduction question polled as
well as a minimum wage increase, but support waned as
arguments against the reduction were introduced to
voters....
Retailers Association President Jon Hurst
has argued that small business owners feel ganged up on by
the trio of ballot questions that also includes a
constitutional amendment that would impose a surtax on
income over $1 million.
Though Hurst has said he'd be open to
withdrawing his sales tax question if other concessions are
made, he has said he would first like to see the
millionaire's tax question knocked off the ballot by the
Supreme Judicial Court, which is weighing a business-backed
challenge to that question's ballot certification....
House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate
President Harriette Chandler have both stated their interest
in resolving questions about paid family leave and the
minimum wage before they reach the ballot.
And just this week, Sen. Stanley Rosenberg,
who lost his power to influence the talks when he was forced
to give up the Senate presidency, told the Springfield
Republican that he thought it possible to combine talks over
those two issues with the proposed ballot question to reduce
the state's 6.25 percent sales tax to 5 percent.
Rosenberg, according to the newspaper, said
it might be possible for all three questions to be "on the
table and in the picture at the same time."
Brodeur, a Melrose Democrat, said last month
that negotiations between lawmakers and stakeholders over
paid family and medical leave and the minimum wage had not
bled together, but he did not rule out the possibility that
they could.
"Right now, not so much. Can I see that
changing? Sure," Brodeur said, adding, "All the folks that
are interested in all three things have cross-connecting
relationships to the issues, but is everyone sitting at a
table right now saying we'll give you a point on the sales
tax for a buck on the minimum wage? No."
State House News Service
Thursday, February 22, 2018
Minimum wage hike backers adopting take-it-or-leave-it
strategy
You’ve heard that old cliché: “Don’t tax
you. Don’t tax me. Tax that guy behind the tree.”
Who’d have thought – especially at a time
when about the worst thing you can say about a guy is that
he’s rich – that alleged “progressives” would be embracing
that concept in behalf of those who are “more fortunate?”
Yes, the message from blue state pols is:
Tax the rich – just not in my state....
But, yes, that’s the way it is in our
Through-the-Looking Glass world of 2018. The tax reform bill
crafted by the majority Republican Congress and signed into
law by President Trump has a provision that increases taxes
on the rich.
So why aren’t Democrats clinking champagne
glasses, celebrating that they tricked those dumb
Republicans into implementing one of their core principles?
You would think that all politically
correct, wealthy progressives would be applauding the chance
to pay more of their “fair share” to benefit “working
people,” since apparently anybody who is wealthy doesn’t
work. But you would be wrong. The governors of deep-blue
states like New York and California are having a meltdown
over the partial loss of a tax break for their wealthier
constituents. Is this yet another ironic result of Trump
Derangement Syndrome? ...
It’s known as the SALT (state and local
taxes) deduction, that until now has allowed taxpayers to
deduct all of their SALT payments as expenses on their
federal return, therefore reducing their taxes. The reform
also puts local property taxes under that cap.
The deductible portion of SALT and property
tax payments is now limited to $10,000....
Which ought to generate blue state applause.
All I’ve been hearing for decades is that the rich “can
afford it.” It is what they have been saying they want to
happen to the 1 percent, or even the top 40 percent? ...
And one of the ways they’ve been able to
sell ever-higher taxes is to tell voters, “Hey, you can
write it off on your federal taxes.” ...
And it demonstrates that the “tax the rich”
mantra has been said with a wink. Essentially the message
is, “Yeah, we’ll beat you up in public, but we’ll take care
of you with one of those loopholes we’re always talking
about eliminating.”
If you really are for taxing the rich, you
should be applauding this provision. You don’t get to tax
only the rich behind the tree.
The Salem News
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Progressives should celebrate, not despair over, new tax
rule
By Taylor Armerding
USA Today has a state-by-state ranking of
how much a resident pays, as a percentage of income, in
state and local taxes (not including federal taxes).
Massachusetts comes in at No. 9 in the ranking (or 41st, if
you measure from the lowest to the highest tax burden) at
10.3 percent. The state with the highest tax burden: New
York, 12.6 percent. The lowest: Alaska, at 6.5 percent.
Massachusetts definitely in ‘Taxachusetts’
territory in this ranking
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
MASSterList (state news aggregator)
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The State House News Service reported:
"Retailers
Association President Jon Hurst has argued that
small business owners feel ganged up on by the trio
of ballot questions that also includes a
constitutional amendment that would impose a surtax
on income over $1 million.
"Though Hurst
has said he'd be open to withdrawing his sales tax
question if other concessions are made, he has said
he would first like to see the millionaire's tax
question knocked off the ballot by the Supreme
Judicial Court, which is weighing a business-backed
challenge to that question's ballot
certification...."
Raise Up Massachusetts —
the extreme-leftwing organization largely comprised and
funded by deep-pockets government employee and other unions
— is targeting businesses with
three onerous ballot questions in November: Paid (by
employers) family leave; a $15/hour minimum wage, and; a
graduated income tax.
It's understandable that especially
small-business groups like the Retailers Association of
Massachusetts feel embattled. This wholesale assault
on small businesses is why RAM initiated the petition drive
to put on the ballot a rollback of the sales tax to 5
percent and establish by law an annual sales tax holiday.
Small businesses in Massachusetts are fighting for their
lives to survive this onslaught of socialism.
The sustainability of capitalism itself in
Massachusetts could well be determined by November's ballot.
I can appreciate why Jon Hurst and the
Retailers Association are playing with a possible compromise
using its sales tax rollback as a bargaining chip. I
just hope they don't cave in to empty and/or deceptive
promises. The Raise Up Massachusetts radicals already
have declared "take-it-or-leave-it" and will take no
prisoners.
Living in one of the bluest states in the
nation is difficult. Watching it circling the drain is
painful. Liberals never seem to learn that there is no
free lunch, that somebody pays for everything
the government "provides." Margaret Thatcher famously
noted "The problem with socialism it that you eventually run
out of other peoples' money."
In Massachusetts the radicals are
expeditiously running other peoples' money out of the
state, chasing it out with a mindless determination.
USA Today last week reported ("States where
Americans pay the least and most in taxes") that
Massachusetts taxpayers have the 9th highest tax burden in
the nation. It also reported ("10 states where the most
people are moving and leaving") that we have the 6th highest
out-migration of any of the states.
Do The Takers see no connections as
they double- and triple-down on their selfish, mindless
efforts?
Or are they intentionally seeking to take
down the Bay State, transform it into a graveyard of
universal poverty where those who remain will be equally
miserable?
Many of leaders and leading organizations
(such as the teachers unions) within Raise Up Massachusetts
are the same which opposed us on Proposition 2½ (including
our auto excise reduction) in 1980, CLT's repeal of the
Dukakis surtax in 1986, the same that advocated and
supported a graduated income tax in 1994, and which opposed
our income tax roll back to 5% in 2000.
If they had
defeated us and prevailed, Bay State taxpayers would have
had skyrocketing property tax bills since 1980 along with an
annual auto excise almost triple what it is now. There would
still be a 7.5% surcharge on top of a 5.95% income tax rate.
And taxpayers would be saddled with a graduated 8.8% income
tax rate starting at $50,200.
In other words, were it not for CLT and the voters,
Massachusetts would have already become an economic basket
case decades ago.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Herald
Sunday, February 18, 2018
A Boston Herald editorial
Bay State’s golden geese
Two recent studies take a deep dive into the
impact of state taxes, particularly those aimed
at high-income earners, and their ability to
pick up stakes and move to more hospitable
locations.
Add in the impact of the recently-passed federal
tax reform bill that severely limits the ability
of taxpayers to deduct state and local taxes on
their federal returns and you have what the
Pioneer Institute, author of one of those
studies, calls an “economic time bomb” for the
state.
Pioneer and the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation in its report were both troubled by
the possibility of a 4 percent surtax on those
earning $1 million or more — which could be on
the November ballot — sending those high earners
fleeing to the waiting arms of low-tax states
like Florida and New Hampshire.
The ballot question is now before the Supreme
Judicial Court on the issue of whether the
surtax can be combined with an effort to
designate the additional funds for education and
transportation — a sweetener, if you will, for
voters. But there is, in any case, the prospect
of the surtax itself reaching the ballot.
Should it pass, high-income earners would face a
tax of 9.1 percent, among the highest in the
nation (fifth by actual rate, but the other four
states offer more deductions). Pioneer found
that a taxpayer with an adjusted gross income of
$1 million would — because of the new federal
limits on deductibility of state taxes —pay more
than double the *effective* state tax rate. Thus
increasing his tax bill from $153,152 to
$318,095.
Mass. Taxpayers agrees, noting “Massachusetts
already has a migration problem.” A net 475,000
people ($18.9 billion in adjusted gross income)
left the state from 1993 to 2016. “The
additional 4 percent income surtax will surely
drive more Massachusetts taxpayers to change
their state of tax residency.”
They point to four states that have enacted a
surtax on incomes over $1 million — California,
Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, which lost
a combined $17.1 billion in adjusted gross
income in 2016 alone. Their report also noted,
“All four states are now re-thinking their
income tax policies in order to prevent further
out-migration by their highest earners.”
Class warfare eventually has its consequences.
Massachusetts can’t afford to go down that road.
The Lowell Sun
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
A Lowell Sun editorial
If Prop 80 makes ballot, voters should reject it
That feel-good bid to pick the pockets of the
state's highest earners just ran into another
dose of reality, courtesy of a recent study that
outlined its negative effects.
A proposed question on the November general
election ballot -- whose constitutionality
remains in doubt -- would add a 4 percent
surcharge tax on annual income over $1 million.
Known as Proposition 80, this "millionaires tax"
would double the bill for Massachusetts' top
earners by more than $300,000. At least that's
the conclusion of a recent report issued by the
Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based think tank.
Currently, Massachusetts imposes the same income
tax rate -- currently 5.1 percent -- on every
taxpayer. According to RaiseUp Massachusetts,
the nonprofit coalition behind this money
transfer -- the additional tax revenue would be
used to fund the state's transportation and
education needs. Estimates indicate that extra 4
percent tax would generate a $2 billion annual
windfall.
Using data from various sources, including the
IRS, the Pioneer study concluded the proposed
change would make Massachusetts' top marginal
income tax rate the nation's fifth highest. That
in turn would likely convince high-income
earners to take up residence elsewhere. That's
because this pending referendum makes no
distinction between successful entrepreneurs
whose businesses employ thousands of
Massachusetts residents and someone who attained
millionaire status through the sale of property
or inheritance income.
The pro-Proposition 80 crowd dismiss the
potential mass migration of the state's
wealthiest as nothing more than fear mongering.
Sure, these individuals may be reluctant to
uproot their families, but the lure of a more
favorable tax climate in a neighboring state
like New Hampshire may persuade them to relocate
their business -- and jobs -- there.
And this 4 percent surcharge may just be the
last straw.
And that's not idle speculation. Greg Sullivan,
the Pioneer Institute's research director,
indicated that Connecticut's high taxes were a
contributing factor in General Electric's and
Alexion Pharmaceuticals' decisions to move their
headquarters to Massachusetts.
And then there's the legality of this referendum
question.
The state's Supreme Judicial Court heard
arguments by The Tax Foundation, an independent
tax policy nonprofit, that Proposition 80 usurps
the state Legislature's authority over the state
treasury. In other words, that body retains sole
control over tax policy, not the general
population. The state's Constitution also
prohibits petitions from including a "specific
appropriation," which means taking all revenue
from a source and using it to fund a particular
purpose, like transportation and education in
this case.
The SJC heard those arguments on Feb. 6, and
expects to rule on the ballot measure's fate by
early summer.
And for those who believe the state's wealthiest
don't pay their fair share, think again. In
Massachusetts, that 5.1 percent income tax rate
may be the same for everyone, but 5.1 percent of
$1 million generates considerably more in
revenue than the median household income for
Massachusetts -- $75,297 as of 2016.
No matter how you slice it, robbing from those
who generate jobs and already pay far more in
real estate, sales and personal-property taxes
doesn't add up.
If Proposition 80 makes to the ballot,
Massachusetts voters should reject it.
The Salem News
Friday, February 23, 2018
A tax by any other name
By Nelson Benton, editor emeritus
A graduated income tax by any other name is just
as difficult to swallow, according to
Citizens for Limited Taxation.
In a recent missive to members. CLT Executive
Director Chip Ford of Marblehead, warns
against buying into efforts to modify the
language attached to the proposed income tax
surcharge on the wealthy more commonly known as
the "millionaires' tax."
Notes Ford: "I can't understand why some of our
allies are intent on re-labeling this
abomination 'Proposition 80.' It was explained
to us that 80 percent reflects the percentage of
income-tax increase on millionaires. We were
asked to adopt the term early in our mutual
opposition but declined, for a couple of
reasons.
"First, as a proposed constitutional amendment,
if it makes it onto the ballot it will likely be
Question 1. That has nothing to do with
'Proposition 80' and can only serve to confuse
less- or uninformed voters.
"Second, voters have consistently defeated a
graduated income tax, five times over five
decades. A sixth proposed graduated income tax
has a long lineage of disapproval, failure,
defeat.
"Voters have never heard of or had to vote on a
'Proposition 80.' Why would anyone who wants to
defeat this graduated income tax want to rebrand
it for its proponents, call it something new,
provide it with a different image?
"At CLT we'll stick with the tried-and-true,
with the known and proven, with our past
successes: It's just another graduated income
tax scheme with lipstick, another grad tax
divide-and-conquer scam."
Look for it on your November ballot.
x x x
By the way, USA Today reports that Massachusetts
currently ranks ninth in the country in terms of
the percentage of residents' income that goes to
pay state and local taxes. The figure
— 10.3 percent
— ranks it behind New York (which is
highest at 12.6 percent), but well behind
nation's lowest Alaska at 6.5 percent. Given the
influence the public employee unions wield here,
expect that figure to climb.
[See report below.]
State House News Service
Friday, February 23, 2018
Attorney: Legislative income tax surtax would
have avoided challenge
By Andy Metzger
If those pushing for a new tax on the state's
highest earners had followed a different, but
arguably more difficult path, they wouldn't need
to wait and see whether the state's top judges
will allow their proposal to appear on the
November ballot.
With a decision that could come at any time, the
seven-member Supreme Judicial Court could send
the so-called Fair Share Amendment to the
legislative scrap heap if they determine it
violates the constitution.
There would have been no legal objections to the
proposal appearing on the November ballot had
the supporters of the so-called Fair Share
Amendment passed a version of it filed by a
lawmaker as a bill, according to an attorney for
the business groups who sued in an attempt to
derail the constitutional amendment.
If the court allows the question to proceed to
the ballot and voters approve it, the amendment
would establish a 4 percent surtax on incomes
over $1 million, raising an estimated $2 billion
to be spent on education and transportation.
After citizens and unions mounted a grassroots
campaign, collecting tens of thousands of
signatures, about 70 percent of lawmakers
supported putting the constitutional amendment
on the ballot, and the proposal is particularly
popular among liberal Democrats. Business groups
warn costs will balloon for top earners and the
surtax would be a drag on the state's economy.
Last week the Pioneer Institute determined that
if the proposal it calls Proposition 80 becomes
law, then the new surtax combined with recent
changes in federal tax law that limit deductions
for state and local taxes would combine to
double the state's "effective state tax rate for
high-income taxpayers."
"Over the past two decades, the net outflow of
wealth to Florida and New Hampshire has already
been pronounced," Pioneer Executive Director Jim
Stergios said in a statement. "Passage of
Proposition 80 will speed the exodus of wealth
from Massachusetts and could turn the
Commonwealth into Connecticut, with stagnant
revenues and a reputation for being unfriendly
to business."
Supporters of the constitutional amendment chose
a labor-intensive means of getting it this far.
Rather than convincing a lawmaker to file it as
a bill, supporters gathered more than 155,000
signatures in the fall of 2015, launching the
proposal as a citizens' initiative. That tack
helped illustrate support for the proposal and
mobilized a cadre of volunteers years before the
vote, but it also courted a legal challenge.
The head of the Massachusetts High Tech Council
and other business leaders sued last fall,
arguing Attorney General Maura Healey improperly
certified the question to appear on the ballot.
That suit contends the proposal improperly
cobbles together the unrelated subjects of
taxation with spending on transportation and
education; it improperly uses a citizens'
initiative to appropriate money; and it usurps
the Legislature's authority over budgeting.
The citizens' initiative was created about a
century ago, but there are still some limits to
what can be changed through the initiative
petition.
"If you want to have a graduated income tax,
there's a way to do it," Kevin Martin, an
attorney for the business leaders told the
Supreme Judicial Court during oral arguments
earlier this month. In court, Martin even
suggested one way that would avoid the
particular restrictions inherent to the
citizens' initiative process, saying, "You can
do it through a legislative constitutional
amendment."
If the proposal had been filed by a lawmaker,
none of the legal arguments to block it from the
ballot would apply, according to Martin.
The 1915 constitutional amendment that
authorized a state income tax required a flat
rate, so any effort to tax higher earners at
higher rates would need to address that.
State lawmakers routinely file proposed
amendments to the state's constitution,
proposals that rarely attract much attention. It
is relatively rare for Massachusetts lawmakers
to support changes to the state's foundational
document, which is the oldest in-service written
constitution in the world.
In 2000 voters ratified two changes, according
to the secretary of state's office, prohibiting
incarcerated felons from voting in state
elections, and accelerating the introduction of
new legislative maps following the decennial
census.
The benefit of filing a constitutional amendment
as a citizens' initiative is the process
requires supporters to build a political
apparatus to advance the proposal, and it
"becomes a little more high-profile as a
result," said Peter Ubertaccio, a political
science professor and dean of the School of Arts
and Sciences at Stonehill College.
A similar proposal sponsored by a friendly
lawmaker might not garner as much popular
support, according to Ubertaccio, who said a
lawmaker-filed proposal would also run the risk
of being tangled up with the politics of the
lawmaker who sponsored it.
The other difficulty facing legislative
amendments to the constitution is proponents
would have to take the responsibility for
initiating the measure, and would not be able to
point to the grassroots support for the proposal
that is evident when citizens rally behind an
initiative petition.
Gov. Charlie Baker, who appointed five of the
SJC justices, has not yet taken a position on
the tax proposal.
The surtax initiative was organized by Raise Up
Massachusetts, a group that has the support of
labor unions and community groups and already
scored a ballot box victory in 2014, when voters
approved mandatory earned sick time for workers.
"Collecting over 150,000 signatures to place the
amendment before the voters is true to the
spirit of our coalition, and to the purpose of
the initiative petition process enshrined in our
constitution 100 years ago," said Raise Up
spokesman Steve Crawford when asked about the
decision to use the citizens' initiative. "We
are confident that the Attorney General properly
certified our question, we thank two consecutive
legislatures that voted overwhelmingly to
advance our amendment, and we believe that the
Supreme Judicial Court will uphold the right of
the voters to have their voices heard."
The court generally aims to issue decisions
within 130 days of oral arguments, which means
the court should issue a decision by mid-June.
"This process was created to ensure that voters
have the chance to be heard on this exact kind
of issue," a spokeswoman for Healey said in a
statement. "We vigorously defended our
certification before the Supreme Judicial Court,
and we believe Massachusetts residents deserve
the opportunity to vote on this question in
November."
Citizens' initiatives face a lower hurdle in the
Legislature than amendments sponsored by members
of the House or Senate.
Any constitutional amendment needs to receive
support from joint sessions of the House and
Senate in two consecutive sessions before it can
appear on the ballot when voters may choose to
ratify or reject the proposal.
An amendment filed by a lawmaker needs the
support of 101 members of the 200-seat
Legislature in both sessions, according to
Senate Clerk William Welch. A citizens'
initiative for a constitutional amendment needs
the support of 50 members in back-to-back
sessions.
In 2016 the surtax ballot proposal cleared the
Legislature on a 135-57 vote, and the next year
it passed 134-55, easily exceeding either
threshold. Some lawmakers said their vote was to
give voters the chance to decide the question.
The Supreme Judicial Court has knocked questions
off the ballot before. In 2016, the court threw
out a citizens' initiative seeking to end the
use of Common Core learning standards and
publicize state assessment test questions along
with other information. The court determined
that question combined proposals that are not
related or mutually dependent.
State House News Service
Thursday, February 22, 2018
Minimum wage hike backers adopting
take-it-or-leave-it strategy
By Matt Murphy
The ballot proposal to raise the state's minimum
wage to $15-an-hour is non-negotiable, according
to a Raise Up Massachusetts insider who
described the group's wage-floor hike effort as
a take-it-or-leave-it proposition as legislators
look to find a compromise that would keep that
question and two others off the November ballot.
A new internal poll has imbued Raise Up
Massachusetts, the coalition of labor, civic and
religious organizations behind three ballot
proposals this cycle, with strengthened
confidence in its prospects for convincing
voters to embrace a $15 minimum wage and reject
a reduction in the sales tax.
While Raise Up leaders remain optimistic that
talks between lawmakers and business groups will
yield a compromise over paid family and medical
leave, the grassroots group feels no impetus to
negotiate over the wage increase, either
separately or as part of a bigger deal, the
source familiar with Raise Up's strategy told
the News Service.
Raise Up plans in the coming weeks to ramp up
its legislative lobbying efforts for the $15
minimum wage by staging a series of community
briefings around the state, with events planned
in Fall River and New Bedford, Springfield,
Lawrence, Worcester, Boston, Lynn and Brockton.
"The legislature needs to hear from us, in every
corner of Massachusetts, that it's time to pass
Paid Family and Medical Leave and a $15 Minimum
Wage," Field First organizer and Raise Up member
Madeline McGill wrote in an email last Friday
detailing the effort to coalition members.
The insider, who requested anonymity to discuss
internal campaign and lobbying strategies, said
the group "will not entertain changes that take
people backward," including the creation of a
lower wage for teenagers or the elimination of
time-and-a-half pay on Sundays.
"Pass our bill," the person said.
A poll conducted by Kiley & Company in late
January for Raise Up Massachusetts found that
paid family and medical leave would be a slam
dunk at the ballot box in November, while
support for a $15 minimum wage was better than
two-to-one.
A presentation of the poll's core findings,
obtained by the News Service, also showed that
despite strong support for a third ballot
question lowering the state sales tax to 5
percent, it was vulnerable to negative
messaging.
Those results have buttressed Raise Up's resolve
to push forward with its ballot strategy for the
minimum wage increase and resist pressure to cut
a deal with business groups. The internal poll
randomly sampled 600 registered and likely
voters on both landlines and cellphones.
The sales tax reduction question polled as well
as a minimum wage increase, but support waned as
arguments against the reduction were introduced
to voters.
Those negatives included claims that it would
take money away from schools and transportation
infrastructure and that a decrease in sales tax
revenue would hurt the state's ability to make
up for the loss of federal financial support for
health care and other priorities due to the
federal tax cut.
Support, the test showed, could be driven down
from 68 percent to 50 percent after negative
consequences were introduced, though the poll
did not account for the arguments the Retailers
Association of Massachusetts, which is behind
the ballot question, might use to the sell the
idea to voters.
Retailers Association President Jon Hurst has
argued that small business owners feel ganged up
on by the trio of ballot questions that also
includes a constitutional amendment that would
impose a surtax on income over $1 million.
Though Hurst has said he'd be open to
withdrawing his sales tax question if other
concessions are made, he has said he would first
like to see the millionaire's tax question
knocked off the ballot by the Supreme Judicial
Court, which is weighing a business-backed
challenge to that question's ballot
certification.
Asked about the hard line Raise Up was drawing
for legislators over the minimum wage, a
coalition spokesman, Steve Crawford, said,
"We're working hard to win passage of these
bills in the legislature, but from the
beginning, we've been prepared to take our two
questions to the ballot if necessary."
The ballot question, and identical legislation,
proposes to raise the state's minimum wage from
$11 an hour to $15 in single dollar increments
starting in 2019, and raise the minimum wage for
tipped workers from $3.75 to $9 per hour, plus
tips.
At a hearing late last month on the paid leave
and minimum wage ballot questions, the Labor
Committee's two chairmen Rep. Paul Brodeur and
Sen. Jason Lewis both expressed their desire to
find a way to resolve the issues within the
Legislature before voters are asked to decide.
"Rep. Brodeur and I are very committed to
working with all the parties to discuss and work
through these two issues and we are hopeful that
we are able to resolve these through the
legislative process and they won't have to be on
the ballot, but time will tell," Lewis said.
Negotiations between stakeholders over paid
family and medical leave, which is viewed as the
more complicated of the two proposals, have
taken precedence for months on Beacon Hill, but
the idea of striking a multi-faceted bargain has
been hanging in the air.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President
Harriette Chandler have both stated their
interest in resolving questions about paid
family leave and the minimum wage before they
reach the ballot.
And just this week, Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, who
lost his power to influence the talks when he
was forced to give up the Senate presidency,
told the Springfield Republican that he thought
it possible to combine talks over those two
issues with the proposed ballot question to
reduce the state's 6.25 percent sales tax to 5
percent.
Rosenberg, according to the newspaper, said it
might be possible for all three questions to be
"on the table and in the picture at the same
time."
Brodeur, a Melrose Democrat, said last month
that negotiations between lawmakers and
stakeholders over paid family and medical leave
and the minimum wage had not bled together, but
he did not rule out the possibility that they
could.
"Right now, not so much. Can I see that
changing? Sure," Brodeur said, adding, "All the
folks that are interested in all three things
have cross-connecting relationships to the
issues, but is everyone sitting at a table right
now saying we'll give you a point on the sales
tax for a buck on the minimum wage? No."
The Salem News
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Progressives should celebrate, not despair over,
new tax rule
By Taylor Armerding
You’ve heard that old cliché: “Don’t tax you.
Don’t tax me. Tax that guy behind the tree.”
Who’d have thought – especially at a time when
about the worst thing you can say about a guy is
that he’s rich – that alleged “progressives”
would be embracing that concept in behalf of
those who are “more fortunate?”
Yes, the message from blue state pols is: Tax
the rich – just not in my state.
And who’d have thought the target of their
outrage would be Republicans, who we are
constantly told are all about handing government
money (because, of course, it is government that
generates, and therefore owns, all the money in
existence) to “millionaires and billionaires and
their cronies” at the expense of everybody else?
But, yes, that’s the way it is in our
Through-the-Looking Glass world of 2018. The tax
reform bill crafted by the majority Republican
Congress and signed into law by President Trump
has a provision that increases taxes on the
rich.
So why aren’t Democrats clinking champagne
glasses, celebrating that they tricked those
dumb Republicans into implementing one of their
core principles?
You would think that all politically correct,
wealthy progressives would be applauding the
chance to pay more of their “fair share” to
benefit “working people,” since apparently
anybody who is wealthy doesn’t work. But you
would be wrong. The governors of deep-blue
states like New York and California are having a
meltdown over the partial loss of a tax break
for their wealthier constituents. Is this yet
another ironic result of Trump Derangement
Syndrome?
I’m almost expecting them to run an ad,
highlighting the anguish of a family that is
going to have to go from three BMWs to two, or
cut a week off of their winter vacation in the
Caymans. Oh, the horror.
It’s almost as amusing as watching House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, sitting grimly at
Trump’s first State of the Union, looking like
she was chewing the inside of her mouth even
when the president came out with a line that
normally would have obvious bipartisan support,
like taking better care of veterans or fixing
our “broken” infrastructure.
I figure just about anything that has Pelosi
chewing the inside of her mouth is a good thing.
The tax break in question isn’t disappearing –
it just comes with a cap now that will benefit
the “less-fortunate” while ending the
semi-hidden gravy train for those who are
wealthier.
It’s known as the SALT (state and local taxes)
deduction, that until now has allowed taxpayers
to deduct all of their SALT payments as expenses
on their federal return, therefore reducing
their taxes. The reform also puts local property
taxes under that cap.
The deductible portion of SALT and property tax
payments is now limited to $10,000.
And that falls right in line with what
progressives, at least until now, have been
calling progressive. It gives a break to the
poor and takes a chunk of it away from the
wealthy. What’s not to like?
A few analysts have run the numbers. One example
from California: A couple making $150,000 will
get to deduct all of an estimated $8,797 in
state and local taxes, although if they pay more
than $1,203 in property taxes, that will exceed
the cap.
A couple making $500,000, on the other hand,
will have a state tax bill of $41,347, which
significantly exceeds the cap and will require
them to pay about $11,600 more to the feds.
Which ought to generate blue state applause. All
I’ve been hearing for decades is that the rich
“can afford it.” It is what they have been
saying they want to happen to the 1 percent, or
even the top 40 percent?
Indeed, since the current tax reform was signed
into law, those on the left have been portraying
it as Trump and his billionaire cronies simply
helping the rich get richer. Why aren’t they
celebrating a provision that does the opposite?
Well, the answer to that gets at what is really
bothering them. This is going to make it more
difficult for them to keep raising taxes in what
are already very high-tax states. California has
the dubious distinction of the highest marginal
tax rate – 13.3 percent – in the nation. While
New York state is at a somewhat less punishing
8.82 percent, it is 12.7 percent in New York
City.
And one of the ways they’ve been able to sell
ever-higher taxes is to tell voters, “Hey, you
can write it off on your federal taxes.”
Now, not so much. Now that their wealthy
constituents (and campaign donors) won’t be able
to deduct all of their state, local and property
tax bills, the leaders of those states actually
might start being held accountable for rampant
overspending.
Of course, they don’t like that. But the reality
is that high state taxes aren’t about helping
“working people.” They’re about helping the
political class, including public employee
unions whose contracts give them pay and
benefits vastly beyond those of the average
taxpayer.
Beyond that, for those who are forever talking
about fairness, how fair is it that those
unlimited SALT deductions were subsidized by
taxpayers living in lower-tax states, many more
of whom are likely to have lower incomes? That’s
the opposite of progressive.
And it demonstrates that the “tax the rich”
mantra has been said with a wink. Essentially
the message is, “Yeah, we’ll beat you up in
public, but we’ll take care of you with one of
those loopholes we’re always talking about
eliminating.”
If you really are for taxing the rich, you
should be applauding this provision. You don’t
get to tax only the rich behind the tree.
Taylor Armerding of Ipswich is an independent
columnist.
USA Today
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
States where Americans pay the least (and most)
in taxes [Link
to full report]
By Evan Comen and Thomas C. Frohlich
— Excerpt
—
41.
Massachusetts
Taxes paid as pct. of income: 10.3%
Income per capita: $64,235 (2nd highest)
Income tax collections per capita: $2,133
(3rd highest)
Property tax collections per capita: $2,181
(8th highest)
General sales tax collections per capita:
$854 (24th lowest)
42. Minnesota
Taxes paid as pct. of income: 10.8%
43. Rhode Island
Taxes paid as pct. of income: 10.8%
44. Maryland
Taxes paid as pct. of income: 10.9%
45. Wisconsin
Taxes paid as pct. of income: 11.0%
46. Illinois
Taxes paid as pct. of income: 11.0%
47. California
Taxes paid as pct. of income: 11.0%
48. New Jersey
Taxes paid as pct. of income: 12.2%
49. Connecticut
Taxes paid as pct. of income: 12.6%
50. New York
Taxes paid as pct. of income: 12.7%
USA Today
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
10 states where the most people are moving (and
leaving)
[Link
to full report]
By Douglas A. McIntyre
— Excerpt
—
The states that are losing people as they
move away are almost exclusively in the
Northeast or the Rust Belt. The “moving out”
states, according to the survey:
1. Illinois
2. New Jersey
3. New York
4. Connecticut
5. Kansas
6. Massachusetts
7. Ohio
8. Kentucky
9. Utah
10. Wisconsin
|
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
|
