Democrats from Andover, Wellesley and
Gloucester have dropped their bid to pass a constitutional
amendment that authorizes the Legislature to establish a
graduated income tax structure.
Sen. Barry Finegold of Andover and Reps.
Alice Peisch of Wellesley and Ann-Margaret Ferrante of
Gloucester had proposed the amendment to a constitutional
amendment that adds a 4 percent income surtax on household
income above $1 million per year.
The amendment was listed as withdrawn in the
hours before the Constitutional Convention resumes at 1 p.m.
The graduated income tax amendment would
have explicitly permitted the Legislature to create
additional income tax rates in order to provide tax relief
to low-income residents and raise income taxes on higher
income residents.
The main amendment (H 86) would shift
Massachusetts away from its uniform income tax rate, by
forcing taxpayers with incomes above $1 million to pay an
effective 9 percent income tax rate.
The current 5.05 percent income tax rate is
set to fall to 5 percent on Jan. 1, 2020.
State House News Service
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
Graduated income tax amendment withdrawn
By Michael P. Norton
Lawmakers across both branches voted 147-48
during a Constitutional Convention on Wednesday to agree to
a constitutional amendment that adds a 4 percent surtax on
all household income above $1 million, bringing the measure
closer to a ballot question as soon as November 2022.
Republicans, who all voted against the
amendment except for Sen. Patrick O'Connor of Weymouth, had
filed several amendments to the proposed measure calling for
changes to how the tax increases would be applied and how
the new revenue would be used, but all were withdrawn or
rejected.
The constitutional amendment must be agreed
to again by a Constitutional Convention in the 2021-2022
session in order to appear before votes on the November 2022
statewide ballot. Legislators did not take up any other
constitutional amendments Wednesday, and they will resume
the Constitutional Convention on Nov. 13.
State House News Service
Constitutional Convention - Wednesday, June 12, 2019
The Legislature voted overwhelmingly in
favor on Wednesday of amending the state constitution to
raise income taxes on the wealthy, a first step toward a new
tax that supporters say could generate as much as $2 billion
in new revenue to spend on transportation and education.
House and Senate members voted 147-48 in
favor of an amendment (H 86) that would impose a 4 percent
surtax on annual income greater than $1 million, well more
than the 101 votes needed to advance.
While supporters said wealthier residents
can afford to help the state invest more in infrastructure
and public schools, opponents and business groups have
warned that its passage could drive employers out of state.
Critics have also cast doubt on revenue
estimates.
"We're supposed to be world leaders. You
don't do that if you don't have an educated workforce," said
Rep. James O'Day, the sponsor of the amendment. "You don't
do that if you can't get your workforce to work on time
because you're sitting on the Mass Pike for two plus hours.
Those things have to stop."
The debate and vote took place almost a year
to the day that the Supreme Judicial Court last summer
struck down a citizen petition to implement the same new tax
on the wealthy. This proposal will not face the same
scrutiny because it's been filed by a legislator....
The so-called "millionaires tax" will need
to be passed again at a Constitutional Convention in the
2021-2022 session in order to go before voters on the
November 2022 ballot. The amendment is required because the
state's constitution currently mandates that a tax on income
be applied evenly to all residents.
The House voted 112-43 and the Senate voted
35-6 to pass the amendment.
Eleven House Democrats joined all 32 House
Republicans in opposing the amendment, including multiple
lawmakers from the Springfield area.
Reps. Brian Ashe of Longmeadow, Ann-Margaret
Ferrante of Gloucester, Michael Finn of West Springfield,
William Galvin of Canton, Colleen Garry of Dracut, Danielle
Gregoire of Marlborough, Christopher Markey of Dartmouth,
Thomas Petrolati of Ludlow, Angelo Puppolo of Springfield,
John Velis of Westfield and Jonathan Zlotnik of Gardner all
voted no.
On the Senate side, Sen. Patrick O'Connor, a
Weymouth Republican, was the only senator to cross party
lines, casting his vote in favor of the income surtax while
the other five Senate Republicans voted against it....
Lawmakers batted down a number of suggested
changes to the proposal over the course of the debate, with
leadership pressing to make sure the final proposal mirrored
the one from last session that polled well among voters....
Minority Leader Brad Jones, a North Reading
Republican, tried to amend the proposal to guarantee that
any money collected from the millionaires tax would be spent
in addition to state funds already put toward education and
transportation, not in lieu of those funds as part of a
"bait and switch."
"Part of the reason we need to do this is
because our track record as legislators in respecting the
will of the voters on tax matters is not particularly good,"
Jones said, noting that the income tax rate has still not
been lowered fully to 5 percent, as called for under a 2000
ballot law.
Sen. Adam Hinds said he appreciated the
"intent" of the Jones amendment, but argued that the
proposal should not be changed. The amendment failed on a
40-132 vote.
Similar arguments for keeping the proposal
intact were made throughout the debate as several amendments
were withdrawn and 13 recommended changes were rejected.
Before the debate even began, Rep. Alice
Peisch, a Wellesley Democrat and the co-chair of the
Education Committee, withdrew her proposal that would have
opened the door for the Legislature to impose a fully
graduated income tax with as many tax brackets as it wanted.
Peisch declined to comment in the hallway
about her amendment and her decision to withdraw, but Sen.
Jason Lewis, who co-sponsored the "Fair Share" amendment,
said it was important to keep the proposal "simple and
clear."
State House News Service
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
Wealth tax advances to next session on 147-48 vote
JONES AMENDMENT 1 - Ensuring that funds
appropriated are in addition to and not in lieu of funds
already appropriated for such purposes
Rep. Jones said I think this amendment is
about as straightforward and should be as agreeable as
possible, which says, if we're going to pass the fair share
amendment, that the new dollars raised from taxing
millionaires that are going to be spent on transportation
and education should be in addition to money we already
spend in those areas. They shouldn't be in lieu of. The new
money should be on top.
We can't create a bait-and-switch, a
scenario where this fair share amendment passes - this
millionaire's tax - and the $2 billion raised gets spent in
those areas, and then we back out money we currently spend
in those areas and spend it elsewhere.
The gentleman from West Boylston talked
about transportation and education. If he really believes
that's what this amendment is all about, he should be
joining with me in supporting this amendment so we protect
the investments we already make and work to guarantee
additional monies raised add to that.
The argument is all this money is guaranteed
to go to transportation and education. Yet the attorney
general arguing before the SJC said no, that's not true,
there's no guarantee it will. Chief Justice Gants said it
may or may not result in an increase in funding for those
areas.
Even with this further amendment there's
still no complete guarantee, but there would be one more
step to avoid a bait-and-switch. So we don't say we took in
that $2 billion and spending it on education, but last
year's education funding has been taken out and placed
somewhere else.
Our track record as a Legislature relative
to respecting the will of the voters on tax matters is not
particularly good. In 2000 voters said they wanted to be at
5 percent by now. In 2002 the Legislature substituted a
different plan, and guess what, 17 years later we're still
not at 5 percent despite what the voters said. So frankly
the Legislature's track record frankly stinks.
If you really believe in the underlying
proposal you should absolutely support this amendment. So
you can go to the public and say this money is in addition
to existing funding. While I realize in life there are no
absolute guarantees, this amendment would hold our feet to
the fire a little more so.
Rep. Jones requested a roll call vote. There
was sufficient support.
Rep. Hinds said while I appreciate the
intent of the amendment, I'm not sure this is the way
forward we should be moving today. One of the challenges
before us is to bolster our economy. I agree with that. We
have seen no shortage of evidence of the need for these
investments. But we must be clear on our role here today and
reflect generally on why we're considering this once again
in this body.
The public has been educated on the exact
amendment we're considering. To make changes at this stage
is against the democratic imperative of making sure the
public is educated on this. If we start making changes here,
we raise legal issues and we should avoid that. I hope for a
no vote.
Rep. Tarr said I hope the amendment is
adopted and for exactly the reason explained by the
gentleman just at the microphone.
We've had month after month of debate on the
amendment now pending. A component of every discussion,
public and private, has been the money generated by this
amendment would be used exclusively for transportation and
education. That's exactly what the North Reading gentleman's
amendment says.
My friend from Pittsfield says we should do
nothing. This particular amendment complements and supports
the discussion we've held. Just as we believe in truth in
advertising, we should also have truth in legislating.
The gentleman's very simple amendment says
exactly what's been said all along in this discussion, that
the revenues generated by the proposal would be used to add
to, not to be supplanted for, the amount of revenue we are
already spending on those things.
How many times have we heard we are going to
have a net gain? A net gain. How many times have we heard
we'll have an increase in net amount of spending for
transportation and education?
Well, we've been educated. The result of the
education is the formulation of this amendment. All left to
do now is approve this amendment and say, we mean what we've
been saying.
By a ROLL CALL VOTE of 40-156, AMENDMENT
REJECTED. Senators voted 6-33; representatives voted 34-123.
State House News Service
Constitutional Convention - Wednesday, June 12, 2019
