 |
Post Office Box 1147
▪
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
48 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Monday, September 26, 2022
Tax Cap Refund
Appears Safe — For Now
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News
Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
Rep. Mike
Connolly is fighting a lonely battle to tweak the
state’s tax cap so some of the nearly $3 billion due
to go back to Massachusetts taxpayers can be
redirected to benefit low-income people.
“That’s
just good policy,” said the Cambridge uber-progressive.
The tax
cap was put on the ballot in 1986 by the
Massachusetts High Technology Council and
Citizens for Limited Taxation. Approved by 54
percent of voters, the idea was to cap how much tax
revenue the state could take in, with the cap tied
to the growth in wages and salaries.
The tax
cap was triggered in 1987, but only barely. And then
for 35 years it lay dormant, largely forgotten,
until an unusual set of economic circumstances
produced a huge influx of tax revenues this year
that ended up exceeding the cap by $2.94 billion.
Connolly,
who was six when the tax cap passed, says he doesn’t
mind returning excess state cash to taxpayers, but
he believes in spreading some of the money to those
less fortunate. As calculated by the Department of
Revenue, the tax cap would return 13 percent of a
taxpayer’s income tax liability to the state in
2021, which means those who paid the most in taxes
would get the most back.
The
Cambridge Democrat wants to tweak the tax cap to
limit how much the state’s wealthiest taxpayers
would get back, and steer the freed-up money to
those receiving little money back or none at all....
Time is
running short for Connolly, in part because Gov.
Charlie Baker has done some tweaking of the tax cap
law himself. The original drafters of the tax cap
were careful in crafting the law to return excess
tax collections in the form of credits to be applied
to future tax payments. That way the law wouldn’t be
confused with an appropriation, which is not
permitted with a referendum question.
Baker,
however, has turned the credits into refund checks
due to go out to taxpayers in November or early
December. He says he wants to get the checks in the
hands of Massachusetts residents as soon as possible
to help them deal with the financial impacts of
inflation.
While
there was some talk in July among House leaders of
tinkering with the tax cap law, Connolly is the only
lawmaker publicly raising the cry now. He wants the
Legislature to return to formal session to address
the tax cap, which is known as 62F in legislative
parlance. He has asked for a meeting of the House
Progressive Caucus to discuss the issue and hopes
progressives in the Senate will do the same.
“Everyone
should be paying attention to what’s happening with
62F,” he said. “It should really be about good
policy.”
CommonWealth Magazine
Tuesday, September 20, 2022
Cambridge progressive seeks to
tweak the tax cap
By Bruce Mohl
The House
budget chief wants to "get something done in the
shortest period of time possible" to revive an
economic development bill, but he will not commit to
keeping already-approved tax relief measures in the
final legislation as the state prepares to return
billions of dollars to taxpayers via another route.
While
effectively stamping his support on the Baker
administration's plans to ship out $2.94 billion of
checks and direct deposits to taxpayers this fall,
House Ways and Means Committee Chair Aaron
Michlewitz on Tuesday said legislative negotiators
are still in need more time to reach agreement on a
bill they shelved this summer....
"Certainly, the 62F discussion changes things a
little bit in terms of what we can and can't afford,
so we are re-analyzing all of that right now with
that spending discussion," he said. "There's a lot
of important things in both of those bills that we
know are priorities for members. We want to make
sure we get something done in the shortest period of
time possible." ...
After
state tax collections smashed expectations and blew
past the limit allowed under a 1986 voter-approved
law, the Baker administration announced last week it
will return money to taxpayers this fall in
proportion to the amount they paid in income taxes
last year, meaning those with the highest incomes
could expect tens of thousands of dollars back from
state government.
Some of
Michlewitz's Democrat colleagues have called for
prompt action to reshape the law and steer more of
the money to lower-income earners for whom it might
make a bigger difference. The Boston Democrat said
he would rather allow the process to unfold as
expected in the next few months, and then rethink
Chapter 62F for any future instances in which the
tax cap is triggered.
"I
certainly think it's a legitimate gripe of the way
the law has been written in the past," Michlewitz
said about criticism of the formula. "This law has
not been tinkered with in 35 years. We're not in the
process of changing it midstream while this
discussion is happening, but I think it is something
to maybe look toward to the future of trying to make
it a little more equitable and not as regressive as
it is currently. We have to see how the process
plays itself fully out before we do any of that, but
right now, that's certainly something we're going to
look towards maybe in the next session or beyond."
...
A day
after Auditor Suzanne Bump filed a report certifying
the need to return $2.94 billion, Baker's team last
week said it would deploy checks and direct deposits
this fall rather than offer tax credits for next
year's filing cycle.
Michlewitz
said that move is "within the letter of the law,"
even as he described an ongoing "discussion on
whether it was supposed to be tax credits or
checks."
"I think
the administration has felt they have the authority
to be able do that," he said. "We're reviewing that,
but I think at the end of the day, we're going to
move forward with it as is. It is the letter of the
law that this money should go back to the taxpayers,
so we're going to follow suit with that."
State
House News Service
Tuesday, September 20, 2022
House Budget Chief Won’t
Commit To Middle Class Relief
Consensus Not There Between Michlewitz, Rodrigues
Hey,
Charlie Baker, I want my money back – NOW!
You owe me
and the rest of the taxpayers of Massachusetts $2.94
billion, and I believe I can speak for almost all of
us.
What do we
want? OUR MONEY!
When do we
want it? NOW! ...
Gov.
Charlie Baker has vowed to give the $3 billion back
to its rightful owners, as he is required to do
under state law.
The
problem is, he’s dragging his feet. The lame duck
governor who President Biden calls “Charlie Parker”
says the automatic refunds won’t start going out
until … November.
Parker has
his reasons, of course. Theoretically, the state
won’t know exactly how much money is to be returned
until after Oct. 17, which is the date by which all
2021 state income tax returns must be filed.
This delay
of a few weeks wouldn’t be a problem, if we lived in
America. But this is Massachusetts, a banana
republic. Nothing is on the level. The longer the
money is in their hands, the less likely it is we
will ever see any of it.
The
welfare-industrial complex is already talking about
filing lawsuits to stop the money from going back to
its rightful owners. After the election, what’s to
stop the Legislature from repealing Chapter 62F?
Parker
would veto the repeal, of course, but then the
Legislature would override his veto. What’s he going
to do about it? As Sonny McDonough used to say,
“Lame duck is my favorite dish.”
And once
Maura Healey becomes governor in January, what are
the chances we’ll ever get back any of our money?
Parker’s
got to get the checks in the mail before the
hackerama can sue, or while there is at least a
slight possibility that the solons could be defeated
in November if they try to somehow stop the tax
relief, either at the legislative or judicial level.
There’s
another twist here. Referendum Question 1 on the
ballot would establish a graduated income tax in
this state. The hackerama says it’s needed “for the
children” blah-blah-blah....
Five times
the voters have rejected the hacks’
graduated-income-tax grift, but let’s face it, the
Massachusetts electorate has lately been dumbed down
more than somewhat. Look at the Congressional
delegation.
The
Democrats say the state doesn’t have enough money —
a total lie. The so-called rainy-day fund has almost
$7 billion in it. But few pay attention to local
news anymore.
Still, if
the voters were to get a refund of a few hundred or
a few thousand bucks before the election, perhaps
they would realize what a total crock the
“millionaires’ tax” is. In effect, this 62F refund
would be an in-kind political contribution to the
campaign to stop the hacks’ next highway robbery.
If the
checks don’t go out until November, it will be too
late. Early voting begins Oct. 22.
The
Boston Herald
Wednesday, September 21, 2022
Fork over excess taxes NOW!
Before hackerama pulls a grab back
By Howie Carr
The
governor has given state residents a parting gift.
About 3.6
million taxpayers will receive cash back this fall
after state government hauled in taxes last year
that surpassed the legal limit by nearly $3 billion,
the Baker administration announced Friday.
Gov.
Charlie Baker’s team, which oversees the Department
of Revenue, said that overage needs to be returned
to taxpayers under a voter-approved law in the form
of mailed checks or direct deposits, likely starting
in November.
The
administration’s implementation plans were rolled
out late last week after Auditor Suzanne Bump
certified that Massachusetts collected $2.941
billion more in taxes last year than the cap set by
a voter-approved law linking tax and wage growth.
A 1986
ballot question initiated by Citizens for Limited
Taxation and its subsequent law, Chapter 62F,
created an annual state tax revenue growth limit
based on the growth in total wages and salaries of
Massachusetts’ citizens. If the state collects more
than the allowed amount of revenue in any one fiscal
year, the law says that excess must be returned to
taxpayers.
That
late-July revelation’s effect on the state’s $5-plus
billion surplus surprised — even angered — some top
Democratic lawmakers, since it essentially derailed
the Legislature’s own tax relief plan.
But that
$4 billion economic development and tax giveback
bill failed to emerge from negotiations during the
final hours of the formal legislative session, which
likely meant no significant tax benefits would be
forthcoming until next year.
Now, this
little-known and rarely used law will make up for
the Legislature’s well-documented inability to move
decisively on significant matters affecting the
state’s citizens.
Taxpayers
will “automatically” receive these legally-mandated
refunds. To be eligible, they must have filed a 2021
state tax return by Oct. 17, 2022.
The amount
of each refund will be based on how much someone
paid in state personal income taxes in 2021, with
larger checks going to those who paid larger shares
of the taxes collected.
Baker’s
budget office estimated the refunds will total about
13% of what a taxpayer owed to Massachusetts in
personal income tax last year, stressing that figure
could change once it is finalized in late
October....
We agree.
While lawmakers fiddled – failing to reach a
consensus on an overdue economic payback to
taxpayers – the Executive branch of state government
acted decisively.
Call it a
parting gift, and a Republican governor’s parting
shot at a Democrat-dominated Legislature’s inability
to act.
A Lowell
Sun editorial
Thursday, September 22, 2022
Rebate Baker’s way of showing taxpayers respect |
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary |
Bruce Mohl, editor of
CommonWealth Magazine who
first broke the tax cap refund story, reported last Tuesday ("Cambridge progressive seeks to
tweak the tax cap"):
Rep. Mike
Connolly is fighting a lonely battle to tweak the
state’s tax cap so some of the nearly $3 billion due
to go back to Massachusetts taxpayers can be
redirected to benefit low-income people.
“That’s
just good policy,” said the Cambridge uber-progressive.
The tax
cap was put on the ballot in 1986 by the
Massachusetts High Technology Council and Citizens for Limited Taxation. Approved by 54
percent of voters, the idea was to cap how much tax
revenue the state could take in, with the cap tied
to the growth in wages and salaries.
The tax
cap was triggered in 1987, but only barely. And then
for 35 years it lay dormant, largely forgotten,
until an unusual set of economic circumstances
produced a huge influx of tax revenues this year
that ended up exceeding the cap by $2.94 billion.
Connolly,
who was six when the tax cap passed, says he doesn’t
mind returning excess state cash to taxpayers, but
he believes in spreading some of the money to those
less fortunate. As calculated by the Department of
Revenue, the tax cap would return 13 percent of a
taxpayer’s income tax liability to the state in
2021, which means those who paid the most in taxes
would get the most back.
The
Cambridge Democrat wants to tweak the tax cap to
limit how much the state’s wealthiest taxpayers
would get back, and steer the freed-up money to
those receiving little money back or none at all....
Time is
running short for Connolly, in part because Gov.
Charlie Baker has done some tweaking of the tax cap
law himself. The original drafters of the tax cap
were careful in crafting the law to return excess
tax collections in the form of credits to be applied
to future tax payments. That way the law wouldn’t be
confused with an appropriation, which is not
permitted with a referendum question.
Baker,
however, has turned the credits into refund checks
due to go out to taxpayers in November or early
December. He says he wants to get the checks in the
hands of Massachusetts residents as soon as possible
to help them deal with the financial impacts of
inflation.
While
there was some talk in July among House leaders of
tinkering with the tax cap law, Connolly is the only
lawmaker publicly raising the cry now. He wants the
Legislature to return to formal session to address
the tax cap, which is known as 62F in legislative
parlance. He has asked for a meeting of the House
Progressive Caucus to discuss the issue and hopes
progressives in the Senate will do the same.
“Everyone
should be paying attention to what’s happening with
62F,” he said. “It should really be about good
policy.”
As I mentioned in the
last CLT Update, state Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge), along
with Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville), are the only two elected
Massachusetts officials listed as proud members of the
Democratic Socialists of America, so it's not surprising that he'd
be pushing for a Marxist redistribution of a tax REFUND to
some of those who actually paid the over-taxation
— as well as to those who didn't.
There is no indication
that Connolly's redistributionist scheme has much if any traction at
this time — but you're going to need
keep a watchful eye on what happens in January when the next
Legislature opens its session and is sworn in, and going forward.
The State
House News Service on Tuesday reported also on
Tuesday ("House Budget Chief Won’t
Commit To Middle Class Relief
—
Consensus Not There Between Michlewitz, Rodrigues"):
.
. . Some of Michlewitz's
Democrat colleagues have called for prompt action to reshape the
[tax cap] law
and steer more of the money to lower-income earners for whom it
might make a bigger difference. The Boston Democrat said he would
rather allow the process to unfold as expected in the next few
months, and then rethink Chapter 62F for any future instances in
which the tax cap is triggered.
"I certainly think it's a
legitimate gripe of the way the law has been written in the past,"
Michlewitz said about criticism of the formula. "This law has not
been tinkered with in 35 years. We're not in the process of changing
it midstream while this discussion is happening, but I think it is
something to maybe look toward to the future of trying to make it a
little more equitable and not as regressive as it is currently. We
have to see how the process plays itself fully out before we do any
of that, but right now, that's certainly something we're going to
look towards maybe in the next session or beyond."
Recall
how quickly they slammed through their obscene $18 million pay grab
as soon as the then-new legislature was sworn in back in January of
2017. It was going into their pockets less than two weeks
later! When they want something it happens in a flash,
and the earlier they strike the longer voters must remember the
treachery before the pols next stand for re-election.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
CommonWealth
Magazine
Tuesday, September 20, 2022
Cambridge progressive seeks to tweak the tax cap
By Bruce Mohl, CommonWealth editor
Rep. Mike Connolly is fighting a lonely battle to tweak the
state’s tax cap so some of the nearly $3 billion due to go
back to Massachusetts taxpayers can be redirected to benefit
low-income people.
“That’s just good policy,” said the Cambridge uber-progressive.
The tax cap was put on the ballot in 1986 by the
Massachusetts High Technology Council and Citizens for
Limited Taxation. Approved by 54 percent of voters, the
idea was to cap how much tax revenue the state could take
in, with the cap tied to the growth in wages and salaries.
The tax cap was triggered in 1987, but only barely. And then
for 35 years it lay dormant, largely forgotten, until an
unusual set of economic circumstances produced a huge influx
of tax revenues this year that ended up exceeding the cap by
$2.94 billion.
Connolly, who was six when the tax cap passed, says he
doesn’t mind returning excess state cash to taxpayers, but
he believes in spreading some of the money to those less
fortunate. As calculated by the Department of Revenue, the
tax cap would return 13 percent of a taxpayer’s income tax
liability to the state in 2021, which means those who paid
the most in taxes would get the most back.
The Cambridge Democrat wants to tweak the tax cap to limit
how much the state’s wealthiest taxpayers would get back,
and steer the freed-up money to those receiving little money
back or none at all.
It’s a Robin Hood philosophy that appeals to Connolly, whose
campaign website says he was raised in public housing by a
single mother, spent time in foster care, and benefited from
a Head Start program and other social services. He attended
Duke University on a football scholarship and put himself
through Boston College Law School.
Connolly said wealthy Massachusetts residents like Bob
Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, don’t need all
of the extra money they would get back under the tax cap.
“There’s something obscene about it,” he said.
The tax cap was triggered in part because of a tax break
geared toward wealthier residents. State Auditor Suzanne
Bump took note of the tax break in certifying the $2.94
billion figure.
“I would underscore for the Legislature and the public one
key element in the FY22 revenue increase,” Bump said. “The
change in the taxation of so-called pass-through business
entities, which just took effect last year, generated $2.25
billion in revenue, much of which has yet to be claimed in
the form of personal income tax credits and deductions by
the business owners.”
What Bump means is that some wealthy residents will benefit
twice – once under the tax cap by getting back a portion of
the income taxes they paid in 2021, and again by claiming
credits and deductions using the tax break for pass-through
business entities, which is a workaround to a federal law
limiting tax deductions for state and local taxes to
$10,000.
Time is running short for Connolly, in part because Gov.
Charlie Baker has done some tweaking of the tax cap law
himself. The original drafters of the tax cap were careful
in crafting the law to return excess tax collections in the
form of credits to be applied to future tax payments. That
way the law wouldn’t be confused with an appropriation,
which is not permitted with a referendum question.
Baker, however, has turned the credits into refund checks
due to go out to taxpayers in November or early December. He
says he wants to get the checks in the hands of
Massachusetts residents as soon as possible to help them
deal with the financial impacts of inflation.
While there was some talk in July among House leaders of
tinkering with the tax cap law, Connolly is the only
lawmaker publicly raising the cry now. He wants the
Legislature to return to formal session to address the tax
cap, which is known as 62F in legislative parlance. He has
asked for a meeting of the House Progressive Caucus to
discuss the issue and hopes progressives in the Senate will
do the same.
“Everyone should be paying attention to what’s happening
with 62F,” he said. “It should really be about good policy.”
State House News
Service
Tuesday, September 20, 2022
House Budget Chief Won’t Commit To Middle Class Relief
Consensus Not There Between Michlewitz, Rodrigues
By Chris Lisinski
The House budget chief wants to "get something done in the
shortest period of time possible" to revive an economic
development bill, but he will not commit to keeping
already-approved tax relief measures in the final
legislation as the state prepares to return billions of
dollars to taxpayers via another route.
While effectively stamping his support on the Baker
administration's plans to ship out $2.94 billion of checks
and direct deposits to taxpayers this fall, House Ways and
Means Committee Chair Aaron Michlewitz on Tuesday said
legislative negotiators are still in need more time to reach
agreement on a bill they shelved this summer.
It's been nearly two months since Gov. Charlie Baker
announced he expected more than $2.9 billion to be due back
to taxpayers under a law known as Chapter 62F, a revelation
that paralyzed lawmakers at the time and has still left them
in an indecisive state.
Baker projects the Legislature will have more surplus money
to spend than they expected during debate of the economic
development and tax relief bills, even after accounting for
the money that needs to be returned under a law known as
Chapter 62F, yet Michlewitz indicated he is not yet sure of
"what we can and can't afford."
Michlewitz also said that he and Senate Ways and Means
Committee Chair Michael Rodrigues "weren't close enough" to
consensus to spring into rapid action as soon as the dust
settled on the mandatory tax relief.
"Certainly, the 62F discussion changes things a little bit
in terms of what we can and can't afford, so we are
re-analyzing all of that right now with that spending
discussion," he said. "There's a lot of important things in
both of those bills that we know are priorities for members.
We want to make sure we get something done in the shortest
period of time possible."
The House and Senate earlier this summer approved targeted
one-time rebates for middle-income earners in their economic
development bills, calling for $250 checks for single
taxpayers who earned between $38,000 and $100,000 and $500
checks for married joint filers who earned between $38,000
and $150,000. They also passed permanent tax breaks for
renters, seniors, parents and caretakers, which legislative
leaders said would provide relief toward populations in
need, as well as changes to the estate tax.
"It's an option, but it's a little too early in the process
to be more specific about that," Michlewitz said of those
tax breaks and rebates.
Michlewitz was also noncommittal about a timeline,
suggesting that the group still needs more time to grapple
with financial questions nearly two months after the Baker
administration publicly estimated the 62F price tag would be
$2.965 billion -- a figure nearly identical to the final
amount certified by Auditor Suzanne Bump.
After state tax collections smashed expectations and blew
past the limit allowed under a 1986 voter-approved law, the
Baker administration announced last week it will return
money to taxpayers this fall in proportion to the amount
they paid in income taxes last year, meaning those with the
highest incomes could expect tens of thousands of dollars
back from state government.
Some of Michlewitz's Democrat colleagues have called for
prompt action to reshape the law and steer more of the money
to lower-income earners for whom it might make a bigger
difference. The Boston Democrat said he would rather allow
the process to unfold as expected in the next few months,
and then rethink Chapter 62F for any future instances in
which the tax cap is triggered.
"I certainly think it's a legitimate gripe of the way the
law has been written in the past," Michlewitz said about
criticism of the formula. "This law has not been tinkered
with in 35 years. We're not in the process of changing it
midstream while this discussion is happening, but I think it
is something to maybe look toward to the future of trying to
make it a little more equitable and not as regressive as it
is currently. We have to see how the process plays itself
fully out before we do any of that, but right now, that's
certainly something we're going to look towards maybe in the
next session or beyond."
State tax revenues exceeded the cap only once before. In
1987, a year after voters approved the limit via a ballot
question, taxpayers were allowed to claim a share of the
$29.22 million overage in the form of a credit when they
filed their income taxes.
A day after Auditor Suzanne Bump filed a report certifying
the need to return $2.94 billion, Baker's team last week
said it would deploy checks and direct deposits this fall
rather than offer tax credits for next year's filing cycle.
Michlewitz said that move is "within the letter of the law,"
even as he described an ongoing "discussion on whether it
was supposed to be tax credits or checks."
"I think the administration has felt they have the authority
to be able do that," he said. "We're reviewing that, but I
think at the end of the day, we're going to move forward
with it as is. It is the letter of the law that this money
should go back to the taxpayers, so we're going to follow
suit with that."
Baker said his closeout budget bill that partitions $2.94
billion to cover 62F returns also leaves lawmakers about
$1.5 billion in fiscal 2022 surplus tax revenue to allocate,
a bit more than the $1.43 billion cap on surplus spending in
the House's final economic development bill.
Both versions of the economic development bill (H 5034 / S
3030) called for a combination of bond authorizations, which
lawmakers cannot approve in informal sessions, as well as
direct spending split between the state's tax surplus and
American Rescue Plan Act funds. If lawmakers back the bond
funding out of their bills, there's less money available to
finance tax breaks and spending that totaled more than $4
billion.
Legislative rules call for the branches to meet only in
informal sessions, where lawmakers cannot take the roll call
votes necessary for bond authorizations and a single
objection can derail a bill, until the term ends in January.
That dynamic would almost certainly prevent any 62F changes
before the refunds flow this fall.
Michlewitz suggested it remains an open question if top
Democrats will try to call lawmakers back into a rare
lame-duck formal session to consider the economic
development bill, calling it "too early to tell."
"We can't really discuss whether or not we're going to come
back to a full formal session until we have an agreement and
what that agreement will look like and what that agreement
would be," he said. "It's really kind of a little premature
to specifically say that at the moment, but we're committed
to trying to get this economic development bill done, and so
however we have to do that, we will do it. But right now, I
think it's still too early to tell on that."
Not all lawmakers appear convinced that an unusual return to
formal session is on the table.
Revenue Committee Co-chair Sen. Adam Hinds, who earlier on
Tuesday announced he will resign this week to take over as
executive director of the Edward M. Kennedy Institute,
pointed to the lack of major action on the horizon when
describing his rationale for leaving the Senate before his
term ends in January.
"At this point in the two-year legislative term we have no
more formal sessions (which ended for the year on August
1st), no more roll call votes are anticipated, I have
previously announced I was not running for re-election, & we
are past the primaries to identify my successor," Hinds
tweeted.
— Sam Drysdale contributed
reporting.
The Boston
Herald
Wednesday, September 21, 2022
Fork over excess taxes NOW! Before hackerama pulls a grab
back
By Howie Carr
Hey, Charlie Baker, I want my money back – NOW!
You owe me and the rest of the taxpayers of Massachusetts
$2.94 billion, and I believe I can speak for almost all of
us.
What do we want? OUR MONEY!
When do we want it? NOW!
In case you haven’t been paying attention, here’s the story:
Under the provisions of a previously-forgotten state law —
call it Chapter 62F — the commonwealth is drowning in funny
money, more Brandon bucks than it’s ever had before, so now
the hacks must refund some of their ill-gotten gains back to
the Americans it was lifted from.
This is almost $3 billion that by law must be returned to
taxpayers, as opposed to Democrats. Not to “working
families,” as Democrats like to describe nonworking
nonfamilies, but to the people who in fact earned the money
and paid the taxes.
This is $3 billion not to be squandered on the usual
fraudulent nonsense like “environmental justice” communities
or tree equity or transgendered windmills or sustainability
coordinators or diversity advocates or gender-affirmation
conferences.
To use Democrat terminology, this $3 billion is “targeted”
and “earmarked” for Americans who go to work in the morning.
Under Chapter 62F, Massachusetts taxpayers are to be
refunded 13% of the state income taxes they paid for 2021.
The rate is 5%.
Thus, if you had $50,000 in taxable income last year, you
paid $2,500. So now you are due a refund of 13% of $2,500 —
$325. If you made $100,000, you’ll get back $650.
If you earned a million bucks, you get back $6,500. And so
on … .
You can see why the Democrats at the State House are going
crazy. They want their shiftless dead-beat illegal immigrant
constituents to get that $3 billion, in extra handouts, to
spend on tattoos and weed. They look at money the way the
Mob used to — what’s ours is ours and what’s yours is ours.
Gov. Charlie Baker has vowed to give the $3 billion back to
its rightful owners, as he is required to do under state
law.
The problem is, he’s dragging his feet. The lame duck
governor who President Biden calls “Charlie Parker” says the
automatic refunds won’t start going out until … November.
Parker has his reasons, of course. Theoretically, the state
won’t know exactly how much money is to be returned until
after Oct. 17, which is the date by which all 2021 state
income tax returns must be filed.
This delay of a few weeks wouldn’t be a problem, if we lived
in America. But this is Massachusetts, a banana republic.
Nothing is on the level. The longer the money is in their
hands, the less likely it is we will ever see any of it.
The welfare-industrial complex is already talking about
filing lawsuits to stop the money from going back to its
rightful owners. After the election, what’s to stop the
Legislature from repealing Chapter 62F?
Parker would veto the repeal, of course, but then the
Legislature would override his veto. What’s he going to do
about it? As Sonny McDonough used to say, “Lame duck is my
favorite dish.”
And once Maura Healey becomes governor in January, what are
the chances we’ll ever get back any of our money?
Parker’s got to get the checks in the mail before the
hackerama can sue, or while there is at least a slight
possibility that the solons could be defeated in November if
they try to somehow stop the tax relief, either at the
legislative or judicial level.
There’s another twist here. Referendum Question 1 on the
ballot would establish a graduated income tax in this state.
The hackerama says it’s needed “for the children”
blah-blah-blah.
The Democrats claim that the 80% income-tax increase — from
5 to 9% — would only apply to “millionaires.” But once
they’ve abolished the across-the-board flat rate, they can
do whatever they want, and they will. They always do.
Remember 15 days to flatten the curve?
Five times the voters have rejected the hacks’
graduated-income-tax grift, but let’s face it, the
Massachusetts electorate has lately been dumbed down more
than somewhat. Look at the Congressional delegation.
The Democrats say the state doesn’t have enough money — a
total lie. The so-called rainy-day fund has almost $7
billion in it. But few pay attention to local news anymore.
Still, if the voters were to get a refund of a few hundred
or a few thousand bucks before the election, perhaps they
would realize what a total crock the “millionaires’ tax” is.
In effect, this 62F refund would be an in-kind political
contribution to the campaign to stop the hacks’ next highway
robbery.
If the checks don’t go out until November, it will be too
late. Early voting begins Oct. 22.
Charlie Parker has been a feckless and incompetent governor.
If he allows the hackerama to steal the $3 billion that
should be going back to the voters who put him in office, it
will be just one final black mark on his record.
As for all the liberals who are so distraught that the state
might have to give back money it can’t “afford,” there’s
always the option of voluntarily checking the box on the
state income tax form and paying at the old, higher rate.
One last point: most of the $3 billion will be going right
back into the state economy. Think moving vans, as the last
working-class Americans in the commonwealth flee to New
Hampshire or Florida. Three billion dollars — it’s just
severance pay for all of us in Massachusetts who aren’t in a
protected, pampered class.
Charlie, if you can’t tell us exactly what we’re going to
get, please just send us a portion of the money you owe us,
right now. If the Democrats want to sue, so what? Let them
try to “claw back” the refunds later.
We want our money — NOW!
The
Lowell Sun
Thursday, September 22, 2022
A Lowell Sun editorial
Rebate Baker’s way of showing taxpayers respect
The governor has given state residents a parting gift.
About 3.6 million taxpayers will receive cash back this fall
after state government hauled in taxes last year that
surpassed the legal limit by nearly $3 billion, the Baker
administration announced Friday.
Gov. Charlie Baker’s team, which oversees the Department of
Revenue, said that overage needs to be returned to taxpayers
under a voter-approved law in the form of mailed checks or
direct deposits, likely starting in November.
The administration’s implementation plans were rolled out
late last week after Auditor Suzanne Bump certified that
Massachusetts collected $2.941 billion more in taxes last
year than the cap set by a voter-approved law linking tax
and wage growth.
A 1986 ballot question initiated by Citizens for Limited
Taxation and its subsequent law, Chapter 62F, created an
annual state tax revenue growth limit based on the growth in
total wages and salaries of Massachusetts’ citizens. If the
state collects more than the allowed amount of revenue in
any one fiscal year, the law says that excess must be
returned to taxpayers.
That late-July revelation’s effect on the state’s $5-plus
billion surplus surprised — even angered — some top
Democratic lawmakers, since it essentially derailed the
Legislature’s own tax relief plan.
But that $4 billion economic development and tax giveback
bill failed to emerge from negotiations during the final
hours of the formal legislative session, which likely meant
no significant tax benefits would be forthcoming until next
year.
Now, this little-known and rarely used law will make up for
the Legislature’s well-documented inability to move
decisively on significant matters affecting the state’s
citizens.
Taxpayers will “automatically” receive these
legally-mandated refunds. To be eligible, they must have
filed a 2021 state tax return by Oct. 17, 2022.
The amount of each refund will be based on how much someone
paid in state personal income taxes in 2021, with larger
checks going to those who paid larger shares of the taxes
collected.
Baker’s budget office estimated the refunds will total about
13% of what a taxpayer owed to Massachusetts in personal
income tax last year, stressing that figure could change
once it is finalized in late October.
Taxpayers can use an online calculator the Baker
administration launched to get a projection of what to
expect.
Given the state’s flat income tax rate of 5%, someone who
earned $50,000 in taxable income last year with a tax
liability of $2,500 could be in line for a rebate of roughly
$325.
At the top of the scale, an individual who earned $1 million
in taxable income and owed $50,000 in income taxes could see
a rebate of $6,500.
However, the final amount of each check will depend on
various factors, such as whether a taxpayer claimed earned
income credit, senior circuit breaker credit, or dependent
credits on their tax return.
Rebates might also be reduced due to refund intercepts for
unpaid taxes, unpaid child support or other debts, officials
said.
State lawmakers had debated sending middle-income taxpayers
$250 rebates, as well as raising the child care tax credit
and rental deduction cap, among other tax code overhauls.
According to the state’s major retailers’ group, Baker’s
economic booster is just what beleaguered families need.
“This rebate could not come at a better time,” Jon Hurst,
president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts,
told the State House News Service. “Inflation has hurt our
consumers and small businesses, and putting these tax
dollars back in the pockets of the taxpayers will help with
high heating and grocery costs, and will put important and
important dollars back consumer dollars back into our local
economy for the holidays.”
We agree. While lawmakers fiddled – failing to reach a
consensus on an overdue economic payback to taxpayers – the
Executive branch of state government acted decisively.
Call it a parting gift, and a Republican governor’s parting
shot at a Democrat-dominated Legislature’s inability to act. |
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
▪ (781) 639-9709
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
