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


Help save yourself join CLT today!


CLT introduction  and membership  application

What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone

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

Ask your friends to join too

Visit CLT on Facebook

Barbara Anderson's Great Moments

Follow CLT on Twitter

CLT UPDATE
Sunday, October 30, 2022

CLT's $3B Tax Cap Refund Checks Start Going Out On Tuesday!


Jump directly to CLT's Commentary on the News


Most Relevant News Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)

The first checks and direct deposits from a nearly $3 billion pot of excess tax revenue will head back to taxpayers starting on Tuesday when the calendar flips to November, the Baker administration announced Friday.

A spokesperson for the Executive Office of Administration and Finance said money will head out the door under the voter-approved tax cap law known as Chapter 62F, which taxpayers triggered for the first time since 1987 by delivering massive amounts of taxes.

About 3 million taxpayers will receive a refund in the form of a mailed check or a direct deposit worth about 14 percent of what they owed in state personal income tax in 2021, the spokesperson said. The administration plans to distribute the refunds on a rolling basis through Dec. 15. The administration had previously estimated refunds of about 13 percent of income tax liabilities.

Taxpayers who owed state personal income tax last year and already filed their 2021 return are eligible and do not need to take any additional steps to receive their refunds.

The administration published a frequently asked questions page online with a calculator that taxpayers can use to estimate their forthcoming refunds.

The Baker administration previously said taxpayers needed to file a 2021 tax return by Oct. 17, 2022 to be eligible for a 62F refund, but a spokesperson said Friday the administration pushed that deadline until Sept. 15, 2023 -- which is the latest date possible to file a 2021 tax return when accounting for extensions -- to accommodate taxpayers who might not have been aware of the original deadline.

State House News Service
Friday, October 28, 2022
Tax Refunds Will Start To Flow On Tuesday
By Chris Lisinski


Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2022

62F REFUNDS START FLOWING: The Baker administration plans to begin sending out checks and direct deposits to about 3 million taxpayers owed refunds under a 1986 voter-approved tax cap law known as Chapter 62F. Refunds will flow on a rolling basis from Tuesday through Dec. 15, and each qualifying taxpayer will get back about 14 percent of what they owed in state personal income tax in 2021, according to the administration.

Legislative leaders, who were blindsided by the revelation that state government owes nearly $3 billion back to taxpayers and froze their planned economic development and tax relief legislation in response, have not yet touched a Gov. Charlie Baker closeout budget that sets aside money for the mandatory refunds, but the administration has said it does not view that as a necessary prerequisite. (Tuesday)

State House News Service
Friday, October 28, 2022
Advances - Week of Oct. 30, 2022


State officials said they intend to begin sending taxpayers their share of a $3 billion refund when the calendar flips to November on Tuesday, kicking off a roughly six-week process of doling out checks and direct deposits to millions of taxpayers.

Eligible taxpayers will receive their refunds on a rolling, random basis, Governor Charlie Baker’s budget official said late Friday afternoon. Anyone who has filed a 2021 tax return, and incurred a tax liability, will automatically receive a refund by December 15, officials said.

Individual taxpayers also appear due to receive more than initially projected. Sophia Capone, a spokeswoman for Baker’s budget office, said that eligible taxpayers will receive back roughly 14 percent of their personal state income tax liability from tax year 2021.

The Baker administration had previously said in September that taxpayers could get back about 13 percent — itself a jump from the 7 percent it had initially projected in July....

The unprecedented return of taxpayer cash came after a windfall of tax collections triggered a 1986 tax-cap law for just the second time in nearly four decades....

The 1986 law [CLT's Tax Cap], known as Chapter 62F, is intended to limit state tax revenue growth to the growth of total wages and salaries and return any excess to taxpayers. State Auditor Suzanne Bump’s office in mid-September certified that number as $2.94 billion, and Baker’s office the next day estimated that roughly 3.6 million taxpayers stood to receive a payment.

State officials have said that to be eligible, taxpayers must have filed a 2021 state tax return by Oct. 17. State officials said someone’s refund could be reduced if they have unpaid taxes, unpaid child support, or other debts.

Even taxpayers who haven’t yet filed returns for last year could still qualify for a refund, according to the Baker administration.

Individuals who have not yet filed their 2021 tax return, but file by September 15, 2023, could still receive a refund, state officials said Friday. Those taxpayers who are eligible will receive their refund approximately one month after they file.

The Boston Globe
Friday, October 28, 2022
Billions in state tax refunds to start flowing to taxpayers on Tuesday, officials say



The first question on the November ballot asks voters if they favor a proposed constitutional change that would allow a graduated income tax in Massachusetts and impose an additional 4 percent income tax, in addition to the current flat 5 percent one, on taxpayers’ earnings of more than $1 million annually. Language in the change requires that “subject to appropriation, the revenue will go to fund quality public education, affordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation.” ...

While considering the measure in 2019, Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading) offered an amendment that was defeated 34-123 by the House and 6-33 by the Senate. The amendment would have required that the revenue generated by the 4 percent tax be in addition, not in lieu of, the amount of funding for education and transportation that the Legislature already spends on those two areas.

Amendment supporters said this will prevent a “bait and switch” scenario in which $1.9 billion in new revenue from the 4 percent tax is dedicated to transportation and education but then the Legislature takes money out of the money currently spent in those areas and spends it elsewhere. The net result would be that the $1.9 billion would be essentially spent in other areas rather than the two promised ones.

Amendment opponents said the intent of the amendment is clear and there is no evidence that this is a “bait and switch” amendment. They argued that the proposal is on solid ground and that there is no need to add this language....

“The Jones amendment, twice proposed and defeated…during the constitutional amendment debates, was intended to codify proponents’ alleged intent and assurances and hold them to it,” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation which opposed and defeated the last two graduated income tax ballot questions to amend the state constitution in 1976 and 1994. “The amendment would have enshrined in this constitutional amendment what is being blithely asserted by proponents, that all new revenue from the potential surtax on millionaires would supplement rather than supplant existing spending on transportation and education. If anyone needs evidence that this is a 'bait and switch' scam to deceive voters, they need look no further than those two defeats of that one amendment.”

“This amendment that was offered and rejected, would have held accountable the proponent’s claim that this 80 percent income tax hike would be used for the additional spending on education and transportation,” said Paul Craney, spokesperson for the Mass Fiscal Alliance. “It failed because the Legislature cannot be bound by a ballot question for how it spends our tax dollars. If Question 1 is passed, there is absolutely no guarantee this 80 percent income tax hike would be used on additional spending for transportation and education.”

Three key players who support Question 1 did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call to comment on the Jones’ amendment, including Questions 1’s co-sponsors Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) and Rep. Michael O’Day (D-West Boylston), as well as Andrew Farnitano, spokesperson for the “Yes on Question 1” campaign.

Beacon Hill Roll Call
October 24-28, 2022
Behind The Scenes On Question 1
By Bob Katzen


A heated ballot campaign to raise taxes on the wealthy overshadows a ho-hum gubernatorial race. Opponents blast TV airwaves with an ad featuring a fisherman who worries new taxes will hurt small business owners. Proponents of the union-backed initiative tamp down fears with an ad of their own: “Of course some people’s taxes will go up a little, but they can afford it.”

The year was 1994, the last time voters faced a ballot question to change how income taxes are collected in Massachusetts. They resoundingly rejected the measure.

Now some of the same players on both sides are at it again ― from the Massachusetts Teachers Association, on one side, to the Massachusetts High Technology Council, on the other ― locked in a battle over the economic soul of the Commonwealth. Question 1 on the November ballot is billed as an effort to raise more money for education and transportation by increasing taxes on households with an annual income greater than $1 million.

This is the sixth attempt to persuade voters to undo the state’s flat income tax rate. Each previous time — 1962, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1994 — proponents lost in a landslide. While some of the dynamics of the failed 1994 campaign exist today, there are critical differences that would suggest the sixth time might prove to be the charm for proponents.

“We were out-staffed. We were out-advertised. It was a tough situation,” recalled Peter Enrich, an emeritus professor of tax law at Northeastern University who was involved in the 1994 effort and serves as an adviser to today’s Question 1 proponents.

This go-round, backers of the tax measure have raised about $24.8 million, almost exclusively from education unions, while the opposition — bankrolled by the business community and wealthy individuals — has $13.7 million, according to state campaign finance filings....

Jim Braude, who led the alliance that supported the 1994 graduated tax, hails the strategy as “smart.” In particular, Question 1 links higher taxes to funding education and transportation improvements. The 1994 proposal, however, was not intended to raise revenue. As a result, it felt more like an exercise in redistributing wealth by increasing taxes on the top 8 percent of households....

The organizers of Question 1 are also benefiting from a propitious moment in Massachusetts politics: The anti-tax movement lacks high-profile champions.

In 1994, they had two: Barbara Anderson and Bill Weld.

Anderson, the sharp-tongued head of Citizens for Limited Taxation, was in her element. She had led a series of successful ballot questions that reduced taxes, most notably Proposition 2˝ in 1980, which capped property tax increases at 2.5 percent of a community’s total valuation.

By many accounts, Anderson was the state’s most powerful unelected official. Allies dubbed her a “tax-cut tigress,” while foes labeled her a “tax-cut terrorist.” And when it came to defeating the graduated income tax, she took a no-prisoners approach by tapping into a mistrust of government and portraying the initiative as a scheme by liberals and public employee unions to eventually raise taxes on everyone.

“There are three reasons to oppose the grad tax: One, you can’t trust the Legislature; two, it’s bad for the economy; and three, you can’t trust the Legislature,” Anderson told the Globe in May 1994, right after lawmakers voted to put the graduated tax on the ballot.

This time, the opposition doesn’t have Anderson to denounce new taxes at every turn. She died from leukemia in 2016 at age 73.

Anderson’s distaste for taxes was perhaps matched only by Weld’s. At the time, he was running for a second term as governor and cutting taxes was a cornerstone of his campaign. The Republican was a staunch opponent of the graduated tax and railed against it with a memorable one-liner, calling the measure a “Trojan horse.”

“I majored in classics and I think I know a Trojan horse when I see one,” Weld told the Globe, adding that the proposal was “designed to secure the admission of the grad tax within the gate.”

In November 1994, Weld garnered a whopping 71 percent of the vote; his victory margin was similar to the losing margin for the grad tax, with a lopsided 69.6 percent of voters against. By being on the ballot, Weld brought out like-minded constituents and got out the no vote.

Weld, who went on to run for president and is now a lawyer at Mintz Levin, remains fiercely opposed to a graduated tax. He will vote no on Question 1.

“I’m one of those who thinks that once people get the taste of tax increases in their mouths they’re going to want more,” Weld said, “and that’s not fundamentally good policy.”

Weld’s role in defeating the graduated tax decades ago begs the question: Where’s Charlie Baker? ...

The polls indicate Question 1 is on track to win by a modest margin. Neither side predicts a blowout. But one thing is obvious: Organizers of the 1994 campaign have learned from their mistakes. This time, victory might finally be within their reach.

The Boston Globe
Sunday, October 23, 2022
Voters have repeatedly said no to raising taxes on the highest earners.
This time might be different.

By Shirley Leung


The millionaire tax promises funding to education and transportation, but it is teachers who are footing the costs for the political fight to get the constitutional amendment passed.

The amendment imposes a 4 percent surtax on income over $1 million and is expected to raise more than $1 billion annually.

Since the start of the year – and with two weeks of crunch time left to go – the Massachusetts Teachers Association has pumped $10.9 million into Fair Share Massachusetts, which is leading the fight for Question 1. The MTA accounts for more than half of the $20 million raised so far by Fair Share, with most of the rest supplied by the National Education Association – the state union’s national affiliate.

The Massachusetts Teachers Association contributions, including a $6 million donation on September 15, work out to about $95 from each of the union’s 115,000 members....

The MTA is headed by Max Page, an on-leave professor of architecture at UMass Amherst, who served notice at an August 15 meeting of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education that he and the teachers he represents are determined to dismantle the state’s current education system.

In testimony before the board, which was preparing to vote on increasing the MCAS scores needed to graduate, Page indicated he had no interest in an educational system preparing students for the world of work.

“We have a fundamental difference of view of what schools are for,” he said, dressed in a red Fair Share T-shirt. “The focus on income, on college and career readiness, speaks to a system . . . tied to the capitalist class and its needs for profit,” he declared....

“As sure as MCAS scores prove nothing more than the income of the school district and the community, so, too, I can tell you we’ll be back here in the Legislature and the districts for as long as it takes to tear down the system you are perpetuating,” he said.

CommonWealth Magazine
Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Page-led MTA leads fight for Question 1
By Bruce Mohl


It’s easy to spend other people’s money.

Especially when most of the other people are rich and their money would go to struggling sectors of the economy that really need the help.

If voters approve Question 1 on the November ballot, the state’s 5 percent income tax would rise to 9 percent on earnings exceeding $1 million. Revenue from the so-called millionaires tax would be earmarked for education and transportation.

With the wealthy paying “their fair share,” the initiative’s sponsors say in their ballot pitch, “every child can go to a great school. We can fix our roads, expand access to vocational training, and make public colleges more affordable.”

That’s the kind of mom-and-apple-pie stuff that only a heartless mogul (Logan Roy, Mr. Potter) could oppose, right? Of course not....

But the ballot measure is flawed, and voters up and down the income ladder and across the political spectrum have legitimate reasons to balk. That includes people who believe deep down, as I do, that the wealthy should pay more in taxes....

Here’s the vexing thing about Question 1, which is being funded primarily by teachers unions and other labor groups. It’s easy to spend other people’s money, but it’s infinitely harder to deliver the kind of results Question 1 backers are touting.

We should always be skeptical of simple solutions to complicated problems, and that’s what bothers me about the millionaires tax....

Whatever the amount, it would be up to the Legislature to decide how the funds are spent.

As Globe State House reporter Matt Stout explained, even if the money is allocated as intended, lawmakers could shift their existing outlays to other budget items. The net effect could be no change in spending on education and transportation....

The number of one-timers is a rounding error out of the state’s roughly 3.8 million taxpayers, but that’s no consolation if you wind up being one of them. And the ranks will grow each year as more households would rotate through the one-timers club.

They should have been exempted, perhaps by applying the surtax only when annual income exceeds $1 million for two or three consecutive years.

Also unfair: Question 1 penalizes a couple filing jointly with combined income exceeding $1 million. Many other taxes lift the individual cap for joint filers.

But the No campaign’s broadest concern is that a surtax on millionaires would hurt the state’s competitiveness by making it harder to attract and retain employers, and accelerate the ongoing migration of affluent residents to lower-tax locales....

Backers and detractors of Question 1 agree that it would be a watershed moment, ending the one-rate-for-all policy that’s been mandated by the state constitution since Massachusetts enacted an income tax in 1917.

While the millionaires tax isn’t quite the economic threat its opponents fear, neither is it likely to be quite the boon its sponsors trumpet.

That’s why it’s incumbent upon us to be particularly prudent when deciding how to spend other people’s money.

The Boston Globe
Wednesday, October 26, 2022
Hesitation over the flawed ‘millionaires tax’ doesn’t make you a heartless capitalist
There are legitimate concerns about Question 1


One television advertisement touts a proposed surtax on wealthy residents as a cure for the state’s “teacher shortage.” The initiative would mean better roads, another spot says. Nearly every single ad from proponents says it would raise $2 billion a year.

It ultimately may. But should voters embrace Question 1 and create a new 4 percent surtax on annual earnings above $1 million, the decision about where the money ultimately goes — and who benefits — would rest with lawmakers on Beacon Hill, who face no obligation to use the revenue exactly as proponents are pitching.

In interviews and statements, legislative leaders offered few assurances about where they, let alone future legislators, would funnel the proceeds from the so-called millionaires tax, often citing a laundry list of needs or competing interests.

The proposed constitutional amendment would require that the revenue it raises “only” go toward public education and transportation. But it also notes that the money would be “subject to appropriation,” or in other words, up to lawmakers. That, critics contend, leaves no guarantee spending on schools or roads or the MBTA would actually increase because lawmakers could simply shift other, existing revenue elsewhere.

Representative Aaron Michlewitz, the House’s budget chairman, said that if the initiative passes, lawmakers “should be directing money to those items” to fulfill the will of the voters.

“We’ll certainly try to uphold this end of the bargain. But you can never guarantee anything,” said the North End Democrat, who voted to put the question before voters. “You don’t know what the economic outlook will be. It would be disingenuous to say with a 100 percent guarantee [how it would be spent], with the idea that we may have to make decisions to offset other issues.” ...

Still, even in earmarking the revenue for those pockets of education and transportation, the proposal allows for a wide universe of possibilities in categories that already account for billions in annual spending.

Supporters say that could mean dedicating millions of more dollars to the MBTA as it implements dozens of actions required following a federal probe. Hundreds of bridges around the state are in disrepair, they point out. Legislators repeatedly field calls to help cut the cost of college in Massachusetts or make early education more affordable.

But those are options, not commitments. Legislative leaders also declined to say whether they believe the revenue — pitched as helping both education and transportation — should be evenly split, saying the needs from year to year, as well as the actual amount the surtax raises, could dictate the division.

“Let’s get it across the finish line and then see what we actually have,” said Representative James O’Day, a West Boylston Democrat and a lead sponsor of the effort to get the question on the ballot. “We’ll figure out what the proportions are going to be once we sort of see what that number is.”

Leadership of the Fair Share committee includes an array of groups, including the Massachusetts Teachers Association, SEIU 1199, and the Coalition for Social Justice, among others. But the majority of the $18.8 million it had reported raising has come from teachers unions, with the MTA alone giving more than $11 million as of Tuesday morning....

“These dollars have to be spent on education and transportation — and will all be additional dollars over and above funding that is already provided,” said Senator Jason M. Lewis, a Winchester Democrat and a leading sponsor of the measure. “That’s certainly what I will be advocating for.”

Critics paint a different, and more nefarious, picture. The Legislature, they argue, could simply replace the revenue it would have otherwise spent on education and transportation with the money raised by the new tax on high earners, and then push the equivalent elsewhere — all while keeping those spending buckets level.

It’s a point opponents made before the Supreme Judicial Court in unsuccessfully pushing to rewrite how the ballot measure would be summarized for voters.

The committee opposing the measure, funded predominantly by donations from Massachusetts business leaders, has leaned into this argument, casting the question as a politician-led effort to give themselves a “blank check with no accountability.”

“I don’t trust the politicians with my money,” Ann Sullivan, who owns Metro Equipment Corp. in Braintree, says in one ad.

Jim Stergios — executive director of the Pioneer Institute, a right-leaning think tank — likened the proposal to a shell game, with little ability for the public to track where the money goes particularly long into the future.

“A Legislature in 2034 doesn’t really care what the intentions of a Legislature in 2022 are,” he said.

Democratic legislators reject that argument as a red herring, saying the needs of the state’s schools and transportation system have, and will, outstrip resources. “I don’t worry about future legislators ignoring education and transportation,” said Senator Will Brownsberger, a Belmont Democrat....

Legislators also routinely dismissed Republican-led efforts to affix limits on legislative maneuvering in the proposed amendment. Representative Bradley H. Jones, the House minority leader, pushed an amendment in 2019 that sought to ensure any money raised would be in addition to money already being spent. (It was rejected.)

The same day, Senator Bruce E. Tarr, the Senate’s minority leader, proposed creating a new fund where the revenues would automatically be deposited, making it easier, he argued, to track how they’re spent. That, too, was defeated.

“Because it’s subject to appropriation, there’s no guardrail. There’s no standard,” said Jones, a North Reading Republican. “I’ve been around here long enough that I’m sure a lot of private promises have been made. ‘You’ll definitely get some of it. You’ll definitely get some of it.’ And there’s nothing like making $10 billion in promises for $1 billion [in revenue].”

The Boston Globe
Tuesday, October 4, 2022
Millionaires tax proceeds are supposed to bolster education and transportation.
Lawmakers would decide if they actually do.


Let me be blunt: If you have a (real) job in Massachusetts, or if you have owned a home for a while, and you vote yes on Question 1, you are out of your mind.

You will be cutting your own throat.

Question 1 is the referendum to impose a graduated income tax on the state, by constitutional amendment.

It’s nothing more than a smash-and-grab by the local welfare-industrial complex. They call it the “millionaires’ tax,” which it will be until the supply of “millionaires” fails, which should take no more than a couple of years. Then it will be imposed on people making $500,000, then $100,000….

Within five years, everyone in Massachusetts will be a millionaire. At least for income tax purposes....

Despite their unprecedented recent hauls, they still want to rob you of another billion-plus dollars of your hard-earned money. Look how much they’re spending to stuff their greedy pockets through Question 1.

According to the latest state filings, as of yesterday the welfare-industrial complex had raised $25,112,250.51. The billionaires, on the other hand, had barely half that much cash — $13,700,509.04.

As you’ve surely noticed, the hackerama is spending that cash on mailings and television. Talk about misleading – they keep saying that their ill-gotten gains from Question 1 will be spent on education and infrastructure.

Where the hell is the bunco squad when you need them?

First of all, governments can’t segregate funds that way. The hacks admitted as much in front of the Supreme Judicial Court four years ago. Even the tax-crazed Boston Globe has acknowledged that fact.

The Boston Herald
Friday, October 28, 2022
Question 1 requires ‘grown-up decision’
By Howie Carr


Our home in Allston is central to our retirement plans. Our home is finally paid for so when sold the capital gain will exceed $1 million. We are very fortunate, but that subjects us to this tax.

I’m not a millionaire. I’m not even close.

However, a question on this November’s ballot threatens to steal more than my fair share of what my family has worked for. Question 1 would create one of the highest tax hikes in Massachusetts history. It will capture thousands of hard-working families each year and will unfairly punish us at a time when we are counting on our nest egg — the value of our home — the most.

My story is probably not so different from many others. I bought my two-family home in Allston in 1982. Over the past 40 years, I have made countless investments in that home. A new kitchen, a new bathroom, a new heating system. Over the years, I have probably invested more than $200,000 into the property. These are the types of investments that make a house a home. Not a mansion. Nothing excessive. A place to raise a family.

My wife and I currently receive Social Security benefits. I had a long career in public service and my wife had one at MIT. Our home in Allston is central to our retirement plans. Our home is finally paid for so when sold the capital gain will exceed $1 million. We are very fortunate, but that subjects us to this tax.

We are not multimillionaires.

The Boston Globe
Thursday, October 27, 2022
OPINION
Vote no on Question 1:
We are counting on our nest egg — the value of our home — the most

By Paul Berkeley


An illegal immigrant once caught at the southern border faces deportation after he was involved in an accident that killed an elderly pedestrian in Medford in a case that has some saying it’s a Question 4 prime example.

Everton Candido, 19, a native of Brazil, was arrested Sunday, arraigned and bailed Monday and picked up by immigration agents Tuesday in Somerville.

He’s charged with unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle after State Police say he struck 77-year-old Walter Wishoski in Medford just before 7 p.m. Sunday near a Wendy’s. The elderly man was pronounced dead later at the hospital.

“This guy is a poster boy to vote no on Question 4,” a law enforcement source told the Herald.

Question 4 on the Nov. 8 ballot asks voters if they want to overturn the new immigrant license law. That law, passed by the state Legislature over Gov. Charlie Baker’s veto, allows illegal immigrants to use identification issued by their home country to gain a Bay State driver’s license.

Baker has said the troubled Registry of Motor Vehicles is not equipped to handle the workload.

Advocates argue the law — called “Work and Family Mobility” — will make the roads safer by allowing those who must drive to do so legally and with insurance coverage....

The Question 4 vote comes as migrant encounters at the southern border hit records, with 227,000 crossings last month and more than 2.3 million for fiscal year 2022, according to Customs and Border Protection.

The Boston Herald
Saturday, October 29, 2022
Question 4 ‘poster boy’ triggers referendum debate
ICE to deport suspect after pedestrian fatal



Chip Ford's CLT Commentary


CLT's 1986 Tax Cap law is poised to refund $3 Billion of revenue surplus to all taxpayers of Massachusetts starting on Tuesday, the Baker administration announced on Friday.

Following its successful Proposition 2˝ ballot question on the 1980 ballot, which limited municipal tax increases where it was resoundingly approved by the voters, Citizens for Limited Taxation decided another ballot question was necessary to next limit state tax increases.  CLT collected the requisite number of signatures again and rolled out its state Tax Cap ballot question, which was also overwhelmingly approved by the voters.  It was triggered only once before, the following year in 1987 for a marginal refund, but has remained dormant ever since, almost forgotten — until now.

Every taxpayer in the Commonwealth who filed a 2021 state income tax return will receive a refund of 14 percent of what they paid in state income taxes for that tax year, the amount of the refund based on each taxpayer's total tax payment.  That's an increase over the 13 percent last estimated by the Department of Revenue, double the 7 percent initially anticipated.

The Boston Globe reported on Friday ("Billions in state tax refunds to start flowing to taxpayers on Tuesday, officials say"):

State officials said they intend to begin sending taxpayers their share of a $3 billion refund when the calendar flips to November on Tuesday, kicking off a roughly six-week process of doling out checks and direct deposits to millions of taxpayers.

Eligible taxpayers will receive their refunds on a rolling, random basis, Governor Charlie Baker’s budget official said late Friday afternoon. Anyone who has filed a 2021 tax return, and incurred a tax liability, will automatically receive a refund by December 15, officials said.

Individual taxpayers also appear due to receive more than initially projected. Sophia Capone, a spokeswoman for Baker’s budget office, said that eligible taxpayers will receive back roughly 14 percent of their personal state income tax liability from tax year 2021.

The Baker administration had previously said in September that taxpayers could get back about 13 percent — itself a jump from the 7 percent it had initially projected in July....

The unprecedented return of taxpayer cash came after a windfall of tax collections triggered a 1986 tax-cap law for just the second time in nearly four decades....

The 1986 law [CLT's Tax Cap], known as Chapter 62F, is intended to limit state tax revenue growth to the growth of total wages and salaries and return any excess to taxpayers. State Auditor Suzanne Bump’s office in mid-September certified that number as $2.94 billion, and Baker’s office the next day estimated that roughly 3.6 million taxpayers stood to receive a payment.

State officials have said that to be eligible, taxpayers must have filed a 2021 state tax return by Oct. 17. State officials said someone’s refund could be reduced if they have unpaid taxes, unpaid child support, or other debts.

Even taxpayers who haven’t yet filed returns for last year could still qualify for a refund, according to the Baker administration.

Individuals who have not yet filed their 2021 tax return, but file by September 15, 2023, could still receive a refund, state officials said Friday. Those taxpayers who are eligible will receive their refund approximately one month after they file.

Three million Bay State taxpayers can add that to the multi-billions Citizens for Limited Taxation and its members have saved them over its 48-years existence through property tax limitations, the 62% reduction on their auto excise (tax), their rental deduction, CLT's state income tax rollback from 5.85% to 5%, repeal of the 7.5% Dukakis surtax, et cetera, et cetera not to mention what it's saved them through potential tax increases CLT has prevented from being imposed on them and we're talking about real money, lots of it!  I wonder if they'll be appreciative for this windfall?

Another of CLT's accomplishments over the decades has been preventing the replacement of the 1917 flat income tax constitutional amendment with the imposition of a graduated income tax.  Twice, in 1976 and again in 1994.  On November 8 voters will need to make that same decision for the sixth time — because the state and national teachers unions and the usual Gimme Lobby special interests with their hands reaching out for your pockets are back to take yet another shot at it.

The Boston Globe on October 23 reported ("Voters have repeatedly said no to raising taxes on the highest earners. This time might be different"):

A heated ballot campaign to raise taxes on the wealthy overshadows a ho-hum gubernatorial race. Opponents blast TV airwaves with an ad featuring a fisherman who worries new taxes will hurt small business owners. Proponents of the union-backed initiative tamp down fears with an ad of their own: “Of course some people’s taxes will go up a little, but they can afford it.”

The year was 1994, the last time voters faced a ballot question to change how income taxes are collected in Massachusetts. They resoundingly rejected the measure.

Now some of the same players on both sides are at it again ― from the Massachusetts Teachers Association, on one side, to the Massachusetts High Technology Council, on the other ― locked in a battle over the economic soul of the Commonwealth. Question 1 on the November ballot is billed as an effort to raise more money for education and transportation by increasing taxes on households with an annual income greater than $1 million.

This is the sixth attempt to persuade voters to undo the state’s flat income tax rate. Each previous time — 1962, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1994 — proponents lost in a landslide. While some of the dynamics of the failed 1994 campaign exist today, there are critical differences that would suggest the sixth time might prove to be the charm for proponents.

“We were out-staffed. We were out-advertised. It was a tough situation,” recalled Peter Enrich, an emeritus professor of tax law at Northeastern University who was involved in the 1994 effort and serves as an adviser to today’s Question 1 proponents.

This go-round, backers of the tax measure have raised about $24.8 million, almost exclusively from education unions, while the opposition — bankrolled by the business community and wealthy individuals — has $13.7 million, according to state campaign finance filings....

Jim Braude, who led the alliance that supported the 1994 graduated tax, hails the strategy as “smart.” In particular, Question 1 links higher taxes to funding education and transportation improvements. The 1994 proposal, however, was not intended to raise revenue. As a result, it felt more like an exercise in redistributing wealth by increasing taxes on the top 8 percent of households....

The organizers of Question 1 are also benefiting from a propitious moment in Massachusetts politics: The anti-tax movement lacks high-profile champions.

In 1994, they had two: Barbara Anderson and Bill Weld.

Anderson, the sharp-tongued head of Citizens for Limited Taxation, was in her element. She had led a series of successful ballot questions that reduced taxes, most notably Proposition 2˝ in 1980, which capped property tax increases at 2.5 percent of a community’s total valuation.

By many accounts, Anderson was the state’s most powerful unelected official. Allies dubbed her a “tax-cut tigress,” while foes labeled her a “tax-cut terrorist.” And when it came to defeating the graduated income tax, she took a no-prisoners approach by tapping into a mistrust of government and portraying the initiative as a scheme by liberals and public employee unions to eventually raise taxes on everyone.

“There are three reasons to oppose the grad tax: One, you can’t trust the Legislature; two, it’s bad for the economy; and three, you can’t trust the Legislature,” Anderson told the Globe in May 1994, right after lawmakers voted to put the graduated tax on the ballot.

This time, the opposition doesn’t have Anderson to denounce new taxes at every turn.  She died from leukemia in 2016 at age 73.

Anderson’s distaste for taxes was perhaps matched only by Weld’s. At the time, he was running for a second term as governor and cutting taxes was a cornerstone of his campaign. The Republican was a staunch opponent of the graduated tax and railed against it with a memorable one-liner, calling the measure a “Trojan horse.”

“I majored in classics and I think I know a Trojan horse when I see one,” Weld told the Globe, adding that the proposal was “designed to secure the admission of the grad tax within the gate.”

In November 1994, Weld garnered a whopping 71 percent of the vote; his victory margin was similar to the losing margin for the grad tax, with a lopsided 69.6 percent of voters against. By being on the ballot, Weld brought out like-minded constituents and got out the no vote.

Weld, who went on to run for president and is now a lawyer at Mintz Levin, remains fiercely opposed to a graduated tax. He will vote no on Question 1.

“I’m one of those who thinks that once people get the taste of tax increases in their mouths they’re going to want more,” Weld said, “and that’s not fundamentally good policy.”

Weld’s role in defeating the graduated tax decades ago begs the question: Where’s Charlie Baker? ...

The polls indicate Question 1 is on track to win by a modest margin. Neither side predicts a blowout. But one thing is obvious: Organizers of the 1994 campaign have learned from their mistakes. This time, victory might finally be within their reach.

I was surprised and more than a little gratified to see the Globe report had linked to one of the 1994 grad tax debate videos I converted from VCR tape to digital then posted to my YouTube account of Barbara's many media appearances.  Make sure to take a look at it if you want to remember feisty Barbara at her finest battling the last grad tax in 1994. [All those videos are available HERE]

Past attempts to impose a graduated income tax through a constitutional amendment have employed the typical deceptions and sleight-on-hand tactics to trick voters into complying.  The last time, in 1994, it was Questions 6 and 7.  Question 6 would amend the State Constitution to replace the flat tax with a graduated income tax and that would be forever, while Question 7 was the carrot of deception.  Question 7 offered income brackets with varying tax rates for each, suggesting that many would see reductions in taxes while few would see increases but it was merely a statute, a law that could be changed on the slightest whim of the Legislature.  It would have pitted one income bracket against all others, never reaching critical mass for effective resistance, picking off one bracket at a time every time.

Always a deception, and this so-called "millionaires tax" or "Fair Share Amendment" is no different and this is provable.

Beacon Hill Roll Call this week reported ("Behind The Scenes On Question 1" by Bob Katzen):

The first question on the November ballot asks voters if they favor a proposed constitutional change that would allow a graduated income tax in Massachusetts and impose an additional 4 percent income tax, in addition to the current flat 5 percent one, on taxpayers’ earnings of more than $1 million annually. Language in the change requires that “subject to appropriation, the revenue will go to fund quality public education, affordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation.” ...

While considering the measure in 2019, Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading) offered an amendment that was defeated 34-123 by the House and 6-33 by the Senate. The amendment would have required that the revenue generated by the 4 percent tax be in addition, not in lieu of, the amount of funding for education and transportation that the Legislature already spends on those two areas.

Amendment supporters said this will prevent a “bait and switch” scenario in which $1.9 billion in new revenue from the 4 percent tax is dedicated to transportation and education but then the Legislature takes money out of the money currently spent in those areas and spends it elsewhere. The net result would be that the $1.9 billion would be essentially spent in other areas rather than the two promised ones.

Amendment opponents said the intent of the amendment is clear and there is no evidence that this is a “bait and switch” amendment. They argued that the proposal is on solid ground and that there is no need to add this language....

“The Jones amendment, twice proposed and defeated…during the constitutional amendment debates, was intended to codify proponents’ alleged intent and assurances and hold them to it,” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation which opposed and defeated the last two graduated income tax ballot questions to amend the state constitution in 1976 and 1994. “The amendment would have enshrined in this constitutional amendment what is being blithely asserted by proponents, that all new revenue from the potential surtax on millionaires would supplement rather than supplant existing spending on transportation and education. If anyone needs evidence that this is a 'bait and switch' scam to deceive voters, they need look no further than those two defeats of that one amendment.”

“This amendment that was offered and rejected, would have held accountable the proponent’s claim that this 80 percent income tax hike would be used for the additional spending on education and transportation,” said Paul Craney, spokesperson for the Mass Fiscal Alliance. “It failed because the Legislature cannot be bound by a ballot question for how it spends our tax dollars. If Question 1 is passed, there is absolutely no guarantee this 80 percent income tax hike would be used on additional spending for transportation and education.”

Three key players who support Question 1 did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call to comment on the Jones’ amendment, including Questions 1’s co-sponsors Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) and Rep. Michael O’Day (D-West Boylston), as well as Andrew Farnitano, spokesperson for the “Yes on Question 1” campaign.

Boston Herald columnist and WRKO talk show host Howie Carr, never one to mince words, perhaps stated it best in his Friday column ("Question 1 requires ‘grown-up decision’"):

Let me be blunt: If you have a (real) job in Massachusetts, or if you have owned a home for a while, and you vote yes on Question 1, you are out of your mind.

You will be cutting your own throat.

Question 1 is the referendum to impose a graduated income tax on the state, by constitutional amendment.

It’s nothing more than a smash-and-grab by the local welfare-industrial complex. They call it the “millionaires’ tax,” which it will be until the supply of “millionaires” fails, which should take no more than a couple of years. Then it will be imposed on people making $500,000, then $100,000….

Within five years, everyone in Massachusetts will be a millionaire. At least for income tax purposes....

Despite their unprecedented recent hauls, they still want to rob you of another billion-plus dollars of your hard-earned money. Look how much they’re spending to stuff their greedy pockets through Question 1.

According to the latest state filings, as of yesterday the welfare-industrial complex had raised $25,112,250.51. The billionaires, on the other hand, had barely half that much cash — $13,700,509.04.

As you’ve surely noticed, the hackerama is spending that cash on mailings and television. Talk about misleading – they keep saying that their ill-gotten gains from Question 1 will be spent on education and infrastructure.

Where the hell is the bunco squad when you need them?

First of all, governments can’t segregate funds that way. The hacks admitted as much in front of the Supreme Judicial Court four years ago. Even the tax-crazed Boston Globe has acknowledged that fact....

One last quote, from Benjamin Franklin during the American Revolution:

“We must all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

We’re not the Founding Fathers, but we are Massachusetts taxpayers. Why could our parents and grandparents figure this scam out and reject it out of hand, but we can’t?

Vote no on Question 1.


“This guy is a poster boy to vote no on Question 4”

The Boston Herald reported on Saturday ("Question 4 ‘poster boy’ triggers referendum debate ICE to deport suspect after pedestrian fatal"):

An illegal immigrant once caught at the southern border faces deportation after he was involved in an accident that killed an elderly pedestrian in Medford in a case that has some saying it’s a Question 4 prime example.

Everton Candido, 19, a native of Brazil, was arrested Sunday, arraigned and bailed Monday and picked up by immigration agents Tuesday in Somerville.

He’s charged with unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle after State Police say he struck 77-year-old Walter Wishoski in Medford just before 7 p.m. Sunday near a Wendy’s. The elderly man was pronounced dead later at the hospital.

“This guy is a poster boy to vote no on Question 4,” a law enforcement source told the Herald.

Question 4 on the Nov. 8 ballot asks voters if they want to overturn the new immigrant license law. That law, passed by the state Legislature over Gov. Charlie Baker’s veto, allows illegal immigrants to use identification issued by their home country to gain a Bay State driver’s license.

Baker has said the troubled Registry of Motor Vehicles is not equipped to handle the workload.

Advocates argue the law — called “Work and Family Mobility” — will make the roads safer by allowing those who must drive to do so legally and with insurance coverage....

The Question 4 vote comes as migrant encounters at the southern border hit records, with 227,000 crossings last month and more than 2.3 million for fiscal year 2022, according to Customs and Border Protection.


 

Chip Ford
Executive Director


Full News Reports
(excerpted above)

The Boston Globe
Friday, October 28, 2022
Billions in state tax refunds to start flowing to taxpayers on Tuesday, officials say
By Matt Stout


State officials said they intend to begin sending taxpayers their share of a $3 billion refund when the calendar flips to November on Tuesday, kicking off a roughly six-week process of doling out checks and direct deposits to millions of taxpayers.

Eligible taxpayers will receive their refunds on a rolling, random basis, Governor Charlie Baker’s budget official said late Friday afternoon. Anyone who has filed a 2021 tax return, and incurred a tax liability, will automatically receive a refund by December 15, officials said.

Individual taxpayers also appear due to receive more than initially projected. Sophia Capone, a spokeswoman for Baker’s budget office, said that eligible taxpayers will receive back roughly 14 percent of their personal state income tax liability from tax year 2021.

The Baker administration had previously said in September that taxpayers could get back about 13 percent — itself a jump from the 7 percent it had initially projected in July. Capone said officials updated the estimate to 14 percent once the income tax extension due date passed on Oct. 17.

The refunds themselves will not be sent out in any “predictable order,” such as alphabetically, Capone said.

The unprecedented return of taxpayer cash came after a windfall of tax collections triggered a 1986 tax-cap law for just the second time in nearly four decades. The checks and direct deposits will land in bank accounts at a time when rising inflation has squeezed families and the prospect of other tax relief flowing from Beacon Hill this year remains unclear.

Friday’s announcement also offered a more concrete timeline for when the state would begin distributing refunds. Baker for months has said taxpayers could start seeing them in November, though he and his aides provided little detail of exactly when.

The 1986 law [CLT's Tax Cap], known as Chapter 62F, is intended to limit state tax revenue growth to the growth of total wages and salaries and return any excess to taxpayers. State Auditor Suzanne Bump’s office in mid-September certified that number as $2.94 billion, and Baker’s office the next day estimated that roughly 3.6 million taxpayers stood to receive a payment.

State officials have said that to be eligible, taxpayers must have filed a 2021 state tax return by Oct. 17. State officials said someone’s refund could be reduced if they have unpaid taxes, unpaid child support, or other debts.

Even taxpayers who haven’t yet filed returns for last year could still qualify for a refund, according to the Baker administration.

Individuals who have not yet filed their 2021 tax return, but file by September 15, 2023, could still receive a refund, state officials said Friday. Those taxpayers who are eligible will receive their refund approximately one month after they file.

Baker’s budget office said that refunds issued by direct deposit will be labeled “MASTTAXRFD” in a person’s bank account. Those mailed as a check will “include several sentences on the check” explaining both the law and why the recipient is receiving a refund, state officials said. The state has also posted a calculator online where taxpayers could estimate what they stand to receive.

Some of the state’s highest earners stand to be among those who benefit most. The law stipulates that any credit is applied on a “proportional basis,” meaning the more someone owed in income taxes, the higher the refund they’re due.

Some progressive lawmakers made a push last month to change that, filing legislation that would limit what taxpayers could receive to $6,500 and redistribute any excess someone would have received over that amount equally among other taxpayers. The goal, according to state Representative Mike Connolly, the bill’s lead sponsor, was to address what he called an “unconscionable” disparity between what the state’s top earners and some of its poorest could receive.

But Democratic legislative leaders showed little appetite to change the formula before the money began flowing out.

Senate and House leaders are also still trying to negotiate the details of a separate economic development and tax relief package that stalled at the end of the Legislature’s formal session in July.

Despite little public clarity on when a version of that could emerge, Baker said in a radio appearance Thursday that it could come “sometime in the next couple of weeks,” meaning lawmakers could begin moving it before all 200 seats in the Legislature up for election on Nov 8.



Beacon Hill Roll Call
Volume 47 - Report No. 43
October 24-28, 2022
Behind The Scenes On Question 1
By Bob Katzen


The first question on the November ballot asks voters if they favor a proposed constitutional change that would allow a graduated income tax in Massachusetts and impose an additional 4 percent income tax, in addition to the current flat 5 percent one, on taxpayers’ earnings of more than $1 million annually. Language in the change requires that “subject to appropriation, the revenue will go to fund quality public education, affordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation.”

Supporters say the change will affect only 18,000 extremely wealthy individuals and will generate up to $2 billion annually in additional tax revenue. They argue that using the funds for education and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation will benefit millions of Bay State taxpayers. They note the hike would help lower income families which are now paying a higher share of their income in taxes.

Opponents argue the new tax will result in the loss of 9,500 private sector jobs, $405 million annually in personal disposable income and some millionaires moving out of state. They say that the earmarking of the funds for specific projects is a phony sham and argue all the funds will go into the General Fund and be up for grabs for anything.

While considering the measure in 2019, Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading) offered an amendment that was defeated 34-123 by the House and 6-33 by the Senate. The amendment would have required that the revenue generated by the 4 percent tax be in addition, not in lieu of, the amount of funding for education and transportation that the Legislature already spends on those two areas.

Amendment supporters said this will prevent a “bait and switch” scenario in which $1.9 billion in new revenue from the 4 percent tax is dedicated to transportation and education but then the Legislature takes money out of the money currently spent in those areas and spends it elsewhere. The net result would be that the $1.9 billion would be essentially spent in other areas rather than the two promised ones.

Amendment opponents said the intent of the amendment is clear and there is no evidence that this is a “bait and switch” amendment. They argued that the proposal is on solid ground and that there is no need to add this language.

“Question 1 supporters claim all of the revenues generated through the proposed surtax on income above $1 million will go to education and transportation, but the truth is this funding would be ‘subject to appropriation,' which means the Legislature can spend it any way it wants,” said Jones. “I offered the amending language requiring that any revenues raised be allocated ‘in addition to’ and not ‘in lieu of’ funding that is already being spent in these two areas. Voters have an expectation that Question 1 will provide for increased spending on education and transportation, and my amendment would have offered some degree of certainty that that will actually happen. Without this stipulation, I’m afraid voters are being sold a false bill of goods that could result in a ‘bait and switch’ that provides no net increase in education or transportation spending.”

“The Jones amendment, twice proposed and defeated…during the constitutional amendment debates, was intended to codify proponents’ alleged intent and assurances and hold them to it,” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation which opposed and defeated the last two graduated income tax ballot questions to amend the state constitution in 1976 and 1994. “The amendment would have enshrined in this constitutional amendment what is being blithely asserted by proponents, that all new revenue from the potential surtax on millionaires would supplement rather than supplant existing spending on transportation and education. If anyone needs evidence that this is a 'bait and switch' scam to deceive voters, they need look no further than those two defeats of that one amendment.”

“This amendment that was offered and rejected, would have held accountable the proponent’s claim that this 80 percent income tax hike would be used for the additional spending on education and transportation,” said Paul Craney, spokesperson for the Mass Fiscal Alliance. “It failed because the Legislature cannot be bound by a ballot question for how it spends our tax dollars. If Question 1 is passed, there is absolutely no guarantee this 80 percent income tax hike would be used on additional spending for transportation and education.”

Three key players who support Question 1 did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call to comment on the Jones’ amendment, including Questions 1’s co-sponsors Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) and Rep. Michael O’Day (D-West Boylston), as well as Andrew Farnitano, spokesperson for the “Yes on Question 1” campaign.


The Boston Globe
Sunday, October 23, 2022
Voters have repeatedly said no to raising taxes on the highest earners.
This time might be different.
By Shirley Leung, Globe Business Columnist


A heated ballot campaign to raise taxes on the wealthy overshadows a ho-hum gubernatorial race. Opponents blast TV airwaves with an ad featuring a fisherman who worries new taxes will hurt small business owners. Proponents of the union-backed initiative tamp down fears with an ad of their own: “Of course some people’s taxes will go up a little, but they can afford it.”

The year was 1994, the last time voters faced a ballot question to change how income taxes are collected in Massachusetts. They resoundingly rejected the measure.

Now some of the same players on both sides are at it again ― from the Massachusetts Teachers Association, on one side, to the Massachusetts High Technology Council, on the other ― locked in a battle over the economic soul of the Commonwealth. Question 1 on the November ballot is billed as an effort to raise more money for education and transportation by increasing taxes on households with an annual income greater than $1 million.

This is the sixth attempt to persuade voters to undo the state’s flat income tax rate. Each previous time — 1962, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1994 — proponents lost in a landslide. While some of the dynamics of the failed 1994 campaign exist today, there are critical differences that would suggest the sixth time might prove to be the charm for proponents.

“We were out-staffed. We were out-advertised. It was a tough situation,” recalled Peter Enrich, an emeritus professor of tax law at Northeastern University who was involved in the 1994 effort and serves as an adviser to today’s Question 1 proponents.

This go-round, backers of the tax measure have raised about $24.8 million, almost exclusively from education unions, while the opposition — bankrolled by the business community and wealthy individuals — has $13.7 million, according to state campaign finance filings.

In 1994, opponents outspent proponents by a 3-to-1 ratio. .

It also doesn’t take a political genius to seize on a fatal flaw of the 1994 campaign: asking voters to support a two-part ballot initiative on an issue as complicated and controversial as taxes. Question 6 would have amended the state Constitution to adopt graduated rates, while Question 7 would have set new personal income tax rates.

Proponents figured they had a strong case to justify such an elaborate strategy: The measure would represent a tax cut for 92 percent of taxpayers. Early polls showed support for the “grad tax,” but the more voters heard about it, the more confused they became. The last poll, released days before the November 1994 election, showed the initiative was on track to lose.

“One of the general lessons that I think people have learned about ballot questions over the years is that complexity is a real hurdle,” Enrich said. “Given what general attitudes were in the ‘90s, we were trying to do too much.”

Today, voters only have to answer a single question about a constitutional amendment, and it’s been distilled to a simple concept: increase taxes on people who make more than $1 million a year. This would affect roughly 26,000 households — or less than 1 percent of taxpayers ― by adding a 4 percent surcharge to income over $1 million.

Jim Braude, who led the alliance that supported the 1994 graduated tax, hails the strategy as “smart.” In particular, Question 1 links higher taxes to funding education and transportation improvements. The 1994 proposal, however, was not intended to raise revenue. As a result, it felt more like an exercise in redistributing wealth by increasing taxes on the top 8 percent of households.

“You’re not endorsing an abstract concept. You’re endorsing something very concrete,” said Braude, who is now a popular radio and TV host on WGBH. “The question itself is constructed in a way that is far more appealing and far less scary to voters than anything that’s been done before, including my effort in ‘94. They really did it brilliantly.”

The organizers of Question 1 are also benefiting from a propitious moment in Massachusetts politics: The anti-tax movement lacks high-profile champions.

In 1994, they had two: Barbara Anderson and Bill Weld.

Anderson, the sharp-tongued head of Citizens for Limited Taxation, was in her element. She had led a series of successful ballot questions that reduced taxes, most notably Proposition 2˝ in 1980, which capped property tax increases at 2.5 percent of a community’s total valuation.

By many accounts, Anderson was the state’s most powerful unelected official. Allies dubbed her a “tax-cut tigress,” while foes labeled her a “tax-cut terrorist.” And when it came to defeating the graduated income tax, she took a no-prisoners approach by tapping into a mistrust of government and portraying the initiative as a scheme by liberals and public employee unions to eventually raise taxes on everyone.

“There are three reasons to oppose the grad tax: One, you can’t trust the Legislature; two, it’s bad for the economy; and three, you can’t trust the Legislature,” Anderson told the Globe in May 1994, right after lawmakers voted to put the graduated tax on the ballot.

This time, the opposition doesn’t have Anderson to denounce new taxes at every turn. She died from leukemia in 2016 at age 73.

Anderson’s distaste for taxes was perhaps matched only by Weld’s. At the time, he was running for a second term as governor and cutting taxes was a cornerstone of his campaign. The Republican was a staunch opponent of the graduated tax and railed against it with a memorable one-liner, calling the measure a “Trojan horse.”

“I majored in classics and I think I know a Trojan horse when I see one,” Weld told the Globe, adding that the proposal was “designed to secure the admission of the grad tax within the gate.”

In November 1994, Weld garnered a whopping 71 percent of the vote; his victory margin was similar to the losing margin for the grad tax, with a lopsided 69.6 percent of voters against. By being on the ballot, Weld brought out like-minded constituents and got out the no vote.

Weld, who went on to run for president and is now a lawyer at Mintz Levin, remains fiercely opposed to a graduated tax. He will vote no on Question 1.

“I’m one of those who thinks that once people get the taste of tax increases in their mouths they’re going to want more,” Weld said, “and that’s not fundamentally good policy.”

Weld’s role in defeating the graduated tax decades ago begs the question: Where’s Charlie Baker?

Baker, a Weld protegé who served in his administration, is not running for a third term. That shouldn’t preclude him from taking a stand on the millionaires tax. Still, on Question 1, the closest this Republican governor has come to articulating a position is: “I don’t think we should be raising taxes.”

Meanwhile, Maura Healey, the Democratic attorney general who is running for governor and leading by a wide margin in the polls, has said she supports the surtax.

Question 1 opponents have urged Baker to be more vocal, if not vociferous, about the proposed surtax, so far to no avail.

That frustrates Chris Anderson, president of the Massachusetts High Technology Council, whose group fought to defeat the 1994 graduated tax and is working to derail Question 1.

“If I were governor, I’d be saying, ‘You’d be crazy to vote for this,’ ” Anderson said.

Anderson acknowledged that even some business leaders are reluctant to go public with their opposition to new taxes, out of fear it might hurt their corporate brand and make it difficult to recruit and retain employees who might support the surtax. For Baker, Anderson believes it’s a matter of the governor protecting his legacy.

“Don’t let this be the undoing of everything that you can identify as positive that happened,” Anderson said. “The most important thing that’s happened in the last eight years is that the state’s private economy has strengthened to the point where it’s one of the strongest in the United States of America, and there’s really no rationale to dismantle it.”

In a statement, Jim Conroy, a senior adviser to Baker, made clear that the governor does not like new taxes, especially at a time when the state coffers are awash in extra cash.

“With the Commonwealth having a multibillion-dollar budget surplus and billions in unspent federal aid, Governor Baker has been focused on delivering tax relief and does not support raising taxes on the people of Massachusetts, including through Question 1,” Conroy said.

The polls indicate Question 1 is on track to win by a modest margin. Neither side predicts a blowout. But one thing is obvious: Organizers of the 1994 campaign have learned from their mistakes. This time, victory might finally be within their reach.

Jeremiah Manion of the Globe staff contributed to this report.


CommonWealth Magazine
Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Page-led MTA leads fight for Question 1
By Bruce Mohl, CommonWealth editor


The millionaire tax promises funding to education and transportation, but it is teachers who are footing the costs for the political fight to get the constitutional amendment passed.

The amendment imposes a 4 percent surtax on income over $1 million and is expected to raise more than $1 billion annually.

Since the start of the year – and with two weeks of crunch time left to go – the Massachusetts Teachers Association has pumped $10.9 million into Fair Share Massachusetts, which is leading the fight for Question 1. The MTA accounts for more than half of the $20 million raised so far by Fair Share, with most of the rest supplied by the National Education Association – the state union’s national affiliate.

The Massachusetts Teachers Association contributions, including a $6 million donation on September 15, work out to about $95 from each of the union’s 115,000 members.

The campaign in favor of Question 1 has focused on soaking the “super-rich,” some of whom, including New Balance chief Jim Davis and Paul and Sandy Edgerly, are contributing millions of their own to the opposing side.

The MTA is headed by Max Page, an on-leave professor of architecture at UMass Amherst, who served notice at an August 15 meeting of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education that he and the teachers he represents are determined to dismantle the state’s current education system.

In testimony before the board, which was preparing to vote on increasing the MCAS scores needed to graduate, Page indicated he had no interest in an educational system preparing students for the world of work.

“We have a fundamental difference of view of what schools are for,” he said, dressed in a red Fair Share T-shirt. “The focus on income, on college and career readiness, speaks to a system . . . tied to the capitalist class and its needs for profit,” he declared. “We on the other hand have as a core belief that the purpose of schools must be to nurture thinking, caring, active, and committed adults, parents, community members, activists, citizens.”

He told the board members that true reform of the state’s educational system would require the removal of most of them.

“As sure as MCAS scores prove nothing more than the income of the school district and the community, so, too, I can tell you we’ll be back here in the Legislature and the districts for as long as it takes to tear down the system you are perpetuating,” he said.


The Boston Globe
Wednesday, October 26, 2022
Hesitation over the flawed ‘millionaires tax’ doesn’t make you a heartless capitalist
There are legitimate concerns about Question 1 —
even for voters who believe the wealthy should pay more in taxes.
By Larry Edelman, Globe Columnist


It’s easy to spend other people’s money.

Especially when most of the other people are rich and their money would go to struggling sectors of the economy that really need the help.

If voters approve Question 1 on the November ballot, the state’s 5 percent income tax would rise to 9 percent on earnings exceeding $1 million. Revenue from the so-called millionaires tax would be earmarked for education and transportation.

With the wealthy paying “their fair share,” the initiative’s sponsors say in their ballot pitch, “every child can go to a great school. We can fix our roads, expand access to vocational training, and make public colleges more affordable.”

That’s the kind of mom-and-apple-pie stuff that only a heartless mogul (Logan Roy, Mr. Potter) could oppose, right? Of course not.

It’s true that the “No on Question 1″ campaign has been financed in good part by moguls and their business groups — a cohort that in this state skews strongly against tax increases, even as many members lean progressive on social issues.

And it’s true many of them would be among the less than 1 percent of taxpayers — maybe 20,000 or 25,000 — who earn enough to pay the surtax.

But the ballot measure is flawed, and voters up and down the income ladder and across the political spectrum have legitimate reasons to balk. That includes people who believe deep down, as I do, that the wealthy should pay more in taxes.

At its core, the millionaires tax is a bet of somewhere between $1.2 billion to $2 billion a year on the proposition that better schools and transportation will not only lower obstacles to expanding our knowledge-based economy, but also expand opportunities for lower- and middle-income families.

Here’s the vexing thing about Question 1, which is being funded primarily by teachers unions and other labor groups. It’s easy to spend other people’s money, but it’s infinitely harder to deliver the kind of results Question 1 backers are touting.

We should always be skeptical of simple solutions to complicated problems, and that’s what bothers me about the millionaires tax.

Just take 4 cents on every dollar of income topping $1 million, supporters claim, and our schools will be great, traffic won’t suck, and working families will be better off.

If only.

Lots of money alone rarely solves hard problems.

Studies show that smart investments in schools can boost student outcomes. But our state has pumped too many billions of dollars into urban schools with too little to show for it.

Transportation spending is more problematic; there isn’t much evidence that it can appreciably drive economic growth. See: the MBTA.

Without smart planning and effective execution, the new funding could easily go to waste.

Proponents say the surtax would raise “$2 billion a year, every year,” like it was a guarantee.

But tax revenue, especially from the sale of investments and property, fluctuates along with the economy. Moreover, the windfall likely would be substantially less due to tax avoidance strategies and wealthy residents moving out of state.

The Executive Office of Administration and Finance estimates that Question 1 might initially increase tax revenue by $1.2 billion annually, or 2.4 percent of the current state budget.

Whatever the amount, it would be up to the Legislature to decide how the funds are spent.

As Globe State House reporter Matt Stout explained, even if the money is allocated as intended, lawmakers could shift their existing outlays to other budget items. The net effect could be no change in spending on education and transportation.

And often overlooked: Question 1 doesn’t address other festering problems that contribute to the persistence of economic inequality. These include soaring housing costs and the lack of affordable options for low- and middle-income families, high energy prices, and climate change. They aren’t going away.

The “No on Question 1″ campaign has been rightly criticized for scare-mongering. And there is no getting around that some people in the business world think their pockets are about to get picked to fund programs and projects that would benefit unions.

But it has nonetheless enhanced the public debate by making a stink about the unfairness of what the Yes side calls “The Fair Share Amendment.”

It has highlighted the potential impact on “one-time millionaires” ― people whose annual income tops $1 million once when they sell a business or a home that has appreciated significantly in price, or have taken a big retirement account withdrawal.

As my colleague Shirley Leung pointed out, these aren’t people who rake in big money year after year, own homes on Nantucket, or sail their yachts to the Caribbean for vacation.

The number of one-timers is a rounding error out of the state’s roughly 3.8 million taxpayers, but that’s no consolation if you wind up being one of them. And the ranks will grow each year as more households would rotate through the one-timers club.

They should have been exempted, perhaps by applying the surtax only when annual income exceeds $1 million for two or three consecutive years.

Also unfair: Question 1 penalizes a couple filing jointly with combined income exceeding $1 million. Many other taxes lift the individual cap for joint filers.

But the No campaign’s broadest concern is that a surtax on millionaires would hurt the state’s competitiveness by making it harder to attract and retain employers, and accelerate the ongoing migration of affluent residents to lower-tax locales.

Some business leaders say the tax hike wouldn’t spark an exodus from the state. Massachusetts remains a high-tax, high-cost place to live and work — despite a lot of improvement since the 1980s — and still has an enviable economy.

“I think if we had a high-quality transportation system, and we had a high-quality education system, that brings more people into the workforce,” said Mohamad Ali, a Question 1 supporter and chief executive officer of IDG, the Needham-based technology and data company. ”That will offset people who choose to leave.”

Brian Shortsleeve, cofounder and managing director of investment firm M33 Growth, disagrees. Based in Boston, M33 invests in smaller tech and service companies here and around the country, and Shortsleeve said they are all rethinking where employees can live and work.

“I’m very passionate about Massachusetts, but I think from a competitive standpoint, with the backdrop we have now of a remote work, distributed work. . . we ought to trying to bring them here and retain them, as opposed to drive them away with a massive tax hike,” he said.

Backers and detractors of Question 1 agree that it would be a watershed moment, ending the one-rate-for-all policy that’s been mandated by the state constitution since Massachusetts enacted an income tax in 1917.

While the millionaires tax isn’t quite the economic threat its opponents fear, neither is it likely to be quite the boon its sponsors trumpet.

That’s why it’s incumbent upon us to be particularly prudent when deciding how to spend other people’s money.


The Boston Globe
Tuesday, October 4, 2022
Millionaires tax proceeds are supposed to bolster education and transportation.
Lawmakers would decide if they actually do.
By Matt Stout


One television advertisement touts a proposed surtax on wealthy residents as a cure for the state’s “teacher shortage.” The initiative would mean better roads, another spot says. Nearly every single ad from proponents says it would raise $2 billion a year.

It ultimately may. But should voters embrace Question 1 and create a new 4 percent surtax on annual earnings above $1 million, the decision about where the money ultimately goes — and who benefits — would rest with lawmakers on Beacon Hill, who face no obligation to use the revenue exactly as proponents are pitching.

In interviews and statements, legislative leaders offered few assurances about where they, let alone future legislators, would funnel the proceeds from the so-called millionaires tax, often citing a laundry list of needs or competing interests.

The proposed constitutional amendment would require that the revenue it raises “only” go toward public education and transportation. But it also notes that the money would be “subject to appropriation,” or in other words, up to lawmakers. That, critics contend, leaves no guarantee spending on schools or roads or the MBTA would actually increase because lawmakers could simply shift other, existing revenue elsewhere.

Representative Aaron Michlewitz, the House’s budget chairman, said that if the initiative passes, lawmakers “should be directing money to those items” to fulfill the will of the voters.

“We’ll certainly try to uphold this end of the bargain. But you can never guarantee anything,” said the North End Democrat, who voted to put the question before voters. “You don’t know what the economic outlook will be. It would be disingenuous to say with a 100 percent guarantee [how it would be spent], with the idea that we may have to make decisions to offset other issues.”

The amendment includes some definition. It would push the revenue raised toward “repair and maintenance” of roads, bridges, and public transportation, which could be read as a prohibition on spending on expansion projects. The revenue could also go toward “affordable public colleges and universities,” indicating that its intent is to help keep the cost of higher education down, and for “quality public education.”

Still, even in earmarking the revenue for those pockets of education and transportation, the proposal allows for a wide universe of possibilities in categories that already account for billions in annual spending.

Supporters say that could mean dedicating millions of more dollars to the MBTA as it implements dozens of actions required following a federal probe. Hundreds of bridges around the state are in disrepair, they point out. Legislators repeatedly field calls to help cut the cost of college in Massachusetts or make early education more affordable.

But those are options, not commitments. Legislative leaders also declined to say whether they believe the revenue — pitched as helping both education and transportation — should be evenly split, saying the needs from year to year, as well as the actual amount the surtax raises, could dictate the division.

“Let’s get it across the finish line and then see what we actually have,” said Representative James O’Day, a West Boylston Democrat and a lead sponsor of the effort to get the question on the ballot. “We’ll figure out what the proportions are going to be once we sort of see what that number is.”

Leadership of the Fair Share committee includes an array of groups, including the Massachusetts Teachers Association, SEIU 1199, and the Coalition for Social Justice, among others. But the majority of the $18.8 million it had reported raising has come from teachers unions, with the MTA alone giving more than $11 million as of Tuesday morning.

The labor group deferred comment to the Fair Share committee, whose leadership has not discussed how the money should be split, said spokesman Steve Crawford.

“We have never had a discussion about individual priorities,” Crawford said.

Spokespeople for House Speaker Ronald Mariano and Senate President Karen E. Spilka said neither Democrat was available for interviews in recent days, and each issued statements supporting the initiative but offering no specific promises for where the money would go. Spilka, an Ashland Democrat, said senators would “turn to the public to listen, learn, and gather feedback” before deciding what education and transportation initiatives would benefit.

“These dollars have to be spent on education and transportation — and will all be additional dollars over and above funding that is already provided,” said Senator Jason M. Lewis, a Winchester Democrat and a leading sponsor of the measure. “That’s certainly what I will be advocating for.”

Critics paint a different, and more nefarious, picture. The Legislature, they argue, could simply replace the revenue it would have otherwise spent on education and transportation with the money raised by the new tax on high earners, and then push the equivalent elsewhere — all while keeping those spending buckets level.

It’s a point opponents made before the Supreme Judicial Court in unsuccessfully pushing to rewrite how the ballot measure would be summarized for voters.

The committee opposing the measure, funded predominantly by donations from Massachusetts business leaders, has leaned into this argument, casting the question as a politician-led effort to give themselves a “blank check with no accountability.”

“I don’t trust the politicians with my money,” Ann Sullivan, who owns Metro Equipment Corp. in Braintree, says in one ad.

Jim Stergios — executive director of the Pioneer Institute, a right-leaning think tank — likened the proposal to a shell game, with little ability for the public to track where the money goes particularly long into the future.

“A Legislature in 2034 doesn’t really care what the intentions of a Legislature in 2022 are,” he said.

Democratic legislators reject that argument as a red herring, saying the needs of the state’s schools and transportation system have, and will, outstrip resources. “I don’t worry about future legislators ignoring education and transportation,” said Senator Will Brownsberger, a Belmont Democrat.

Still, exactly how much money the amendment would raise is a matter of debate. The left-leaning Massachusetts Budget & Policy Center estimates the amendment is likely to generate at least $2 billion annually, but the Executive Office for Administration and Finance — the budget office under Governor Charlie Baker, who has said he personally opposes the tax hike — is less bullish, saying it may generate $1.2 billion “in the near term.” It also said that any revenue “will vary significantly and unpredictably from year to year.”

Tufts’s Center for State Policy Analysis estimates the state would see $1.3 billion in revenue in 2023, but its projection comes with nuance: The state could see $1.8 billion in direct receipts from the amendment, but it will also have to contend for an estimated $500 million loss because of “tax avoidance” or some wealthy taxpayers leaving the state entirely.

A “significant amount” of the new revenue could end up leaking into other areas, according to one brief from the Tufts center, and tracking the revenue — and holding legislators to account — is only made more difficult by the wide breadth of options for where the money could be spent.

“There is this kind of trust question,” said Evan Horowitz, the center’s executive director, “not just in people you vote for today but people you envision [voting for] in the future.”

Legislators also routinely dismissed Republican-led efforts to affix limits on legislative maneuvering in the proposed amendment. Representative Bradley H. Jones, the House minority leader, pushed an amendment in 2019 that sought to ensure any money raised would be in addition to money already being spent. (It was rejected.)

The same day, Senator Bruce E. Tarr, the Senate’s minority leader, proposed creating a new fund where the revenues would automatically be deposited, making it easier, he argued, to track how they’re spent. That, too, was defeated.

“Because it’s subject to appropriation, there’s no guardrail. There’s no standard,” said Jones, a North Reading Republican. “I’ve been around here long enough that I’m sure a lot of private promises have been made. ‘You’ll definitely get some of it. You’ll definitely get some of it.’ And there’s nothing like making $10 billion in promises for $1 billion [in revenue].”


The Boston Herald
Friday, October 28, 2022
Question 1 requires ‘grown-up decision’
By Howie Carr


Let me be blunt: If you have a (real) job in Massachusetts, or if you have owned a home for a while, and you vote yes on Question 1, you are out of your mind.

You will be cutting your own throat.

Question 1 is the referendum to impose a graduated income tax on the state, by constitutional amendment.

It’s nothing more than a smash-and-grab by the local welfare-industrial complex. They call it the “millionaires’ tax,” which it will be until the supply of “millionaires” fails, which should take no more than a couple of years. Then it will be imposed on people making $500,000, then $100,000….

Within five years, everyone in Massachusetts will be a millionaire. At least for income tax purposes.

Question 1 would raise the state income tax rate from 5% to 9%, on incomes of more than $1 million. The problem of course is that the “millionaires” can flee.

Just ask Connecticut. Our neighbors most recently raised taxes on high-income earners in 2015. The next year, the revenue they collected from their 100 top taxpayers dropped by 45%.

You don’t think people move to avoid paying taxes? Consider Tyreek Hill, one of the best wide receivers in the NFL. He was thinking of signing with the New York Jets (who play in New Jersey). Then the Miami Dolphins in the no-income-tax state of Florida stepped up and made Tyreek an offer he couldn’t refuse.

“Those state taxes, man,” he said. “I had to make a grown-up decision.”

He saved $2.7 million by signing with the Dolphins. Lotta people around here gonna be making grown-up decisions too.

There are so many reasons to vote against Question 1. Let’s start with the fact that the hacks don’t even need the money. Beacon Hill is awash with cash, mostly funny money printed by Brandon. The state’s rainy-day fund has never been flusher – almost $7 billion stashed.

Next month, the state must return $3 billion to taxpayers (as opposed to Democrats) in over collections. Needless to say, the Legislature has been balking at returning the money to the American citizens who actually work, preferring that it be lavished instead on their fellow Democrats, undocumented or otherwise.

Despite their unprecedented recent hauls, they still want to rob you of another billion-plus dollars of your hard-earned money. Look how much they’re spending to stuff their greedy pockets through Question 1.

According to the latest state filings, as of yesterday the welfare-industrial complex had raised $25,112,250.51. The billionaires, on the other hand, had barely half that much cash — $13,700,509.04.

As you’ve surely noticed, the hackerama is spending that cash on mailings and television. Talk about misleading – they keep saying that their ill-gotten gains from Question 1 will be spent on education and infrastructure.

Where the hell is the bunco squad when you need them?

First of all, governments can’t segregate funds that way. The hacks admitted as much in front of the Supreme Judicial Court four years ago. Even the tax-crazed Boston Globe has acknowledged that fact.

Even if you could earmark the money, what does “education” mean in Massachusetts? The teachers’ unions are largely responsible for that $25 million kitty – the same unions that shut down the state’s public schools during the Panic, the result of which were a) winter Caribbean vacations for huge numbers of “educators” to brag about on social media, and b) plunging achievement scores for their students on standardized tests.

Now the unions tell us they need still more money… for the children.

Then there’s the infrastructure. The Reason Foundation puts out a study every year of how much all 50 states are spending on roads and bridges, and their efficiency.

Massachusetts ranks 43rd in bang for the buck, which is actually an improvement. Along with New York and New Jersey, last year Massachusetts “spent more than $250,000 per lane-mile of highway.”

Five states spent less than $30,000 a mile. (Spoiler alert: all those states have Republican governors, real Republicans as opposed to RINOs.)

Maybe the saddest thing about Question 1 is that this will be the sixth time since 1962 the hacks have taken the graduated income tax to the ballot. Every time the electorate has been smart enough to reject it – until now.

The so-called advocates, though, have concluded that the voters have been sufficiently dumbed down that they can no longer realize that the “millionaires’ tax” is just another bait-and-switch, a grift, a flim-flam.

The problem now is that so few people pay attention, to anything. They’re too distracted by their smartphones to realize that their pockets are being picked.

Still, some vestigial realization seems to linger among the sheeple that a con is being worked on them. You can see it in the social media discussions about whether they will really have to pay – like, say, an Abigail Johnson or a Bob Kraft – when they sell that three-decker or suburban ranch house that their family has owned for 30 years.

The welfare-industrial complex says no problem, sellers can just collect their profits in annual payments of, oh, $200,000 or so over five years – as if that’s remotely realistic.

All these theoretical discussions revolve around one thing – how to make sure somebody else gets screwed while you’re getting free stuff. Threads in these Question 1 chat rooms read like the script from an old heist movie – the gang’s getting ready to knock over a bank, or a casino, or an armored car.

But all the characters are suspicious of each other, worried that when it comes time to divvy up the loot, they’re gonna get screwed.

And you know what? They are. Whatever happens, they’re going to end up stuck with the bill.

You want a heist movie? How about Goodfellas? Lufthansa was quite the score, wasn’t it? Then Robert DeNiro started shooting everybody who’d pulled it off – first Stacks the black driver, then Morrie the wig maker, then the guy who bought his wife the pink Cadillac….

First they came for the millionaires….

One last quote, from Benjamin Franklin during the American Revolution:

“We must all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

We’re not the Founding Fathers, but we are Massachusetts taxpayers. Why could our parents and grandparents figure this scam out and reject it out of hand, but we can’t?

Vote no on Question 1.


The Boston Globe
Thursday, October 27, 2022
OPINION
Vote no on Question 1:
We are counting on our nest egg — the value of our home — the most
By Paul Berkeley


Our home in Allston is central to our retirement plans. Our home is finally paid for so when sold the capital gain will exceed $1 million. We are very fortunate, but that subjects us to this tax.

I’m not a millionaire. I’m not even close.

However, a question on this November’s ballot threatens to steal more than my fair share of what my family has worked for. Question 1 would create one of the highest tax hikes in Massachusetts history. It will capture thousands of hard-working families each year and will unfairly punish us at a time when we are counting on our nest egg — the value of our home — the most.

My story is probably not so different from many others. I bought my two-family home in Allston in 1982. Over the past 40 years, I have made countless investments in that home. A new kitchen, a new bathroom, a new heating system. Over the years, I have probably invested more than $200,000 into the property. These are the types of investments that make a house a home. Not a mansion. Nothing excessive. A place to raise a family.

My wife and I currently receive Social Security benefits. I had a long career in public service and my wife had one at MIT. Our home in Allston is central to our retirement plans. Our home is finally paid for so when sold the capital gain will exceed $1 million. We are very fortunate, but that subjects us to this tax.

We are not multimillionaires.

We have spent our entire lives working hard. When our kids were growing up, vacations were day trips. When we bought cars, they were used ones. We could not afford new cars. Any extra money we had went toward college tuition. Loan payments followed us for many years.

Question 1, the “Millionaires Tax,” will hurt my family. It is not a small matter. The proposal would increase income taxes by 80 percent on any additional income over $1 million. This traps people like my wife and me. It robs us of our nest egg after a lifetime of hard work. I want to be sure that my wife and I can retire comfortably. I want to know that I have the resources to deal with any health issues that we may encounter. I want to leave my children with some level of financial security. This surtax would significantly impact our retirement plans and erode the sense of security our home provides.

Proponents of this tax suggest that it’s needed to fund education and transportation initiatives. I believe in both. However, this tax hike is not guaranteed to increase spending in either area, members of the Legislature would need to approve that each year. What’s more, this tax is being proposed at a time when the state treasury is overflowing with funds.

There is a myth attached to Question 1 that suggests that only the uber-wealthy will be impacted. This is not the case. This is a tax that will capture some members of the middle class and disproportionally affect us more. It is a tax that will impact some homeowners and small-business owners. It is a tax that will impact my family. Someday, it might affect other families as well. I urge you to learn the facts and vote no on Question 1.

Paul Berkeley is the past president of the Allston Civic Association.


The Boston Herald
Saturday, October 29, 2022
Question 4 ‘poster boy’ triggers referendum debate
ICE to deport suspect after pedestrian fatal
By Joe Dwinell


An illegal immigrant once caught at the southern border faces deportation after he was involved in an accident that killed an elderly pedestrian in Medford in a case that has some saying it’s a Question 4 prime example.

Everton Candido, 19, a native of Brazil, was arrested Sunday, arraigned and bailed Monday and picked up by immigration agents Tuesday in Somerville.

He’s charged with unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle after State Police say he struck 77-year-old Walter Wishoski in Medford just before 7 p.m. Sunday near a Wendy’s. The elderly man was pronounced dead later at the hospital.

“This guy is a poster boy to vote no on Question 4,” a law enforcement source told the Herald.

Question 4 on the Nov. 8 ballot asks voters if they want to overturn the new immigrant license law. That law, passed by the state Legislature over Gov. Charlie Baker’s veto, allows illegal immigrants to use identification issued by their home country to gain a Bay State driver’s license.

Baker has said the troubled Registry of Motor Vehicles is not equipped to handle the workload.

Advocates argue the law — called “Work and Family Mobility” — will make the roads safer by allowing those who must drive to do so legally and with insurance coverage. That includes some police groups.

The Boston branch of Immigration and Customs Enforcement isn’t addressing Question 4, but they are moving to kick Candido out of the country.

“Regardless of nationality, ICE makes custody determinations on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with U.S. law and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, considering the individual merits and factors of each case,” a spokesman said.

He added: “ICE officers make associated decisions and apply prosecutorial discretion in a responsible manner, informed by their experience as law enforcement professionals and in a way that best protects against the greatest threats to the homeland.”

Candido crossed the southern border illegally near Tecate, Calif., in May 2021, the Herald was told. He was instructed to report to immigration authorities, which he never did.

He last moved to Somerville, a sanctuary city. That’s also where he was let go out of Somerville District Court.

ICE said Candido was granted bail after his arrest “without notification to ICE, therefore immigration authorities were unable to lodge an immigration detainer with the jail or take any immigration enforcement actions prior to his release.”

Wishoski’s sister, Denise Wishoski, said she is not wading into the Question 4 debate, but is mourning the loss of a big brother who was “a simple guy who loved to walk everywhere.

“Everybody loved him,” she added Friday of the Malden man. “He was a staff sergeant in the Army National Guard and then became a bartender. He was a big Red Sox fan and liked to watch old TV shows, like ‘Gunsmoke’ and “Bonanza.’ I can’t believe he got hit out there like a dog.”

Denise Wishoski said she doesn’t want to “fuel the fire” over immigrants being allowed to obtain a driver’s license, but she did say the talk should be about “becoming a citizen.” As for her brother, “he was a good guy” and that’s how she wants him remembered.

The Question 4 vote comes as migrant encounters at the southern border hit records, with 227,000 crossings last month and more than 2.3 million for fiscal year 2022, according to Customs and Border Protection.



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