 |
Post Office Box 1147
▪
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
48 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
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 |
|
|
|
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
|
