 |
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, November 6, 2022
Appreciation of
Barbara Anderson and CLT as Its End Arrives
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News
Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
Call it
Gov. Charlie Baker’s early Thanksgiving Day present
— even though it is not a gift at all.
But when
the State of Taxachusetts is willing to send you
money, take it and run.
The tax
cap was a novel ideal at the time. It was proposed
and pushed by the Citizens for Limited Taxation
in a 1980s referendum drive headed by the late
Barbara Anderson and Chip Ford, both CLT
anti-tax leaders....
The tax
cap law in the parlance of state government is
called Chapter 62F of the General Laws.
But it
should be called the Anderson Act because it was a
dedicated and untiring Barbara Anderson who brought
it about. She spent years lobbying for taxpayers at
the State House.
And when
the Legislature would not approve the tax cap
concept, she went to the public and got it on the
ballot and won. She did more to help the
Massachusetts taxpayer than any politician around.
She showed
that even under a growing statist society, it was
still possible — although rare — for average
citizens to take on big government by banding
together to work for the common good.
She died
in 2016 at age 73.
However,
were she alive today, you can bet she would be
campaigning against Question One on Tuesday’s
ballot, which is the so-called millionaire’s tax, a
4% graduated income tax on people earning $1
million.
Anderson
was around long enough to know that the proposed tax
increase on $1 million earners would soon trickle
down to include everybody else. That is the way
stealth government works....
Baker
deserves credit for riding herd on the tax rebate.
The Republican governor stood firm on his insistence
that the money be sent to the taxpayers, despite
opposition from some legislators in the
Democrat-controlled Legislature who had other plans
for the funds.
Cynics
might have pointed out that Baker sending money back
to the taxpayers was simply an election eve ploy to
get votes. But Baker is not on the ballot. His
motive was simply to give the money back to the
people who earned it. So he did.
That was
also Barbara Anderson’s goal. And she did it, too.
The
Boston Herald
Saturday, November 5, 2022
In blue Taxachusetts, refund offers
rare relief
By Peter Lucas
Citizens For Limited Taxation (CLT) is ending with a
historic win. It appears now the $3 billion tax
refund due Massachusetts taxpayers will actually be
paid to us – as the law (Chapter 62F) requires. We,
the people of Massachusetts, created that law by
vote, after a 1986 referendum effort sponsored by
CLT....
Then a
cabal of ultra-left Democrats led by Rep. Connolly
(D-Cambridge) tried to reconfigure the refund –
redistributing more to some, less to others. They
don’t understand: it’s not their money. They have no
right to redistribute or redirect it. The money
belongs to the taxpayers who paid it. The law
requires that it be refunded – that is, returned to
the taxpayers who originally funded it. That’s the
meaning of “re-funded.” (Reasoning must be
elementary when explaining to left-wing
politicians.)...
Fortunately, those obstructionist and redistribution
schemes appear to be dead-ended – for now. But
beware when the legislature reconvenes. In this
one-party state, we can expect renewed efforts to
sabotage the Tax Cap law. For those voters planning
to again vote the straight Democrat line, another
reason to reconsider.
The late
taxpayer champion Barbara Anderson led CLT in
1986. She and CLT (aided by the Massachusetts High
Tech Council) were the driving force that secured
voter approval of the refund law. Then, as now, the
opposition came from Democrat leftist politicians. I
still have the editorials I wrote and broadcast in
1986 supporting the referendum, and then in 1987,
criticizing then Gov. Michael Dukakis’ attempt to
maneuver around the law. This year’s refund is 100
times that of 1987’s.
The
commonwealth is swimming in money. As Gov. Baker
noted, this past year, tax revenue grew by over 20%,
on top of the previous year’s 15% increase. And this
year, revenues are running 5% ($450 million) higher
than last year. Chip Ford, CLT executive
director, has aptly observed this isn’t a surplus,
it’s over-taxation. But Democrat politicians are
insatiable. They not only balked at the refund, but
they actually want to raise taxes.
On this
year’s ballot is a graduated income tax proposal –
again. After five defeats, this is the sixth time
that maneuver is being tried. It is pitched, as
usual, as targeting the wealthy. But that’s untrue.
Many not-so-wealthy would also be hit with higher
taxes.
CLT, once
again, and some other civic minded groups have
organized in opposition. We hope the ever-more-taxes
crowd will be rejected again on election day. Vote
‘no’ on Question 1.
But
there is a sad postscript to this tax story. After
this election, CLT is closing down. For over 47
years CLT has fought for the taxpayers and has saved
Mass. citizens uncounted billions in taxes. But
there’s insufficient financial support from these
same citizens to keep the organization going. So,
Citizens for Limited Taxation will pass into
history, and we taxpayers will endure higher taxes
because CLT is no longer here.
The
Boston Herald
Thursday, November 3, 2022
CLT exits scene with tax refund
victory
By Avi Nelson
“The
Department of Revenue will begin sending out refunds
via checks and direct deposits to taxpayers under
Chapter 62F on Tuesday, November 1. These refunds
will be sent out on a rolling basis through December
15. An estimated 3 million taxpayers will receive a
refund of approximately 14% of their 2021
Massachusetts income tax liability,” a spokesperson
for the Executive Office of Administration and
Finance said Friday....
The group
that passed the law back in the 80s hailed the
announcement as a victory, despite the passing of
the law’s original proponent.
“I’m sure
Barbara Anderson is up there looking down on
us with a grin pumping her fist in the heavens,”
Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation, the group behind the law, said
in July when the news was announced Chapter 62F had
been triggered.
The law,
put into place due in large part to the activism of
Anderson, says that if the commonwealth takes more
in taxes than it’s supposed to under a cap
established by the same statute, it must send some
of it back to taxpayers. In 1986, rebates amounted
to just under two dimes. Now, depending on your
income, it could be hundreds or thousands.
The
Boston Herald
Sunday, October 30, 2022
Tax rebates head out
starting Tuesday, here’s how to see how much you get
Former
Gov. Paul Cellucci thanks supporters of
tax-reduction ballot question in 2000 during a
Republican Party election night gathering in Woburn
as Barbara Anderson, from the group Citizens for
Limited Taxation, looks on. (Herald file photo)
If you’re
a taxpayer in Massachusetts, keep an eye on your
bank account or mail box these next few days.
An
amazing, once-in-a-lifetime occurrence is about to
happen.
You are
going to get a kiss in the mail from the Department
of Revenue (DOR) – about 14% of whatever you paid in
state income taxes for 2021.
About
500,000 of these unprecedented refunds should be out
by the end of the week. I wish the DOR had been able
to get the money back to all 3 million of us in the
state who actually work for a living before the
election six days from now, but hey, that’s the
hackerama for you.
The good
news is, if the electorate is paying attention, even
these first half-million or so refunds should
disprove once and for all the lie that is propelling
referendum Question 1 – that the hacks need another
billion-plus in tax money to pay for “education” and
“transportation.”
If ever
there was a reason to vote NO on Question 1, it’s
the fact that the state is now so historically flush
with cash that it is required under law to return
almost $3 billion to the taxpayers.
Get the
word out! Let your neighbors know about the money
that’s coming their way, and why....
Here’s how
this week’s DOR refunds work.
The state
income tax rate is 5%. So if you made $100,000 last
year, you paid $5,000 in taxes to the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts.
So now,
under the formula, you will soon be getting back 14%
of that $5,000 — $700.
If you
made $200,000, you will get back $1,400. And so on.
It’s
important to remember that this isn’t a handout,
which is what Democrats get. It’s not welfare. It’s
a refund, because it’s your money that the state
stole from you and is now being forced to return.
(And God, are the Democrats angry about it!) ...
For those
who haven’t been paying attention, this windfall for
the working classes (and tragedy for Democrats) is
occurring because of the late Barbara Anderson
of Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT). In
1986, her group sponsored its own referendum
question, requiring the return of any
over-collections of tax revenue, based on a
complicated formula.
It was a
big surprise when 62F finally kicked in, and no one
was more surprised than the hacks who are pushing
their graduated-income tax con at the ballot box for
the sixth time since 1962....
Question 1
would give the local hacks billions more for their
own clean school bus rebates.
Anyway,
the check’s in the mail. When you get it, just
remember Barbara Anderson fondly for a moment, and
then explain Question 1 to a low-info voter or two.
Vote No on
Question 1.
The
Boston Herald
Wednesday, November 2, 2022
500,000 refunds coming your way
means Question 1 is a joke!
By Howie Carr
Department
of Revenue tax collectors raked in $2.359 billion
last month, almost $300 million or 14 percent more
than expected but a drop of $85 million or 3.5
percent compared with actual collections in October
2021.
Revenue
Commissioner Geoffrey Snyder said Thursday that DOR
has collected $11.565 billion in tax receipts
through four months of fiscal year 2023. That's $369
million or 3.3 percent more than collections through
the same period of fiscal 2022 and $529 million or
4.8 percent more than what the administration was
expecting to have brought in by this point in the
year....
The
benchmarks are all based on the assumption -- agreed
to by legislative leaders and the Baker
administration -- that fiscal 2023 revenue will
total $39.618 billion. Without an adjustment, that
would be a drop of almost 4 percent from the $41.105
billion that was hauled in during fiscal year 2022,
a year in which state tax revenue surged so high
compared to wage growth that it triggered a
long-forgotten tax relief law.
State
House News Service
Thursday, November 3, 2022
October Tax Revenues Surge Above
Projections
Halloween
is finally here and today taxpayers are in for a
treat. Starting as early as this week, taxpayers are
set to see their bank account get a little bigger.
Thanks to the 1986 voter approved “rebate” law known
as Chapter 62F, which was spearheaded by Citizens
for Limited Taxation (CLT) and the
Massachusetts High Tech Council (MHTC),
taxpayers are expected to see their rebates start to
arrive this week and roll on throughout the month of
November. Taxpayers owe a great deal of gratitude to
CLT and MHTC for their important work in 1986.
MassFiscal partnered with the New England Legal
Foundation, the Goldwater Institute, CLT, MHTC, and
plaintiffs from several pro-taxpayer organizations
to prepare a lawsuit against the state Auditor if
the Auditor stalled the certification of the rebate
law. Luckily, our lawsuit was not needed because the
Auditor followed the law....
“Taxpayers
are in for a treat this Halloween but the tricks are
still lurking around the State House,” stated Paul
Diego Craney, spokesperson for Massachusetts Fiscal
Alliance.
“Governor
Charlie Baker, a Republican, has promised to
dispatch Chapter 62F rebates as soon as possible,
totaling $3 billion dollars. Meanwhile, Democrat
Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen
Spilka cannot seem to agree to a measly $500M in
taxpayer rebates and $500M in tax reform. Then there
is Democratic Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, and many
other ambitious Democratic politicians, who over the
weekend attended a press event in support of
Question 1, which would increase the income tax by
80% on some small businesses, retirees, home sales,
and high-income earners. The contrast couldn’t be
any clearer,” continued Craney.
“Taxpayers
are getting a nice treat with Chapter 62F’s $3
billion in rebates, but they need to watch out for
the tricks at the State House, and with Question 1,
they are lurking around the corner,” concluded
Craney.
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance
Monday, October 31, 2022
Press Release
Taxpayers are in for a Treat
this Halloween but
the Tricks are Still Lurking Around the State House
How is it
that teachers are making gazillionaires John Fish,
Bob Kraft, and Jim Davis look like cheapskates?
For those
keeping score at home, teachers unions ― led by the
Massachusetts Teachers Association and the National
Education Association ― have bankrolled much of the
campaign to pass Question 1, which would increase
taxes on households making more than $1 million
annually. The revenue would be designated for
education and transportation.
The
teachers groups account for an eye-popping $22
million of the more than $26 million raised by
proponents, according to the latest state campaign
filings.
Compare
that with the $13.8 million opponents have generated
through the business community and wealthy
individuals....
Since
2015, the Massachusetts Teachers Association has
been working with a broad coalition of labor unions,
community organizations, and religious groups to get
the surtax on the ballot.
The MTA
has coughed up $13.3 million for the so-called Fair
Share Amendment, while its national counterpart,
NEA, has doled out $7.2 million. Which begs the
question: What do the teachers want?
MTA
President Max Page tells me Question 1 has been a
priority because teachers are tired of living in
wealthy state that doesn’t adequately fund public
education....
Where does
the MTA get all of its money? Page proudly tells me
it comes from the union dues of its 115,000 members
who work in public schools and universities. He
won’t say how much more the teachers are willing to
spend on the ballot question, but they are prepared
to go the distance....
We learned
last time having more money doesn’t always guarantee
a victory but combine that with the force of 115,000
voting teachers, the business leaders who want to
defeat Question 1 have their work cut out for them.
If
Question 1 passes, teachers no doubt will want a
return on their investment. What will that be?
The
Boston Globe
Tuesday, November 1, 2022
How is it that teachers
unions are outspending millionaires on Question 1?
On
Election Day in November 1915, the men of
Massachusetts went to the polls and made two
mistakes. First, they voted overwhelmingly against
extending voting rights to women. Second, they
inserted tax language into the state constitution
that forbade the Legislature from enacting a
graduated income tax. Ever.
The
suffrage vote soon became moot when the 19th
Amendment to the US Constitution overrode state
laws. The tax amendment, though — a century later,
that’s still with us.
As a
result of that misguided amendment, Massachusetts
can’t have what 32 states and the federal government
take for granted: an income tax code that expects
wealthy people to carry a heavier burden. The state
income tax rate (currently 5 percent) is the same
for everyone, regardless of individual
circumstances.
In an
ideal world, Massachusetts would simply get rid of
the flat-tax requirement enshrined in 1915. That
would allow our Legislature to do what most
legislatures do: set and change tax rates and tax
brackets in a fair way, and in response to the
state’s needs and economic conditions.
Question
1, the only constitutional amendment on the November
ballot, does not do that. Instead, it’s a much more
complicated approach to making the income tax
progressive, one that runs the risk of creating
unintended consequences that may be difficult to
undo. Still, for all its faults, Question 1 would
make the income tax better than it is now, and for
that reason the Globe endorses a yes vote on
Question 1....
Opponents,
mainly business groups, fear the higher tax will
make the state less economically competitive,
driving away some employers and scaring others from
coming here in the first place.... Getting rid of
the amendment, if the worst-case warnings of its
opponents come to pass, would require a lengthy
process that can stretch out over four years.
Those are
valid objections — and all the more reason why a
straight-up repeal of the uniformity rule, which
would take the minutiae of tax policy out of the
constitution entirely, would have been
preferable....
It is also
the case that advocates of Yes on Question 1 are
deceiving voters in one respect. Despite their
insistence to the contrary, it is not possible to
guarantee that the money raised by the surcharge
will, in fact, be added atop the existing
transportation and education budgets. There is
nothing to stop legislators from shifting existing
transportation and education funding into other
parts of the budget, then backfilling with the
proceeds of Question 1. The only recourse if the
Legislature fails to spend the money as promised is
political: voters would have to vote out legislators
who don’t heed the voters’ will....
The
reality is that the state has plenty of needs — in
education and transportation, but also other areas —
that the extra money could either pay for directly,
or free space in the budget for through some
legislative sleight of hand. The Commonwealth has a
backlog of bridges that need repair. It has
notoriously high child care costs. It has a housing
affordability crisis. It has a vulnerable coastline
that will need costly protection against rising sea
levels....
As is
often the case with ballot questions, voters on
Question 1 are being asked to choose between two
less-than-optimal choices. Overall, though, a yes
vote would move Massachusetts a step away from the
unfair income tax system created in 1915 and toward
a fairer Commonwealth that’s capable of making the
investments it needs.
A Boston
Globe editorial
Tuesday, November 1, 2022
Yes on Question 1
Several
reasons exist to vote “No,” on Question 1 on
Tuesday’s statewide election ballot, but the best
might be that there’s no assurance extra tax revenue
would even go where it’s supposed to go.
Question 1
is known colloquially as the “Fair Share Amendment,”
or the “millionaire’s tax.” It would change the
Massachusetts Constitution - a risky practice to
undertake by referendum in the first place - by
placing a 9% tax on persons with $1 million or more
in income....
It’s all
too easy for high-wage earners to be looked upon as
the enemy, but this amendment will have its most
devastating effect on the middle class. Question 1
is believed to be the only referendum question in
the nation that calls for a tax increase.
It comes
with giant pitfalls and no guarantee that its stated
purpose will even be honored. The Republican
strongly recommends a “No” vote on Question 1.
A
Springfield Republican editorial
Thursday, November 3, 2022
Question 1 has pitfalls,
no guarantees
The
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance hosted a virtual press
conference with various people of different
political ideologies, parties, and interests to make
their case to the media and the public to vote No on
Question 1 and No on Question 4 ahead of Tuesday’s
Election.
MassFiscal
hosted Chip Ford of the Citizens for
Limited Taxation, and Chris Anderson of
the Massachusetts High Tech Council. Chip and
Chris worked together during the last graduated
income tax ballot question in 1994, and they shared
the warning that applied in 1994 election for next
week’s ballot Question 1.
“What can
be more fair than every taxpayer paying the same
rate – the very definition of fairness?” asked
Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation, which was founded in 1975 to
oppose and defeat the fourth graduated income tax
constitutional amendment on the 1976 ballot, then
led the opposition that defeated the fifth attempt
on the 1994 ballot. “It seems that deception is
often a part of these proposals and this sixth
attempt is no different,” Ford added. “Five times
now, voters have not been fooled and resoundingly
defeated all past assaults on the flat tax. Let’s
defeat it once again and keep the income tax fair
and equal,” said Chip Ford.
“The
Mass. High Tech Council’s mission is to create
and protect conditions that support investment, job
growth, and a strong quality of life for
Massachusetts employers and their employees. This
led us to support retaining the flat tax requirement
in the Massachusetts Constitution in 1994 and
further compels us to oppose Question 1 this year.
The voters were right to say no to the idea of
abandoning our constitutional protection in 1994 and
they should do the same next week. The consequences
of an 80% income tax surcharge on nest egg
retirement investments like the sale of a home, or
on small businesses in Massachusetts will never be a
good idea and would be a reality if Question 1 is
passed. As the voters did in 1994, we hope they say
no next week,” said Chris Anderson.
Mass
Fiscal Alliance
Thursday, November 3, 2022
Press Release
Defenders of MA’s Flat
Tax Remind Voters of
the Lessons of 1994 Ballot Question Fight Before
They Vote on Question 1
Business
groups on either side of the proposed millionaires
tax are making final pitches to undecided voters
with less than two weeks until the election.
Question 1
on the Nov. 8 ballot will ask Massachusetts voters
to amend the state Constitution to set a 4% surtax
on the portion of an individual’s annual income
above $1 million. The money would be earmarked for
education and transportation projects.
On
Wednesday, several business groups opposed to the
ballot question held a live-streamed briefing where
they talked about the potential impact on businesses
from the proposed surtax.
The No on
1 coalition, which includes business groups,
chambers of commerce, hoteliers, developers and tax
watchdog groups, argues that the proposed surtax on
the state’s top earners would be “one of the state’s
highest income tax increases in history,” affecting
tens of thousands of residents and business owners.
They said
it would also impact “pass-through” businesses —
such as limited liability and “S” corporations —
where profits are passed to the owners’ personal tax
filings and business income is taxed at personal
rates, not just millionaires.
“Roughly
80% of our small business members are pass-through
entities,” said Chris Carlozzi, state director of
the Massachusetts chapter of the National Federation
of Independent Business, a member of the coalition.
“And despite what proponents claim, this tax hike
will indeed impact those businesses.”
Jon Hurst,
president of the Retailers Association of
Massachusetts, said the proposed surtax would
discourage entrepreneurship and add to the mounting
financial burden of business owners who are dealing
with rising labor costs, higher unemployment
insurance and health care costs and other economic
pressures.
“I’m
concerned not only with impact of this tax on the
state’s current small businesses, but the future
entrepreneurs and risk-takers,” Hurst said.
The Salem
News
Tuesday, November 1, 2022
Groups spar over impact of
'fair share' tax
Days ahead
of the election, Republican Gov. Charlie Baker is
urging voters to reject a proposed millionaires' tax
after Democratic leaders pulled the plug on his
tax-cut plan.
On
Thursday, Baker and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito sent an
email blast to supporters urging that they "join
them" in voting against Question 1 on Tuesday's
ballot, which asks Massachusetts voters to amend the
state Constitution to set a 4% surtax on the portion
of an individual’s annual income above $1 million.
Baker
called the plan to tax the state's wealthiest a
"misguided" effort that would "impose an immediate
tax hike on tens of thousands of homeowners, small
businesses owners, and retirees." He said there is
no guarantee that the money would be devoted to
transportation and education, as proponents claim.
"In a time
of economic uncertainty and rising prices, taxpayers
should not be asked to give a blank check to Beacon
Hill," Baker said.
Baker has
previously stated his opposition to a millionaires'
tax, but his forceful statement urging voters to
reject Question 1 came less than a day after
Democratic legislative leaders said they were
pulling a buffet of tax cuts he proposed from a $3.7
billion economic development bill.
Baker
accused lawmakers of reneging on a "promise" to pass
the tax cuts, and suggests the state doesn't need
the extra revenue from a millionaires' tax.
"In other
words, Beacon Hill has plenty of money to spend, and
the tax raised by Question 1 is unnecessary," he
said.
The Salem
News
Friday, November 4, 2022
Baker urges voters to reject
millionaires' tax
Lawmakers
sent a large and long-overdue closeout budget and
economic development bill to Gov. Charlie Baker's
desk Thursday, winning support for the scaled-down
measure from Republicans who agreed to the new
spending while lamenting the death of tax relief top
Democrats long promised.
A day
after negotiators announced a resolution to their
months-long impasse, both branches gave final
approval to the nearly $3.8 billion bill that will
deploy money remaining from an enormous tax surplus
on health care needs, affordable housing, MBTA
safety improvements and other needs while also
allowing the comptroller to close the state's books
for fiscal year 2022.
Legislative leaders opted to weave the closeout
components, which typically feature in a standalone
budget bill, into an updated version of the economic
development bill that cleared both branches
unanimously in July.
Any
objection from a single representative or senator
could have halted the progress of the bill (H 5374)
because lawmakers punted the measure into the
election-season stretch of informal sessions, but
the bill sailed through easily over the course of
the day.
The House
accepted the bill with no commentary delivered in
the chamber, and the Senate followed suit after its
top Republican said he was displeased with the
demise of previously approved tax relief measures
but was unwilling to hold up the billions of dollars
of spending designed to support Bay Staters and
employers in need.
"At this
important point, when one member could stop this
process from moving forward, we will not jeopardize
those important priorities," Tarr said in a speech
on the Senate floor. "Too often, we see sometimes
obstruction of someone else's agenda because someone
isn't able to get all of their agenda. This is a
time that requires statespersonship on behalf of all
of us, so we will not stand in the way of helping
all of those that need our help that will be the
beneficiaries of some of the important
appropriations in this bill. But what we will do is
insist on a commitment to this IOU."
The House
and Senate dropped from the bill $500 million in
one-time tax rebates that Democrats had said would
help middle-income families deal with inflation and
rising costs, and authorization for another roughly
$500 million annually in estate tax reforms and
permanent tax breaks for renters, seniors,
caregivers and others.
Democrats
said they opted against keeping those measures due
to "financial uncertainty in the year ahead" and the
costs of nearly $3 billion in checks that started
flowing out to taxpayers this week, as required
under the 1986 voter-approved law setting a cap on
allowable tax revenues. They pledged to return to
the topic of tax relief next year, when a new
governor will be in office....
House
Minority Leader Brad Jones called the lack of tax
reform in the bill after months of negotiations
"disappointing," particularly because both branches
had agreed to the idea unanimously this summer
before Democrats became aware the state owed nearly
$3 billion back to taxpayers under Chapter 62F.
"The 62F
money is great, but it's not permanent," Jones told
the News Service. "People need it with everything
going up across the board and winter and cold
weather coming upon us, but that's not permanent."
...
Baker, who
proposed a similar package of tax relief in January,
did not make clear Thursday whether he would try to
revive any of those measures by returning the bill
with an amendment, saying he needs first to "read it
and talk about it and figure it out."
He voiced
disappointment in the death-for-now of the tax
measures, particularly with revenues continuing to
surge through the first few months of fiscal year
2023.
"I feel
bad for renters, I feel really bad for all those
low-income taxpayers of Massachusetts who don't pay
federal taxes, and there are a lot of people who
have dependent care issues, some of which relate to
the pandemic and some of which are just life," Baker
told reporters after a State House event on
Thursday. "The House and Senate basically reached an
agreement on that, and I'm sorry it didn't make it
through to the finals because with the cost of
everything being what it is right now, that would've
been a real benefit to a lot of those folks going
forward."
"I hope
they come back and do it next year, but that's a
year lost and a year's worth of 6 percent increases
on practically everything that people wouldn't have
gotten the benefit of the tax relief for," he
added....
The
failure to reform the Massachusetts estate tax
particularly stung Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation President Eileen McAnneny, who said the
Bay State is an "outlier" in how it imposes that
levy.
"It's a
missed opportunity and I hope they will revisit this
in the new year," McAnneny said. She added, "A lot
of people care about this."
State
House News Service
Thursday, November 3, 2022
House, Senate Spend
Surplus After Cutting Tax Relief
It was a
warm 60-degree day on Beacon Hill, and under the
Golden Dome senators were engaged in a miniature
debate on taxes and spending. What month is it
again? ...
At the
center of the action was a nearly $3.8 billion
spending package that Democratic leaders brought to
life a couple days after Halloween, stitching
together a long-stalled economic development bill
with a spending bill to close the books on fiscal
2022. They chopped the head off their own tax reform
plans in the process, with some Democrats instead
looking to grab some of the limelight associated
with the automatically-triggered tax relief that's
underway, with checks and direct deposits beginning
to flow on Tuesday....
Some State
House folks call it the "Christmas in July" bill
because of all the money for communities that
individual reps and senators can point to as a proud
accomplishment with direct local impact. And, the
bill would normally have been wrapped up in July.
Now it's
Christmas in July, in November. Should make for some
good campaign stops over the weekend if the subject
is local projects, but the timing is awkward if
constituents want to know about once-promised
reforms to the estate tax, or increases to child tax
credits or the renter's tax deduction cap....
Democratic
leaders have said they were caught offguard when the
state hit its revenue cap under a 1986 law known as
Chapter 62F, to the tune of around $3 billion which
started flowing back to taxpayers this week in the
form of rebate checks.
Under 62F,
those rebates are issued in an amount proportional
with a person's 2021 tax bill, meaning wealthier
taxpayers are seeing heftier checks than low-income
people. They're rebates, not exactly the "relief"
for average citizens that legislative Democrats
proposed earlier this year in their tax plan.
"I feel
bad for renters, I feel really bad for all those
low-income taxpayers of Massachusetts who don't pay
federal taxes, and there are a lot of people who
have dependent care issues, some of which relate to
the pandemic and some of which are just life," Gov.
Charlie Baker said Thursday.
The
narrative seemed a bit different between the House
and Senate on the topic of 62F this week.
Asked what
sort of relief could now flow to lower-income folks,
Mariano responded by saying Chapter 62F was "the
system that the governor chose to use, and we
philosophically raised some questions about this."
On the
Senate floor, Rodrigues trumpeted the fact that the
compromise bill accounted for the $3 billion in
"historic levels of tax relief to over 3 million tax
filers," although that was already underway before
the bill was even filed.
Senate
Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, the lone Republican
senator to attend the session in person, sounded
like he objected at heart -- at least to the
cleaving of tax reforms that were dangled in front
of Bay Staters for months. But in the interest of "statespersonship,"
he said, he wouldn't derail the train for want of
one car.
After the
branches adjourned Thursday, the Department of
Revenue sent out another report of
bulkier-than-expected revenues for the month of
October -- $2.359 billion, which was nearly $300
million over the Baker administration's benchmarks.
State
House News Service
Friday, November 5, 2022
Weekly Roundup - Christmas In
July, In November
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary |
|
Citizens for
Limited Taxation has been recognized by some as the provider
and genesis of what since July became termed "62F"
— an arcane chapter among a
multitude within Massachusetts General Laws. It has
become a sloppy shorthand reference meaning nothing to most
but adopted by many reporters who either don't know or care,
don't remember, or weren't even born yet when it was
commonly known as CLT's Tax Cap refund.
One of the veteran
news reporters who was there in 1986 is Boston Herald
columnist
Peter Lucas, whose column yesterday ("In blue Taxachusetts, refund offers
rare relief") in part noted:
Call it
Gov. Charlie Baker’s early Thanksgiving Day present
— even though it is not a gift at all.
But when
the State of Taxachusetts is willing to send you
money, take it and run.
The tax
cap was a novel ideal at the time. It was proposed
and pushed by the Citizens for Limited Taxation
in a 1980s referendum drive headed by the late Barbara Anderson and
Chip Ford, both CLT
anti-tax leaders....
The tax
cap law in the parlance of state government is
called Chapter 62F of the General Laws.
But it
should be called the Anderson Act because it was a
dedicated and untiring Barbara Anderson who brought
it about. She spent years lobbying for taxpayers at
the State House.
And when
the Legislature would not approve the tax cap
concept, she went to the public and got it on the
ballot and won. She did more to help the
Massachusetts taxpayer than any politician around.
She showed
that even under a growing statist society, it was
still possible — although rare — for average
citizens to take on big government by banding
together to work for the common good.
She died
in 2016 at age 73.
However,
were she alive today, you can bet she would be
campaigning against Question One on Tuesday’s
ballot, which is the so-called millionaire’s tax, a
4% graduated income tax on people earning $1
million.
Anderson
was around long enough to know that the proposed tax
increase on $1 million earners would soon trickle
down to include everybody else. That is the way
stealth government works....
Baker
deserves credit for riding herd on the tax rebate.
The Republican governor stood firm on his insistence
that the money be sent to the taxpayers, despite
opposition from some legislators in the
Democrat-controlled Legislature who had other plans
for the funds.
Cynics
might have pointed out that Baker sending money back
to the taxpayers was simply an election eve ploy to
get votes. But Baker is not on the ballot. His
motive was simply to give the money back to the
people who earned it. So he did.
That was
also Barbara Anderson’s goal. And she did it, too.
Avi Nelson's
Boston Herald Thursday column ("CLT exits scene with tax refund
victory") preceded yesterday's Lucas column. Avi is a regular contributing columnist to The
Boston Herald and for decades has been a familiar
radio and TV talk show host as well as a forever
supporter of CLT. In it he wrote:
Citizens For Limited Taxation (CLT) is ending with a
historic win. It appears now the $3 billion tax
refund due Massachusetts taxpayers will actually be
paid to us – as the law (Chapter 62F) requires. We,
the people of Massachusetts, created that law by
vote, after a 1986 referendum effort sponsored by
CLT....
Then a
cabal of ultra-left Democrats led by Rep. Connolly
(D-Cambridge) tried to reconfigure the refund –
redistributing more to some, less to others. They
don’t understand: it’s not their money. They have no
right to redistribute or redirect it. The money
belongs to the taxpayers who paid it. The law
requires that it be refunded – that is, returned to
the taxpayers who originally funded it. That’s the
meaning of “re-funded.” (Reasoning must be
elementary when explaining to left-wing
politicians.)...
Fortunately, those obstructionist and redistribution
schemes appear to be dead-ended – for now. But
beware when the legislature reconvenes. In this
one-party state, we can expect renewed efforts to
sabotage the Tax Cap law. For those voters planning
to again vote the straight Democrat line, another
reason to reconsider.
The late
taxpayer champion Barbara Anderson led CLT in
1986. She and CLT (aided by the Massachusetts High
Tech Council) were the driving force that secured
voter approval of the refund law. Then, as now, the
opposition came from Democrat leftist politicians. I
still have the editorials I wrote and broadcast in
1986 supporting the referendum, and then in 1987,
criticizing then Gov. Michael Dukakis’ attempt to
maneuver around the law. This year’s refund is 100
times that of 1987’s.
The
commonwealth is swimming in money. As Gov. Baker
noted, this past year, tax revenue grew by over 20%,
on top of the previous year’s 15% increase. And this
year, revenues are running 5% ($450 million) higher
than last year. Chip Ford, CLT executive
director, has aptly observed this isn’t a surplus,
it’s over-taxation. But Democrat politicians are
insatiable. They not only balked at the refund, but
they actually want to raise taxes.
On this
year’s ballot is a graduated income tax proposal –
again. After five defeats, this is the sixth time
that maneuver is being tried. It is pitched, as
usual, as targeting the wealthy. But that’s untrue.
Many not-so-wealthy would also be hit with higher
taxes.
CLT, once
again, and some other civic minded groups have
organized in opposition. We hope the ever-more-taxes
crowd will be rejected again on election day. Vote
‘no’ on Question 1.
But
there is a sad postscript to this tax story. After
this election, CLT is closing down. For over 47
years CLT has fought for the taxpayers and has saved
Mass. citizens uncounted billions in taxes. But
there’s insufficient financial support from these
same citizens to keep the organization going. So,
Citizens for Limited Taxation will pass into
history, and we taxpayers will endure higher taxes
because CLT is no longer here.
Then, of
course, there is Howie Carr, iconic Boston Herald
columnist and syndicated radio talk show host
— who got his talk radio debut
as one of "The Governors" along with Barbara Anderson
on WRKO's Jerry William Show back in the mid-80s
and early-90s.
All three of these columnists were right there
paying attention when CLT's successful Tax Cap petition drive was
undertaken and won on the 1986 ballot after an
exhausting ballot campaign. In his
500,000 refunds coming your way
means Question 1 is a joke! column on Wednesday
Howie wrote:
If you’re
a taxpayer in Massachusetts, keep an eye on your
bank account or mail box these next few days.
An
amazing, once-in-a-lifetime occurrence is about to
happen.
You are
going to get a kiss in the mail from the Department
of Revenue (DOR) – about 14% of whatever you paid in
state income taxes for 2021.
About
500,000 of these unprecedented refunds should be out
by the end of the week. I wish the DOR had been able
to get the money back to all 3 million of us in the
state who actually work for a living before the
election six days from now, but hey, that’s the
hackerama for you.
The good
news is, if the electorate is paying attention, even
these first half-million or so refunds should
disprove once and for all the lie that is propelling
referendum Question 1 – that the hacks need another
billion-plus in tax money to pay for “education” and
“transportation.”
If ever
there was a reason to vote NO on Question 1, it’s
the fact that the state is now so historically flush
with cash that it is required under law to return
almost $3 billion to the taxpayers.
Get the
word out! Let your neighbors know about the money
that’s coming their way, and why....
Here’s how
this week’s DOR refunds work.
The state
income tax rate is 5%. So if you made $100,000 last
year, you paid $5,000 in taxes to the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts.
So now,
under the formula, you will soon be getting back 14%
of that $5,000 — $700.
If you
made $200,000, you will get back $1,400. And so on.
It’s
important to remember that this isn’t a handout,
which is what Democrats get. It’s not welfare. It’s
a refund, because it’s your money that the state
stole from you and is now being forced to return.
(And God, are the Democrats angry about it!) ...
For those
who haven’t been paying attention, this windfall for
the working classes (and tragedy for Democrats) is
occurring because of the late Barbara Anderson
of Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT). In
1986, her group sponsored its own referendum
question, requiring the return of any
over-collections of tax revenue, based on a
complicated formula.
It was a
big surprise when 62F finally kicked in, and no one
was more surprised than the hacks who are pushing
their graduated-income tax con at the ballot box for
the sixth time since 1962....
Question 1
would give the local hacks billions more for their
own clean school bus rebates.
Anyway,
the check’s in the mail. When you get it, just
remember Barbara Anderson fondly for a moment, and
then explain Question 1 to a low-info voter or two.
Vote No on
Question 1.
500,000
refunds reportedly have been sent out over the past
week of the 1.4 million total refunds that should
reach qualified taxpayers within the month ahead.
(Imagine if just 1% of those beneficiaries
had supported CLT — it
wouldn't be shutting down next week!)
Last Sunday The
Boston Herald reported ("Tax rebates head out
starting Tuesday, here’s how to see how much you get"):
“The
Department of Revenue will begin sending out refunds
via checks and direct deposits to taxpayers under
Chapter 62F on Tuesday, November 1. These refunds
will be sent out on a rolling basis through December
15. An estimated 3 million taxpayers will receive a
refund of approximately 14% of their 2021
Massachusetts income tax liability,” a spokesperson
for the Executive Office of Administration and
Finance said Friday....
The group
that passed the law back in the 80s hailed the
announcement as a victory, despite the passing of
the law’s original proponent.
“I’m sure
Barbara Anderson is up there looking down on
us with a grin pumping her fist in the heavens,” Chip Ford, executive director of
Citizens for
Limited Taxation, the group behind the law, said
in July when the news was announced Chapter 62F had
been triggered.
The law,
put into place due in large part to the activism of
Anderson, says that if the commonwealth takes more
in taxes than it’s supposed to under a cap
established by the same statute, it must send some
of it back to taxpayers. In 1986, rebates amounted
to just under two dimes. Now, depending on your
income, it could be hundreds or thousands.
The CLT Tax Cap
refunds are underway, mission accomplished. One down,
one to go. Next we moved on to defending the state's
flat income tax by defeating Question One on Tuesday's
ballot — the sixth
attempt by The Takers cabal to amend the state
constitution with its first step toward imposing a graduated
income tax. They've lusted for that power to divide
and conquer taxpayers one income bracket at a time for
six decades (1962, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1994 and now).
Even when and if we defeat them again this time
— they'll be back. They
never give up trying to extract more from the productive.
More Is Never Enough (MINE) until they have it all.
On Monday the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance issued a news release
("Taxpayers are in for a Treat
this Halloween but
the Tricks are Still Lurking Around the State House"):
Halloween
is finally here and today taxpayers are in for a
treat. Starting as early as this week, taxpayers are
set to see their bank account get a little bigger.
Thanks to the 1986 voter approved “rebate” law known
as Chapter 62F, which was spearheaded by Citizens
for Limited Taxation (CLT) and the Massachusetts High Tech Council (MHTC),
taxpayers are expected to see their rebates start to
arrive this week and roll on throughout the month of
November. Taxpayers owe a great deal of gratitude to
CLT and MHTC for their important work in 1986.
MassFiscal partnered with the New England Legal
Foundation, the Goldwater Institute, CLT, MHTC, and
plaintiffs from several pro-taxpayer organizations
to prepare a lawsuit against the state Auditor if
the Auditor stalled the certification of the rebate
law. Luckily, our lawsuit was not needed because the
Auditor followed the law....
“Taxpayers
are in for a treat this Halloween but the tricks are
still lurking around the State House,” stated Paul
Diego Craney, spokesperson for Massachusetts Fiscal
Alliance.
“Governor
Charlie Baker, a Republican, has promised to
dispatch Chapter 62F rebates as soon as possible,
totaling $3 billion dollars. Meanwhile, Democrat
Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen
Spilka cannot seem to agree to a measly $500M in
taxpayer rebates and $500M in tax reform. Then there
is Democratic Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, and many
other ambitious Democratic politicians, who over the
weekend attended a press event in support of
Question 1, which would increase the income tax by
80% on some small businesses, retirees, home sales,
and high-income earners. The contrast couldn’t be
any clearer,” continued Craney.
“Taxpayers
are getting a nice treat with Chapter 62F’s $3
billion in rebates, but they need to watch out for
the tricks at the State House, and with Question 1,
they are lurking around the corner,” concluded
Craney.
On Tuesday The
Boston Globe, of all places, asked some
uncomfortable questions of the Question One backers in a
column by business writer Shirley Leung ("How is it that teachers
unions are outspending millionaires on Question 1?"):
How is it
that teachers are making gazillionaires John Fish,
Bob Kraft, and Jim Davis look like cheapskates?
For those
keeping score at home, teachers unions ― led by the
Massachusetts Teachers Association and the National
Education Association ― have bankrolled much of the
campaign to pass Question 1, which would increase
taxes on households making more than $1 million
annually. The revenue would be designated for
education and transportation.
The
teachers groups account for an eye-popping $22
million of the more than $26 million raised by
proponents, according to the latest state campaign
filings.
Compare
that with the $13.8 million opponents have generated
through the business community and wealthy
individuals....
Since
2015, the Massachusetts Teachers Association has
been working with a broad coalition of labor unions,
community organizations, and religious groups to get
the surtax on the ballot.
The MTA
has coughed up $13.3 million for the so-called Fair
Share Amendment, while its national counterpart,
NEA, has doled out $7.2 million. Which begs the
question: What do the teachers want?
MTA
President Max Page tells me Question 1 has been a
priority because teachers are tired of living in
wealthy state that doesn’t adequately fund public
education....
Where does
the MTA get all of its money? Page proudly tells me
it comes from the union dues of its 115,000 members
who work in public schools and universities. He
won’t say how much more the teachers are willing to
spend on the ballot question, but they are prepared
to go the distance....
We learned
last time having more money doesn’t always guarantee
a victory but combine that with the force of 115,000
voting teachers, the business leaders who want to
defeat Question 1 have their work cut out for them.
If
Question 1 passes, teachers no doubt will want a
return on their investment. What will that be?
"What will that
be?" indeed. Doing it "for the children" doesn't
fly anymore, does it? I can't believe anyone is
so ignorant, uninformed, low-information to still buy that
worn-out claptrap — at least I
hope not.
Even The Boston
Globe's expected editorial endorsing Question One had to
struggle and contort mightily on Tuesday in an attempt to
justify its support in "Yes on Question 1":
In an
ideal world, Massachusetts would simply get rid of
the flat-tax requirement enshrined in 1915. That
would allow our Legislature to do what most
legislatures do: set and change tax rates and tax
brackets in a fair way, and in response to the
state’s needs and economic conditions.
Question
1, the only constitutional amendment on the November
ballot, does not do that. Instead, it’s a much more
complicated approach to making the income tax
progressive, one that runs the risk of creating
unintended consequences that may be difficult to
undo. Still, for all its faults, Question 1 would
make the income tax better than it is now, and for
that reason the Globe endorses a yes vote on
Question 1....
Opponents,
mainly business groups, fear the higher tax will
make the state less economically competitive,
driving away some employers and scaring others from
coming here in the first place.... Getting rid of
the amendment, if the worst-case warnings of its
opponents come to pass, would require a lengthy
process that can stretch out over four years.
Those are
valid objections — and all the more reason why a
straight-up repeal of the uniformity rule, which
would take the minutiae of tax policy out of the
constitution entirely, would have been
preferable....
It is also
the case that advocates of Yes on Question 1 are
deceiving voters in one respect. Despite their
insistence to the contrary, it is not possible to
guarantee that the money raised by the surcharge
will, in fact, be added atop the existing
transportation and education budgets. There is
nothing to stop legislators from shifting existing
transportation and education funding into other
parts of the budget, then backfilling with the
proceeds of Question 1. The only recourse if the
Legislature fails to spend the money as promised is
political: voters would have to vote out legislators
who don’t heed the voters’ will....
The
reality is that the state has plenty of needs — in
education and transportation, but also other areas —
that the extra money could either pay for directly,
or free space in the budget for through some
legislative sleight of hand. The Commonwealth has a
backlog of bridges that need repair. It has
notoriously high child care costs. It has a housing
affordability crisis. It has a vulnerable coastline
that will need costly protection against rising sea
levels....
As is
often the case with ballot questions, voters on
Question 1 are being asked to choose between two
less-than-optimal choices. Overall, though, a yes
vote would move Massachusetts a step away from the
unfair income tax system created in 1915 and toward
a fairer Commonwealth that’s capable of making the
investments it needs.
One of the usual
newspapers one would expect to support Question One
published a surprising reversal. The Springfield
Republican on Thursday recommended it be defeated in its
editorial "Question 1 has pitfalls,
no guarantees":
Several
reasons exist to vote “No,” on Question 1 on
Tuesday’s statewide election ballot, but the best
might be that there’s no assurance extra tax revenue
would even go where it’s supposed to go.
Question 1
is known colloquially as the “Fair Share Amendment,”
or the “millionaire’s tax.” It would change the
Massachusetts Constitution - a risky practice to
undertake by referendum in the first place - by
placing a 9% tax on persons with $1 million or more
in income....
It’s all
too easy for high-wage earners to be looked upon as
the enemy, but this amendment will have its most
devastating effect on the middle class. Question 1
is believed to be the only referendum question in
the nation that calls for a tax increase.
It comes
with giant pitfalls and no guarantee that its stated
purpose will even be honored. The Republican
strongly recommends a “No” vote on Question 1.
On Thursday the Mass
Fiscal Alliance hosted a virtual press conference in
which I participated representing CLT among other Question
One opponents. Its news release ("Defenders of MA’s Flat
Tax Remind Voters of
the Lessons of 1994 Ballot Question Fight Before
They Vote on Question 1") noted:
MassFiscal
hosted Chip Ford of the Citizens for
Limited Taxation, and Chris Anderson of
the Massachusetts High Tech Council. Chip and
Chris worked together during the last graduated
income tax ballot question in 1994, and they shared
the warning that applied in 1994 election for next
week’s ballot Question 1.
“What can
be more fair than every taxpayer paying the same
rate – the very definition of fairness?” asked Chip Ford, executive director of
Citizens for
Limited Taxation, which was founded in 1975 to
oppose and defeat the fourth graduated income tax
constitutional amendment on the 1976 ballot, then
led the opposition that defeated the fifth attempt
on the 1994 ballot. “It seems that deception is
often a part of these proposals and this sixth
attempt is no different,” Ford added. “Five times
now, voters have not been fooled and resoundingly
defeated all past assaults on the flat tax. Let’s
defeat it once again and keep the income tax fair
and equal,” said Chip Ford.
“The Mass. High Tech Council’s mission is to create
and protect conditions that support investment, job
growth, and a strong quality of life for
Massachusetts employers and their employees. This
led us to support retaining the flat tax requirement
in the Massachusetts Constitution in 1994 and
further compels us to oppose Question 1 this year.
The voters were right to say no to the idea of
abandoning our constitutional protection in 1994 and
they should do the same next week. The consequences
of an 80% income tax surcharge on nest egg
retirement investments like the sale of a home, or
on small businesses in Massachusetts will never be a
good idea and would be a reality if Question 1 is
passed. As the voters did in 1994, we hope they say
no next week,” said Chris Anderson (president
of the Mass. High Tech Council).
THE FULL PRESS RELEASE IS AVAILABLE HERE
Even Gov. Baker
finally came out in opposition to Question One,
The Salem
News reported on Friday ("Baker urges voters to reject
millionaires' tax"):
Days ahead
of the election, Republican Gov. Charlie Baker is
urging voters to reject a proposed millionaires' tax
after Democratic leaders pulled the plug on his
tax-cut plan.
On
Thursday, Baker and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito sent an
email blast to supporters urging that they "join
them" in voting against Question 1 on Tuesday's
ballot, which asks Massachusetts voters to amend the
state Constitution to set a 4% surtax on the portion
of an individual’s annual income above $1 million.
Baker
called the plan to tax the state's wealthiest a
"misguided" effort that would "impose an immediate
tax hike on tens of thousands of homeowners, small
businesses owners, and retirees." He said there is
no guarantee that the money would be devoted to
transportation and education, as proponents claim.
"In a time
of economic uncertainty and rising prices, taxpayers
should not be asked to give a blank check to Beacon
Hill," Baker said.
Baker has
previously stated his opposition to a millionaires'
tax, but his forceful statement urging voters to
reject Question 1 came less than a day after
Democratic legislative leaders said they were
pulling a buffet of tax cuts he proposed from a $3.7
billion economic development bill.
Baker
accused lawmakers of reneging on a "promise" to pass
the tax cuts, and suggests the state doesn't need
the extra revenue from a millionaires' tax.
"In other
words, Beacon Hill has plenty of money to spend, and
the tax raised by Question 1 is unnecessary," he
said.
Gov. Baker was
referring to the
$3.8 billion Economic Development Bill that
raced through virtually empty House and Senate chambers with
no recorded votes in either chamber, passing only on a
"voice vote" with no objections
— after stripping out all promised
tax relief and tax reforms.
The State House News Service on Friday reported ("Weekly
Roundup - Christmas In July, In November")
. . . At the center of the
action was a nearly $3.8 billion spending
package that Democratic leaders brought to life
a couple days after Halloween, stitching
together a long-stalled economic development
bill with a spending bill to close the books on
fiscal 2022. They chopped the head off their own
tax reform plans in the process, with some
Democrats instead looking to grab some of the
limelight associated with the
automatically-triggered tax relief that's
underway, with checks and direct deposits
beginning to flow on Tuesday....
Some State House folks call
it the "Christmas in July" bill because of all
the money for communities that individual reps
and senators can point to as a proud
accomplishment with direct local impact. And,
the bill would normally have been wrapped up in
July.
Now it's Christmas in July,
in November. Should make for some good campaign
stops over the weekend if the subject is local
projects, but the timing is awkward if
constituents want to know about once-promised
reforms to the estate tax, or increases to child
tax credits or the renter's tax deduction
cap....
Democratic leaders have
said they were caught offguard when the state
hit its revenue cap under a 1986 law known as
Chapter 62F, to the tune of around $3 billion
which started flowing back to taxpayers this
week in the form of rebate checks.
Under 62F, those rebates
are issued in an amount proportional with a
person's 2021 tax bill, meaning wealthier
taxpayers are seeing heftier checks than
low-income people. They're rebates, not exactly
the "relief" for average citizens that
legislative Democrats proposed earlier this year
in their tax plan.
"I feel bad for renters, I
feel really bad for all those low-income
taxpayers of Massachusetts who don't pay federal
taxes, and there are a lot of people who have
dependent care issues, some of which relate to
the pandemic and some of which are just life,"
Gov. Charlie Baker said Thursday.
The narrative seemed a bit
different between the House and Senate on the
topic of 62F this week.
Asked what sort of relief
could now flow to lower-income folks, Mariano
responded by saying Chapter 62F was "the system
that the governor chose to use, and we
philosophically raised some questions about
this."
On the Senate floor,
Rodrigues trumpeted the fact that the compromise
bill accounted for the $3 billion in "historic
levels of tax relief to over 3 million tax
filers," although that was already underway
before the bill was even filed.
Senate Minority Leader
Bruce Tarr, the lone Republican senator to
attend the session in person, sounded like he
objected at heart -- at least to the cleaving of
tax reforms that were dangled in front of Bay
Staters for months. But in the interest of "statespersonship,"
he said, he wouldn't derail the train for want
of one car.
After the branches
adjourned Thursday, the Department of Revenue
sent out another report of bulkier-than-expected
revenues for the month of October -- $2.359
billion, which was nearly $300 million over the
Baker administration's benchmarks.
The Legislature
screwed taxpayers once again —
even with still billions in surplus and yet
more surpluses pouring in. This goes to prove once
again why CLT's Tax Cap is so critically important.
Now if only you can keep it.
REMEMBER
TO VOTE ON TUESDAY!
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
The Boston
Herald
Saturday, November 5, 2022
In blue Taxachusetts, refund offers rare relief
By Peter Lucas
Call it Gov. Charlie Baker’s early Thanksgiving Day present
— even though it is not a gift at all.
But when the State of Taxachusetts is willing to send you
money, take it and run.
The “gift” is a $3 billion tax refund that is being sent to
Massachusetts taxpayers as result of the tax cap law passed
in 1986 requiring the state to return money to taxpayers if
it raises more than the tax cap allows.
The tax cap was a novel ideal at the time. It was proposed
and pushed by the Citizens for Limited Taxation in a
1980s referendum drive headed by the late Barbara
Anderson and Chip Ford, both CLT anti-tax
leaders.
What is remarkable about their achievement is that they —
private citizens — were able to override the big spending
and big taxing Massachusetts Democrat political
establishment that thrives on tax hikes.
Their accomplishment forced the state to give money it did
not need, and should not have raised in the first place,
back to overtaxed Massachusetts citizens.
The tax cap law in the parlance of state government is
called Chapter 62F of the General Laws.
But it should be called the Anderson Act because it was a
dedicated and untiring Barbara Anderson who brought it
about. She spent years lobbying for taxpayers at the State
House.
And when the Legislature would not approve the tax cap
concept, she went to the public and got it on the ballot and
won. She did more to help the Massachusetts taxpayer than
any politician around.
She showed that even under a growing statist society, it was
still possible — although rare — for average citizens to
take on big government by banding together to work for the
common good.
She died in 2016 at age 73.
However, were she alive today, you can bet she would be
campaigning against Question One on Tuesday’s ballot, which
is the so-called millionaire’s tax, a 4% graduated income
tax on people earning $1 million.
Anderson was around long enough to know that the proposed
tax increase on $1 million earners would soon trickle down
to include everybody else. That is the way stealth
government works.
She would be the first to point out the irony of the state
so awash in money that it is returning some of it to the
taxpayers, while at the same time it has a group of
progressive and woke lobbyists seeking to raise taxes even
more.
This sounds like progressive Democratic candidate for
governor Maura Healey who has promised not to raise taxes,
but at the same time supports Question One that raises taxes
on people earning $1 million.
Her opponent, Republican Geoff Diehl, the underdog in the
race, is not only opposed to Question One, but has fought
tax increases, including hikes in the state tax gas tax, for
years.
About three million taxpayers are expected to receive
refunds either through direct deposit or by mailed checks
that have already begun to go out. The refund is estimated
to be 14% of what the taxpayer paid in taxes in 2021
While it is no windfall, it is welcomed by households faced
with rising food and gasoline prices, not to mention pending
hikes in home heating oil and natural gas.
Baker deserves credit for riding herd on the tax rebate. The
Republican governor stood firm on his insistence that the
money be sent to the taxpayers, despite opposition from some
legislators in the Democrat-controlled Legislature who had
other plans for the funds.,
Cynics might have pointed out that Baker sending money back
to the taxpayers was simply an election eve ploy to get
votes. But Baker is not on the ballot. His motive was simply
to give the money back to the people who earned it. So he
did.
That was also Barbara Anderson’s goal. And she did it, too.
— Peter Lucas is a veteran Massachusetts political
reporter and columnist.
The Boston
Herald
Thursday, November 3, 2022
CLT exits scene with tax refund victory
By Avi Nelson
Citizens For Limited Taxation (CLT) is ending with a
historic win. It appears now the $3 billion tax refund
due Massachusetts taxpayers will actually be paid to us – as
the law (Chapter 62F) requires. We, the people of
Massachusetts, created that law by vote, after a 1986
referendum effort sponsored by CLT.
When it became apparent last summer that a tax refund was
legally required, however, some prominent Democrat
politicians immediately connived to undercut the law. House
Speaker Mariano (D-Quincy) said, “We could undo the law, we
could change it, we could postpone,” later adding, “This is
a stunt that was triggered by a law made in 1986 that gives
people a one-time opportunity to get money.” Note how the
speaker considers a law passed by the people (us) a “stunt;”
and he disparagingly implies we’re money-grubbing because we
want our own money back, as the law stipulates.
Then a cabal of ultra-left Democrats led by Rep. Connolly
(D-Cambridge) tried to reconfigure the refund –
redistributing more to some, less to others. They don’t
understand: it’s not their money. They have no right to
redistribute or redirect it. The money belongs to the
taxpayers who paid it. The law requires that it be refunded
– that is, returned to the taxpayers who originally funded
it. That’s the meaning of “re-funded.” (Reasoning must be
elementary when explaining to left-wing politicians.)
Connolly self-describes as “proud . . . DSA member.” DSA is
Democratic Socialists of America. Socialists don’t believe
in private property, so they have no respect for your
private property and no hesitation about taking it and
giving it to favored others.
Fortunately, those obstructionist and redistribution schemes
appear to be dead-ended – for now. But beware when the
legislature reconvenes. In this one-party state, we can
expect renewed efforts to sabotage the Tax Cap law. For
those voters planning to again vote the straight Democrat
line, another reason to reconsider.
The late taxpayer champion Barbara Anderson led CLT
in 1986. She and CLT (aided by the Massachusetts High Tech
Council) were the driving force that secured voter approval
of the refund law. Then, as now, the opposition came from
Democrat leftist politicians. I still have the editorials I
wrote and broadcast in 1986 supporting the referendum, and
then in 1987, criticizing then Gov. Michael Dukakis’ attempt
to maneuver around the law. This year’s refund is 100 times
that of 1987’s.
The commonwealth is swimming in money. As Gov. Baker noted,
this past year, tax revenue grew by over 20%, on top of the
previous year’s 15% increase. And this year, revenues are
running 5% ($450 million) higher than last year. Chip
Ford, CLT executive director, has aptly observed this
isn’t a surplus, it’s over-taxation. But Democrat
politicians are insatiable. They not only balked at the
refund, but they actually want to raise taxes.
On this year’s ballot is a graduated income tax proposal –
again. After five defeats, this is the sixth time that
maneuver is being tried. It is pitched, as usual, as
targeting the wealthy. But that’s untrue. Many
not-so-wealthy would also be hit with higher taxes.
CLT, once again, and some other civic minded groups have
organized in opposition. We hope the ever-more-taxes crowd
will be rejected again on election day. Vote ‘no’ on
Question 1.
But there is a sad postscript to this tax story. After
this election, CLT is closing down. For over 47 years
CLT has fought for the taxpayers and has saved Mass.
citizens uncounted billions in taxes. But there’s
insufficient financial support from these same citizens to
keep the organization going. So, Citizens for Limited
Taxation will pass into history, and we taxpayers will
endure higher taxes because CLT is no longer here.
— Avi Nelson is a
Boston-based political analyst and talk-show host.
The Boston
Herald
Sunday, October 30, 2022
Tax rebates head out starting Tuesday, here’s how to see how
much you get
By Matthew Medsger
True to their word to get the money out the door fast, the
Baker administration said residents will begin to see tax
rebates stemming from a near-forgotten law hit mailboxes and
bank accounts this week.
“The Department of Revenue will begin sending out refunds
via checks and direct deposits to taxpayers under Chapter
62F on Tuesday, November 1. These refunds will be sent out
on a rolling basis through December 15. An estimated 3
million taxpayers will receive a refund of approximately 14%
of their 2021 Massachusetts income tax liability,” a
spokesperson for the Executive Office of Administration and
Finance said Friday.
Gov. Charlie Baker guessed this summer that about $3 billion
would need to be sent back when they announced that 62F
would likely be triggered for just the second time since its
passage in 1986. State Auditor Suzanne Bump confirmed
Baker’s math in September, announcing it was actually $2.94
billion, to be precise.
The group that passed the law back in the 80s hailed the
announcement as a victory, despite the passing of the law’s
original proponent.
“I’m sure Barbara Anderson is up there looking down
on us with a grin pumping her fist in the heavens,” Chip
Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, the group behind the law, said in July when
the news was announced Chapter 62F had been triggered.
The law, put into place due in large part to the activism of
Anderson, says that if the commonwealth takes more in taxes
than it’s supposed to under a cap established by the same
statute, it must send some of it back to taxpayers. In 1986,
rebates amounted to just under two dimes. Now, depending on
your income, it could be hundreds or thousands.
Anyone who paid income taxes in 2021 is eligible to get
money back, Baker’s team announced, and residents can see
exactly how much to expect back using a calculator put out
by the administration. No action is required by a taxpayer
to receive a rebate.
Those who haven’t yet filed a return will need to do so by
September 15, 2023, the latest a tax return can be extended,
in order to be eligible for a rebate.
If you filed your income taxes and your refund was directly
deposited into your bank account, then that is how you will
receive your rebate, the administration said. Deposits will
be labeled in your account as “MASTTAXRFD.”
Checks will mailed to those who received their refunds that
way. Checks will be labeled with an explanation of 62F and
why the rebate was sent.
Late filers will receive their rebate about a month after
they file, the Baker administration said.
A call center is available Monday through Friday, 9am to
4pm, to answer questions about the law and provide refund
estimates at 877-677-9727. Information can also be found at
https://www.mass.gov/62Frefunds.
Former Gov.
Paul Cellucci thanks supporters of tax-reduction ballot
question in 2000 during a
Republican Party election night gathering in Woburn as
Barbara Anderson, from the group
Citizens for Limited Taxation, looks on. (Herald file photo)
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, November 2, 2022
500,000 refunds coming your way means Question 1 is a joke!
By Howie Carr
If you’re a taxpayer in Massachusetts, keep an eye on your
bank account or mail box these next few days.
An amazing, once-in-a-lifetime occurrence is about to
happen.
You are going to get a kiss in the mail from the Department
of Revenue (DOR) – about 14% of whatever you paid in state
income taxes for 2021.
About 500,000 of these unprecedented refunds should be out
by the end of the week. I wish the DOR had been able to get
the money back to all 3 million of us in the state who
actually work for a living before the election six days from
now, but hey, that’s the hackerama for you.
The good news is, if the electorate is paying attention,
even these first half-million or so refunds should disprove
once and for all the lie that is propelling referendum
Question 1 – that the hacks need another billion-plus in tax
money to pay for “education” and “transportation.”
If ever there was a reason to vote NO on Question 1, it’s
the fact that the state is now so historically flush with
cash that it is required under law to return almost $3
billion to the taxpayers.
Get the word out! Let your neighbors know about the money
that’s coming their way, and why.
You need the money more than the hacks do. The Democrats are
trying to crash the nation’s economy. Look at the rampant
inflation since January 2021 — the cost of fuel oil,
gasoline, electricity, kerosene, candy… everything!
The Democrats don’t care. They all have phoney-baloney
no-show jobs. They “telecommute.” They have trust funds. And
behind the six-figure jobs come the 80% pensions with health
care.
And yet they want YOU to pay more taxes. But only if you’re
a millionaire – wink wink nudge nudge.
Here’s how this week’s DOR refunds work.
The state income tax rate is 5%. So if you made $100,000
last year, you paid $5,000 in taxes to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
So now, under the formula, you will soon be getting back 14%
of that $5,000 — $700.
If you made $200,000, you will get back $1,400. And so on.
It’s important to remember that this isn’t a handout, which
is what Democrats get. It’s not welfare. It’s a refund,
because it’s your money that the state stole from you and is
now being forced to return. (And God, are the Democrats
angry about it!)
Please, if you have an opportunity these next few days, try
to explain these refunds to any poor souls in your own
circle who, say, read the Globe, or watch local TV news –
low-info voters, in other words.
They have likely been confused by all the millions of
dollars in ads and social media that the hackerama is
spending around the clock on their Question 1 grift.
The welfare-industrial complex has collected more than $27
million to promote this latest heist – more than double what
the so-called millionaires have to work with. That tells you
a lot right there — that the takers, the non-producers,
already have twice as much money as the producers.
Once you get over the thrill of getting something back from
the same state that is always trying to beggar you, doesn’t
a larger question arise?
The question being, should the state be considering an 80%
hike in the income tax at the same moment that it’s being
forced, under a 1986 law known as Chapter 62F, to give
almost $3 billion back to the same people the payroll
patriots claim aren’t paying their “fair share?”
“It’s amazing,” said Republican candidate for auditor
Anthony Amore, “that Massachusetts could be sending money
back because it collected too much from the taxpayers while
simultaneously demanding more tax revenues from those same
people.”
Amazing, but not surprising. It’s the hackerama.
For those who haven’t been paying attention, this windfall
for the working classes (and tragedy for Democrats) is
occurring because of the late Barbara Anderson of
Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT). In 1986, her group
sponsored its own referendum question, requiring the return
of any over-collections of tax revenue, based on a
complicated formula.
It was a big surprise when 62F finally kicked in, and no one
was more surprised than the hacks who are pushing their
graduated-income tax con at the ballot box for the sixth
time since 1962.
They claim the money would be “earmarked” for transportation
and education. We’ve been over this before, but now that the
refunds are going out, it bears repeating.
For starters, nothing can be earmarked. Next, the state
already spends more than almost any other state on both
transportation and education. And how much do you trust the
Democrats who will be running the state come January,
considering that the state GOP has pretty much already
conceded the governorship to the radical left?
How much can you trust anybody at the State House? They told
you the tolls on the Pike were ending in 1987 – how’s that
one working out for you?
In 2000 the electorate voted to cut the state income tax
rate from 6.25% to 5%. The hacks finally got around to
accepting the voters’ mandate in 2020 – 31 years after the
Legislature approved the increase to 6.25% as part of an
“18-month emergency.”
As for “transportation,” you know what that means. More
don’t-kill-the-job boondoggles, like the ones that Brandon
is already promoting on the federal level, which is driving
inflation higher and higher.
You want an example of how wisely this money is being spent?
Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School just got $395,000 –
for one electric school bus. That includes $20,000 for a
single charging station. It’s all part of the EPA’s “Clean
School Bus Rebates,” under the “Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law.”
What could possibly go wrong? What’s the over-under on how
many days the magic bus will be in service before it a)
catches fire, b) can’t get up a hill or c) just doesn’t
start because the temperature goes below 40 degrees.
Question 1 would give the local hacks billions more for
their own clean school bus rebates.
Anyway, the check’s in the mail. When you get it, just
remember Barbara Anderson fondly for a moment, and then
explain Question 1 to a low-info voter or two.
Vote No on Question 1.
State House News
Service
Thursday, November 3, 2022
October Tax Revenues Surge Above Projections
By Colin A. Young
Department of Revenue tax collectors raked in $2.359 billion
last month, almost $300 million or 14 percent more than
expected but a drop of $85 million or 3.5 percent compared
with actual collections in October 2021.
Revenue Commissioner Geoffrey Snyder said Thursday that DOR
has collected $11.565 billion in tax receipts through four
months of fiscal year 2023. That's $369 million or 3.3
percent more than collections through the same period of
fiscal 2022 and $529 million or 4.8 percent more than what
the administration was expecting to have brought in by this
point in the year.
He said October's results were marked by a year-over-year
decrease in the non-withholding income tax, corporate and
business tax, and "all other tax" categories.
"These decreases were partially offset by increases in
withholding and sales and use tax. The decrease in
non-withholding is primarily driven by two offsetting
factors: an increase in income tax refunds (outflows)
related to passthrough entity ('PTE') member credits and a
partially offsetting increase in income tax return
payments," Snyder said. "The decrease in 'all other tax' is
primarily attributable to estate tax, a category that tends
to fluctuate. The increase in withholding is mostly due to
the timing of the receipt of withholding payments: certain
payments received in October 2022 were captured in November
in 2021. The increase in sales and use tax reflects, in
part, continued strength in retail sales."
There are no individual or business taxpayers that make
significant estimated payments during October, DOR said,
which makes the month a less notable one for state tax
collections. The month generally accounts for 6.5 percent of
the annual haul.
A report about November revenues will be due from DOR on
Monday, Dec. 5. The benchmark for November collections has
been set at $2.161 billion, DOR said.
The benchmarks are all based on the assumption -- agreed to
by legislative leaders and the Baker administration -- that
fiscal 2023 revenue will total $39.618 billion. Without an
adjustment, that would be a drop of almost 4 percent from
the $41.105 billion that was hauled in during fiscal year
2022, a year in which state tax revenue surged so high
compared to wage growth that it triggered a long-forgotten
tax relief law.
Massachusetts Fiscal
Alliance
Monday, October 31, 2022
Press Release
Taxpayers are in for a Treat this Halloween but the Tricks
are Still Lurking Around the State House
BOSTON – Halloween is finally here and today taxpayers are
in for a treat. Starting as early as this week, taxpayers
are set to see their bank account get a little bigger.
Thanks to the 1986 voter approved “rebate” law known as
Chapter 62F, which was spearheaded by Citizens for
Limited Taxation (CLT) and the Massachusetts High
Tech Council (MHTC), taxpayers are expected to see their
rebates start to arrive this week and roll on throughout the
month of November. Taxpayers owe a great deal of gratitude
to CLT and MHTC for their important work in 1986. MassFiscal
partnered with the New England Legal Foundation, the
Goldwater Institute, CLT, MHTC, and plaintiffs from several
pro-taxpayer organizations to prepare a lawsuit against the
state Auditor if the Auditor stalled the certification of
the rebate law. Luckily, our lawsuit was not needed because
the Auditor followed the law.
“Taxpayers are in for a treat this Halloween but the tricks
are still lurking around the State House,” stated Paul Diego
Craney, spokesperson for Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.
“Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, has promised to
dispatch Chapter 62F rebates as soon as possible, totaling
$3 billion dollars. Meanwhile, Democrat Speaker Ron Mariano
and Senate President Karen Spilka cannot seem to agree to a
measly $500M in taxpayer rebates and $500M in tax reform.
Then there is Democratic Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, and many
other ambitious Democratic politicians, who over the weekend
attended a press event in support of Question 1, which would
increase the income tax by 80% on some small businesses,
retirees, home sales, and high-income earners. The contrast
couldn’t be any clearer,” continued Craney.
“Taxpayers are getting a nice treat with Chapter 62F’s $3
billion in rebates, but they need to watch out for the
tricks at the State House, and with Question 1, they are
lurking around the corner,” concluded Craney.
###
The Boston
Globe
Tuesday, November 1, 2022
How is it that teachers unions are outspending millionaires
on Question 1?
Educator groups account for most of the $26 million raised
in support of a ballot question that would increase taxes on
the wealthy.
By Shirley Leung, Globe Business Columnist
How is it that teachers are making gazillionaires John Fish,
Bob Kraft, and Jim Davis look like cheapskates?
For those keeping score at home, teachers unions ― led by
the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the National
Education Association ― have bankrolled much of the campaign
to pass Question 1, which would increase taxes on households
making more than $1 million annually. The revenue would be
designated for education and transportation.
The teachers groups account for an eye-popping $22 million
of the more than $26 million raised by proponents, according
to the latest state campaign filings.
Compare that with the $13.8 million opponents have generated
through the business community and wealthy individuals. Six
donors account for nearly half of their money: Davis,
chairman of New Balance, has contributed $2 million, as have
Paul and Sandy Edgerley, the power couple behind Back Bay
private club The Quin. The $1 million-apiece donors include
Suffolk Construction, owned by Fish, Rand-Whitney
Containerboard, led by New England Patriots owner Kraft, and
three companies controlled by Rob Hale.
Business leaders oppose Question 1 because they fear it will
bring back the “Taxachusetts” label the state worked so hard
to shed. They’re concerned the measure may lead to a brain
drain and hurt the state’s innovation economy, with people
moving to more business-friendly states.
“In a time where talent can move anywhere, especially now
with so many people working remotely, we don’t want our
state to be less competitive or give anyone a reason to go
elsewhere,” Sandy Edgerley wrote in an e-mail.
Davis, through a spokeswoman, said he also worries about
brainpower leaving the state and “along with them will go
many of the philanthropic champions supporting the nonprofit
communities.”
It’s hard to see the opponents closing the funding gap with
so little time left before the election. The Edgerleys don’t
plan to give more. Fish told me he hasn’t decided if he will
open his wallet again, but he thinks too much money has
already been thrown around.
“It is ludicrous that we are both spending this kind of
money,” he said. “I’d rather take my million dollars and
give it to health care for the homeless. ... This [fight]
doesn’t help anybody. It creates a lot of emotional reaction
and unnecessary conflict in our community.”
Since 2015, the Massachusetts Teachers Association has been
working with a broad coalition of labor unions, community
organizations, and religious groups to get the surtax on the
ballot.
The MTA has coughed up $13.3 million for the so-called Fair
Share Amendment, while its national counterpart, NEA, has
doled out $7.2 million. Which begs the question: What do the
teachers want?
MTA President Max Page tells me Question 1 has been a
priority because teachers are tired of living in wealthy
state that doesn’t adequately fund public education.
“We have a starkly unequal system,” said Page, who took the
reins in July after having been an architecture professor at
University of Massachusetts Amherst. “Our job at the MTA has
been to make sure that every kid has a great public
education.”
Where does the MTA get all of its money? Page proudly tells
me it comes from the union dues of its 115,000 members who
work in public schools and universities. He won’t say how
much more the teachers are willing to spend on the ballot
question, but they are prepared to go the distance. The
money has been spent on TV ads, mailings, canvassing that
has included knocking on nearly 800,000 doors, and 1.6
million phone calls to voters.
“We assumed that they would put up a lot of money because
they have unlimited money,” Page said of opponents. “The
goal was to make sure that we had sufficient funds to win
this.”
If Question 1 passes, the measure could generate up to $2
billion a year for education and transportation by adding a
4 percent surtax on incomes over $1 million. But with the
teachers contributing most of the campaign money, you can’t
help but wonder if fixing the MBTA and other infrastructure
will get shortchanged.
On that subject, Page said: “We’re a union that’s committed
to the common good, and that includes our core mission of
outstanding public education pre-K through higher ed, but it
also includes roads and bridges.”
I posed the same question to state Senator Lydia Edwards,
who spoke at a rally last week with transit riders and
workers in support of Question 1. Edwards said law makers
haven’t decided how they might divvy up the extra revenue if
the measure passes, but it’s unlikely to be split evenly
between schools and transportation.
“I don’t know that it’s just going to be a set amount that
goes out to everybody, 50-50, no matter what because that’s
not how our lives are. We don’t have 50-50 troubles,” said
Edwards. “A lot of it’s going to be dependent on the urgency
of the moment and making sure that we’re meeting that
particular moment.”
My two cents on these many millions: With two kids in public
schools, of course I want them to have more resources, but
mommy also needs a better commute on the Red Line. Even
though the teachers unions have made the investment in the
“vote yes” campaign, that shouldn’t mean transportation
takes a back seat.
In many ways, the so-called millionaires tax is a reprise of
a 2016 ballot question to expand public charter schools —
one that pitted the business community against teachers.
Business leaders were pushing for passage and raised $26.1
million, much of which came from out of state, according to
a campaign filing analysis. The opponents, led by public
school teachers, put up $15.4 million. The charter school
measure failed.
We learned last time having more money doesn’t always
guarantee a victory but combine that with the force of
115,000 voting teachers, the business leaders who want to
defeat Question 1 have their work cut out for them.
If Question 1 passes, teachers no doubt will want a return
on their investment. What will that be?
— Shirley Leung is a
Business columnist.
The Boston
Globe
Tuesday, November 1, 2022
A Boston Globe editorial
Yes on Question 1
The proposed constitutional amendment would make the state’s
income tax fairer than it is now.
On Election Day in November 1915, the men of Massachusetts
went to the polls and made two mistakes. First, they voted
overwhelmingly against extending voting rights to women.
Second, they inserted tax language into the state
constitution that forbade the Legislature from enacting a
graduated income tax. Ever.
The suffrage vote soon became moot when the 19th Amendment
to the US Constitution overrode state laws. The tax
amendment, though — a century later, that’s still with us.
As a result of that misguided amendment, Massachusetts can’t
have what 32 states and the federal government take for
granted: an income tax code that expects wealthy people to
carry a heavier burden. The state income tax rate (currently
5 percent) is the same for everyone, regardless of
individual circumstances.
In an ideal world, Massachusetts would simply get rid of the
flat-tax requirement enshrined in 1915. That would allow our
Legislature to do what most legislatures do: set and change
tax rates and tax brackets in a fair way, and in response to
the state’s needs and economic conditions.
Question 1, the only constitutional amendment on the
November ballot, does not do that. Instead, it’s a much more
complicated approach to making the income tax progressive,
one that runs the risk of creating unintended consequences
that may be difficult to undo. Still, for all its faults,
Question 1 would make the income tax better than it is now,
and for that reason the Globe endorses a yes vote on
Question 1.
The amendment is backed by a broad coalition of labor and
advocacy groups. It would not remove the flat-tax language
from the constitution, as we would have wished. Instead, it
would keep the existing flat tax, but add a surcharge of
four percentage points for incomes over a threshold of $1
million. That threshold would rise with inflation, with the
stated goal of never reaching into the pockets of
middle-class families.
Someone earning $2,000,000 in taxable income would pay the
ordinary 5 percent tax on their first million dollars, and a
9 percent tax on the second million.
The universe of taxpayers who would be affected is small: In
2019, only about 21,000 tax filers in Massachusetts had
incomes over $1 million. The tax increase for that group is
predicted to raise somewhere between $1 billion and $2
billion in new state revenues per year, though estimates
vary widely.
Voters have been told that the new money would be spent on
education and transportation — and, crucially, that the
funding would be added to what the state already spends in
those categories. So if it passes, and those promises are
kept, we should expect to see combined spending on education
and transportation shoot up by up to $2 billion almost
overnight.
Opponents, mainly business groups, fear the higher tax will
make the state less economically competitive, driving away
some employers and scaring others from coming here in the
first place. They question whether a tax whose proceeds are
likely to be highly volatile is a good way of funding
transportation and education, which need steady, predictable
funding streams. They raise the issue of “one-time
millionaires,” people who are hit by the tax when selling a
home or business that has appreciated in value. They
question why a state that is currently running a huge budget
surplus needs more revenue.
And they point out that once the tax surcharge is embedded
in the constitution, changing it would be very difficult.
Tax writers should be able to respond nimbly to economic
circumstances. But the Massachusetts Legislature will be
stuck with this unwieldy apparatus of two tax rates that
must always rise and fall in tandem with each other, and
must always be separated by four and exactly four percentage
points. Getting rid of the amendment, if the worst-case
warnings of its opponents come to pass, would require a
lengthy process that can stretch out over four years.
Those are valid objections — and all the more reason why a
straight-up repeal of the uniformity rule, which would take
the minutiae of tax policy out of the constitution entirely,
would have been preferable.
It is also the case that advocates of Yes on Question 1 are
deceiving voters in one respect. Despite their insistence to
the contrary, it is not possible to guarantee that the money
raised by the surcharge will, in fact, be added atop the
existing transportation and education budgets. There is
nothing to stop legislators from shifting existing
transportation and education funding into other parts of the
budget, then backfilling with the proceeds of Question 1.
The only recourse if the Legislature fails to spend the
money as promised is political: voters would have to vote
out legislators who don’t heed the voters’ will.
Frankly, though, many voters seem to understand the
limitations of the amendment. They also get that it may not
even be advisable to immediately plonk $2 billion into
education and transportation agencies that don’t necessarily
have the capacity to spend that money wisely; look how hard
it’s been for the T to even spend the money it has.
The reality is that the state has plenty of needs — in
education and transportation, but also other areas — that
the extra money could either pay for directly, or free space
in the budget for through some legislative sleight of hand.
The Commonwealth has a backlog of bridges that need repair.
It has notoriously high child care costs. It has a housing
affordability crisis. It has a vulnerable coastline that
will need costly protection against rising sea levels.
If the amendment passes, officials will certainly need to
keep a careful watch for the kind of unintended consequences
that critics foresee. Though the experience in other states
with extra taxes on high-earners suggests fears of an exodus
are overblown, it’s always possible the new tax will lead to
a flight of high-earners that offsets its benefits. If the
tax causes small-business owners to relocate out of
Massachusetts — to avoid being hit by a one-time tax —
that’s something that the state will need to counter with
incentives to keep employers here.
As is often the case with ballot questions, voters on
Question 1 are being asked to choose between two
less-than-optimal choices. Overall, though, a yes vote would
move Massachusetts a step away from the unfair income tax
system created in 1915 and toward a fairer Commonwealth
that’s capable of making the investments it needs.
The Springfield
Republican
Thursday, November 3, 2022
A Springfield Republican editorial
Question 1 has pitfalls, no guarantees
Several reasons exist to vote “No,” on Question 1 on
Tuesday’s statewide election ballot, but the best might be
that there’s no assurance extra tax revenue would even go
where it’s supposed to go.
Question 1 is known colloquially as the “Fair Share
Amendment,” or the “millionaire’s tax.” It would change the
Massachusetts Constitution - a risky practice to undertake
by referendum in the first place - by placing a 9% tax on
persons with $1 million or more in income.
The state constitution calls for all citizens to be taxed at
5%. Thus, higher-income residents are already paying more in
real dollars.
If the referendum passes as written, the additional 4% would
go to education and transportation, “subject to
appropriation by the state Legislature.” In plain English,
that means this: the Legislature can take the money and do
whatever it wishes, whether that affects the two designated
areas or not.
Without denigrating the Legislature, what legal assurance is
there that education and transportation would even get the
money? None.
That’s not the only drawback. When the Question 1 movement
began years ago, Massachusetts was struggling economically.
Today, the state has a large surplus and can - and should -
support education and transportation without adding taxes.
Another concern is that high-income residents, who already
pay hefty taxes at 5% and give critical support to
philanthropy, might move to other states. Most ominous about
this measure, though, is how this will affect small business
and so-called “accidental millionaires,” who might exceed
the threshold only once or twice in their lives.
If someone sells their home, for example, and the profits
from the sale pushes their one-year income past $1 million,
they are taxed as millionaires. That could inhibit or even
cripple efforts by small business owners and families to
pass their property or assets to the next generation.
Consider that implication for people like some
already-challenged dairy farmers, for instance.
It’s all too easy for high-wage earners to be looked upon as
the enemy, but this amendment will have its most devastating
effect on the middle class. Question 1 is believed to be the
only referendum question in the nation that calls for a tax
increase.
It comes with giant pitfalls and no guarantee that its
stated purpose will even be honored. The Republican strongly
recommends a “No” vote on Question 1.
Mass Fiscal
Alliance
Thursday, November 3, 2022
Press Release
Defenders of MA’s Flat Tax Remind Voters of the Lessons of
1994 Ballot Question Fight Before They Vote on Question 1.
Democratic and Republican Lawmakers Urge their Voters to
Vote NO on Questions 1 and 4.
BOSTON – The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance hosted a virtual
press conference with various people of different political
ideologies, parties, and interests to make their case to the
media and the public to vote No on Question 1 and No on
Question 4 ahead of Tuesday’s Election.
MassFiscal hosted Chip Ford of the Citizens for Limited
Taxation, and Chris Anderson of the Massachusetts High Tech
Council. Chip and Chris worked together during the last
graduated income tax ballot question in 1994, and they
shared the warning that applied in 1994 election for next
week’s ballot Question 1.
“What can be more fair than every taxpayer paying the same
rate – the very definition of fairness?” asked Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, which
was founded in 1975 to oppose and defeat the fourth
graduated income tax constitutional amendment on the 1976
ballot, then led the opposition that defeated the fifth
attempt on the 1994 ballot. “It seems that deception is
often a part of these proposals and this sixth attempt is no
different,” Ford added. “Five times now, voters have not
been fooled and resoundingly defeated all past assaults on
the flat tax. Let’s defeat it once again and keep the income
tax fair and equal,” said Chip Ford.
“The Mass. High Tech Council’s mission is to create and
protect conditions that support investment, job growth, and
a strong quality of life for Massachusetts employers and
their employees. This led us to support retaining the flat
tax requirement in the Massachusetts Constitution in 1994
and further compels us to oppose Question 1 this year. The
voters were right to say no to the idea of abandoning our
constitutional protection in 1994 and they should do the
same next week. The consequences of an 80% income tax
surcharge on nest egg retirement investments like the sale
of a home, or on small businesses in Massachusetts will
never be a good idea and would be a reality if Question 1 is
passed. As the voters did in 1994, we hope they say no next
week,” said Chris Anderson (president of the Mass.
High Tech Council).
Christopher Carlozzi, State Director of the National
Federation of Independent Business in Massachusetts was
joined by many small business owners who have various
backgrounds but share their concern with Question 1. Luke
Noble of North Andover is a certified financial planner and
accredited estate planner, and is the CEO of Noble Financial
Group, LLC, which has offices in Massachusetts and Florida.
Luke warned that clients will flee to Florida and to other
states if Question 1 is passed, and those discussions have
been ongoing all year leading up to Tuesday’s election.
Ann Sullivan of Dedham owns a few small businesses including
an excavation company, and she warned that if Question 1 is
passed, construction costs will increase and eat into the
retirement nest eggs of small business owners like herself.
Toby Burr is a Marion resident and longtime small business
owner of Burr Brother’s Boats. Toby warned that although the
tax will not impact him with his annual income, it will
impact his customers, which will have a negative impact on
his small business, and the many blue-collar workers he
employs.
Sue Curtis was a resident of Andover but recently moved to
New Hampshire. Sue and her husband own Cooperstown
Environmental, a successful small business located in
Andover, MA. Their small business offers environmental
consulting and Sue warned that the business climate along
the Massachusetts and New Hampshire border will become even
more advantageous for New Hampshire if Question 1 is passed.
Like many small business owners in her situation, they can
move the business up to New Hampshire if Question 1 is
passed.
Mark Dickinson of Scituate, is a successful entrepreneur who
still operates his own small business and has invested in
many other small businesses as an “angel investor.” At one
point, Mark became a resident of Arizona primarily for tax
purposes and returned back to Massachusetts to be closer to
his adult children. However, Mark warned that if Question 1
is passed, he could easily move to New Hampshire and has
already begun the process of purchasing property incase
Question 1 is passed. Mark represents the type of taxpayer
states are trying not lose to Florida and New Hampshire.
Democratic and Republican lawmakers joined to urge their
constituents to vote No on Questions 1 and 4. State Senator
Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton), State Representatives Jeff Turco
(D-Winthrop), Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Steven Xiarhos
(R-Barnstable), Nick Boldyga (R-Southwick), and David DeCoste (R-Norwell) came together to show bi-partisan
support to vote NO on the two questions. They echoed the
points made on Question 1 and warned that Question 4, which
would give driver’s license to illegal immigrants would lead
to problems down the road. Rep. Turco, a Democrat from
outside of Boston voted in favor of the graduated income tax
proposal to go before the voters when it was before the
legislature and is now warning his voters to vote against it
as a ballot question. Reps. Turco and Garry, both
Democratics in the House, warned against Question 4, telling
they constituents that giving a driver’s license to an
illegal immigrant will not make our roads safer, echoing the
points made in the Governor’s veto letter.
Rep. Steven Xiarhos, who served and protected the community
for over 40 years in law enforcement, rising through the
ranks from a seasonal Patrol Officer to Deputy Chief of
Police, said Question 4 will not make our community or roads
safer. Rep. Xiarhos said in order to keep people safe, it’s
important for law enforcement officers to be able to
accurately identify anyone they’re dealing with. Usually, a
driver’s license is a good indicator of identity, but as
Governor Baker noted when he vetoed this bill, the Registry
of Motor Vehicles does not have the ability to verify the
identity of persons who are not in this country legally and
who seek to establish identity based on consular documents
from other nations. Rep. Xiarhos echoed the points the
Governor warned, with this law a standard Massachusetts
driver’s license will no longer confirm that a person is who
they say they are.
Rep. Nick Boldyga, who was a police officer and Board of
Selectman before being elected to the legislature warned
that Question 4 will not make the roads safer, and in fact
will result in the opposite. Rep. Boldyga is just one of the
few Massachusetts lawmakers who served in law enforcement
and warned that his district has ten towns, many of which
are small, and they do not have the resources to handle the
implementation of Question 4. Rep. DeCoste and Senator
Fattman said many of their constituents are worried that if
Question 4 is passed, the Registry of Motor Vehicles will be
overwhelmed because they are not equipped to deal with such
a complicated matter, which should be handled at the federal
level first. Like Governor Baker’s veto letter, the
lawmakers warn that a MA driver’s license would not be able
to determine someone’s true identify if Question 4 is passed
and many town clerks will not be able to communicate with
the Registry of Motor Vehicle to determine a new voter’s
citizenship status.
“No matter where you live, no matter if you think your vote
doesn’t count in Massachusetts, your vote counts for these
ballot questions. I will be voting NO on 1, voting NO on 4
and Voting NO on all 4. That’s the simplest advice we can
give any voters,” concluded Paul Diego Craney, spokesperson
for Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.
# # #
The Salem
News
Tuesday, November 1, 2022
Groups spar over impact of 'fair share' tax
By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter
Business groups on either side of the proposed millionaires
tax are making final pitches to undecided voters with less
than two weeks until the election.
Question 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot will ask Massachusetts
voters to amend the state Constitution to set a 4% surtax on
the portion of an individual’s annual income above $1
million. The money would be earmarked for education and
transportation projects.
On Wednesday, several business groups opposed to the ballot
question held a live-streamed briefing where they talked
about the potential impact on businesses from the proposed
surtax.
The No on 1 coalition, which includes business groups,
chambers of commerce, hoteliers, developers and tax watchdog
groups, argues that the proposed surtax on the state’s top
earners would be “one of the state’s highest income tax
increases in history,” affecting tens of thousands of
residents and business owners.
They said it would also impact “pass-through” businesses —
such as limited liability and “S” corporations — where
profits are passed to the owners’ personal tax filings and
business income is taxed at personal rates, not just
millionaires.
“Roughly 80% of our small business members are pass-through
entities,” said Chris Carlozzi, state director of the
Massachusetts chapter of the National Federation of
Independent Business, a member of the coalition. “And
despite what proponents claim, this tax hike will indeed
impact those businesses.”
Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of
Massachusetts, said the proposed surtax would discourage
entrepreneurship and add to the mounting financial burden of
business owners who are dealing with rising labor costs,
higher unemployment insurance and health care costs and
other economic pressures.
“I’m concerned not only with impact of this tax on the
state’s current small businesses, but the future
entrepreneurs and risk-takers,” Hurst said.
But a coalition of groups backing the proposed surtax pushed
back on those claims, trotting out a list of about 100
businesses they say support the amendment.
The group Fair Share for Massachusetts also pointed to a new
report by the left-leaning Massachusetts Budget and Policy
Center showing that most businesses would pay nothing under
the new tax.
Less than 3% of all business owners in Massachusetts have
taxable personal income over $1 million that would be
subject to the tax, the group said.
“The billionaires and corporate lobbyists who oppose
Question 1 have spent millions trying to scare business
owners and mislead voters by claiming that it is a tax on
businesses, but that’s not true,” Gerly Adrien, the group’s
business director, said in a statement.
Estimates suggest the new tax could drum up between $1.3
million to $2 billion a year to improve schools, expand
child care, and fix crumbling roads and bridges.
Backers of the “millionaires tax” — which include labor
unions, transit groups and advocates for low-income
residents — argue the state’s top earners can afford to dig
deeper into their pockets to drum up more money for fixing
roads and bridges and providing more revenue for public
schools.
But opponents argue the tax would hurt the state’s
competitiveness, drive away the wealthy and put a drag on
the economy as the state recovers from the pandemic.
Much of the debate over the millionaires’ tax has focused on
whether the state Legislature could divert funding from the
tax for purposes other than education and transportation.
Critics of the tax say there’s no guarantee, but supporters
say the spending would be constitutionally required if
voters approve the measure.
But the two sides have also sparred over whether the
proposed tax would impact the sales of homes in
Massachusetts valued at more than $1 million.
The question survived a legal challenge before the Supreme
Judicial Court, which rejected a lawsuit filed by business
groups claiming the move is unconstitutional.
Both sides have raised collectively more than $23 million,
which has been used to fund a barrage of digital, radio and
TV advertising to sway undecided voters.
A recent MassINC poll showed overwhelming support — about
70% — among likely Massachusetts voters for approving the
proposed surtax.
— Christian M. Wade covers
the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media
Group’s newspapers and websites.
The Salem
News
Friday, November 4, 2022
Baker urges voters to reject millionaires' tax
By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter
Days ahead of the election, Republican Gov. Charlie Baker is
urging voters to reject a proposed millionaires' tax after
Democratic leaders pulled the plug on his tax-cut plan.
On Thursday, Baker and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito sent an email
blast to supporters urging that they "join them" in voting
against Question 1 on Tuesday's ballot, which asks
Massachusetts voters to amend the state Constitution to set
a 4% surtax on the portion of an individual’s annual income
above $1 million.
Baker called the plan to tax the state's wealthiest a
"misguided" effort that would "impose an immediate tax hike
on tens of thousands of homeowners, small businesses owners,
and retirees." He said there is no guarantee that the money
would be devoted to transportation and education, as
proponents claim.
"In a time of economic uncertainty and rising prices,
taxpayers should not be asked to give a blank check to
Beacon Hill," Baker said.
Baker has previously stated his opposition to a
millionaires' tax, but his forceful statement urging voters
to reject Question 1 came less than a day after Democratic
legislative leaders said they were pulling a buffet of tax
cuts he proposed from a $3.7 billion economic development
bill.
Baker accused lawmakers of reneging on a "promise" to pass
the tax cuts, and suggests the state doesn't need the extra
revenue from a millionaires' tax.
"In other words, Beacon Hill has plenty of money to spend,
and the tax raised by Question 1 is unnecessary," he said.
Lawmakers failed to pass a $4 billion economic development
plan before the July 31 end of the formal sessions that
included $250 per individual tax rebates and permanent tax
cuts, such as increasing the rental deduction cap, expanding
senior circuit breaker tax credits and updating the estate
tax.
A centerpiece of the legislation called for spending another
$500 million on one-time $250 rebates for an estimated 2
million taxpayers.
On Wednesday, Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, and
House Speaker Ron Mariano, D-Quincy, announced that House
and Senate would be taking up a new version of the economic
development bill, but are putting off the tax cuts until
next year when Baker will no longer be in office.
"This will help to ensure that our discussion of permanent
tax relief can and will be informed by the views of a newly
elected Legislature and governor, while considering the
looming challenges facing the commonwealth," the Democrats
said in a statement.
Spilka and Mariano pointed out that taxpayers will be
getting rebates beginning this month under a 1986
voter-approved law, which requires the state to return money
when tax revenues grow by more than wages and salaries.
Baker says the state has a record budget surplus and can
afford to provide permanent tax relief, rebates and make
economic development investments.
He pointed out that legislative leaders are sitting on
"billions of dollars" in unspent federal pandemic relief
funds.
Backers of Question 1 argue the state's top earners can
afford to dig deeper into their pockets to drum up more
money for fixing roads and bridges and providing more
revenue for public schools.
But opponents argue the tax would hurt the state’s
competitiveness, drive away the wealthy, and put a drag on
the economy as the state recovers from the pandemic.
Much of the debate over the millionaires’ tax has focused on
whether the Legislature could divert funding from the tax
for purposes other than education and transportation.
Critics of the tax say there’s no guarantee, but supporters
say the spending would be constitutionally required if
voters approve it.
They have also sparred over whether the proposed tax would
impact the sales of homes in Massachusetts valued at more
than $1 million. Opponents say it would impact retirees
whose homes are retirement nest eggs, but supporters say
only a fraction of home sales would be impacted by the
surtax.
Both sides have raised collectively more than $38 million,
which has been used to fund a barrage of digital, radio and
TV advertising to sway undecided voters.
A recent MassINC poll showed overwhelming support — about
70% — among likely Massachusetts voters for approving the
proposed surtax.
— Christian M. Wade covers
the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media
Group’s newspapers and websites.
State House News
Service
Thursday, November 3, 2022
House, Senate Spend Surplus After Cutting Tax Relief
Disappointed Guv Could Sign Bill Or Return With Changes
By Chris Lisinski and Colin A. Young
Lawmakers sent a large and long-overdue closeout budget and
economic development bill to Gov. Charlie Baker's desk
Thursday, winning support for the scaled-down measure from
Republicans who agreed to the new spending while lamenting
the death of tax relief top Democrats long promised.
A day after negotiators announced a resolution to their
months-long impasse, both branches gave final approval to
the nearly $3.8 billion bill that will deploy money
remaining from an enormous tax surplus on health care needs,
affordable housing, MBTA safety improvements and other needs
while also allowing the comptroller to close the state's
books for fiscal year 2022.
Legislative leaders opted to weave the closeout components,
which typically feature in a standalone budget bill, into an
updated version of the economic development bill that
cleared both branches unanimously in July.
Any objection from a single representative or senator could
have halted the progress of the bill (H 5374) because
lawmakers punted the measure into the election-season
stretch of informal sessions, but the bill sailed through
easily over the course of the day.
The House accepted the bill with no commentary delivered in
the chamber, and the Senate followed suit after its top
Republican said he was displeased with the demise of
previously approved tax relief measures but was unwilling to
hold up the billions of dollars of spending designed to
support Bay Staters and employers in need.
"At this important point, when one member could stop this
process from moving forward, we will not jeopardize those
important priorities," Tarr said in a speech on the Senate
floor. "Too often, we see sometimes obstruction of someone
else's agenda because someone isn't able to get all of their
agenda. This is a time that requires statespersonship on
behalf of all of us, so we will not stand in the way of
helping all of those that need our help that will be the
beneficiaries of some of the important appropriations in
this bill. But what we will do is insist on a commitment to
this IOU."
The House and Senate dropped from the bill $500 million in
one-time tax rebates that Democrats had said would help
middle-income families deal with inflation and rising costs,
and authorization for another roughly $500 million annually
in estate tax reforms and permanent tax breaks for renters,
seniors, caregivers and others.
Democrats said they opted against keeping those measures due
to "financial uncertainty in the year ahead" and the costs
of nearly $3 billion in checks that started flowing out to
taxpayers this week, as required under the 1986
voter-approved law setting a cap on allowable tax revenues.
They pledged to return to the topic of tax relief next year,
when a new governor will be in office.
Underscoring the tension between party leaders and
Republicans who hold elected office on Beacon Hill, MassGOP
Chair Jim Lyons took a far more critical tone, calling the
bill a "progressive grab bag stuffed with handouts."
"They removed the tax cuts from the original package, and
the reason they did that, according to their own words, is
that they're uncertain about economic conditions moving
forward," Lyons said in a statement. "Yet somehow that isn't
stopping them from spending a whopping $3.7 billion of the
taxpayers' money."
Lyons, a former representative, said approving the bill in
an informal session -- the only kind of session legislative
rules allow at this point in the calendar -- is "a slap in
the face to the voters." He did not criticize House or
Senate Republicans for not attempting to slow the bill down
or block its passage.
House Minority Leader Brad Jones called the lack of tax
reform in the bill after months of negotiations
"disappointing," particularly because both branches had
agreed to the idea unanimously this summer before Democrats
became aware the state owed nearly $3 billion back to
taxpayers under Chapter 62F.
"The 62F money is great, but it's not permanent," Jones told
the News Service. "People need it with everything going up
across the board and winter and cold weather coming upon us,
but that's not permanent."
The bill approved Thursday combines spending measures that
passed both branches unanimously in the earlier drafts of
the economic development bill with some additions that
neither the House nor Senate had previously debated or
brought forward for a vote.
Its bottom line of nearly $3.8 billion uses $500 million in
federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, less than
half as much as both branches approved using in July, and
exhausts the rest of the massive tax surplus the state
collected in the fiscal year that ended June 30.
Spending highlights include $350 million in aid for
hospitals experiencing pandemic-influenced financial strain,
$225 million for human service rate increases, $195 million
for nursing facilities and rest homes, $540 million for
clean energy and climate resilience programs, $409.5 million
for affordable housing, and $112 million to help the MBTA
make federally mandated safety fixes, according to a Senate
summary.
"We absolutely are looking forward to working toward more
permanent relief after we provide this $3 billion of relief
in this particular vehicle, more permanent relief in years
going forward," Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair
Michael Rodrigues said during debate at a pre-election
session that most lawmakers did not attend. "I look forward
to once again working with [Tarr], working with his caucus,
working with every member here in the Senate as we draft and
craft permanent tax relief going forward."
Baker, who proposed a similar package of tax relief in
January, did not make clear Thursday whether he would try to
revive any of those measures by returning the bill with an
amendment, saying he needs first to "read it and talk about
it and figure it out."
He voiced disappointment in the death-for-now of the tax
measures, particularly with revenues continuing to surge
through the first few months of fiscal year 2023.
"I feel bad for renters, I feel really bad for all those
low-income taxpayers of Massachusetts who don't pay federal
taxes, and there are a lot of people who have dependent care
issues, some of which relate to the pandemic and some of
which are just life," Baker told reporters after a State
House event on Thursday. "The House and Senate basically
reached an agreement on that, and I'm sorry it didn't make
it through to the finals because with the cost of everything
being what it is right now, that would've been a real
benefit to a lot of those folks going forward."
"I hope they come back and do it next year, but that's a
year lost and a year's worth of 6 percent increases on
practically everything that people wouldn't have gotten the
benefit of the tax relief for," he added.
Like he did during debate in May on the state's annual
budget, Tarr took to the Senate floor with a bundle of props
including burlap sacks and a hefty tome of state law. At one
point, he unfurled a sheet of paper with the letters "IOU"
emblazoned on it as a reference to the lack of permanent tax
breaks in the bill.
The failure to reform the Massachusetts estate tax
particularly stung Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
President Eileen McAnneny, who said the Bay State is an
"outlier" in how it imposes that levy.
"It's a missed opportunity and I hope they will revisit this
in the new year," McAnneny said. She added, "A lot of people
care about this. Our demographics, we tend to be an older
state, so this is relevant for a large subset of taxpayers
and the fact it came so close and didn't make it over the
finish line may concern them."
Other items of note missed the cut for the final version as
well, like giving cities and towns the option of allowing
happy hours again, Baker's school safety initiative, and
authorization for online Lottery sales.
The happy hour local option, which originated in the Senate,
would have given municipalities a way to move away from the
38-year-old state ban on discounted drink promotions. Baker
was no fan of the idea and said in September that he would
"most likely" veto happy hour language if it reached his
desk. At this late stage of the two-year legislative
session, legislative rules disallow roll call votes to
override a gubernatorial veto.
The supplemental budget that Baker filed in late August,
which was melded into the economic development conference
committee report, called for about $40 million for a school
safety program that the governor had announced a few weeks
earlier.
House Ways and Means Chairman Aaron Michlewitz said
Wednesday that the package of matching grants for security
and communications upgrades in K-12 schools and public
higher education campuses, safety and multi-hazard emergency
planning grant funding for child care providers, and more
was not included in the final package.
The final economic development bill leaves out the House's
authorization for the Mass. Lottery to sell its products
over the internet. Citing increased competition for gambling
dollars from casinos, daily fantasy sports and sports
betting, Treasurer Deborah Goldberg has been asking for that
power for years.
Also absent from the final economic development bill is any
increase in the cap on the Housing Development Incentive
Program, which has been set at $10 million since 2014. The
House and Senate each adopted slightly different language to
accomplish the same program expansion and the mayors of 24
Gateway Cities wrote to House and Senate leaders Monday to
urge them to pick either approach for the final bill. HDIP
expansion provisions were similarly approved by both
branches but left out of the economic development bill that
passed in January 2021.
Another item that was included in the original House and
Senate bills but did not survive conference talks is a
reauthorization for the brownfields tax credit, a key
program to environmental mitigation and development efforts.
Advocates said the tax credit program is set to expire in
2024.
— Sam Drysdale contributed
reporting.
State House News
Service
Friday, November 5, 2022
Weekly Roundup - Christmas In July, In November
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Sam Doran
It was a warm 60-degree day on Beacon Hill, and under the
Golden Dome senators were engaged in a miniature debate on
taxes and spending. What month is it again?
The days have grown shorter, there's less than a week 'til
Election Day, and yet multiple observers remarked it felt
like the Legislature was churning through formal sessions --
a surreal summertime kind of vibe.
At the center of the action was a nearly $3.8 billion
spending package that Democratic leaders brought to life a
couple days after Halloween, stitching together a
long-stalled economic development bill with a spending bill
to close the books on fiscal 2022. They chopped the head off
their own tax reform plans in the process, with some
Democrats instead looking to grab some of the limelight
associated with the automatically-triggered tax relief
that's underway, with checks and direct deposits beginning
to flow on Tuesday.
The closeout budget dealt with a fiscal year that ended June
30 (and ideally would be settled in September, if you ask
the comptroller), and talks on the economic development bill
had slammed into a wall on the night of July 31.
"Keep in mind, the world doesn't end on July 31," Sen.
Michael Rodrigues said back on July 28.
Gov. Charlie Baker has more than a week to act on the bill,
which includes big buckets of money like $350 million to
help hospitals experiencing financial strain from the
COVID-19 pandemic, $195 million for nursing facilities and
rest homes, and $540 million for clean energy and climate
resilience programs, along with niche items like $100,000
for the slowfooted State Seal Commission.
And then there's the earmarks for back home, like $50,000
towards the observance of Hyde Park's 155th anniversary,
$25,000 to help the Plymouth Area Chamber of Commerce create
a Duxbury Chamber affiliate, and $100,000 for emergency
repairs at the VFW post in Revere (which Revere lawmakers
can also highlight on Veterans Day in their community).
Some State House folks call it the "Christmas in July" bill
because of all the money for communities that individual
reps and senators can point to as a proud accomplishment
with direct local impact. And, the bill would normally have
been wrapped up in July.
Now it's Christmas in July, in November. Should make for
some good campaign stops over the weekend if the subject is
local projects, but the timing is awkward if constituents
want to know about once-promised reforms to the estate tax,
or increases to child tax credits or the renter's tax
deduction cap.
House budget chief Rep. Aaron Michlewitz last month said no,
the election date wasn't a factor in negotiations over the
giant spending bill.
But when House Speaker Ron Mariano unveiled details of the
final product to the press Wednesday, he offered a candid
look into an elected official's mindset with less than a
week until Election Day.
"It's been no secret what was in the bill. And there's a lot
of important items in there for members, as they're back
home fighting to get reelected. I think there's a
self-interest in making sure some of these projects get
done," said the Quincy Democrat, who is himself unopposed
next Tuesday.
Maybe that was just the trick to skate the bill through the
chambers during informal sessions, when a single objection
can shut down the whole show.
Democratic leaders have said they were caught offguard when
the state hit its revenue cap under a 1986 law known as
Chapter 62F, to the tune of around $3 billion which started
flowing back to taxpayers this week in the form of rebate
checks.
Under 62F, those rebates are issued in an amount
proportional with a person's 2021 tax bill, meaning
wealthier taxpayers are seeing heftier checks than
low-income people. They're rebates, not exactly the "relief"
for average citizens that legislative Democrats proposed
earlier this year in their tax plan.
"I feel bad for renters, I feel really bad for all those
low-income taxpayers of Massachusetts who don't pay federal
taxes, and there are a lot of people who have dependent care
issues, some of which relate to the pandemic and some of
which are just life," Gov. Charlie Baker said Thursday.
The narrative seemed a bit different between the House and
Senate on the topic of 62F this week.
Asked what sort of relief could now flow to lower-income
folks, Mariano responded by saying Chapter 62F was "the
system that the governor chose to use, and we
philosophically raised some questions about this."
On the Senate floor, Rodrigues trumpeted the fact that the
compromise bill accounted for the $3 billion in "historic
levels of tax relief to over 3 million tax filers," although
that was already underway before the bill was even filed.
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, the lone Republican
senator to attend the session in person, sounded like he
objected at heart -- at least to the cleaving of tax reforms
that were dangled in front of Bay Staters for months. But in
the interest of "statespersonship," he said, he wouldn't
derail the train for want of one car.
After the branches adjourned Thursday, the Department of
Revenue sent out another report of bulkier-than-expected
revenues for the month of October -- $2.359 billion, which
was nearly $300 million over the Baker administration's
benchmarks.
|
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
|
