Post Office Box 1147    Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945    (781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”

48 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
and their Institutional Memory


Help save yourself join CLT today!


CLT introduction  and membership  application

What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone

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

Ask your friends to join too

Visit CLT on Facebook

Barbara Anderson's Great Moments

Follow CLT on Twitter

CLT UPDATE
Sunday, 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


Full News Reports
(excerpted above)

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