(BOSTON)--The Legislature, meeting in joint session today, voted to move along the so-called Millionaire's Tax. The tax scheme, would increase rates by 80 percent for some. For the proposed constitutional amendment to advance, only 50 members needed to vote yes. Similar schemes have been rejected by the voters five times, each time failing by wide margins (1962, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1994).
“Proposition 80, which would establish a graduated income tax, is bad enough in itself, but this specific measure is poorly designed. Earmarking revenue and specifying tax brackets aren't the sorts of things that belong in our constitution," Paul Craney, Executive Director of The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said. "Putting such a muddled mess on the ballot is unfair to voters.”
Craney also pointed out that increasing taxes generally backfires on lawmaker’s intent on raising revenue. A single taxpayer, David Tepper, left New Jersey because of a similar tax scheme earlier this year, taking his investment company with him. Estimates put the loss of revenue upwards of $140,000,000 a year (New York Post, 4/10/16).
"And when the tax doesn't generate the expected revenue," Craney said, "That million-dollar threshold will crash down on the rest of us."
# # #
The Dirty Dozen stand behind a proposed 80 percent increase in state income taxes. They want to make us prisoners to higher taxes again. Do you stand with them?
Opposition to the new tax scheme grows daily. Some oppose it because it is poorly written. The measure would go far as to write into the state constitution specific language on income thresholds and earmarked revenue. Others oppose the new tax because it raises the rate to 9.1 percent on top earners in the state. The effect of that increase on the Massachusetts economy will likely be disastrous. High-wage industries won’t see our state as a friendly place to build, and the best and brightest will be driven away.
Legislators have tried to implement a graduated income tax before, and Massachusetts voters have struck it down by sizable margins each time. In 1962, 83% of voters rejected it. In 1968, 70% voted no. In 1972, 67% voted against the measure. In 1976, 73% came out against it. Most recently, in 1994, 64% rejected a fifth attempt at a graduated income tax. History speaks, and the Massachusetts electorate has overwhelmingly rejected progressive income taxes time and time again
We oppose the graduated income tax proposal. Our flat tax on income builds in protection from economic downturns and ensures fairness.
The dirty dozen will call it a millionaire’s tax, we’ll call it what it is: an 80 percent tax hike on the state’s economic leaders. The dirty dozen love to quietly pervert the tax code, and we won’t let that happen. Working in secret is their top strategy for kow-towing to special interests at the expense of a healthy Massachusetts economy, so Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance will scream their intentions from the rooftops.
Join our grassroots campaign opposing the 80 percent tax hike. Check our “Call to Action” and contact your lawmakers and urge them to oppose the graduated income tax.
(BOSTON)—Yesterday, the state Superior Court scheduled a hearing for December 7th in the suit to close the union loophole in state campaign finance law.
Jim Manley, senior attorney for The Goldwater Institute, and Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, will be available on a conference call at 11 a.m. today.
The Goldwater Institute, a foundation helping with the legal challenge, recently won a preliminary injunction in a companion lawsuit filed in Kentucky. While not directly applicable in Massachusetts, the injunction speaks to the inherent unfairness of a corporate contribution ban. A copy of the Kentucky lawsuit and call-in instructions are available upon request.
The lawsuit, filed in 2015 by businesses owned by MassFiscal board members Rick Green and Mike Kane, seeks to close the union loophole in Massachusetts campaign finance law. The loophole bans political contributions from businesses while allowing unions, including out of state unions, to contribute up to $15,000 to a single candidate. Unions, under current law, may also contribute via Political Action Committees, while PACs supported by businesses are prohibited. Individuals are permitted to donate up to $1,000 to a single candidate. Massachusetts is one of only six states with campaign finance laws that advantage unions.
"With Boston City Hall at the center of a maelstrom of union extortion charges and a federal corruption probe, the environment has never been better to right this wrong," executive director of MassFiscal Paul D. Craney said. "The political process in Massachusetts is rigged to benefit union interests over the interests of everyone else."
# # #