The legislature's proposed Income Surtax amendment, aka Proposition 80, aka the “Millionaire’s Tax” is an attempt by far-left pressure groups to impose a constitutional amendment on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that would allow the imposition of a surtax on income above $1,000,000 dollars. Currently, all Massachusetts residents enjoy a constitutionally protected right to equal taxation. Similar schemes have been rejected by the voters five times, each time failing by wide margins (1962, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1994). In 2018, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled an attempt to bring the measure to the 2018 ballot unconstitutional.
In June of 2021, the Fiscal Alliance Foundation and The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) released a study showing the effects of instituting a so called “Millionaire’s Tax” on the Massachusetts economy: That study is available here: https://www.fiscalalliancefoundation.org/new-study-millionaires-tax-high-cost-low-return
The BHI/FAF study is the first time in recent memory that Massachusetts data was collected and used to determine the economic result if this tax were to become law. This is especially relevant because of the recent effects of COVID-19 on the state economy.
The Fiscal Alliance Foundation specifically states, “The “Millionaire’s Tax” will be harmful to state’s economy and will result in lost jobs, investments, and disposable income. With its high economic costs in place, the tax would also bring far less revenue than what proponents currently claim. Contrary to their messaging, BHI found that the middle class would also feel the impact of this tax. For example, in 2023, more than 4,000 families would leave Massachusetts with employment dipping by nearly 9,000 jobs. To make matters worse, according to BHI, the tax will only bring in about half ($1.2 billion) of the amount politicians are claiming ($2 billion). The dramatic discrepancy in how much would be collected would most likely not result in a reduction in planned state spending, but rather, new taxes and fees falling on the middle class to make up for the low return from the tax.”
Increasing taxes on wealthy citizens also has major potential to backfire. For instance, a single taxpayer, David Tepper, left New Jersey because of a similar tax scheme they launched, 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).
When politicians institute taxes like these, they spend the money immediately. When the revenue doesn’t pan out as projected, there’s only one place left to get the money they’ve already spent: middle and working class families. That’s when that million-dollar threshold will crash down on the rest of us.
Aims to inform public on the substantial costs and minute benefits of the legislationRead more
By Patrick Gleadon | July 18, 2019
Democrats are talking about whether to hold a presidential primary debate focused on climate change alone. The DNC won’t commit to such a forum, but Gizmodo and New Republic recently announced the two media outlets will host a climate-centric debate in New York City. However it's questionable whether that event will be able to get candidates to show up on account of the homophobic op-ed recently published and then retracted by the New Republic, which was subsequently dropped as a debate-cohost.Read more
Last week the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, our 501(c)3 sister organization, released the results of a study into the effects of H.2810, An Act to Promote Green Infrastructure and Reduce Carbon Emissions. This bill is the leading proposal to institute a carbon tax on the hard-working families of Massachusetts. You can view the whole of the study by clicking here.Read more