Voters Wanted Fairness and Investment, not Tax Cuts for the Rich

Roslindale Canvass for Fair Share

Testimony to the Joint Committee on Revenue on Tuesday, March 28, 2023 by Nina Lev of Roslindale

I am Nina Lev, a retired Physician Assistant. I have lived in Massachusetts for over 50 years and in Boston for 40 years. I am testifying in support of S.1784, a fairer and less costly proposal to reform the estate tax threshold without giving a tax break to multi-million dollar estates.

I voted and worked to pass the Fair Share Amendment because I am strong supporter of public education and transportation. As a single mom earning minimum wage I was able to complete my BA at U. Mass in 1978 because the tuition was so reasonable. My daughter received an excellent education in Mass Public school and is thriving in her career as an educator. As a senior citizen, I hope to age in place in Boston and be able to depend on public transportation. But I’m concerned that the current state of the MBTA will make that difficult. The T will need a lot of resources to make up for years of neglect.

I also voted for the Fair Share Amendment because I believe in Tax Fairness. As a member of Progressive WROX/ROZ I talked to hundreds of neighbors about the Fair Share Amendment at the farmer’s market and canvassing door to door and a vast majority of those I spoke with supported the amendment because they wanted to make the Massachusetts tax code fairer. Giving multi-million dollar estates a six figure tax cut is the opposite of what we wanted.

Lastly, I am retired from a successful career, which I attribute, in part, to the public education I have received. My estate could potentially be subject to an estate tax. If so, I will consider myself and my beneficiaries fortunate and hope that the funds go to create opportunities for the the next generations. As you consider reforms to the estate tax, please don’t give the largest estates a tax break.

“We voted to have those who have a little more to pay their fair share.”

Malden Fair Share

Testimony from Keith Bernard before the Joint Committee on Revenue on Tuesday, March 28

Honorable chairs and members of the committee,

My name is Keith Bernard from Malden and for transparency, while I am an elected member of the Malden School Committee, I am not representing them and I am testifying on behalf of Mystic Valley Progressives, a chapter of Progressive Mass. I am also testifying because I am father and as of a month ago a grandfather. Our group supports favorable reporting of S.1784 and H.2960, a fairer and less costly proposal to reform the estate tax threshold without giving an enormous tax break to multi-million-dollar estates.

In November, I voted for the Fair Share Amendment because I believe that our public school systems as well as our transportation network had been underfunded for a long time. I saw my neighbors, and the children in my neighborhood not getting the services they needed to thrive. Educational professionals could not afford to work at a job that many of them loved. I saw my city having to make difficult choices to make our budgets work and I know that Malden is not the only municipality that faces these hard decisions.

You may know Malden, because of our recent teacher strike. I was happy to vote to approve raises for our teachers and especially our educational professionals. I have neighbors that work for the Malden Public School but were not being paid a living wage, and we fixed that. I do not want to look them in the face when we lose other programs that the working families of Malden because we now have a revenue gap.

We voted to have those who have a little more to pay their fair share. We asked for revenue to be generated in a fair manner so we could invest in our children and our workers. We need well-funded schools, and we need trains and buses that run on time and and regularly. However, I and our members do not support giving multimillion dollar estates a six-figure tax cut. As you consider reforms to the estate tax, please respect the will of the many who voted Yes on 1, and do not give the largest estates a tax break. Thank you for your time and we look forward to seeing S.1784 and H.2960 be reported out favorably.

Fair Share was a Transformative Win. Let’s Protect It.

Fair Share

Tuesday, March 28, 2023

Chair Moran, Chair Cusack, and Members of the Joint Committee on Revenue, 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, multi-issue grassroots advocacy organization with chapters across the commonwealth committed to fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Massachusetts. 

Because of our commitment to a vision of shared prosperity, we have been involved with the Fair Share Amendment campaign from the start, and last year, we knocked over 100,000 doors for Question 1 — not to mention the work of phone banking, text-banking, tabling at community events, and talking with friends and neighbors. Everyday people around the commonwealth got involved with the campaign because they realized the need for a fairer code and the transformative potential of the investments we could make with new revenue. 

They understood that more revenue could mean greater reinvestment in schools to ensure that buildings are safe, green, and healthy; to address the social and emotional needs of students coming out of a pandemic; to ensure that underpaid professionals get the compensation they deserve; and to deliver on the promise of the Student Opportunity Act. They understood that more revenue could mean changing course from our decades-long disinvestment from public higher education and instead guaranteeing better pay for faculty and staff and ensuring that students can graduate without debt. They understood that more revenue could mean finally fixing the MBTA so that the buses and trains run frequently, reliably, and safely — as well as to more places and at lower cost. They understood that more revenue could mean fixing our roads so that they are no longer ridden with potholes and upgrading structurally deficient bridges that plague so many communities. 

The voters understood too, delivering a win for Question 1 in November. Massachusetts voters were clear: make sure the rich pay their fair share so that we can invest in our education and infrastructure. 

Elected officials said that the barrier to doing important things was money, so we went out and made sure to organize and mobilize to get that revenue. And the Governor’s proposal would give it right back. 

Regressive tax cuts account for almost $400 million of Gov. Healey’s tax proposal. The proposed cut to the short-term capital gains tax would be bad for the economy, by encouraging more speculative activities such as rapid stock trading and “flipping” real estate, and it would be deeply regressive, as the highest-income 1 percent of households would receive almost eighty percent of the tax cut at an average of over $7,000 apiece.

The proposed cut to the estate tax is also deeply regressive. We can acknowledge that “cliffs,” as exists in the estate tax, are not good policy designs, but that should not lead to excluding estates up to $3 million and providing a $182,000 tax cut to estates even larger than that. There is no world in which a $10 million estate needs an extra $182,000. If the Legislature would like to update the estate tax, it should heed proposals like H.2960/S.1784: An Act relative to estate tax reform, which would only lift the exemption threshold to $2 million and would provide no tax breaks to larger estates. Such a proposal, in contrast to the Governor’s, would preserve most of the revenue-generation, inequality-reduction, and fairness benefits of the estate tax, while eliminating the current cliff effect.

Other parts of the Governor’s tax proposal are, fortunately, not so regressive, but they still do little to address the cost of living in Massachusetts. A child tax credit providing $600 per child under 13 would not even cover two weeks of child care. An expanded renters deduction would lead to merely $50 more for renters, if they even qualify. Tax credits are an inefficient way to meet the very real needs of caregivers and renters, and the Legislature must act swiftly to pass legislation to address the high cost of child care and the impact of escalating rents. If the Legislature would like to advance the Governor’s tax credits, they should be paid for with progressive, revenue-raising changes to the tax code, so that they do not drain down payments on transformative policy that actually addresses the high cost of living. 

Massachusetts needs robust state revenue if we want to take action to address the child care affordability crisis, the housing affordability crisis, growing student and medical debt, the climate crisis, and an often-malfunctioning transit system. Moreover, as the federal government seems headed for debt-ceiling brinkmanship, Republican-led austerity, and the sunset of COVID-era aid, Massachusetts will likely see greater need for state revenue to fill in the gaps. Now is not the time for permanent, regressive tax-cutting. 

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Action: Here’s How You Can Help Protect the Fair Share Win

Earlier this year, Governor Healey proposed a plan to cut state taxes by a billion dollars each year, including nearly $400 million in tax cuts for the very wealthy. This proposed billion-dollar permanent tax cut would directly undermine the goals of the Fair Share Amendment while placing the state at risk for catastrophic budget cuts in future years.

It’s important that legislators hear loud and clear that this is directly against the will of the voters.

(1) Write to your state legislators: Let them know that it’s not okay to undermine Fair Share by giving big tax cuts to the rich. Massachusetts voters were clear: we want the rich to pay their fair share so that we can invest in public education and infrastructure.

(2) Show up to the State House tomorrow: The Joint Committee on Revenue will be holding a hearing tomorrow (Tuesday, March 28) on the Governor’s tax proposal and related bills. Join us and other allies from Raise Up Mass at the hearing.

Revenue Hearing, Tuesday, March 28, 11 am, Room A-1, State House

(3) Share the message: Raise Up has a handy set of infographics here to illuminate what’s at stake.

What’s Progressive and What’s Not in Gov. Healey’s Tax Proposal

In her campaign last year, Governor Maura Healey touted a promise to cut taxes and address the high cost of living in Massachusetts. In her recently released budget, she offered her version of tax reform.

Before diving into it, any discussion of taxes must begin with a few acknowledgements:

(1) The “Taxachusetts” myth is just that: indeed, we are middle-of-the-pack when it comes to taxation levels compared to other states.

(2) We have long had a regressive tax code, with a flat income tax such — meaning that someone making $30,000 would pay the same income tax rate as someone making $3 million. Voters, fortunately, chose to take a step forward toward progressivity by passing the Fair Share Amendment last fall, creating a surtax on income over $1 million.

(3) If we want to invest in our collective well-being and our public infrastructure, we need revenue. If we want to maintain public goods and services, we need to invest in them.

Back to Healey’s proposal…

How much? The total tax package would cost $986 million each year. Notably, that is almost the same as the amount of money she plans to designate for Fair Share revenue and appropriations ($1 billion). Healey’s proposed use of Fair Share funds cover many important programs and initiatives, but if we raise $1 billion only to also spend $1 billion in tax cuts, we risk creating a situation where money is just being moved around. Fair Share funds should be truly additive to deliver on the intent of the voters. Moreover, spending so much on long-term tax cuts is also risky as increased federal funding for Mass Health, rental assistance, and SNAP is ending — and could be cut even further if Republicans in Congress get their way.

What’s Most Progressive? According to an analysis from MassBudget, the most progressive parts of Healey’s proposal are the doubling of the the Senior Circuit Breaker tax credit (which helps offset property taxes faced by seniors with modest incomes) and an increase in the Renters Deduction (which, in impact, ends up only $50 for renters who don’t already get a refund). An extra $50 in the pocket of renters ultimately won’t go very far, given escalating rents and costs in general. Combined, these proposals amount to $100 million.

MassBudget: https://massbudget.org/2023/03/16/gov-tax-plan/

What’s Somewhat Progressive? The largest part of the tax package is the child and family tax credit, which would amount to $600 per child under 13 or dependent adult and cost $458 million. It is unclear why parents of teenagers should not get the same benefit: any parent of a teenager will tell you how much it costs to feed a teenager. Families with low and middle incomes will certainly benefit from extra money in their pocket, but $600 will not last long given that two weeks of child care cost more than that. The credit thus does little to address the real drivers of the cost of living in Massachusetts, even if it can help around the edges.

What’s Regressive? Unfortunately, almost $400 million in tax cuts from the package are outright regressive in impact. That includes $117 million in a cut to the tax rate for short-term capital gains: the highest-income 1 percent of households would receive an estimated 77 percent of this – an average of over $7,000 apiece. Even more jarring is the cut to the estate tax, which would amount to $275 million. Healey’s proposal would create a $182,000 tax credit for large estates, wiping away estate tax for estates under $3 million and amounting to a $182,000 giveaway to estates over $3 million.

What Should Change? Any tax reform package should be progressive overall and should also be at least revenue-neutral (meaning that it raises back anything that it spends). Legislators should reject outright the proposed cut to the capital gains tax, as they did last year when Governor Baker proposed it. If legislators are committed to changing the estate tax, they can eliminate the cliff effect that currently exists at $1 million without giving away money to the largest estates. And if legislators want to pass the more progressive parts of Healey’s proposal, they should fund them by embracing progressive tax proposals like increasing the corporate tax rate, increasing the tax rate on offshored income, or creating a tiered corporate minimum tax (so that large corporations can’t get by with only paying $456).

What Can You Do? Write to your legislators! They need to hear from you while they are crafting their own budget proposals.

ACT NOW: Voters Want Investment, Not Tax Cuts for the Rich

In November, voters passed the Fair Share Amendment, decisively choosing to raise significant new revenue for investments in transportation and public education by increasing taxes on the richest taxpayers.

Any additional changes to state tax policy should similarly prioritize fairness while preserving state revenues that are necessary to sustain long-term improvements in both education and transportation, as well as other critical areas such as housing, health care, and human services.

Unfortunately, last week, Governor Maura Healey put forth a proposal to cut state taxes by a billion dollars each year, including nearly $400 million in cuts to estate and short-term capital gains taxes that amount to a windfall to the richest 1%, would directly undermine the goals of the Fair Share Amendment while placing the state at risk for catastrophic budget cuts in future years.

How much would different groups receive from proposed state tax cuts? Low-income seniors: $1,200 Renters: $50 Children: $6500 Estates worth over $3 million: $182,000

Tackling the real challenges to the Commonwealth’s economic competitiveness – from working families’ struggles to afford housing and child care, to our economy’s need for an educated workforce and safe and reliable transportation infrastructure – will require making significant investments over the coming years. To make those investments possible, we need to protect both the new revenue from the Fair Share Amendment, and overall state revenue in general.

The ball is now in the Legislature’s court, as the House and the Senate will be working on their respective budgets in the coming weeks.

Contact your legislators today to prioritize and protect both the new revenue from the Fair Share Amendment, and overall state revenue in general, this year in the FY24 Budget.

Letter: “In pitching Healey on tax reform, Question 1’s foes haven’t gotten the message”

Jonathan Cohn, “In pitching Healey on tax reform, Question 1’s foes haven’t gotten the message,” (letter) Boston Globe, January 25, 2023.

In November, voters chose a fairer tax system by passing Question 1, the “millionaires tax” (“Business community has a big ask of new governor: Tackle taxes,” Chesto Means Business, Jan. 19). Voters were clear that the best way to boost Massachusetts’ economy isn’t cutting taxes for the ultrarich; rather, it’s raising them to invest in public goods that help all residents and businesses succeed, such as well-funded schools, better roads and bridges, affordable public colleges and universities, and reliable public transportation.

Massachusetts faces real problems that are threatening our economic competitiveness, from our high housing costs and crumbling infrastructure to the enormous burden families face paying for child care and college.

But the business lobbyists who led the losing fight against Question 1 clearly haven’t gotten the message. They continue to pay lip service to the need to solve those big problems while focusing their real energy on their latest effort to cut taxes for the wealthy.

The passage of the Fair Share Amendment showed that voters want to see our state government make major investments to tackle the challenges we face as a Commonwealth. Large, profitable corporations and their wealthy investors need to stop putting up roadblocks to the change voters demanded.

Celebrating—and Building on—Historic Victories

YES on 1 YES on 4

On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters made history. We made history.

YES on 1, YES on 4

By voting YES on 1 and passing the Fair Share Amendment, Massachusetts voters said YES to a more equitable tax code and to transformative investments in our public schools and infrastructure.

This victory was years, decades, in the making. Since voters put a flat tax into the state constitution in 1915, Massachusetts has suffered from a regressive tax code, hamstringing our ability to deliver on a goal on shared prosperity despite great resources. Five times, activists tried to change that, but each time, facing moneyed opposition, misinformation, and anti-tax sentiment, they lost.

But this time, we—the people—won. The millionaires and billionaires of the state will chip in more so that every student can get a high-quality public education, so that our public colleges and universities can get proper funding, so that our roads and bridges can be safe to drive on, and so that our public transit systems can move us around the commonwealth more quickly.

And that win would never have happened without the countless hours of work from members of the Raise Up Mass Coalition, which we have been proud to be a part of. Your hours of signature collection, pledge card collection, phone calling, canvassing, educating friends and neighbors, holding events. It is that work that is the lifeblood of democracy.

By voting YES on 4 and upholding the Work & Family Mobility Act, we cemented our status as the 17th state to ensure that all qualified drivers, regardless of immigration status, can obtain a driver’s license, making our roads safer, expanding economic opportunity, recognizing that mobility is a basic right, and treating our immigrant communities with the dignity they deserve.

That victory, both legislative and ballot, was the result of the Driving Families Forward coalition, which we were proud to be a part of. And it, again, required the work of outreach, of organizing, and of pushing back against misinformation.

Both wins show the power of organizing across the Commonwealth in ways that bring community groups into coalition with labor and in ways that listen to the voices and needs of the most impacted.

So, THANK YOU for what you’ve done in making those victories possible.

But also THANK YOU for the work you will continue to do. Progressive Mass was founded almost ten years ago out of a recognition that this work needs to continue after the election is over. That period in between cycles is when we preserve and grow the power that we build, where we foster communities of organizers, where we educate our neighbors about what is possible.

We hope you’ll join us in that work by becoming a member of Progressive Mass.

Thank you for all you do.

The polls close soon…where is your vote?

It’s finally Election Day!!!  
This year’s ballot questions have the possibility to greatly impact the safety and equity of life in Massachusetts.

Whether that impact will be positive or negative is up to your YES votes.

Below is an explanation of why we have endorsed YES on Questions 1, 2, and 4 (and for those select districts, 5 and 6). Please share these resources with your family, friends and neighbors and help us promote progressive policy.

YES ON 1: Fair Share Amendment

The Fair Share Amendment – Question 1 on the November ballot – will allow Massachusetts to improve our transportation and public education systems by making the very rich pay their fair share. Question 1 would create a 4 percent tax on the portion of a person’s annual income above $1 million and constitutionally dedicate the funds to be spent on transportation and public education. Only people who earn more than $1 million annually will be impacted; 99% of us won’t pay a penny more. And we’ll all benefit from better schools, roads, bridges, and public transportation.

We know that there are lots of questions about how the tax will be implemented and spent. The Fair Share FAQ website has factual, easy to understand answers, including in the extremely rare instances where it will apply to the sale of houses and businesses.

YES on 2: Better Dental Care

In Massachusetts, we have a law that requires medical insurance plans to spend at least 88% of all premiums on health care or efforts to improve the quality of health care delivery. However, no such requirement exists for dental insurance. If Question 2 passes, a minimum of 83% of your premium would have to be spent on care, rather than profit, and strengthen financial transparency of dental insurance companies.

To learn how a Yes vote on Question 2 will require more patient dollars to be spent on patient care check out the Yes on 2 website FAQ.

YES on 4: Safer Roads

A YES on 4 would uphold the Work & Family Mobility Act, a bill passed by 75% of the MA Legislature that would allow qualified drivers – regardless of immigration status – to pass a road test, buy insurance, obtain a license and legally drive in Massachusetts. By voting YES ON 4, Massachusetts voters will ensure that immigrants without status can legally make essential trips, like dropping off kids at school and getting to work, while promoting road safety for all of us.

Learn more about the positive impact similar legislation has made in other states and why it should stay law by visiting the Safer Roads MA FAQ site.

Wait, Is There a Q5 or a Q6, too?

In select state representative districts, there are non-binding advisory questions as well, and if you see them on your ballot, we recommend voting YES on these questions also:

  • YES on 5, which would instruct the district’s state representative to support legislation to create a single payer health care system in Massachusetts so that we finally treat health care as a right, not a privilege.
  • YES on 6, which would instruct the district’s state representative to support a change to the MA House’s rules enabling all legislative committees’ votes to be public, posted online as they are in most other states.

Both are clear and simple; and lots of YES votes send a strong message to your state representative.

Some final voting reminders…

If you have any questions about the ballot questions or making your vote count, please feel free to respond to this email- we are here to help!

A real Halloween fright…not knowing your voting plan.

Wouldn’t it be terrifying if you didn’t having a voting plan?! Don’t worry we have all the resources you need to get your vote out, and help get your community to the polls as well!

Upcoming Election Deadlines

  • Vote by mail:
    • We strongly encourage you to submit your mail in ballot by November 1st so it reaches your town clerk or local elections office by November 8th. Your ballot will be counted as long as it’s postmarked by November 8th and arrives by November 12, but please don’t wait until then!
    • If you haven’t sent in a vote-by-mail application yet and wish to do so, you can download a form here. The deadline to receive your application is November 1st at 5 pm.
    • If you’ve already received your ballot, you can send it back via mail or via a dropbox near you. And if you want to confirm receipt, you can track your ballot.
    • If you’re unsure if you applied for a mail-in ballot, use track your ballot to check
  • Vote early in person:
    • Early voting is available across the state, and each community has their own dates/deadlines. You can find locations in your community here.
  • Vote on Election Day:
    • The deadline for registering to vote has passed.
    • You can confirm your polling place at wheredoivotema.com.

Beyond voting, you can help ensure Progressive wins on Election day by helping advocate for Yes on 1 and Yes on 4.

  • Join the Progressive Mass Yes on 1 and 4 joint phonebank next week:
    • https://tinyurl.com/Yeson1and4Nov1
  • Find a canvass near you for Yes on 1:
    • https://www.mobilize.us/fairshareamendment2022/
  • Sign up for a YES on 1 phone bank:
    • https://www.mobilize.us/fairshareamendment2022/event/476323/
  • Volunteer for YES on 4:
    • https://saferroadsma.com/events/
  • Tell 10 friends or neighbors to be sure to vote for Yes on 1 and Yes on 4, and share the accurate information on Question 1.