BOSTON – The House and Senate held a constitutional convention and approved 156-37, (House approved 121-33, Senate approved 35-4), a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow a graduated income tax in Massachusetts and impose an additional 4 percent income tax, in addition to the current flat 5.1 percent one, on taxpayers’ earnings of more than $1 million. Language in the amendment requires that “subject to appropriation” the revenue will go to fund quality public education, affordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation.
The proposal is sponsored by Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) and Rep. James O’Day (D-West Boylston). In order to go on the ballot for voters to decide, it needs to twice have the votes of 101 of the 200 members of the House and Senate in the current 2019-2020 session and again in the 2021-2022 session. The earliest it could be on the ballot is in November 2022.
A similar effort by a group called the “Raise Up Coalition” to get the question on the 2018 ballot was derailed when it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Judicial Court which said the constitution prohibits placing more than one objective in a single proposed constitutional amendment that is sought by a citizens’ group. The court’s decision noted that the proposal imposed the tax and then stipulates how the money could be spent.
The current amendment is proposed by legislators rather than citizens and according to proponents, amendments proposed by legislators can have more than one objective and would not be ruled unconstitutional by the court.
There was no debate on the proposal and no amendments were considered despite efforts by GOP Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading) to propose one. Jones said that Senate President Karen Spilka, who presided over the convention was intent on gaveling through the proposal quickly and deflected his attempts to offer an amendment. Jones said his amendment would have required that revenue from the new tax be spent in addition to funds already directed toward education and transportation, and not simply replace those funds.
Senate President Karen Spilka said there will be debate and the opportunity to propose amendments when the proposal is debated again on June 12.
Supporters say the amendment will affect only 20,000 extremely wealthy individuals and will generate up to $2 billion annually in additional tax revenue. They argue that using the funds for education and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation will benefit millions of Bay State taxpayers. They note the hike would help lower income families which are now paying a higher share of their income in taxes.
Opponents argue the new tax will result in the loss of 9,500 private sector jobs, $405 million annually in personal disposable income and some millionaires moving out of state. They say that the earmarking of the funds for specific projects is illegal and said all the funds will go into the General Fund and be up for grabs for anything.
“The new revenue that would be raised by the Fair Share Amendment would go a long way in helping to fix crumbling roads and bridges, improving service on the MBTA and other public transportation, increasing funding for public schools, expanding access to quality early childhood education, and making higher education more affordable for students and families,” said Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester), the Senate sponsor of the proposal. “It’s also the best way to raise revenue that would make our tax system fairer and more progressive, rather than increasing taxes on middle class families who cannot afford to pay more. I’m pleased that the Legislature’s action today moves the Fair Share Amendment one step closer to the ballot.”
“The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance (MFA) stands with the voters, who on five separate occasions voted against making Massachusetts a graduated income tax state, and with the state’s highest court which recently rejected a similar scheme as unconstitutional,” said Paul Craney, spokesman for the MFA. “Some lawmakers think history started in 2019, but this policy idea is the most rejected in the state’s history. The answer should always be ‘no,’ when considering removing our constitutionally protected guarantees of equal taxation.”
“Community, faith, and labor groups all across Massachusetts strongly support the Fair Share Amendment because it’s the most fair, progressive and sustainable way to raise the major new revenue Massachusetts needs to invest in transportation and public education,” said Andrew Farnitano, the spokesman for Raise Up Massachusetts. “We thank the Legislature for moving the Fair Share Amendment forward today.”
“If there was ever any doubt that the Legislature would expedite the scheme to tax more, today’s brief constitutional convention dispelled it,” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. “It took longer to call the convention to order than to actually vote on and advance the so-called ‘ Millionaire’s Tax,’ Ford added. “A whopping billion dollars in excess revenue above last April’s haul poured into state coffers just last month alone but that’s still not enough for the ‘spendoholics’ on Beacon Hill. More never is.”
(A “Yes” vote is for the additional 4 percent tax. A “No” vote is against it.)
■Rep. Donald Berthiaume No
■Rep. Natalie Blais Yes
■Rep. Daniel Carey Yes
■Rep. Mindy Domb Yes
■Rep. Thomas Petrolati Yes
■Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa Yes
■Rep. Todd Smola No
■Rep. Susannah Whipps Yes
■Sen. Joanne Comerford Yes
■Sen. Adam Hinds Yes
■Sen. Donald Humason No
■Sen. Eric Lesser Yes