Voters will decide on Nov. 3 whether to change the formula Massachusetts uses to cap state tax revenue. Supporters of Question 5 say it would return money to taxpayers through refunds, while opponents contend it would lead to cuts in vital state programs.
A “yes” vote would change how the state calculates its tax-revenue limit under Chapter 62F, the cap voters approved in 1986. The new limit would be based on the previous year’s net state revenue plus the average growth in Massachusetts wages and salaries over the past three years. It would also count revenue from the state’s surtax on incomes over $1 million toward the cap.
A “no” vote would keep the current formula, which bases the limit on the previous year’s limit plus the average growth in wages and salaries over the past three years. It would also continue to exclude the surtax revenue.
Chris Keohan, spokesperson for Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, and Kurt Wise, senior policy analyst at the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, debated the measure earlier this month at a forum held at the Amherst Police Station sponsored by the Amherst Democratic Town Committee.
Keohan, a lifelong Democrat, said a Massachusetts resident moves out of state every 11 minutes and 38 seconds. He attributed the exodus to a growing public sector while private-sector job opportunities shrink.
He will vote “yes” on Question 5.
Wise said it is not that simple. He said the state’s tax burden on middle-income households compares favorably with that of other states, while housing, healthcare, childcare and utility costs are more significant sources of financial pressure.
Concerned that the revenue limit could lead to cuts in state programs, Wise will vote “no.”
Wise questioned which services would be at risk if the state’s revenue growth were limited. He asked the following questions: Would funding for public schools and universities be cut? What about programs that support healthcare and food assistance? Would funding for environmental protection and services for children, older adults and veterans be reduced?
He said analyses by four think tanks across the political spectrum, including MassBudget, found the measure could create a $1 billion to $2 billion gap in state revenue in years when rebates are triggered.
“There is no state trove of waste, fraud and abuse from which we can obtain just a few billion dollars,” Wise said. He argued that supporters should identify specific programs they would cut.
“If you are truly concerned with the cost of living in Massachusetts, I’d ask you to join MassBudget in working to raise new revenue from high-income and wealthy households, and from multinational corporations that are cheating the commonwealth out of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue every year,” he said.
Keohan countered that Question 5 would not directly cut existing programs. Instead, he said, it would limit how fast the state budget could grow, forcing lawmakers to review spending and identify ineffective programs. He also argued the measure would give taxpayers needed financial breathing room.
He cited a Tufts University analysis that found the change would have triggered three to five times as many refunds, rather than only twice under the existing law. He said refunds could range from roughly $200 to $1,100, depending on the year.
Keohane pointed to the nearly $3 billion in refunds issued in 2022 as an example of the potential benefit.
“This is the only thing on the ballot this year that puts some money back in people’s pockets,” he said.
Keohan also cited a Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation study projecting a decline in the state’s unemployment ranking. He argued that Massachusetts is becoming increasingly dependent on public-sector employment while private-sector job growth lagged.
He criticized the pace of state spending, saying the budget had grown roughly twice as fast as wages and two-and-a-half times as fast as inflation.
“There is no silver bullet to make Massachusetts magically affordable right away, but we have to take the first step,” he said. “We cannot continue to have job growth only in the public sector and have our private sector shrink.”
Wise countered that one place to look for savings would be tax expenditures, the revenue the state forgoes through tax breaks and credits, particularly those benefiting corporations and high-income households. Reviewing those provisions, he said, could free up money to ease residents’ financial pressures and support tax credits for working families.
Wise also warned that the measure could make it harder for the state to maintain its rainy day fund. The fund helps cover expenses during economic downturns and prevents deeper cuts to public programs when tax collections decline.
Without regular surplus revenue during stronger economic periods, he said, Massachusetts could struggle to replenish its reserves after drawing on them during a recession.
Wise disputed the claim that state spending had grown excessively compared with the economy. He noted that Massachusetts’ population had increased, while inflation had reduced the purchasing power of government spending. According to a study by the UMass Donahue Institute, the state’s population went up by nearly 800,000, or about 13%, between 2000 and 2025. He said state spending had generally grown in line with the broader economy when measured against personal income.
Keohan rejected comparisons between the proposal and federal efforts to slash government spending under the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Instead, he pointed to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s efforts to identify waste and inefficiencies, arguing that governments could find savings without eliminating critical services.
In a University of Massachusetts poll, 30% of respondents said they would definitely vote yes and 28% said they probably would, for a combined 58%. Eleven percent said they would definitely vote no and 9% said they probably would, for a combined 20%. Thirteen percent were undecided, and 8% said they did not understand the question.
Question 5 has been endorsed by the Republican Party of Massachusetts, Americans for Tax Reform, the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership, Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, Massachusetts High Technology Council, National Federation of Independent Business, the Pioneer Institute and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts.
Opponents of the measure include Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland; the Somerville Democratic Party; several labor unions, including 1199SEIU, the Massachusetts American Federation of Teachers, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, SEIU Local 609 and the SEIU Massachusetts State Council; and advocacy groups such as the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, Progressive Massachusetts and the River Valley chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.
Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts registered as the committee supporting Question 5, while Protect Massachusetts Future, Labor Leaders for Revenue Responsibility, Democratic Socialists Against Austerity and Democratic Socialists Against Reactionary Rollbacks registered as committees opposing the measure.
Supporters of Question 5 have raised $2.5 million in support of the measure. Opponents have raised over $864,000.
