Massachusetts has already collected $2.6b in ‘millionaires tax' cash, surging past state projections
Advertisement
The amount of millionaires tax revenue collected this year was already expected to be significant, particularly after total
But cash from the surtax is are already topping what Healey administration officials roughly expected to collect for the entire fiscal year. The surge underscores both the surtax's potential as a major revenue driver and the ongoing difficulty state officials face in predicting exactly what it will deliver.
Last year, state officials initially said the surtax generated
Advertisement
The state's Department of Revenue won't certify the official amount raised from the surtax for this fiscal year for several months.
Voters approved the millionaires tax
in 2022 to levy an additional 4 percent tax on annual earnings over $1 million. At the time, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, a left-leaning think tank, projected it could
The cash it's produced has regularly blown past even that. The tax generated $1.5 billion between February and April of this year alone, according to state officials.
That surtax is 'highly responsive' to how the stock market and economy is performing, said Doug Howgate, president of Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed budget watchdog. That makes it a 'moving target' for state officials, and a difficult one to predict as the country slides into an uncertain fiscal future.
The national economy
'The concern next year,' Howgate said, 'is that we're not using this [surtax money] for sustained recurring resources. . . .It certainly looks like we're in a different stock market world now than we were 12 months ago.'
Advertisement
A huge millionaires tax surplus also doesn't automatically mean the state is enjoying a healthy fiscal picture. State officials have treated money from the surtax separately from other types of tax collections because under the state Constitution, the surtax revenue can only be spent on education and transportation.
And despite ending last year with extra surtax money, officials still had to close
Matt Stout can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
a day ago
- Politico
Thanks to Gaza, It's Now Kosher to Criticize Israel
A demonstrator displays her hands painted in red to depict blood during an anti-government protest outside the Israeli Ministry of Defense headquarters in Tel Aviv on Aug. 2, 2025. | Jack Guez/AFP via Getty Images Daniel W. Drezner is academic dean and distinguished professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is the author of Drezner's World . Earlier this month I attended an open town hall for my congressman, Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts. Since he's a moderate Democrat in a district that has been reliably Democrat for some time now, I expected that the bulk of the questions Auchincloss would receive would be variations of 'Why aren't you fighting Trump harder?' Indeed, Auchincloss' opening remarks were typical Democratic talking points including defending the Constitution, reinvigorating the Democratic Party and getting America talking again. While some constituent questions revolved around those topics as well, they were not the primary subject. The most common question from one of the most heavily Jewish congressional districts in the country was some variation of, 'What are you going to do about the starvation in Gaza?' Auchincloss is not the only representative to face angry questions about Gaza at his town halls. Furthermore, the responses to Auchincloss' stilted, minimalist answers (starvation is bad; being pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian should not be mutually contradictory; Hamas has a singular responsibility to end the conflict) indicated that while there were some supporters of the current Israeli government in the audience, they were badly outnumbered by critics of Israel — and U.S. support for Israel.
Newsweek
a day ago
- Newsweek
Same-Sex Marriage Turnback 'Possible But Unlikely', Legal Experts Say
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Ten years after Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the Supreme Court is being asked to revisit the landmark ruling. Mathew Staver, counsel for petitioner Kim Davis, told Newsweek he believes the case could overturn Obergefell. However, several other legal experts say the widely accepted law is unlikely to be reversed. The Context The petitioner is Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her religious beliefs. Davis argues Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided and that her refusal was protected under the First Amendment. Under U.S. law, a party can petition the Supreme Court to review a case after lower courts have ruled against them, typically by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court is not required to hear the case—it selects only a small fraction of petitions, often those raising significant constitutional questions, resolving conflicts among lower courts, or addressing issues with broad national impact. Davis and her legal team are asking the justices to take up her case as a vehicle to reconsider Obergefell itself. What People Are Saying Newsweek asked experts to assess the petition's chances and the legal, moral, and procedural factors that could influence the Court's decision. 10 Years Of Marriage Equality By Supreme Court Could Be Reviewed 10 Years Of Marriage Equality By Supreme Court Could Be Reviewed Anthony Behar/AP Here are their exclusive responses: Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel "This case presents compelling facts for the Supreme Court to review. Kim Davis asked for a reasonable accommodation of her religious belief—to remove her name from marriage certificates. That request was granted by newly elected Governor Matt Bevin in December 2015, and in April 2016, the legislature unanimously passed a law allowing clerks to remove their names from certificates. Yet she was sued, jailed for six days, and now faces a personal judgment exceeding $360,000. "We are asking the Court to affirm her First Amendment defense and to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. We are optimistic because three current justices—Chief Justice Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—dissented in Obergefell. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, five justices ruled that substantive due process is not grounded in the Constitution and that the Court should remain neutral when the Constitution does not expressly provide a right. Obergefell is likewise grounded in that now-rejected doctrine, and the Court should remain neutral regarding marriage as it did in 2022 regarding abortion. "We need four justices for certiorari and five to win. We believe this is the case that can overturn Obergefell." William Powell, Georgetown Law "We are confident the Supreme Court, like the court of appeals, will conclude Davis's arguments do not merit further attention. Marriage equality is settled law." Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley Law "I think it is unlikely the Court will overrule Obergefell, though it is possible. Marriage equality is deeply entrenched and widely accepted in American society. Roberts, Thomas, and Alito all dissented in Obergefell. I expect Thomas and Alito would vote to overturn. Roberts's position is uncertain, though the only dissent he ever read from the bench was in Obergefell. Justice Gorsuch wrote a dissent in Pavan v. Smith sharply criticizing Obergefell. What about Kavanaugh and Barrett? There may be the votes, but my instinct is the Court is unlikely to do so. It is not controversial in the way Roe v. Wade remained." Camilla Taylor, Lambda Legal "This case's procedural posture is simply not an appropriate one for reconsidering Obergefell. Other cases might provide a 'cooler vehicle,' but they are nowhere near ready for Supreme Court review. While the threat is some distance off, this is a Supreme Court that has shown it will casually overturn decades of precedent and upend civil rights. "If reversed, it would create a patchwork of states where same-sex marriage is legal in some places but banned in others. The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) ensures states must recognize marriages performed elsewhere and the federal government will do the same. Public opinion now enjoys broad, majoritarian support for same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy's Obergefell opinion noted that denying marriage sends the message that families are 'lesser' and 'something of which they should feel ashamed'—a stigma the government was required to address. That belief remains relevant: you shouldn't brand classes of people as lesser simply because of who they love." Ilya Somin, George Mason University "If Obergefell were overturned, most states—due to over 70% public support—would still have same-sex marriage, but perhaps eight or nine socially conservative states would not. That would raise questions about how to handle same-sex couples who married while Obergefell was in effect. RFMA requires states to recognize marriages contracted elsewhere, but in non-issuing states it would still be a hassle. "The end of Roe was unsurprising because opponents saw abortion as akin to murder. By contrast, very few opponents of same-sex marriage assign it a moral weight equal to murder. Davis's case is weaker legally because she was a public official exercising state power. Accepting her argument could open the door to refusals for interracial or interfaith marriages on religious grounds. I doubt there are five votes to overturn Obergefell, estimating no more than two or three justices might favor it, though nothing is certain." Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP "It is very unlikely the Supreme Court will revisit Obergefell soon, though challenges will continue. Roberts once compared it to Dred Scott, but reliance interests are massive. Hundreds of thousands of couples have relied on it in arranging their most intimate and important life relationships. Overruling such a decision would create popular distrust in the judiciary. Justice Scalia believed in factoring reliance interests; Justice Thomas does not. The notion of destroying marriages and undoing family relationships would be extremely difficult for the Court to justify." What Happens Next For the Supreme Court to hear the case, at least four justices must agree to grant certiorari. The Court selects only a small fraction of petitions, focusing on those with significant constitutional issues or conflicting lower-court rulings.
New York Post
2 days ago
- New York Post
Oklahoma starts giving tests to teachers from NY and Calif. to weed out ‘woke indoctrinators'
Educators from liberal states like New York and California who want to teach in Oklahoma will now have to take a test to prove they aren't 'woke indoctrinators' before they are allowed in Sooner State classrooms, the state's school chief said Friday. Ryan Walters, Oklahoma's superintendent for public instruction, told The Post that arriving teachers will need to pass a multiple-choice quiz that includes questions on the 'biological differences between males and females,' Christianity and American history. 'Here in Oklahoma, our academics are going to be grounded in fact,' the school leader declared. Advertisement Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters. AP 'We've seen states like New York and California go so radical with gender theory and Marxist indoctrination, they are warping the minds of young people … We need our teachers to agree to not be woke indoctrinators in the classroom.' The 50-question test was developed by conservative media company PragerU and newly minted Oklahomans need to pass it in order to obtain a teaching license, according to CNN. Advertisement One question asks applicants which chromosome pairs determine biological sex, according to a sample of questions obtained by The Post. Other questions ask what the first three words in the Constitution are and why freedom of religion is important to America's identity. Additional questions probe how many US senators there are, what the two parts of Congress are, and why some states have more US representatives than others. 'We're also going to be teaching the foundations of American history… So we can continue to be the greatest country in the world. We want our students to be patriots,' Walter told The Post. Advertisement 'You're not gonna lie to kids about the influences Christianity had on American history,' he added. 'We want you to teach history appropriately.' State Flag flies over Oklahoma State Capitol, Oklahoma City. Universal Images Group via Getty Images The Sooner State has seen an influx of about 500 new teachers from a signing bonus program that aimed to draw in the 'highest quality' educators — but Walters cautioned that any 'radical woke gender theory that goes against biology and science' won't be tolerated. 'We've begun to be concerned with what we're seeing from teachers moving from blue states,' he said. Advertisement Only new teachers from New York and California need to take the test so far, CNN reported, but newcomers from up to eight more states might also be assessed. Walter didn't know the number of new teachers who had moved from the two coastal states, but an aide told CNN it was a 'fairly large' number of applicants seeking teachers' licenses. Walters, a staunch conservative, hasn't been shy about his stances and policies that have been lambasted by critics on the left. He put in place mandates to teach students the Bible as a 'necessary historical document,' which got kudos from President Trump at the time.
