Healey opened the door to tweaking the ‘millionaires tax.' Now what?
thisclose
to issuing a press release praising Healey. Then reality set in.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The next day the governor — who as a then-candidate
supported the Fair Share Amendment ballot initiative that created the millionaires tax — clarified her thoughts, telling
Advertisement
Now if you were in the audience, as I was, Healey came across as someone who has been getting an earful from business leaders about the impact of the tax — hearing
that entrepreneurs might not want to start their businesses here, companies are having a hard time recruiting senior executives, and wealthy individuals are uprooting to Florida, New Hampshire, and other states without income taxes.
Advertisement
And while Healey did not give a full-throttled rejection of the millionaires tax, she
was doing what any good leader should do: Listen, take notes, and review what's not working.
'I'm going to look at ways to lower costs, including what other tax reforms are necessary,' she said. 'I want Massachusetts to be a place where people are attracted to come and grow, and make money and succeed and do well. So I think we need to be open to that, to be open to looking at what we need to do within our existing tax regime that will make us more conducive to that.'
Hundreds of attendees gathered both in-person and online for the Globe Tech Innovation Summit in Boston last week.
Michael Manning Photography
Anyone who has followed the millionaires tax debate
knows that, for the business community, this is what counts as a victory, after
And during the seven-year push to get the millionaires tax on the ballot, its pros and cons have been well litigated, both
in court and in the court of public opinion. Voters approved the tax because they want better schools and a functioning T, and now that billions of dollars in new tax
money is flowing, it's hard to see Beacon Hill giving it up. Nothing gives
But what the opposition is saying now is that an idea that was
conceived before the pandemic feels more ill-conceived today.
'We need to recognize that the millionaires tax was a concept that was put forward in far different economic time,' said Jay Ash, CEO of the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership, whose business group opposed the tax. 'COVID made the world much smaller ... now everyone can operate from anywhere.'
Advertisement
Employees and companies have choices they may not have a few years ago. Between the high cost of doing business and a
I don't see business leaders marching in the streets demanding a repeal of the millionaires tax. They're smarter than that. Rather, they're playing the long game:
Here's
Had the Massachusetts private sector created 250,000 jobs during that period like North Carolina did, we would have generated an additional $1.3 billion in state income and sales tax revenue, according to Pioneer Institute analysis.
John T. C. Lee, CEO of MKS Inc. and chair of the Massachusetts High Technology Council, says he knows a few people who've moved away to avoid the millionaires tax. He's also seen the surtax hurt recruiting, with a couple of job candidates deciding not to work at MKS, an Andover company that supplies equipment and components to computer chip makers.
Advertisement
'Whether it's revisiting, repealing, whatever, I think it is worth looking at the data,' said Lee. 'The best thing is that we look at the facts, and the facts steer us towards one direction or another.'
The Fair Share Amendment ballot initiative created the millionaires tax. 52 percent of voters approved the tax by a clear margin in 2022.
Pat Greenhouse/Globe Staff
Data will be key, and so far it's all too early to weigh the benefits of the millionaires tax against the costs,
Meanwhile, any effort to repeal the tax would take years, requiring an amendment to the state constitution and votes by two successive Legislatures, followed by a citizen ballot question. And it would clearly draw a fight from powerful labor groups, who outspent the business community the first time around.
Another option: lower the base income tax rate for everyone to something below 5 percent. That'd be a tough sell to Beacon Hill because income taxes are the primary source of revenue for the state budget.
The bottom line: Repealing the millionaires tax isn't on the table yet, but make no mistake the push to chip away at it has already begun.
Shirley Leung is a Business columnist and host of the Globe Opinion podcast 'Say More with Shirley Leung.' Find the podcast on
,
, and
. Follow her on Threads
Advertisement
Shirley Leung is a Business columnist. She can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Blumenthal calls for firing of RFK Jr. ally over violent rhetoric
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) is demanding Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr 'immediately' fire a key ally from his role as vaccine advisor on a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel due to 'escalating and violent' rhetoric in the wake of an attack on CDC headquarters. Blumenthal wrote a letter to Kennedy on Aug. 13 calling for him to fire Robert Malone from the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Blumenthal said Malone 'issued a meme-filled post' on his personal blog 'that included violent and threatening images that appeared to be directed at government officials.' Hours before a gunman attacked CDC headquarters, Malone uploaded a post to his personal blog that included an image of a revolver loaded with a single bullet and the words 'Five out of six scientists have proven that Russian roulette is harmless.' Less than 48 hours after the attack, another of Malone's blog posts included images of guns and meme with the words 'if you need a disarmed society to govern, you suck at governing.' On Aug. 8, a gunman opened fire on the CDC in Atlanta, killing a responding police officer. Officials said almost 500 shell casings were recovered, and about 200 struck six different facilities on the agency's campus. The alleged shooter was motivated by his distrust of the COVID-19 vaccine, according to law enforcement. Kennedy tapped Malone as one of eight hand-picked replacement members of the ACIP in June after firing the 17 sitting panelists. Malone is a former researcher who helped lay the groundwork for mRNA vaccine technology, but has since turned into a self-professed anti-vaxxer, COVID-19 skeptic and close advisor to Kennedy. ACIP is an influential panel that recommends which vaccines go on the childhood and adult schedules after reviewing safety data. If ACIP endorses a vaccine, insurers must cover it. 'Malone has displayed an unfathomable failure of judgment and heartlessness for the family of slain Officer Rose, and for the thousands of CDC staff on whom the work of ACIP depends,' Blumenthal wrote in the letter. 'Dr. Malone's escalating and violent rhetoric—including in the aftermath of this tragic incident—has no place on a panel responsible for determining immunization recommendations for children and adults throughout our country,' he continued, before calling on Kennedy to fire Malone immediately. Malone did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 'Sen. Blumenthal's demand is nothing more than virtue signaling,' an HHS spokesman told The Hill. 'Dr. Malone was selected for ACIP based on his long-standing scientific credentials and we are grateful to him for taking the call to serve. This is not a moment for the media or democratic lawmakers to exploit a tragedy for political gain.'
Boston Globe
31 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Healey proposes $2.45 billion spending bill that would decouple Mass. from RFK Jr.'s CDC on vaccine guidelines
The proposal Healey outlined would also deposit $125 million into the state's stabilization fund and use $150 million in income surtax revenue to fund K-12 school aid increases required under the multi-year funding reform law known as the Student Opportunity Act. Advertisement The bill would also create an Economic Resiliency and Federal Response Fund built on capital gains tax revenues collected in the fiscal year that ended June 30 'to ensure that the state remains fiscally resilient against the negative impacts of federal budgetary and policy decisions,' according to Healey's office. 'With this legislation, we are controlling spending and ensuring that our state budget remains responsible, while also strengthening our ability to weather economic unpredictability coming from Washington,' Healey said in a statement. Healey's proposal would delay the state's deadline to achieve a certain amount of offshore wind power from 2027 to 2029 'due to uncertainty surrounding federal permitting and tax credits.' The bill would also remove a requirement that a solicitation for more wind energy be conducted every 24 months. Advertisement Another outside section The new proposal also would set Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026 as the statewide primary election day. In 2026, Labor Day falls on Monday, Sept. 7. The bill would set millions aside for a reserve for costs accrued by sheriffs, reproductive health providers at risk of losing federal funding, and costs associated with hosting the 2026 FIFA Men's World Cup. Governors typically file a so-called closeout budget every year to enable the state comptroller to complete an annual financial report that's due by Oct. 31. Lawmakers routinely continue their deliberations on the spending bill into the fall, preventing the comptroller from meeting that deadline.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Judges debate Georgia's ban on giving snacks, water to voters
The Brief A panel of federal appeals court judges heard oral arguments over Georgia's ban on providing food and water to voters waiting in line outside their polling place. In 2023, a judge restricted part of the state's election bill, saying that the provision that bars people from offering food and drink within 25 feet of any person in line is probably unconstitutional because that zone is tied to the location of voters. Civil rights groups argue that the law shuts off expressive conduct and violates the First Amendment. The state argued that it was necessary to prevent voter distraction and intimidation. A federal appeals court is debating whether Georgia's ban on providing food and water to voters waiting in line violates the First Amendment. In court on Wednesday, the groups behind the lawsuit asked the panel of three judges to uphold a lower court's ruling that part of the restrictions were probably unconstitutional. The backstory The ban is just one piece of SB 202, a 98-page bill containing dozens of changes to state voting law passed in 2021. Other changes included shortening the time to request a mail ballot, rolling back the COVID-19 pandemic-driven expansion of ballot drop boxes and reducing early voting before runoff elections. Voting rights groups, who have filed a lawsuit challenging multiple parts of the law, argued that the provision infringes on their free speech rights and should be blocked. In 2022, a judge declined to restrict the ban, saying that, while the groups may prevail in part of their challenge, it was too close to the November general election to block any part of the provision. One year later, the judge chose to temporarily block one aspect of the restrictions, saying that the provision that bars people from offering food and drink within 25 feet of any person in line is probably unconstitutional because that zone is tied to the location of voters and could stretch thousands of feet from the polling place. As part of that ruling, US District Judge J.P. Boulee also stopped the requirement that voters put their birthdates on the envelopes of their absentee ballots. What they're saying During oral arguments, the debate centered on whether passing out snacks and water should be protected under the constitutional right to free speech. Attorney Davin Rosborough, who is representing the civil rights groups, told the judges that the sharing of food or drinks was a form of speech. "[The law] absolutely shuts off this form of expressive conduct," he said. "It absolutely prevents the voters." He said that the testimony they provided as evidence showed that the act was encouraging and did not show an attempt to sway voters to any political message. The other side The state had argued that the provision was necessary to protect against conditions at polling places that could raise worries over potential illegal campaigning or voter distractions. "The reason you have a buffer zone is because you don't want a situation where people get in line to vote and they are accosted by a bunch of confusing, distracting, and possibly intimidating things," Solicitor General Stephen Petrany said. He said there was no specific reason that distributing food and drinks would constitute freedom of speech that should be protected. "We want people to be able to stand in line and be basically unobstructed," he said. What's next The arguments are expected to take months before a final decision is made. The Source Information for this article came from oral arguments and previous FOX 5 reporting. Solve the daily Crossword
