Amid unsettled times in Washington, Mass. collects $2b more in tax revenue than expected thanks to millionaires tax
State officials have treated money from the millionaires tax separately from other types of tax collections because under the state Constitution, the surtax revenue can only be spent on education and transportation.
Advertisement
But even leaving out capital gains and surtax from the millionaires tax, the state still collected $52 million more than expected.
The result sets the state up with a modest
Revenue collections for the fiscal year 2025 totaled approximately $43.7 billion, which is $2.9 billion or 7.1 percent more than the state pulled in over the prior fiscal year.
Advertisement
Healey administration officials said Friday that some major categories such as revenue collected from state income tax payments or sales tax came in at, or above, what the state collected last year.
The only category that dipped was revenue brought in from
corporate and business taxes, which totaled $355 million, or 7.1 percent, below
expectations and $171 million less than in fiscal year 2024, state officials said.
Despite the relatively
positive
report, the state still faces a hazy fiscal future due to the months-long uncertainty emanating from Washington.
President Trump has already withheld or cut
Just last month, Governor Maura Healey asked lawmakers to
Healey also plans to stretch an existing hiring freeze across the executive branch through the fiscal year and pause a 2 percent salary increase that thousands of executive branch managers were slated to receive in January.
Howgate, of Mass Taxpayers, said the state's sound fiscal forecast builds in capacity to 'guard against potential decline . . . and the impact of federal policy changes.'
Advertisement
'All these unknowns are kind of descending on us at the same time,' he said.
Samantha J. Gross can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Explainer-Can Trump take control of Washington to fight the city's crime?
By Jan Wolfe (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to put Washington, D.C., under full federal control to reduce crime, even as city officials stressed crime is already falling. While Trump does have some authority over the capital city's police force and National Guard soldiers, a full federal takeover would likely be blocked in court. Here is why. WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY ABOUT CONTROL OF DC? The U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1787, provided for the creation of a federal capital district to serve as the permanent seat of the government. The Constitution made clear that Congress has complete legislative authority over the district. But Congress has historically delegated at least some of the day-to-day work of municipal government to other entities. HOW IS DC GOVERNED? A federal law passed by Congress in 1973, known as the Home Rule Act, allowed city residents to elect a mayor and council, who have some autonomy to pass their own laws. Congress still has budgetary oversight over D.C., however, and can overturn local legislation. Congress did that most recently in 2023, voting to overturn changes to Washington's laws that lowered penalties for some crimes. WHO CONTROLS DC LAW ENFORCEMENT? The Democratic mayor of Washington, Muriel Bowser, has authority over the city's Metropolitan Police Department. But the Home Rule Act allows the president to take control of the MPD for federal purposes during emergencies if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' A presidential takeover is limited to 30 days, unless Congress votes to extend it through a joint resolution. Trump invoked this part of the Home Rule Act on Monday, saying in an executive order that there is a "crime emergency" in the city that necessitates federal management of the police department. Bowser has pushed back on Trump's claims of unchecked violence, saying the city is "not experiencing a crime spike" and highlighting that violent crime hit its lowest level in more than three decades last year. Violent crime, including murders, spiked in 2023, turning Washington into one of the nation's deadliest cities, according to city police data. However, violent crime dropped 35% in 2024, according to federal data, and it has fallen an additional 26% in the first seven months of 2025. Trump also has broad control over the D.C. National Guard's 2,700 soldiers and airmen. They report directly to the president, unlike counterparts in other states and territories. Trump said on Monday he was deploying 800 National Guard troops to Washington. SO CAN TRUMP 'FEDERALIZE' DC? It is highly unlikely. To exert full federal control of D.C., Trump would need Congress to repeal the Home Rule Act. Such a repeal would require 60 votes in the U.S. Senate, where Trump's Republican Party has a 53-47 advantage. Democrats have been supportive of home rule for DC and are not expected to cross party lines to endorse Trump's vision. But there are ways Trump can exert more influence over the district without fully taking it over. Trump in recent months has directed federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI to increase the police presence in Washington. Trump has broad authority to reallocate FBI personnel, and in recent months, FBI agents around the country have been given temporary assignments to help with immigration enforcement. Trump also signed an executive order in March to make D.C. "safe and beautiful," establishing a task force to increase police presence in public areas, maximize immigration enforcement, and expedite concealed carry licenses. CAN TRUMP EVICT DC'S HOMELESS POPULATION? Trump has said homeless people must move out of Washington, without offering specifics of a plan to accomplish this. "I'm going to make our Capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before," Trump said on Truth Social. "The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital." The federal government owns much of Washington's parkland, so the Trump administration has legal authority to clear homeless encampments in those areas, like President Joe Biden did while in office. But the federal government cannot force people to move out of the city because they lack shelter, legal experts said.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Land swaps with Russia are not only unpopular in Ukraine. They're also illegal
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A peace deal that requires Kyiv to accept swapping Ukrainian territory with Russia would not only be deeply unpopular. It also would be illegal under its constitution. That's why President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has categorically rejected any deal with Moscow that could involve ceding land after U.S. President Donald Trump suggested such a concession would be beneficial to both sides, ahead of his meeting Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Zelenskyy said over the weekend that Kyiv 'will not give Russia any awards for what it has done,' and that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.' The remarks came after Trump said a peace deal would involve swapping of Ukrainian territories by both sides 'to the betterment of both.' For Zelenskyy, such a deal would be disaster for his presidency and spark public outcry after more than three years of bloodshed and sacrifice by Ukrainians. Moreover, he doesn't have the authority to sign off on it, because changing Ukraine's 1991 borders runs counter to the country's constitution. For now, freezing the front line appears to be an outcome the Ukrainian people are willing to accept. A look at the challenges such proposals entail: Russia occupies about a fifth of Ukraine Russia occupies about a fifth of Ukraine, from the country's northeast to the Crimean Peninsula, which was annexed illegally in 2014. The front line is vast and cuts across six regions — the active front stretches for at least 1,000 kilometers (680 miles) — but if measured from along the border with Russia, it reaches as far as 2,300 kilometers (1,430 miles). Russia controls almost all of the Luhansk region and almost two-thirds of Donetsk region, which together comprise the Donbas, as the strategic industrial heartland of Ukraine is called. Russia has long coveted the area and illegally annexed it in the first year of the full-scale invasion, even though it didn't control much of it at the time. Russia also partially controls more than half of the Kherson region, which is critical to maintain logistical flows of supplies coming in from the land corridor in neighboring Crimea, and also parts of the Zaporizhzhia region, where the Kremlin seized Europe's largest nuclear power plant. Russian forces also hold pockets of territory in Kharkiv and Sumy regions in northeastern Ukraine, far less strategically valuable for Moscow. Russian troops are gaining a foothold in the Dnipropetrovsk region. These could be what Moscow is willing to exchange for land it deems more important in Donetsk, where the Russian army has concentrated most of its effort. 'There'll be some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody. To the good, for the good of Ukraine. Good stuff, not bad stuff. Also, some bad stuff for both,' Trump said Monday. Ukrainian forces are still active in the Kursk region inside Russia, but they barely hold any territory there, making it not as potent a bargaining chip as Kyiv's leaders had probably hoped when they launched the daring incursion across the border last year. Swapping Ukrainian controlled territory in Russia, however minuscule, will likely be the only palatable option for Kyiv in any land swapping scenario. Conceding land risks another invasion Surrendering territory would see those unwilling to live under Russian rule to pack up and leave. Many civilians have endured so much suffering and bloodshed since pro-Moscow forces began battling the Ukrainian military in the east in 2014 and since the full-scale invasion in 2022. From a military standpoint, abandoning the Donetsk region in particular would vastly improve Russia's ability to invade Ukraine again, according to the Washington-based think tank Institute for the Study of War. Bowing to such a demand would force Ukraine to abandon its 'fortress belt,' the main defensive line in Donetsk since 2014, "with no guarantee that fighting will not resume,' the institute said in a recent report. The regional defensive line has prevented Russia's efforts to seize the region and continues to impede Russia's efforts to take the rest of the area, ISW said. Ukraine's constitution poses a major challenge to any deal involving a land swap because it requires a nationwide referendum to approve changes to the country's territorial borders, said Ihor Reiterovych, a politics professor in the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. 'Changes in territorial integrity can be done only by the decision of the people — not the president, the cabinet of ministers or the parliament can change it,' he said. 'In the constitution it is written that only by referendum can changes to Ukraine's territory be conducted.' If during negotiations Zelenskyy agrees to swap territory with Russia, "in the same minute he will be a criminal because he would be abandoning the main law that governs Ukraine,' Reiterovych said. Trump said he was 'a little bothered' by Zelenskyy's assertion over the weekend that he needed constitutional approval to cede to Russia the territory that it captured in its unprovoked invasion. 'I mean, he's got approval to go into a war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap?' Trump added. 'Because there'll be some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody.' Zelenskyy is still trying to regain the people's trust that was damaged when he reversed course on a law that would have diminished the independence of Ukraine's anti-corruption watchdogs. The move was a red line for those citizens who are protective of the country's institutions and are suspicious of certain members of Zelenskyy's inner circle. Freezing the conflict seems a lesser evil for Ukraine Analysts like Reiterovych dismiss a land swap as a distraction. Freezing the conflict along the current front line is the only option Ukrainians are willing to accept, he said, citing recent polls. This option would also buy time for both sides to consolidate manpower and build up their domestic weapons industries. Ukraine would require strong security guarantees from its Western partners to deter future Russian aggression, which Kyiv believes is inevitable. Still, freezing the conflict will also be difficult for Ukrainians to accept. Along with the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the partial occupation of Luhansk and Donetsk after that, it would require accepting that the Ukrainian military is not able to retake lost territories militarily. Kyiv accepted its inability to retake these territories but never formally recognized them as Russian. A similar scenario could unfold in the new regions taken by Russian forces. It also is not a viable long-term solution. 'It is the lesser evil option for everyone and it will not provoke protests or rallies on the streets,' Reiterovych said. —- Associated Press journalist Volodymyr Yurchuk contributed. Solve the daily Crossword
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Doug LaMalfa faces hostile crowd at town hall meeting in his own congressional district
Even though he was deep inside his bright red congressional district, U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa faced a mostly hostile crowd Monday during his first North State town hall meeting in several years. Residents at LaMalfa's town hall meeting in Red Bluff peppered him with a wide range of questions and comments on such topics as immigration, redistricting, the Epstein files, support for Israel, tariffs, wildfires, climate change, forest management and changes to Medicaid. Many times he was shouted down by members of the audience, who held up green cards to show approval or red pieces of paper for disapproval. "You just embarrass yourself when you act like that," LaMalfa said after several people yelled out "You're a liar," and "Tell the truth!" It was the second rowdy crowd the Republican lawmaker faced Monday. He held a similar town hall earlier in the day in Chico, where members of the audience shouted obscenities at him. Jill Smith, a lifelong Red Bluff resident, said the crowd of about 350 people was upset because it had been years since LaMalfa had held a public meeting in Tehama County. "All these people are angry. They have concerns. I have concerns. I could vote Democrat or Republican as long as I think they're doing something good for our country. But right now I don't see that happening with this, and that's why everybody's angry," Smith said. LaMalfa was criticized for many of his votes in Congress, including his support in 2021 not to certify the 2020 election that ushered in Joe Biden as president and this year for backing President Trump and his many executive orders, which some on Monday said usurped power from Congress. "You made a choice to violate your oath to the Constitution," Max Walter of Redding said, referring to LaMalfa's vote not to certify the 2020 presidential election. "And every day since then, you have violated your oath. But you have loyalty, you have loyalty to a felon (Trump), to somebody who mocks people in wheelchairs, to someone who mocks women." On questions about tariffs, LaMalfa said he supported them, claiming they would bring jobs back to the U.S. He also said he supported release of the Epstein files, but wanted to make sure the names of victims aren't released. Roy Reddin asked if LaMalfa supported the type of congressional redistricting that is proposed in Texas. "Currently the Texas legislature is very close to to an epic gerrymandering where they are going to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters by realigning their districts. So my question to you, is in two parts: Do you support what the Texas legislature is doing and why should California not do the same thing for five seats, one of which could be yours," Reddin said. Although redistricting congressional districts happen at the state level, LaMalfa said he opposed attempts at redistricting such as what is happening in Texas, where the state legislature has proposed redrawing congressional district maps. The redistricting plan in Texas could lead to the state picking up an additional five Republican seats in Congress, helping the GOP retain a majority in the House next year. But other states, including California, have vowed to re-draw congressional district boundaries, if Texas goes through with its plan. Not everyone was critical of LaMalfa. One woman said she was an immigrant and she supports LaMalfa because he backs the Trump administration's actions against undocumented immigrants. "He's an honest Christian man and he's fighting for us," one woman said. One woman who spoke out said many of the issues that came up Monday were moral issues that transcended a political climate that has become too divisive. "I'm afraid to stand up for my rights because I might get shot," she told LaMalfa, citing the shootings of state legislators in Minnesota this summer.
