graduated income tax Archives - Pioneer Public Interest Law Center

Posts

MA Court Misses Opportunity To Reaffirm A Core Pillar Of Democracy

June 22, 2022/in Press Releases /by Sean Wong

By not requiring that the Attorney General present an accurate, impartial summary of the tax hike amendment the MA SJC discounts the ideal of an informed voter

BOSTON – Today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court missed an opportunity to reaffirm a basic tenet of American government: An informed electorate is necessary for a healthy democracy. The SJC’s decision will prevent Massachusetts voters from having an accurate description of the tax hike amendment to the state Constitution when they cast their ballots in November.

PioneerLegal filed an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit challenging the Attorney General’s summary language and “yes”/”no” statements that describe the amendment.

The proposed amendment to the state Constitution would add a 4 percent surtax on all annual income over $1 million, including capital gains (sales of homes and other assets) and most small business pass-through income. The proposed summary language put forward by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State reads that revenue from the tax would be dedicated to fund public education and transportation.

“While revenue from the tax would be deposited in transportation and education accounts,” said Frank J. Bailey, President of PioneerLegal, “there is nothing to prohibit lawmakers from diverting money previously dedicated to transportation and education to different purposes, as has occurred in other states.”

Speaking about the need for transparency in the constitutional amendment process, Bailey noted that: “a ballot initiative that seeks to amend the Massachusetts Constitution must be fairly described to voters. Absent an accurate summary of the effect of this vote, homeowners, small business owners, and retirees may well be surprised by the implications of a vote in favor of the amendment. Voters should never be surprised.”

Among the key points in the PioneerLegal brief authored by Daniel P. Ryan, Caroline A. Kupiec, and Jillian Friedmann of Sullivan & Worcester, are:

The Attorney General’s own brief on an identical proposal in 2018 conceded that surtax revenues are fungible and may not result in any increase in appropriations for education and transportation. In the argument of the case before the Supreme Judicial Court, the Attorney General’s counsel also conceded this point and Chief Justice Gants made the same point.
The Legislature made their intentions crystal clear by rejecting two amendments (by votes of 154-39 and 156-40) requiring new revenues to be invested in addition to existing expenditures.
Finally, the brief provides a close analysis of the experience in California, where revenues derived from a similarly “dedicated education” tax largely substituted existing appropriations, which were then diverted to other purposes.

PioneerLegal Amicus Brief Supports Court Challenge to Attorney General’s Misleading Wording of the Proposed Tax Hike Amendment

April 26, 2022/in Press Releases /by Sean Wong

Summary language fails to clarify a critical matter for voters—an overall increase in education and transportation funding is not mandatory since other revenue is entirely fungible

BOSTON – To ensure that Massachusetts voters will have an accurate description of the tax hike amendment to the state Constitution when they cast their ballots in November, PioneerLegal has filed an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit challenging the Attorney General’s summary language and “yes”/”no” statements that describe the amendment. The suit will be heard by the Commonwealth’s Supreme Judicial Court.

The amendment to the state Constitution would add a 4 percent surtax on all annual income over $1 million, including capital gains (sales of homes and other assets) and most small business income. The proposed summary language put forward by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State reads that the revenue from the tax will be dedicated to fund public education and transportation.

“While revenue from the tax would be deposited in transportation and education accounts,” said Brackett Denniston, chairman of PioneerLegal, “there is nothing to prohibit lawmakers from diverting money previously dedicated to transportation and education to different purposes, as has occurred in other states.”

Authored by Daniel P. Ryan, Caroline A. Kupiec, and Jillian Friedmann of Sullivan & Worcester at the request of PioneerLegal, the brief establishes four key points:

The Legislature is granted constitutional authority in the budgeting process, which allows it to allocate funding among various budget categories. The brief outlines how the Attorney General’s own brief on an identical proposal in 2018 concedes that surtax revenues are fungible and may not result in any increase in appropriations for education and transportation. In the argument of the case before the Supreme Judicial Court, the Attorney General’s counsel also conceded this point and Chief Justice Gants made the same point (cf. linked video, minute 52:00).

The Legislature could have required that surtax revenues be additive to current education and transportation spending but explicitly rejected legislative attempts to do so. During their debates on the proposed ballot measure, legislators made their intentions crystal clear by rejecting two amendments (by votes of 154-39 and 156-40) requiring new revenues to be invested in addition to existing expenditures.

A close analysis of the annual budget for education and transportation, which together exceed $18 billion, as well as their component parts — line-item expenditures, dedicated funds, and special obligation bonds — demonstrate this fungibility, based on the Massachusetts Constitution and well established legislative practice.

Finally, the brief provides a close analysis of the experience in California, where revenues derived from a similarly “dedicated education” tax largely substituted existing appropriations, which were then diverted to other purposes.

“It is of utmost importance that any ballot initiative that seeks to amend the Massachusetts Constitution is accurately described to voters,” said Denniston. “Absent an accurate summary of the effect of a vote, citizens of the Commonwealth are, in fact, robbed of their voice in the governance of Massachusetts.”

About PioneerLegal

PioneerLegal, LLC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal research and litigation entity that defends and promotes educational options, accountable government, and economic opportunity across the Northeast and around the country. Through legal action and public education, PioneerLegal works to preserve and enhance liberties grounded in the constitutions and civil rights laws of the United States and the individual New England states.

Pioneer Institute and the Tax Foundation File Amicus Brief in Graduated Income Tax Ballot Initiative Case

February 6, 2018/in Press Releases /by Sean Wong

Brief argues that Proposition 80 violates the state constitution, would result in harmful fiscal policy

BOSTON – PioneerLegal, Pioneer Institute’s public-interest law initiative, together with the Tax Foundation, has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Judicial Court in support of the Massachusetts High Technology Council and others, in the case Christopher Anderson et al. v. Maura Healey.

The plaintiffs assert that Proposition 80, a ballot initiative to install a graduated income tax for Massachusetts, violates the state constitution and should not be allowed to appear on the Commonwealth’s November ballot.

Proposition 80 calls for adding an additional 4 percent state tax on all annual taxable income above $1 million and earmarking the resulting revenue specifically for transportation and education.

The brief argues that Proposition 80 violates the state’s constitution, which forbids initiative petitions from bundling multiple, unrelated provisions and usurps the Legislature’s exclusive authority over the state treasury. It contends further that passage of the measure would result in poor and risky fiscal policy.

Proposition 80 combines three unrelated provisions: a tax increase, an appropriation for transportation, and an appropriation for education. Drafters of the state constitutional provision on initiative petitions sought to ensure that petitions express a single unified public policy statement that voters could accept or reject, and specifically sought to prevent the bundling of unpopular provisions like a tax increase with more popular ones such as increasing education and transportation funding.

The state constitution also forbids initiative petitions from including a “specific appropriation,” defined as seizing all revenue from a designated source and appropriating it for a specified use – in this case, transportation and education. The provision is designed to ensure that special interests don’t usurp legislative control of the state treasury.

In 2014, a computer and software services tax was enacted to help balance the state budget. When it was shown to negatively impact the Commonwealth’s economy, the Legislature quickly repealed it.

In 2000, state voters approved a ballot initiative to reduce the state income tax to 5 percent by 2003. When the economy cratered soon after its passage, the Legislature stepped in and froze the rate at 5.3 percent.

Since Proposition 80 would amend the state constitution, such swift action would be impossible. The process of amending the constitution again to change or repeal Proposition 80 would take a minimum of three years. This form of budgeting by ballot initiative is a textbook example of depriving the government of the flexibility required to efficiently address changed circumstances and unexpected crises.

“There’s a reason why setting fiscal policy by constitutional amendment is almost universally condemned,” said Pioneer Executive Director Jim Stergios.

The brief also cites research by Pioneer and other entities showing that states like Connecticut and New Jersey that enacted similar policies actually saw adverse economic consequences within just a few years.

“This tax increase would catapult Massachusetts from the middle of the pack to among states with the highest capital gains rate in the nation. It would also significantly increase the taxes paid by many small pass-through businesses and encourage ‘tax flight’ by individual taxpayers,” said John Sivolella, Senior Fellow in Law and Policy at Pioneer, who leads PioneerLegal. “The overall effect would be to inhibit financial growth in the Commonwealth, and adversely affect state revenues.”

About Pioneer

Pioneer Institute is an independent, non-partisan, privately funded research organization that seeks to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts through civic discourse and intellectually rigorous, data-driven public policy solutions based on free market principles, individual liberty and responsibility, and the ideal of effective, limited and accountable government.

Posts

Stay Informed