MA 2022 Question 1 (Boston, Worcester, Springfield: loans, private school, contractors)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

This is a much less severe tax than CTs tax structure. And effects far far fewer people.

And MA has a stronger more unique local economy, and many other positive attributes/destinations CT doesn’t namely the MBTA, The Cape and Islands, and the City of Boston. Apples and Oranges.

CT top rate is 6.99%, while MA would be 9% under this scenario. Hard to argue that theirs will be "less severe" than ours on millionaires.



https://www.taxrateinfo.com/locations/connecticut

[WestieWhitie]

Originally Posted by massnative71

CT top rate is 6.99%, while MA would be 9% under this scenario. Hard to argue that theirs will be "less severe" than ours on millionaires.



https://www.taxrateinfo.com/locations/connecticut

6.99 is more than 9 according to BLMath and don’t you dare bring up that racist math which says otherwise!

[StarlaJane]

Originally Posted by massnative71

CT top rate is 6.99%, while MA would be 9% under this scenario. Hard to argue that theirs will be "less severe" than ours on millionaires.



https://www.taxrateinfo.com/locations/connecticut

I’m voting no because it will cause even greater inflation. For example, if those millionaires getting taxed are rental property owners, then rents are going to go up. If those millionaires getting taxed are developers, then housing costs go up. If those millionaires getting taxed are farm owners, then produce goes up (or, worse, the farm goes out of business and the land gets developed).

Being from CT, I can tell you that it is one of the most depressed states in the Northeast (I exclude CT. south of Stamford, as that part of CT. is basically NY). Because everything in CT. is so heavily taxed, local businesses are of very poor quality and, because everyone has so little disposable income, those local businesses often don’t survive. Most people (myself included) left as soon as we could for places offering more economic and social opportunities. Now, the same thing is happening in MA: people are leaving in droves because it’s too expensive. And those people aren’t even millionaires.

Massachusetts politicians need to stop thinking that more money in the hands of bureaucrats is going to solve the state’s problems. It’s the people who need the money.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by StarlaJane

I’m voting no because it will cause even greater inflation. For example, if those millionaires getting taxed are rental property owners, then rents are going to go up. If those millionaires getting taxed are developers, then housing costs go up. If those millionaires getting taxed are farm owners, then produce goes up (or, worse, the farm goes out of business and the land gets developed).

Being from CT, I can tell you that it is one of the most depressed states in the Northeast (I exclude CT. south of Stamford, as that part of CT. is basically NY). Because everything in CT. is so heavily taxed, local businesses are of very poor quality and, because everyone has so little disposable income, those local businesses often don’t survive. Most people (myself included) left as soon as we could for places offering more economic and social opportunities. Now, the same thing is happening in MA: people are leaving in droves because it’s too expensive. And those people aren’t even millionaires.

Massachusetts politicians need to stop thinking that more money in the hands of bureaucrats is going to solve the state’s problems. It’s the people who need the money.

Very well said. If anything, we should be looking to our neighbor to the north for inspiration.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

This is a much less severe tax than CTs tax structure. And effects far far fewer people.

And MA has a stronger more unique local economy, and many other positive attributes/destinations CT doesn’t namely the MBTA, The Cape and Islands, and the City of Boston. Apples and Oranges.

At the same time it’s less dynamic and unique than New York so having a better tax rate than NY is an advantage.

If you’re a Harvard/MIT/BU student from NY staying in Boston to for your startup might be worth it. With Q1 maybe you might as well go back to New York.

But overall you’re right. Boston will be fine. It’s too big an dynamic to kill, But can Worcester or Springfield have a drag on their economies (particularly Worcester, cause Springfield just doesn’t produce that wealth anyway) ?

A lot of MA is like CT where there is nothing special. I think that’s Upstate NYs issue. High taxes but none of the overwhelming dynamism that overwhelms all else like NYC

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

At the same time it’s less dynamic and unique than New York so having a better tax rate than NY is an advantage.

If you’re a Harvard/MIT/BU student from NY staying in Boston to for your startup might be worth it. With Q1 maybe you might as well go back to New York.

But overall you’re right. Boston will be fine. It’s too big an dynamic to kill, But can Worcester or Springfield have a drag on their economies (particularly Worcester, cause Springfield just doesn’t produce that wealth anyway) ?

A lot of MA is like CT where there is nothing special. I think that’s Upstate NYs issue. High taxes but none of the overwhelming dynamism that overwhelms all else like NYC

How many millionaires in Worcester and Springfield??

Less than 1% of households in MA make 1M. This is not like CT where people start getting affected at more than a 5% income tax starting at $50,001.

People with $1,000,000 have options where to live but they also have significant business investments, real estate holdings, and institutional responsibilities in the state. There’s not all going to up and leave.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by massnative71

CT top rate is 6.99%, while MA would be 9% under this scenario. Hard to argue that theirs will be ”less severe” than ours on millionaires.



https://www.taxrateinfo.com/locations/connecticut

You’re right I was thinking more of the one time barely millionaires. In the big money you’re right it’s worse but that’s like .2% of households in the state. It’s not the same as CT where most peoples taxes are 5.5 or 6% and and the upper middle class is paying 6.9% whereas previously they had been paying 0%. The increase in CT was much more severe.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/10/...lionaires-tax/

“It’s the next $1 million or more, that is taxed at nine percent.

Let’s say you bought your primary residence in 1992 for $550,000. You and your spouse sell the house today for $3.5 million. As a couple, you get a $500,000 tax exemption, and after paying brokerage and other fees, your net profit on the sale is $2.6 million.

This same household also draws another $100,000 in income, perhaps through a salary or investments. That brings its total income to $2.7 million. The state tax bill today would be $135,000 compared with $203,000, if Question 1 passes.”

^ In CT that person would be taxed $188,730.

So your profit is $2,497,000 instead of $2,565,000 currently or $2,511,270 in CT. The horror.

Let say we’re talking about someone who makes $40,000,000 in MA today they get taxed at $2,000,000 today. Now they would be taxed $4,100,000.

In CT in 1990 you would get $0 in income tax-in 1997 you had $2,796,000 in tax. That’s a larger increase in the big players relative to what they were used to.

And if the lower tax makes CT or RI more scooper it be maybe that can spread some of the economic prosperity to those state, take some pressure off us and spread some to the adjacent areas in MA close to Providence and Hartford.

Not sure that $1M-$2M would be any reason to uproot to CT or some other state all of your business holdings and investments that was allowing you to garner $40M income. The legal and practical costs around that.. I could be wrong.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

How many millionaires in Worcester and Springfield??

Less than 1% of households in MA make 1M. This is not like CT where people start getting affected at more than a 5% income tax starting at $50,001.

People with $1,000,000 have options where to live but they also have significant business investments, real estate holdings, and institutional responsibilities in the state. There’s not all going to up and leave.

I don’t really understand. In the 1980s Massachusetts was out here expanding the Red Line, rebuilding the Orange line and building out the Commuter Rail. Now, as a significantly wealthier state we can’t afford like basic upkeep? With the trajectory this state is one I don’t see how the growth in normal income tax shouldn’t be able to plug holes in the state budget.

I do think that most millionaires beyond 495 are probably general contractors and car dealership owners. Who are in fact geographically constrained anyway. But I do think a high tax burden would prevent Boston’s prosperity from spilling west.

Again I do think that’s Upstate NY’s root cause of its general malaise

[StarlaJane]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

At the same time it’s less dynamic and unique than New York so having a better tax rate than NY is an advantage.

If you’re a Harvard/MIT/BU student from NY staying in Boston to for your startup might be worth it. With Q1 maybe you might as well go back to New York.

But overall you’re right. Boston will be fine. It’s too big an dynamic to kill, But can Worcester or Springfield have a drag on their economies (particularly Worcester, cause Springfield just doesn’t produce that wealth anyway) ?

A lot of MA is like CT where there is nothing special. I think that’s Upstate NYs issue. High taxes but none of the overwhelming dynamism that overwhelms all else like NYC

I’m not sure that Boston will be fine. We already have an issue with ridiculously high real estate prices as well as (as others have astutely mentioned) infrastructure problems. And, now, high inflation. Even before COVID, people were talking about getting “priced out” of Boston (just as they’ve gotten priced out of NYC).

So, is the millionaire’s tax a recognition of the vast amount of wealth in Boston that needs to be tapped in order to maintain the city? Probably. But, just as with NYC, the tax is not going to help the people who are being and have been priced out of the city. Boston was already on its way to becoming a city of 2 percenters. If the millionaires do stay after this tax, they are going to be the only ones living in Boston (and, perhaps, MA in general. Look at what has happened on Martha’s Vineyard).

Will Worcester survive? That’s an excellent question. Before COVID, it was considered “up-and-coming.” There was a lot of excitement (myself included) about its prospects. Then, lawmakers decided to spend $160 million to build Polar Park. As far as I’m concerned, this is exactly the kind of decision that proves that bureaucrats do not make the best decisions when it comes to taxpayer dollars. Instead of spending money on much needed infrastructure, they built a massive sports complex to generate more revenue from people. Seriously? You use taxes to get people to spend even more money that they don’t have? Now, because those people are tapped out, MA lawmakers want to tax the millionaires.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by StarlaJane

Will Worcester survive? That’s an excellent question. Before COVID, it was considered “up-and-coming.” There was a lot of excitement (myself included) about its prospects. Then, lawmakers decided to spend $160 million to build Polar Park. As far as I’m concerned, this is exactly the kind of decision that proves that bureaucrats do not make the best decisions when it comes to taxpayer dollars. Instead of spending money on much needed infrastructure, they built a massive sports complex to generate more revenue from people. Seriously? You use taxes to get people to spend even more money that they don’t have? Now, because those people are tapped out, MA lawmakers want to tax the millionaires.

Worcester's still considered up and coming and continues to see major public and private investment across the city. As questionable a decision as Polar Park might have been (I think the public commitment for that was way too much), it's not going to be the death of the city and it's hard to visit that area and argue that it's not drastically improved. If the people who Polar Park was built for are "tapped out," it surely isn't reflected in the data. The WooSox ranked 6th out of 120 teams in terms of attendance this year. And judging by how hard it is to get a seat in a local bar or at the Public Market on a gameday, the gamegoers have some money to spend. There's plenty about Question 1 (and government stewardship of taxpayer money) to take issue with, but you're connecting dots that don't exist.