Search Results

< Back Advocates for Massachusetts 'millionaires' tax' launch statewide campaign Paul Tuthill | WAMC Northeast Public Radio May 11, 2022 Advocates formally launched a campaign Wednesday to pass a ballot question in Massachusetts this November that would put a 4 percent surtax on household incomes topping $1 million. Advocates for Massachusetts 'millionaires' tax' launch statewide campaign At press conference they push back on claims by opponents of the ballot question Advocates formally launched a campaign Wednesday to pass a ballot question in Massachusetts this November that would put a 4 percent surtax on household incomes topping $1 million. A coalition of labor unions, social justice advocates, educators, transit advocates, and faith leaders vow to work tirelessly over the next six months to bring over the finish line a campaign that began almost a decade ago to amend the state constitution to permit a higher tax rate on the state’s highest income-earners. Jeron Mariani, the campaign manager for the Fair Share Amendment ballot campaign, said a new website has debuted and he announced plans for grassroots door-knocking. “While the rich got richer during the COVID-19 pandemic, working people and small businesses struggled and for that reason we’re excited to kick off the Fair Share Amendment campaign,” he said. If approved by voters in November, the constitutional amendment would put a 4 percent surtax on income that exceeds $1 million and dedicate the additional revenue to public education and transportation. The campaign now estimates it would bring in $1.3 billion a year. At the campaign kickoff virtual press conference Wednesday, speakers promoted the need for higher spending on schools and public transportation in low-income communities such as Lawrence and Fall River. Rabbi Liza Stern of Congregation Eitz Chayim in Cambridge, said there is a moral case for passing the ballot question. “For people who are blessed with the ability to make more than $1 million, it is an opportunity for them to do this uniquely human thing which is help create a strong community,” Stern said. The press conference also tried to rebut a couple of arguments against the so-called millionaires’ tax. Khrystian King, a City Councilor in Worcester, said the rich will not flee Massachusetts if the question passes. “If they were going to move, they would have moved a long time ago,” he said. "And, Gerly Adrien, owner of Tipping Cow Ice Cream in Somerville and Boston, said small business-owners will not be hit with a higher tax bill if the amendment is approved. “For my fellow small business owners; did you make $1 million last year in income – not your revenue but your income -- your personal income? No,” said Adrien. “The people who did make $1 million in income most likely paid less in taxes than you.” However, in an interview with WAMC in March, Springfield Regional Chamber President Nancy Creed said the amendment would negatively impact small business owners. “Based on how they have created their organizations – sole proprietors, s-corps – those kind of small businesses are the ones that are really going to get it.” Creed said. “They are certainly not millionaires, so this is more of a middle class tax than a wealthy tax.” Business-backed groups, who succeeded four years ago in getting the Fair Share Amendment knocked off the 2018 state ballot, are back in court complaining about the wording approved by the state Attorney General’s office to summarize the question on this year’s ballot. The opponents say the phrase “subject to appropriation by the legislature” is misleading to voters. Andrew Farnitano, a spokesman for the Fair Share campaign said the challenge has no merit. “Dedicating the funding from the Fair Share Amendment in the text of the constitution is the strongest possible way to ensure it goes to transportation and public education,” he said. “It is an iron-clad declaration that the money must be spent on those two areas.” The campaign is also touting endorsements from elected government bodies across Massachusetts including city councils in Springfield and Pittsfield. Previous Next

< Back Fact Check: Misleading Claims in No on 1 Ad Called Out by Question 1 Supporters ​ Sep 13, 2022 Billionaires Funding Fear-Mongering Campaign Against Fair Share Amendment BOSTON – Supporters of the Fair Share Amendment, the proposed state tax on incomes above $1 million that would raise billions of dollars to invest in transportation and public education, today called out several misleading claims in a new ad by the billionaire-funded campaign opposing the Amendment, which is Question 1 on the November ballot. “A few billionaire CEOs who don’t want to pay their fair share in taxes are funding a campaign that misleads voters about Question 1,” said Jeron Mariani, Campaign Manager for Fair Share for Massachusetts . “But our campaign – thousands of educators, workers, small business owners, parents, faith leaders, municipal officials, drivers and transit riders, and neighbors all across the state – is ready to counter their scare tactics one conversation at a time.” Here are the misleading claims in the No on 1 campaign’s ad: They Say : “Question 1 would nearly double the income tax rate on tens of thousands of small businesses owners, family farmers, and homeowners.” The Facts : Question 1 would fix Massachusetts’ unfair tax system by creating a 4% tax on the portion of a person’s annual income above $1 million. Any income under $1 million in a single year wouldn’t be affected, and just the portion above $1 million would be taxed more: an additional four cents for every dollar of annual income above $1 million. In 2019, just 0.6 percent of all households in Massachusetts had incomes over $1 million. Less than 1 percent of Massachusetts taxpayers would pay more with Question 1, and those earning just over $1 million in a single year would only pay a little more. Not “nearly double.” The Facts : Question 1 is a tax on personal income over $1 million – business taxes would not be affected. Less than 3 percent of businesses owners in Massachusetts have taxable personal income over $1 million that would be subject to Question 1, and many of them are primarily investors or shareholders, not people running a business day-to-day. “If a business is generating more than a million dollars in personal profit for the owner, even after they deduct all their business expenses, let’s be real: it’s not a small business, and that super-rich business owner can afford to pay their fair share in taxes,” said Gerly Adrien, Business Director of Fair Share for Massachusetts & owner of Tipping Cow Ice Cream in Somerville and Boston . They Say : “Politicians aren't just taxing annual salaries, it would also tax the sale of small businesses and homes in Massachusetts.” The Facts : When a property or business is sold, only the gain in value, not the sale price, is subject to income tax. Last year, less than 1 percent of home sales in the state generated enough of a gain to be affected by Question 1. Just 895 homes, to be exact. And no one pays taxes on the entire gain from a property or business sale. Home sellers can deduct up to $500,000 from their taxes on the sale of their primary residence, and deduct the entire cost of a renovated kitchen, an updated heating system, a new roof, or any other improvements. Businesses can deduct various capital improvements and equipment purchases. Only a tiny percentage of home or business sellers would see their taxable income rise above $1 million. “As a retiree and homeowner, I know that Question 1 won't affect me and my wife when we sell our home. It makes me angry that the billionaire opponents of Question 1 are trying to scare us with misleading ads,” said John Lippitt, a Reading homeowner and retiree . “I’m supporting Question 1 because 99% of us, including home sellers and retirees, won’t pay more, but we'll all benefit from better roads and bridges, and our grandkids will enjoy better schools and affordable public college.” They Say : “Politicians are pushing a tax hike on the November ballot.” The Facts : The campaign for the Fair Share Amendment is led by the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition of community organizations, faith-based groups, and labor unions, not by ‘politicians.’ The Amendment was written in 2015 by the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition, and more than 150,000 Massachusetts voters signed petitions to put it on the ballot. Question 1 is backed by thousands of educators, workers, small business owners, parents, faith leaders, municipal officials, drivers and transit riders, and more than 300 organizations across the state . “When I go door to door talking to voters about Question 1, I’m joined by educators, parents, and school staff who want our schools to have adequate staffing to give students one-on-one attention and help them recover from learning loss,” said Liz Speakman, a Quincy parent and Regional Field Organizer with Fair Share for Massachusetts . “I’m joined by drivers who want to see the potholes on our main streets fixed, bus riders who are worried about the state of our public transportation infrastructure, and students who want to get a public college degree without taking on enormous debt. That’s who our campaign is, and I know that when working people join together and have conversations with our neighbors, we can overcome the scare tactics of a few billionaires.” They Say : The No on 1 ad originally listed five top contributors: Suffolk Construction, Sandra and Paul Edgerley, Jim Davis and Rand-Whitney Countainerboard. Then, a day later, it was updated to list Suffolk Construction, Sandra Edgerley, Jim Davis, Phill Gross, and Rand-Whitney Countainerboard. The Facts : New filings with the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) show that the No on 1 campaign has raised more than $9 million, with more than $5 million coming from just five wealthy families. Three Massachusetts billionaires contributed at least $1 million each through corporate donations that prevent the true donor’s name from appearing in the ad disclosure: John Fish, Robert Kraft, and Rob Hale. Billionaire Jim Davis gave another $1 million, and multi-millionaires Paul and Sandra Edgerley gave another $1 million collectively. The rest of the campaign’s funding comes from a small number of other wealthy CEOs and financial investors, some of whom gave through their companies instead of in their own names. “It’s day two of the billionaire-funded ad campaign opposing Question 1, and they’re already having trouble keeping track of which billionaires are bankrolling their campaign,” said Jeron Mariani, Campaign Manager for Fair Share for Massachusetts . “Voters shouldn’t be fooled by donations being routed through out-of-state corporations or through multiple companies; the opposition to Question 1 is driven by a small number of the wealthiest people in Massachusetts who would rather spend millions scaring voters than pay their fair share.” Background on Question 1: the Fair Share Amendment The Fair Share Amendment – Question 1 on the November ballot – will allow Massachusetts to improve our transportation and public education systems by making the very rich pay their fair share. Question 1 would create a 4 percent tax on the portion of a person’s annual income above $1 million and constitutionally dedicate the funds to be spent on transportation and public education. Only people who earn more than $1 million annually will be impacted; 99% of us won’t pay a penny more. And we’ll all benefit from better schools, roads, bridges, and public transportation. Thousands of educators, workers, small business owners, parents, faith leaders, municipal officials, drivers and transit riders, and more than 340 organizations across the state are working together to pass Question 1. Our campaign has been endorsed by 80 labor unions , 63 community organizing groups , 15 faith-based groups , more than 50 businesses , and more than 100 other social service and not-for-profit organizations focused on housing, education, transportation, public health, and the environment. Learn more and get involved at FairShareMA.com ### The Fair Share for Massachusetts campaign is led by Raise Up Massachusetts, a coalition of community organizations, faith-based groups, and labor unions committed to building an economy that invests in families, gives everyone the opportunity to succeed, and creates broadly shared prosperity. Since our coalition came together in 2013, we have nearly doubled wages for hundreds of thousands of working people by winning two increases in the state’s minimum wage, won best-in-the-nation earned sick time and paid family and medical leave benefits for workers and their families, and started to build an economy that works for all of us, not just those at the top. Previous Next

< Back Question 1 Supporters Respond to New Report on Massachusetts’ 644 Structurally Deficient Bridges Andrew Farnitano Aug 31, 2022 Fair Share Amendment Campaign Calls for Greater Investment in Crumbling Bridges With Passage of Question 1 on November Ballot Bridges Across Massachusetts – A new report from the Massachusetts Budget & Policy Center finds that Massachusetts has 644 structurally deficient bridges, and that 1 in 9 bridge crossings in the state occur on a structurally deficient bridge. Supporters of the ‘Yes on 1’ campaign working to pass the Fair Share Amendment, the proposed state tax on incomes above $1 million which would raise billions of dollars to invest in transportation and public education, responded to the report during a virtual press conference earlier today, with speakers calling in from structurally deficient bridges across the state. The Fair Share Amendment is Question 1 on the November statewide ballot. “Bridges that are closed curtail the community’s accessibility, and it really harms our ability to grow our economy,” said Kathy Lynch, owner of the Montague Village Store , who spoke next to the structurally deficient Centre Street Bridge in Montague, which was recently closed after several years of being reduced to one lane with weight restrictions. “Now we have one access way into town, which makes travel and local tourism very difficult. We can’t sustain our community without additional funding for infrastructure. If I am ever fortunate enough to make over a million dollars a year, I will be more than happy to kick in my fair share.” During the virtual press conference, campaign supporters called for greater investment in the Commonwealth’s crumbling and structurally deficient bridges, and for passage of Question 1 in November to invest in roads, bridges, and public education. “Our crumbling infrastructure is dangerous, and it’s hurting our economy,” said Collique Williams, Organizer, Community Labor United , who spoke from the structurally deficient River Street Bridge in Boston, which was shut down to vehicles in May after bridge inspectors identified beam deterioration. “This bridge is an important part of this community. In the 30-plus years I’ve lived here, I’ve probably gone over this bridge over ten thousand times, going to and from school, or taking my nephew to school on my way to work. By passing Question 1 in November, we’ll have the ability to repair our crumbling bridges by making the very rich pay their fair share.” “Repairing bridges is an investment in people, in middle-class jobs, and also an investment in business, because businesses can’t invest in our communities if they can’t get their products, their supplies, and their people back and forth safely to work,” said Charlie Payne, Business Representative for Carpenters Union Local 336 , who spoke from the structurally deficient St. James Ave. bridge in Springfield. “If this bridge collapsed right here, right now, or was deemed unserviceable, businesses on both sides of the bridge would suffer or go out of business. We can’t afford to let that happen.” “In the city of Worcester, we are considered a melting pot. However, with the potholes in the ground, there’s no way to sustain us,” said Worcester parent Nelly Medina , who spoke from underneath the structurally deficient 1-290 bridge over East Central Street in Worcester. “It’s really sad to see a bridge held up by pieces of wood. As a mom, I know that Question 1 needs to pass so we can get on with living our lives and fix this crumbling bridge behind us.” “In Great Barrington, we have seven bridges on the Housatonic River — every one of them was found to be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete,” said Great Barrington resident Michael Wise , who spoke next to the structurally deficient Cottage Street Bridge in Great Barrington, which has been closed to automobile traffic since December 2019. “We really could use the money from the Fair Share Amendment.” Transportation experts emphasized that Question 1 is needed to fund additional bridge repair and replacement work throughout Massachusetts, and that if we don’t address our crumbling bridges now, they’ll only hold back our economy and become more dangerous, and more expensive to repair, in the future. “Bridges that are in disrepair are more likely to become closed or to prohibit heavy vehicles from crossing them. They pose a greater danger and become more costly in the future,” said Phineas Baxandall, Senior Analyst & Advocacy Director, Massachusetts Budget & Policy Center and co-author of the new report. “On average, every day in Massachusetts, 14.3 million crossings take place across structurally deficient bridges. That’s 165 vehicles every second. Without additional investment, conditions will deteriorate in the coming years.” “Massachusetts bridges are in desperate need of increased investment to improve roadway safety, resiliency of our infrastructure to address climate change, improve equity for historically disadvantaged communities, and improve the economic viability of the Commonwealth,” said Pete Wilson, Senior Advisor, Transportation for Massachusetts . “The Fair Share Amendment will provide additional resources dedicated to transportation for long-term, responsible, sustainable funding to improve the Commonwealth’s bridges, and only people who earn more than a million dollars a year will pay more.” Background on Question 1: the Fair Share Amendment The Fair Share Amendment – Question 1 on the November ballot – will allow Massachusetts to improve our transportation and public education systems by making the very rich pay their fair share. Question 1 would create a 4 percent tax on the portion of a person’s annual income above $1 million and constitutionally dedicate the funds to be spent on transportation and public education. Only people who earn more than $1 million annually will be impacted; 99% of us won’t pay a penny more. And we’ll all benefit from better schools, roads, bridges, and public transportation. Learn more and get involved at FairShareMA.com ### Previous Next

< Back Why are Cambridge councilors backing the 'Fair Share' amendment? Wicked Local | William J. Dowd Apr 20, 2022 Cambridge City Council members do not always agree on the means to address community problems and issues, but they recently unified to publicly endorse a statewide referendum on the November ballot. (Original \ Source) Why are Cambridge councilors backing the 'Fair Share' amendment? Cambridge City Council members do not always agree on the means to address community problems and issues, but they recently unified to publicly endorse a statewide referendum on the November ballot. That question? Should Massachusetts assess a 4% surcharge tax on residents who annually earn over $1 million? The group behind the initiative - Raise Up Massachusetts - has dubbed their proposed referendum "The Fair Share Amendment" because it would amend the commonwealth's constitution and mandate funds go to public education and transportation infrastructure. “The Fair Share Amendment has immense potential to address chronic underinvestment in our public education and transit systems," said Cambridge Councilor Quinton Zondervan. "We need this funding to invest in our students and shift more people towards free, reliable, and accessible public transit.” Major transit, education investments needed The 4% would be assessed in addition to the annual 5% tax rate that taxpayers pay on earned and passive income. Raise Up Massachusetts projects the new tax would go into effect in 2023 and raise an estimated $2.1 billion. "That revenue will be constitutionally required to be spent on transportation and public education," Rachel Plummer, director of Programs and Public Policy for the Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee, told councilors in a correspondence supporting the City Council resolution, "specifically 'quality public education and affordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation.'" Plummer added Cambridge could stand to benefit from the extra revenue in those areas — especially in a post-COVID era. "Now more than ever, we need investments in our public schools to help students recover from the effects of the pandemic and to ensure that all students have access to complete and well-rounded education," Plummer said. Tufts University's Center for State Policy Analysis reports the surcharge tax would apply to roughly 21,000 taxpayers. Raise Up's annual revenue projections to hold up if millionaires remain in Massachusetts. "[The 4% tax] could raise a meaningful amount of money, as those few households account for more than one-fifth of all taxable income in the state," reads the state analysis. "However, the millionaires' tax also could have some serious side effects if top earners opt to leave the state or shield their income to avoid paying." Current income tax not getting the job done Still, Cambridge resident Will MacArthur offered testimony, arguing the income tax does not get the job done. "Fundamentally, prosperity in Massachusetts relies on our education and transportation systems — the high-income households who will be taxed under Fair Share owe a substantial measure of their success to past state investments in education and transportation," wrote MacArthur. "These households currently pay lower effective state tax rates than most Massachusetts residents, and passing Fair Share creates a mechanism for them to pay for the systems responsible for their prosperity." The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority carries a backlog of $13 billion for capital projects and notes it will be operating in the red come July 2023. "For years, Massachusetts has divested in infrastructure and education," wrote Cambridge resident Lee Farris on behalf of the Cambridge Residents Alliance. "State income tax, state sales tax and local property are all regressive forms of taxation that disproportionately fall on the poor, the elderly and communities of color." He added, "It's called the millionaires' tax because it will only fall on the very, very rich - people with incomes over $19,000 per week." Massachusetts has weighed in on 11 tax-related ballot questions between 1962 and 2020, and all but two failed: In 1998, Massachusetts voters reduced the annual state tax rate on interest and dividend income from 12% to 5.95% In 2000, Massachusetts voters reduced the annual state income tax rate from 5.9% to the present-day 5% Previous Next

< Back Brad Grecco Marketing Associate This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Want to view and manage all your collections? Click on the Content Manager button in the Add panel on the left. Here, you can make changes to your content, add new fields, create dynamic pages and more. Your collection is already set up for you with fields and content. Add your own content or import it from a CSV file. Add fields for any type of content you want to display, such as rich text, images, and videos. Be sure to click Sync after making changes in a collection, so visitors can see your newest content on your live site. info@mysite.com 123-456-7890

< Back Boston Globe: Yes on Question 1 The Editorial Board Nov 1, 2022 The proposed constitutional amendment would make the state’s income tax fairer than it is now. On Election Day in November 1915 , the men of Massachusetts went to the polls and made two mistakes. First, they voted overwhelmingly against extending voting rights to women. Second, they inserted tax language into the state constitution that forbade the Legislature from enacting a graduated income tax. Ever.The suffrage vote soon became moot when the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution overrode state laws. The tax amendment, though — a century later, that’s still with us.As a result of that misguided amendment, Massachusetts can’t have what 32 states and the federal government take for granted: an income tax code that expects wealthy people to carry a heavier burden. The state income tax rate ( currently 5 percent ) is the same for everyone, regardless of individual circumstances. In an ideal world, Massachusetts would simply get rid of the flat-tax requirement enshrined in 1915. That would allow our Legislature to do what most legislatures do: set and change tax rates and tax brackets in a fair way, and in response to the state’s needs and economic conditions. Question 1 , the only constitutional amendment on the November ballot, does not do that. Instead, it’s a much more complicated approach to making the income tax progressive, one that runs the risk of creating unintended consequences that may be difficult to undo. Still, for all its faults, Question 1 would make the income tax better than it is now, and for that reason the Globe endorses a yes vote on Question 1. The amendment is backed by a broad coalition of labor and advocacy groups. It would not remove the flat-tax language from the constitution, as we would have wished. Instead, it would keep the existing flat tax, but add a surcharge of four percentage points for incomes over a threshold of $1 million. That threshold would rise with inflation, with the stated goal of never reaching into the pockets of middle-class families.AdvertisementSomeone earning $2,000,000 in taxable income would pay the ordinary 5 percent tax on their first million dollars, and a 9 percent tax on the second million. The universe of taxpayers who would be affected is small: In 2019, only about 21,000 tax filers in Massachusetts had incomes over $1 million . The tax increase for that group is predicted to raise somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion in new state revenues per year, though estimates vary widely.Voters have been told that the new money would be spent on education and transportation — and, crucially, that the funding would be added to what the state already spends in those categories. So if it passes, and those promises are kept, we should expect to see combined spending on education and transportation shoot up by up to $2 billion almost overnight. Opponents, mainly business groups, fear the higher tax will make the state less economically competitive, driving away some employers and scaring others from coming here in the first place. They question whether a tax whose proceeds are likely to be highly volatile is a good way of funding transportation and education, which need steady, predictable funding streams. They raise the issue of “one-time millionaires,” people who are hit by the tax when selling a home or business that has appreciated in value. They question why a state that is currently running a huge budget surplus needs more revenue. And they point out that once the tax surcharge is embedded in the constitution, changing it would be very difficult. Tax writers should be able to respond nimbly to economic circumstances. But the Massachusetts Legislature will be stuck with this unwieldy apparatus of two tax rates that must always rise and fall in tandem with each other, and must always be separated by four and exactly four percentage points. Getting rid of the amendment, if the worst-case warnings of its opponents come to pass, would require a lengthy process that can stretch out over four years. Those are valid objections — and all the more reason why a straight-up repeal of the uniformity rule, which would take the minutiae of tax policy out of the constitution entirely, would have been preferable. It is also the case that advocates of Yes on Question 1 are deceiving voters in one respect. Despite their insistence to the contrary, it is not possible to guarantee that the money raised by the surcharge will, in fact, be added atop the existing transportation and education budgets. There is nothing to stop legislators from shifting existing transportation and education funding into other parts of the budget, then backfilling with the proceeds of Question 1. The only recourse if the Legislature fails to spend the money as promised is political: voters would have to vote out legislators who don’t heed the voters’ will. Frankly, though, many voters seem to understand the limitations of the amendment. They also get that it may not even be advisable to immediately plonk $2 billion into education and transportation agencies that don’t necessarily have the capacity to spend that money wisely; look how hard it’s been for the T to even spend the money it has. The reality is that the state has plenty of needs — in education and transportation, but also other areas — that the extra money could either pay for directly, or free space in the budget for through some legislative sleight of hand. The Commonwealth has a backlog of bridges that need repair. It has notoriously high child care costs. It has a housing affordability crisis. It has a vulnerable coastline that will need costly protection against rising sea levels. If the amendment passes, officials will certainly need to keep a careful watch for the kind of unintended consequences that critics foresee. Though the experience in other states with extra taxes on high-earners suggests fears of an exodus are overblown, it’s always possible the new tax will lead to a flight of high-earners that offsets its benefits. If the tax causes small-business owners to relocate out of Massachusetts — to avoid being hit by a one-time tax — that’s something that the state will need to counter with incentives to keep employers here. As is often the case with ballot questions, voters on Question 1 are being asked to choose between two less-than-optimal choices. Overall, though, a yes vote would move Massachusetts a step away from the unfair income tax system created in 1915 and toward a fairer Commonwealth that’s capable of making the investments it needs. Previous Next

< Back 18 Education and Youth Advocacy Organizations Endorse Question 1 to Improve Transportation and Public Education ​ Aug 15, 2022 Parents, Students, and Educators Join Growing Coalition Supporting Fair Share Amendment Tax on Million-Dollar Earners on November Ballot BOSTON – The campaign working to pass the Fair Share Amendment, the proposed state tax on incomes above $1 million which would raise billions of dollars to invest in transportation and public education, today announced the endorsement of 18 education and youth advocacy organizations from across the state. The Fair Share Amendment is Question 1 on the November statewide ballot. “It’s not fair that millionaires get richer and richer, while the ceilings in some of our children’s schools leak buckets when it rains,” said Suleika Soto, a Boston parent and Acting Director at Boston Education Justice Alliance. “We look forward to the Fair Share Amendment leveling the playing field and providing long-needed funding for our children’s futures.” The 18 education and youth advocacy organizations collectively represent thousands of parents, students, educators, and education and youth advocates from across Massachusetts. “We wholeheartedly endorse the Fair Share Amendment because we need it to ensure that each student in Massachusetts receives a high-quality, well-resourced education, now and in the years ahead,” said Lisa Guisbond, Executive Director at Citizens for Public Schools. “With funding made available by Question 1, we can sustainably reduce class sizes, hire enough school counselors, and better support English language learners. It is completely fair to require our wealthiest Massachusetts residents to pay 4 percent more per year on the income they earn in excess of $1 million. Doing so will enable us to uplift many thousands of children and support their future thoughtful participation in our democracy.” “Students and educators at every school across Massachusetts should have the highest quality public education possible,” said Vatsady Sivongxay, a Cambridge parent and executive director of the Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance - Education Fund. “Question 1, the Fair Share Amendment, is an opportunity to generate billions of dollars and create a permanent resource pipeline for equitable public schools and colleges. The historic Student Opportunity Act, passed in 2019, promises funding increases for local schools over the next five years, and the Fair Share Amendment will be key to fulfilling that promise to provide the necessary resources for our students and schools. Additionally, the Fair Share Amendment is key to ending the cycle of student debt that so many low-income, working-class, and BIPOC students and families take on in hopes of a better future.” “The Fair Share Amendment is a stepping stone towards a future in which all students receive the well-rounded education they deserve, including access to art programming, regardless of socioeconomic status,” said Rania Henriquez, Community Resource Coordinator, and Emma Burke, Social Justice Coordinator, at Elevated Thought. “As an organization dedicated to creative enrichment for young people and social justice, adequate funding for public education is non-negotiable. Progressive taxation is needed to equitably and sustainably provide the educational experience young people deserve.” “The Center of Teen Empowerment stands to create youth leaders that work for justice and equity in communities like Somerville and Boston. We support the Fair Share Amendment because of the impact it could have on the schools and communities we care so deeply about,” said Abrigal Forrester, executive director of the Center for Teen Empowerment. “Passing Fair Share will not only give back to our schools, but it will also improve our public transportation across the state. These improvements will help the people who need it most, which includes young people who attend public schools and rely on public transportation, rather than allowing the rich to continue to get richer.” The education and youth advocacy organizations join more than 280 organizations and thousands of activists across the state who are working together to pass Question 1 on the ballot. The campaign previously announced support from 63 community organizing groups, 26 housing and community development organizations, 28 social service providers, 15 faith-based groups, 7 public health organizations, 7 environmental and climate organizations, and 10 transportation advocacy organizations. After years of grassroots advocacy, the state Legislature voted in June 2021 to place the Fair Share Amendment on the November 2022 statewide ballot, where it is now set to be decided on by the voters as Question 1. The full list of endorsing education and youth advocacy organizations is below, and a full list of organizations that have endorsed Question 1 is available at fairsharema.com/endorsements . Boston Asian: Youth Essential Service Boston Education Justice Alliance (BEJA) Central MA Youth Jobs Coalition Citizens for Public Schools EdNavigator Educators for Excellence Boston Elevated Thought I Have A Future Latino Education Institute at Worcester State University Massachusetts Advocates for Children Massachusetts Association of School Committees Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents Massachusetts Coalition for Adult Education Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance - Public Action Network Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts (PHENOM) Revere Youth In Action Teen Empowerment Zero Debt Massachusetts Background on Question 1: the Fair Share Amendment The Fair Share Amendment – Question 1 on the November ballot – will allow Massachusetts to improve our transportation and public education systems by making the very rich pay their fair share. Question 1 would create a 4 percent tax on the portion of a person’s annual income above $1 million and require – in the state constitution – that the funds be spent only on transportation and public education. Only people who earn more than $1 million annually will be impacted; 99% of us won’t pay a penny more. And we’ll all benefit from better schools, colleges, roads, bridges, and public transportation. Learn more and get involved at FairShareMA.com. ### The Fair Share for Massachusetts campaign is led by Raise Up Massachusetts, a coalition of community organizations, faith-based groups, and labor unions committed to building an economy that invests in families, gives everyone the opportunity to succeed, and creates broadly shared prosperity. Since our coalition came together in 2013, we have nearly doubled wages for hundreds of thousands of working people by winning two increases in the state’s minimum wage, won best-in-the-nation earned sick time and paid family and medical leave benefits for workers and their families, and started to build an economy that works for all of us, not just those at the top. Previous Next

< Back WAMC: Springfield City Council endorses Massachusetts ballot question on 'millionaire's tax' WAMC Northeast Public Radio Apr 7, 2022 The City Council in Springfield, Massachusetts has endorsed the so-called Fair Share Amendment that will be on the state election ballot this year. Resolution backing Fair Share Amendment passes unanimously The City Council in Springfield, Massachusetts has endorsed the so-called Fair Share Amendment that will be on the state election ballot this year. The vote puts the Councilors at odds with the local business community. The Springfield City Council voted unanimously to pass a resolution supporting the question on the ballot that if approved by voters in November would amend the state constitution to add a 4 percent surtax on income that exceeds $1 million. City Councilor Jesse Lederman introduced the resolution. Urging his colleagues to support it, he said the additional tax money that would be collected by the state could be used to lower the costs to attend a four-year public college, improve road safety, build east-west passenger rail, and more. “These investments will take resources and we know working families are already being asked to pay too much and receive too little in return,” Lederman said. He said cities like Springfield have been short-changed when it comes to state spending on public resources. “At the same time, millionaires and billionaires continue to benefit from these same resources while enjoying record profits from our labor and expenses,” Lederman said. “It is time to balance the scales in the Commonwealth and ensure the wealthiest among us pay their fair share toward investing in the public resources that are foundational to the success of our communities.” The proposed amendment is the work of a coalition of labor unions, faith-based organizations and social-justice advocates that has campaigned for almost eight years to get it on the ballot. Business groups, for the most part, have lined up against it. A spokesperson for the campaign said five city councils and five school committees have passed resolutions of support with more in the works. The Pittsfield City Council voted last month to endorse it. Proponents tout the additional money as a boon for education and transportation. Opponents say the pitch is disingenuous because it is ultimately up to the state legislature to decide how tax revenue gets spent. In 2015, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue estimated the surtax would bring in an additional $2 billion annually. The proposed amendment includes an annual adjustment for inflation. During the public comment time at Monday’s City Council meeting, Jacqueline Velez, a mother of two and an organizer with Massachusetts Jobs with Justice, urged support for the resolution. “College could be a lot more affordable to my daughter, who recently made it to The National Honor Society and wants to pursue a four-year degree,” Valez said. “As a single mom, you can imagine how hard that is.” City Councilor Kateri Walsh said she supported the resolution because she was moved by what she heard during the public speak-out. “New revenues that would come in would improve the quality of life for so many people who work hard for the city of Springfield and don’t often get a return on what they do,” Walsh said. The Springfield Regional Chamber is among the business associations opposed to the ballot question. Chamber President Nancy Creed said it is bad public policy. “We want to make sure that does not pass,” Creed said. “To change the constitution is not how to change tax policy.” Past efforts to amend the state constitution to introduce a graduated income tax to Massachusetts have met with resounding defeat. Public opinion polls have shown strong support for this current initiative. Previous Next

< Back Fair Share Amendment Ballot Campaign Launches Fourth TV Ad ​ Sep 30, 2022 Question 1 on the November Ballot Is “Good for All Businesses, Big and Small” BOSTON – The campaign working to pass the Fair Share Amendment today announced the launch of its fourth television ad , part of an eight-figure TV ad campaign that is running through Election Day. The Fair Share Amendment, the proposed state tax on incomes above $1 million, would raise billions of dollars that are constitutionally dedicated to transportation and public education. It is Question 1 on the November statewide ballot. Titled ‘ Brewery ,’ the new ad features Karsen Eckweiler, co-owner of Democracy Brewing in Boston , explaining how “Small businesses like ours have struggled during COVID. Question 1 is a great opportunity to make things better for everyone. It raises $2 billion that the constitution requires goes to public schools, colleges, and roads. That means more jobs and better opportunities. That’s good for all businesses, big and small.” "Question 1 wouldn't make small businesses like ours pay a single penny more. But every business in Massachusetts will benefit when we have a more reliable transportation system to get our customers in the door and our employees to and from work," said Eckweiler . "We'll all benefit from better schools and colleges that prepare a well-educated workforce. And anyone who makes more than a million dollars in a single year can easily afford to pay a little more — just four cents on every dollar from their second million, and everything above it — to help build a stronger economy for all of us." Yesterday, the Yes on 1 campaign announced the endorsement of more than 75 businesses across the state, including restaurants, bookstores, farms, barber shops, breweries, retailers, hotels, solar installers, banks, home repair contractors, and other businesses from across Massachusetts, in communities such as Adams, Amherst, Arlington, Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Everett, Fairhaven, Fall River, Grafton, Greenfield, Hyannis, Lexington, Malden, Montague, Newburyport, New Bedford, North Adams, Northampton, Pittsfield, Randolph, Shelburne, Somerville, South Hadley, Stoneham, and Worcester. “Only people making over $1 million a year would pay,” the ad concludes. “If the richest one percent pay their fair share, small businesses like ours will see the benefits. I’m voting Yes on Question 1.” The new ad can be viewed here . Previous ‘Yes on 1’ TV ads can be found here , here , and here . Background on Question 1: the Fair Share Amendment The Fair Share Amendment – Question 1 on the November ballot – will allow Massachusetts to improve our transportation and public education systems by making the very rich pay their fair share. Question 1 would create a 4 percent tax on the portion of a person’s annual income above $1 million and constitutionally dedicate the funds to be spent on transportation and public education. Only people who earn more than $1 million annually will be impacted; 99% of us won’t pay a penny more. And we’ll all benefit from better schools, roads, bridges, and public transportation. Thousands of educators, workers, small business owners, parents, faith leaders, municipal officials, drivers and transit riders, and more than 350 organizations across the state are working together to pass Question 1. Our campaign has been endorsed by 80 labor unions , 63 community organizing groups , 15 faith-based groups , more than 75 businesses , and more than 100 other social service and not-for-profit organizations focused on housing, education, transportation, public health, and the environment. Learn more and get involved at FairShareMA.com. ### The Fair Share for Massachusetts campaign is led by Raise Up Massachusetts, a coalition of community organizations, faith-based groups, and labor unions committed to building an economy that invests in families, gives everyone the opportunity to succeed, and creates broadly shared prosperity. Since our coalition came together in 2013, we have nearly doubled wages for hundreds of thousands of working people by winning two increases in the state’s minimum wage, won best-in-the-nation earned sick time and paid family and medical leave benefits for workers and their families, and started to build an economy that works for all of us, not just those at the top. Previous Next

< Back Berkshire Eagle: Yes on Question 1 The Berkshire Eagle Oct 21, 2022 ​ Ballot Question 1 asks voters to approve an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would establish an additional four percent state income tax on the portion of annual taxable income above $1 million. A yes vote would amend the constitution to impose the additional tax, while a no vote would make no change to the state constitution. The so-called Fair Share Amendment is projected to bring more than $1 billion in additional tax revenue into state coffers without raising taxes on anyone earning under $1 million in annual taxable income. The additional money brought in by this surtax ostensibly would be earmarked for education and transportation — two areas where rural communities like ours see the need for serious reinvestment. It’s a pitch that’s tough to argue with. This measure would generate considerable new revenue simply by asking an exceptionally small percentage of exceptionally wealthy individuals to chip in another four cents on every dollar earned above $1 million. Estimates from the most recently available tax-filing data show this would fall on only about 20,000 individuals among the commonwealth’s 7 million residents— or less than 1 percent of taxpayers. In asking those most able to pay more, the state would generate sizable new funding streams for renewed public investment while shifting our regressive flat state income tax into a more progressive and fair model. We’re in favor of the Fair Share Amendment, even as we believe it’s far from the silver-bullet measure its proponents tout it to be. In our opinion, it would be far better to adopt a truly progressive state income tax with more brackets and finely tuned marginal rates, as opposed to a two-tiered structure based on the marketability of a term like “the millionaire’s tax.” Given the social will and political capital expended on getting this measure on the ballot, it likely means that hopes of a serious discussion on a more appropriately honed progressive income tax structure will be delayed if not dashed. And while we don’t think this rather modest tax increase on those most able to pay will resort in a mass exodus from the Bay State, its proponents’ convictions that it won’t cause any wealthy residents’ exit are specious at best. On a procedural note, while the language of the amendment calls for the additional generated revenue to be spent on education or transportation, it would still be subject to appropriation by the Legislature. This makes the oversimplified notion that this additional $1 billion-plus in revenue will automatically flow into transportation and education funding somewhat misleading. If it does pass, it will be up to all of us to hold our lawmakers accountable to the spirit of this measure and apply the necessary political pressure to ensure this money goes where it’s intended. Of course, the opponents to the question have much more full-throated critiques. Chief among them is the charge that this new tax will result in hardship for certain residents who are far from millionaires, such as small business owners, seniors selling their homes or farmers selling their land. It’s true that income from selling a house or from certain business structures counts as personal taxable income, those netting more than $1 million from annual business income or a home sale would still make up a tiny minority of Mass. residents, and are arguably well-equipped to pay a few cents more on the dollar over the first million made. It’s also worth noting that there is a sizable tax credit for sale of a domicile — $250,000 for single filers, $500,000 for married filers — which means that those selling their primary homes would not even hit the threshold for this new tax unless the sale generates well over $1 million. The Fair Share Amendment’s opponents know that this tax will ultimately impact very, very few people in the commonwealth, so their suggestion that the average small-business owner or senior on a fixed income would get hit by this measure amounts to scare-mongering. So, too, does their disingenuous talking point that the Fair Share Amendment represents an “80 percent tax hike,” which they know plays fast and loose with the facts on how marginal rates work. Even the relatively few whose high income would trigger this new surtax would not see an 80 percent increase in their total tax bill, as only taxable income above the first million would see an extra four-cent surtax. Where the opposition does have a point is the potential vulnerability of farmers who might sell all or some of their land in retirement or to make ends meet. That singular point should not torpedo the Fair Share Amendment, but it should behoove the Legislature to act swiftly in creating a tax break protecting farmers who might see a onetime hit from the measure if it passes. And based on the available polling data, it’s looking likely that this measure will pass. If it does, this will be serious step toward making the state tax system more equitable in a way that only impacts a very while generating revenue for public investment that our communities desperately need. That’s an opportunity Massachusetts voters shouldn’t pass up. The Eagle endorses a yes vote on Question 1. Previous Next

< Back Berkshire Eagle: People gather in support of the Fair Share Amendment Gillian Jones | The Berkshire Eagle Apr 4, 2022 ​ For a full photo recap, visit; The Berkshire Eagle | People gather in support of the Fair Share Amendment Previous Next

< Back 28 Social Service Providers from Across Massachusetts Endorse Fair Share Amendment to Invest in Transportation and Public Education ​ Jul 11, 2022 Financial Empowerment, Anti-Poverty, & Immigrant Assistance Nonprofits Join Growing Coalition Supporting Tax on Million-Dollar Earners on November Ballot BOSTON – Fair Share for Massachusetts, the campaign working to pass the Fair Share Amendment, the proposed state tax on incomes above $1 million which would raise billions of dollars to invest in transportation and public education, today announced the endorsement of 28 social service providers from across the state. “The CEDC has served as a Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) site for 19 years now,” said Corinn Williams, executive director of the Community Economic Development Center of Southeastern Massachusetts . “Each year, we help working families, immigrants and elders pay their taxes, and we see firsthand how working-class people are paying more of their income in taxes than the very rich do. The people we work with are paying their fair share. Now more than ever, it’s time to make our tax system fairer so that multi-millionaires pay their proper fair share, too.” The 28 social service providers include financial empowerment nonprofits, anti-poverty agencies, immigrant assistance groups, food banks and homeless shelters from communities including Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Fall River, Greenfield, Lawrence, Lowell, Lynn, Malden, New Bedford, Quincy, Somerville, and Worcester. “Regardless of district or zip code, Massachusetts' students deserve access to science, technology, engineering, arts and math (STEAM) programming that is proven to result in long term student success,” said Juan Maldonado, Associate Director of Sociedad Latina in Boston . “With the additional funding raised by the Fair Share Amendment, we can take a meaningful step towards educational and racial equity.” “I am proud to support this important work to bring Massachusetts the revenues needed to support and sustain critical infrastructure,” said Justin Pasquariello, Executive Director of East Boston Social Centers . “To continue to lead in education, we must invest more in early education and care and in all districts. To continue to support families of all incomes, our economy, and our environment, we desperately need investments in our transit infrastructure. Currently, our residents with lower incomes have the highest effective tax rates because more of their income goes to sales taxes and property taxes. The Fair Share amendment will bring all Massachusetts taxpayers closer to giving the same percentage of their income to make critical investments in the commonwealth.” “It’s no secret there is a correlation between zip code and the quality of housing, transportation and education resources available in any given area,” said David Gibbs, executive director of the Community Action Agency of Somerville . “The Fair Share Amendment will help low-income families in communities like Somerville, and others throughout the state, by creating additional resources for the creation and preservation of affordable housing, improving public transportation, and enhancing public education opportunities. By addressing these infrastructure and education issues now, we will ensure working families receive the best access to resources they can get in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, regardless of what municipality they live in.” “Preparing students for a diverse and multicultural world is a large part of what it means to receive a strong public education in Massachusetts,” said Mei Hung, executive director of the Chinese Culture Connection, Inc. in Malden . “If the Fair Share Amendment is passed this November, not only will the wealthy have the opportunity to share some of their extra funds for a good cause, but schools will be able to better prepare our children for life in Massachusetts and beyond.” “PACE sees first-hand the need for increased investment at all levels of our education system,” said Pam Kuechler, Executive Director of People Acting in Community Endeavors (PACE) in New Bedford . “Recruiting, retaining, and valuing our early education teachers is critical, and with the mental health of our children impacted by the pandemic, we must find the additional resources our next generation deserves.” The social service providers join more than 215 organizations and thousands of activists across the state who are working together to win the Fair Share Amendment on the ballot. The campaign previously announced support from 63 community organizing groups and 26 housing and community development organizations . After years of grassroots advocacy, the state Legislature voted in June 2021 to place the Fair Share Amendment on the November 2022 statewide ballot, where it is now set to be decided on by the voters. The full list of endorsing social service providers is below, and a full list of organizations that have endorsed the Fair Share Amendment is available at fairsharema.com/endorsements . Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee Center for Living & Working, Inc. Chinese Culture Connection, Inc. Citizens for Citizens Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc. Community Action Program Inner City Community Economic Development Center of SE MA East Boston Social Center Economic Mobility Pathways (EMPath) Greater Boston Legal Services Greater Lawrence Community Action Council Immigrants' Assistance Center, Inc. (IAC) Just A Start Latinx Community Center for Empowerment LEO Inc LifePath National Association of Social Workers, MA Chapter People Acting in Community Endeavors (PACE) Project Bread Quincy Asian Resources, Inc. Rosie's Place Sociedad Latina South Boston En Accion The Midas Collaborative True Alliance Center Union Capital Boston Worcester Community Action Council Worcester County Food Bank Background on the Fair Share Amendment The Fair Share Amendment on the November ballot will allow Massachusetts to improve our transportation and public education systems by making the very rich pay their fair share. The ballot question would create a 4 percent tax on the portion of a person’s annual income above $1 million and dedicate the funds raised to transportation and public education. Only people who earn more than $1 million annually will be impacted; 99% of us won’t pay a penny more. And we’ll all benefit from better schools, roads, bridges, and public transportation. ### The Fair Share for Massachusetts campaign is led by Raise Up Massachusetts, a coalition of community organizations, faith-based groups, and labor unions committed to building an economy that invests in families, gives everyone the opportunity to succeed, and creates broadly shared prosperity. Since our coalition came together in 2013, we have nearly doubled wages for hundreds of thousands of working people by winning two increases in the state’s minimum wage, won best-in-the-nation earned sick time and paid family and medical leave benefits for workers and their families, and started to build an economy that works for all of us, not just those at the top. Learn more at FairShareMA.com. Image by Peter Lewitt Previous Next