Copying my comment from the other place I posted this with a summary:

> Harwich Cranberry farmer Leo Cakounes has become the face of opposition to Question 1, the ballot measure that would raise taxes on the state’s highest earners – up from 5 to 9 percent for any income exceeding a million dollars.

>...

>“Question 1 isn’t just a tax on annual salary,” he says. “So when farmers like me sell our family farms or homes, Question 1 would nearly double our taxes, punishing us for our years of hard work”

You may have seen his face on TV or posters. He's been the main person railing against the proposed tax increase on the rich. But....

>But Cakounes is going to do just fine in retirement, whether or not Question 1 passes. A search of Registry of Deeds records across the state reveals the Republican former local politician, sometime radio and podcast host, tour operator, and farmer is sitting on property worth millions, including rental properties in Harwich and Belchertown. He estimates his home and the land on which it sits are worth $3 million.

Color me not surprised at all. The article is also full of fun quotes like

>“Don’t portray me like I’m a friggin’ crybaby because I don’t want to spend 40 grand on a million dollars,” he said. “I couldn’t give a s**t about 40 grand, but this tax is not good for the Commonwealth.”

and

>“I’m not a goddamned slumlord,” he said, then cautioned me. “Don’t blow that off.”

Seems like a nice guy, and exactly the sort of person this tax is supposed to effect

He will probably retire in FL and not pay any MA tax.

>“Don’t portray me like I’m a friggin’ crybaby because I don’t want to spend 40 grand on a million dollars,”

If you don't want to be called a clown, don't wear a rainbow wig, a big red nose, long squeaky shoes, and facepaint.

Man I was kinda on the fence about this one but this guy makes me want to vote yes so hard.

>“Every single one of those pieces of property my wife and I have bought and sold, we got through hard work and sweat. I am not a trust fund baby.”
His real estate records reflect that work, and considerable savvy: His properties have risen greatly in value over the years, and he holds almost all of them in trusts, “for liability reasons,” he said, adding that he always treats his tenants well, and charges them below-market rent because he knows working people need housing.

It sounds like this cranberry farmer has been working and investing his whole life and has achieved success in the process.

Why should he be punished with an additional tax?

>adding that he always treats his tenants well, and charges them below-market rent because he knows working people need housing.

Yeah, what a monster. He built up a business and owns property earned over years. Clearly he must be punished.

Here we go: it's always necessary to belittle and dehumanize these rich cranberry farmers since it makes it easy to rationalize why they should pay more taxes and not you.

Lick that boot! Lick that boot! Lick that boot!

Probably sell his rental property to a hedge fund that will immediately double the rent. But, hey, you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet!

Robbing Peter to pay Paul will always have the enthusiastic support of Paul.

>Cakounes believes the damage from Question 1 lies elsewhere; he worries higher taxes will drive businesses from the Commonwealth, as they relocate to avoid the extra burden; that Beacon Hill cannot be trusted with the extra $2 billion annually advocates say the measure will raise; that the state, which is enjoying a huge surplus right now, does not actually need the money.

If only there were some evidence to support the crazy idea that businesses relocate to low tax states.

The difference is this cranberry farmer did his own work, made his own opportunity for success. Nothing says boot licker more than someone who has to punch the time clock at a business that was someone else's opportunity.

Commonwealth doesn’t need it

Yeah, I'm so sick of these high and mighty [checks notes] cranberry farmers.

Imagine thinking having to pay your fair share in taxes is a punishment

He's not being punished, that's just how taxes work.

Taxation is not theft, obviously.

They already pay their fair share. This is asking for more.

They tried this millionaires tax in Maryland and they said it would raise $106 million. Take a wild guess what happened:

>Well, the state comptroller's office now has the final tax return data for 2008, the first year that the higher tax rates applied. The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million.

Oopsie.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703976804575114241782001262

Voting “Yes” on this question gave me a hard-on.

Everybody in MA pays a flat income tax. How is that not fair to everyone?

Make no sense. An extra tax is being imposed simply for business success.

OK, then why not urge an across-the-board tax rate increase for all MA taxpayers? Why single out one tiny sliver of the taxpayer base?

A person making $30,000 a year needs to use all of that money just to stay alive. A millionaire also needs to use $30,000 to stay alive, but he has hundreds of thousands of dollars leftover. That excess money should be taxed at a higher rate.

So should we tax the poor people? Poor dude is going to have a little less money than he already does.

That $30K taxpayer gets a $4.4 exemption and with a 5% rate has a tax liability of $1280.

The millionaire will pay $49780.

You have no right to tell anyone what they can and cannot keep or what they deserve.

You left three different responses to this post, so I’ll just go with this one. They send jobs elsewhere when taxes go up? Not when the state in question has the people capable of doing the technical work that their businesses depend on. You think the modern sectors (computers, biotech) are going to move their operations to backasswards states populated by people who think that Jesus planted dinosaur bones as a test of their faith? Manual labor may leave, but good riddance. The uneducated mopes who voted for capitalist scammers and religious fundamentalists can have those jobs. Oh, and why are all the decent paying jobs in the liberal states? Because we tax rich fucks to pay for education. Without that (and government subsidy), you don’t have a modern economy. Peace out.

We have a flat tax. The millionaire is already paying $50K.

What gives you the right to stake a claim on somebody else's money?

Because the ones being singled out are the ones who can afford it.

A bulk of that 30k gets taxed a second time (sales tax). The millionaire's hoarded wealth just sits there.

OMG, so SO much is wrong in this but I'll leave with one question: why does Massachusetts need a new tax on "rich fucks to pay for education" when we already have the highest education level in the entire country?

Tesla, Oracle, and Hewlett Packard say "hello" from Texas.

Stake a claim on someone else’s money? Do you think the taxes go to me?

[deleted]

Then he can shut the fuck up and stop whining about having to pay a few measly dollars more so that the state he lives in can have nice things.

[deleted]

…no he didn’t.

Because that tiny sliver doesn’t pay its fair share. Stop simping for the one percent. It makes you look like a jackass.

[deleted]

Can I swing by your house and tell you what you're allowed to keep and what I can take because you can afford it?

Do you have a job?

There's a first time for everything.

Lol Have a fantastic evening!

No, this would be a tax according to the business success.

It just sits under a mattress, right?

Most of the time, wealth is invested in corporations that provide jobs to people. Or it sits in banks that provide capital that can be used to provide credit (business and personal loans) to people. Or it's in treasury bonds that fund the government.

But, sure, we need to hit them up just one more time.

So very brave of you, asking that other guy to pay more in taxes.

Stunning and brave.

Ah the old trickle down economics theory that hasn't proven to work out for 40 years.

You too.

Why do you people insist on licking the boots of people who would not be caught dead in a room with you? It boggles the mind. Stop simping for rich people.

You’ve obviously already assumed I don’t, so what’s my answer matter? Clearly because I think rich people should pay their fair share in taxes I must be lazy and unemployed, because that’s the only way you can pretend my opinion isn’t valid.

Fuck off.

He would already pay 5% on whatever he makes, just like everybody else in MA.

Question #1 is asking him to pay more just because he's more successful.

TaXaTiOn Is ThEfT

Fuck off with this lolbertarian horseshit

Yeah, it's funny how we've been beholden to trickle down economics here in Massachusetts until now.

After - who knows how long - with a flat and equal tax on everyone, we're going to reverse this policy.

It worked so well for Maryland: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703976804575114241782001262

Also, the idea that the success he “achieved” was not off the backs of all the people that work for him is certainly a take

The only thing worse than bitchy millionaires whining about paying pennies more in taxes are the miserable, sniveling simps who lick their boots.

Great source there... A 12 year old Opinion article.

Question answered.

Why do you care how much a millionaire pays in taxes, when he wouldn't think twice about you?

Sigh. This pathetic dismissal would be funny, if I hadn’t seen it a thousand times from libertarian dipshits like yourself. You assume anyone who actually gives a shit about anyone besides themselves must clearly be unemployed, because in your selfish, diseased brain, that’s the only scenario that makes sense.

Then it's awesome that this state wants to force people out with confiscatory tax policies. I'm sure that hedge fund will be a much better landlord.

Their fair share? You mean more. Doesn't matter what the base is or what the rates are, it's always more.

The rich are the rich, regardless of your personal perception of their industry.

Having worked as a farmhand, I can confidently say any "farmer" who is making over a million per year is not a farmer themself.

>Well, the state comptroller's office now has the final tax return data for 2008, the first year that the higher tax rates applied. The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million.

Which of the numbers here have spoiled with age?

I've never seen Peter complain about Paul being well educated, skilled, and able to come to work due to the services that government provides.

How many jobs are created by poor men?

No, I mean their fair share—which they do not currently pay. Don’t put words in my mouth.

You do realize the state has 18billion to spend on schools and roads and transportation. Yet they still need more…

Yeah, I'm done with you.

Weird red herring

They aren't paying the 5% everyone else pays? You know, like the state constitution says when it mandates everyone pay the same rate?

If they aren't paying their 5% there are laws in place for dealing with avoidance.

[removed]

Okay, again: 5% to Daddy Warbucks here is couch change. 5% to someone who barely makes minimum wage? That’s a whole different kettle of fish.

They are not paying their fair share. Flat taxes are disproportionally harmful to the poor and middle class, and all the lolbertarian weirdos kissing millionaire ass here know it.

If Peter's happy about that, he should willingly pay to support that.

Instead he needs to be compelled.

[removed]

Peter is happy about it. If he wasn't, he'd set his business up somewhere with lower taxes and fewer services, like Alabama. Peter never wants to pay though, because no one ever wants to pay.

Everyone needs to be compelled. Literally everyone. You must have skipped econ 101, where they taught that an economy is a collection of self interested individuals.

You don't know shit about anybody's situation but your own. You're awfully free with the idea of forcing your views on other people, using government force to get your way.

Your fiscal policy boils down to "They have money, I want it, fuck them and their families. And who cares about fairness or consequences."

Answer my question first.

Which of these numbers came from a news source instead of an Opinion article?

Sure: I don't sit here and covet the wealth of other men. I don't believe we should punish success by taxing people at a higher rate just because they're successful. I think it's obscene to demand that people pay more just because they have more.

I'm sure that Bill Gates doesn't think twice about me. But Bill Gates created an industry that has employed tens of thousands of people in mostly high-paying jobs, and has created a business that increases productivity across the globe. We should be thanking him but instead the opinion is "he has a lot of money and he should give it to us."

Maybe you didn't hear about all the companies moving from California to Texas.

Don't worry, you'll hear about all the businesses moving from Massachusetts to New Hampshire soon enough.

So I need to track down the actual comptroller office report?

Attacking the source is always the last refuge of these threads.

You seem to have confused this personal tax increase with a business tax increase. The only businesses that would move because of this tax are ones that are taxed/owned by unincorporated entities. Will some businesses move? Maybe. But there will always be a race to the bottom. None of the corporations that generate the majority of the jobs/income in MA will be moving as this won't even remotely affect them.

It seems you've picked a position and are now trying to find facts that support it instead of the other way around. My condolences.

r/SelfAwarewolves

and ntm those poor men are the ones carrying those jobs, not the men in suits on their luxury cruises

Will personal taxpayers earning over a million move over the border into New Hampshire?

Based on history and previous examples from Maryland to France, why wouldn't we believe this? And why wouldn't we believe there would be an actual drop in expected revenues just like those previous examples?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/business/one-top-taxpayer-moved-and-new-jersey-shuddered.html

>I don't sit here and covet the wealth of other men.

Weirdly sexist, and red herring

>I don't believe we should punish success by taxing people at a higher rate just because they're successful.

Red herring

>I think it's obscene to demand that people pay more just because they have more.

That is literally what any flat tax does.

>I'm sure that Bill Gates doesn't think twice about me.

Yup

>But Bill Gates created an industry that has employed tens of thousands of people in mostly high-paying jobs

Unrelated to the issue

>and has created a business that increases productivity across the globe.

Is your argument that people would only be motivated to improve society because they could eventually be worth $100B+ and only making a billion wouldn't motivate them? Weird take but ok.

>We should be thanking him but instead the opinion is "he has a lot of money and he should give it to us."

Well, good ole Bill would disagree with you. That's why he started the foundation. Even he thinks he shouldn't have as much as he does.

Imagine pretending an Opinion article is a reliable source

Taxes are paid where they're earned. Anyone who works in MA will still pay MA taxes. You seem unfamiliar with our tax code.

FFS - OK, now answer my question.

He is, like you are, free to give away as much of your own money as you (and he) would like.

These numbers from a comptroller report can't be real because they're being reported from an opinion piece is a hell of a take.

An extremely weak and grasping take.

Sure. The answer is quite a few. Most of these millionaires started as small business owners who weren't making much money but they needed to hire people to grow their business. Every single farmer these ads claim to care about was likely not very well off when they hired their initial staff. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to provide examples.

Ok... Let's pretend that your source is good. What else happened in 2008 that may have also contributed to a sudden change in people's fortunes? (Here's a hint: it was a national recession)

It’s surprising to me that John Henry hasn’t put his foot down on this reporting. Billionaire owner hasn’t become Sinclair as yet?

>Most of these millionaires started as small business owners who weren't making much money but they needed to hire people to grow their business.

Yes, they took a risk, sacrificed, and created businesses that gave livelihoods to employees who subsequently provided for their families.

They must be punished.

Are you referring to the surplus?

Yup, the WSJ article notes the financial crisis. Then there's this:

"One-in-eight millionaires who filed a Maryland tax return in 2007 filed no return in 2008. Some died, but the others presumably changed their state of residence. (Hint to the class warfare crowd: A lot of rich people have two homes.)
A Bank of America Merrill Lynch analysis of federal tax return data on people who migrated from one state to another found that Maryland lost $1 billion of its net tax base in 2008 by residents moving to other states. That’s income that’s now being taxed and is financing services in Virginia, South Carolina and elsewhere."

https://taxfoundation.org/marylands-millionaires-missing-after-income-tax-hike

He already paid taxes on all that stuff. It’s a social agreement made before you buy or earn stuff. If the farmer millionaire doesn’t want to participate he can take his business elsewhere. Mass would no longer benefit from his money and he would no longer benefit from things Mass taxes pay for like roads that his business uses or the employees educated by the state etc

I read Tax Foundation's about page. They have a clear bias against progressive taxes. I'm done engaging with your nonsense.

Oh cool, moving the goal post

Just like every other response: I don't like your totally accurate statistics because it comes from a partisan source.

Believe me, I'm used to it.

No, they don’t.

Flat taxes aren’t fair and disproportionately hurt low income people.

Success and failure aren’t taxed. Money is.

Why would you act as fodder for wealthy people who have so much money that they don’t know what to do with?

Trickle down factually was a lie and didn’t work

Factually, wages haven’t risen with productivity and the wage gap is comically large at this point especially when compared over the last 4-5 decades

There’s no reasoning for your stance - at all

Get a spine, or, there’s always China

if one does not like fleas, one should not lay with dogs.

What an utter knob

The moved their HQs. To avoid taxes. They didn’t close their facilities in CA, that would be suicide because the majority of their Silicon Valley talent wouldn’t move to Texas even for a decent raise. California has its problems for sure, but if it were it’s own country it’s GDP would be…9th in the world, IIRC? It’ll be just fine because a few rich libertarians moved their HQs. The companies are almost certainly incorporated in Delaware, anyhow. It’s all a stupid game.

If you think education is well funded in MA I invite you to examine the facilities in our towns. In my affluent town, my children went to elementary school in a building older than the one I attended 40 years ago. Their middle school has a room that cannot be used because there is sewage coming up from the floor.

I can’t imagine how bad schools are in these low tax states.

I for one would love to have the millionaires’ problems. And I’m reasonably well off, the majority of these new taxes won’t have a major direct benefit on my family. But it has the potential to help those less fortunate than me, which is good on its own but also helps everyone indirectly.

Also, you know that tax rates have been dropping for decades right? Like in 1955, there was a federal income top marginal tax rate of 90%.

This millionaire tax will come nowhere near balancing the scales for the privileges the rich benefit from. Maybe it’ll lessen the misery of the poorest, though. Worth a shot.

Lmao, how’s millionaire boot taste?

The current situation ISN’T fair. This would make it fair-ER.

[deleted]

They downvote you as if you were wrong

They could have worked for someone else

Yeah, there's already taxes in place. The Additional ones would be considered punitive.

This is the point they like to ignore and circle back to "make more tax more, we live in a society, etc"

I’ll be voting HELL YA on 1!

Exactly, so if anything, this jerkoff should be grateful that he can improve the lives of the people who made him successful by paying a pittance more in taxes.

Or his employees should be thankful for the job he let them have, and with all the other taxes already in place, Massachusetts can make do with what it already collects.

Gonna go ahead and guess you’re a boomer because only boomers and their selfish-ass mindset use phrases like “employees should be grateful”

>the job he let them have,

Disgusting.

Does he?

Nope thirty five. Worked for everything I have, can't justify additional taxes when the state collects enough as it is.

You are pathetic.

[removed]

It is also my concern that the 9% top rate is just too high compared to comparable and neighboring states and could lead to a drop in net revenue.

A Tufts analysis projected that this would likely not be the case:

"Together, cross-border moves and tax avoidance would reduce millionaires tax revenue by roughly 35 percent [to $1.3 billion]. (Absent these responses, the tax would be expected to raise $2.1 billion in 2023.)"

Via: https://cspa.tufts.edu/node/406

However, there is substantial uncertainty here, especially in the long-run, that this end up going the scales for a lot of people, lower net tax revenue, and force cuts to state budgets.

Given that, I'm frankly mystified why the "no on 1" ads went with a "sympathy for multi-millionaires" angle instead of "risk of capital flight" angle.

Reality often is. If you can't work for yourself, you work for someone else. Have an issue? work somewhere else; isn't that what people like you were screaming when others got fired over vaccine mandates?

Poor people aren’t making over a million so what does this have to do with them.

[removed]

Who cares. Still not a reason to vote for question 1. Vote no.

Why?

Well since you likely aren’t making over $1Mil a year, it won’t effect you

Why not? If he makes over $1Mil a year he can afford it. By the sounds of it, he doesn’t, so it wouldn’t effect him anyway.

There is no rational reason to vote FOR this amendment.

I assume all supporters of this amendment paid the optional 5.85% tax this year since they believe the state is so starved for revenue.

The rational reason is to get more money off billionaires who could stand to pay a little more into the system than take that 1 extra flight on their private plane.

He does literally pay more it’s a flat tax percentage not a flat tax amount. I’m not decided but just want people to be clear on that.

Non sequiturs are an odd choice here

Duh! if you're making over 1,000,000 a marginal tax of 4% on anything over that is not going to affect you much.

….isn’t that exactly what you’re doing though

No it's not.

A complete bell-end.

The point is they may not be making a million every year, it may be a one off sale of their only home (life savings).

Then they only pay the 4% marginal tax rate once for what ever is over the million. Most homes do NOT sell for over a million. This does NOT tax savings.

Not you money: not your business

Let’s tax the rich so we can build them electric vehicles charging stations for their teslas.