It's about people paying their fair share.

Look at it this way, if the state is making an extra $1.2B in revenue from sophisticated rich people like me, it can afford to cut taxes on brokedick losers like you.

Tax only applies to Income over $1 million per year. After the first million, for each dollar you earn 4 cents of it will be taxed to be used for infrastructure and public schools. So if you make 1,100,000, you’ll end up paying 4,000 in additional taxes which if you are earning that much is literally pocket change.

You got money and you're complaining?

4 additional cents. So 9 cents altogether. Reminder, Tyreek hill opted to play in FL because tax rate is lower than NY (ma is not far behind now).

[deleted]

Everyone pays 5% now. That seems fair.

[deleted]

Simply put “you make more than me? Well screw you!”

>it can afford to cut taxes

Hahahahaha

The law is about taxing the rich. Sold to the people as a tax to improve schools and roads.

I've long been a proponent of a flat tax. Equitable & sensible.

Sure, the citizens of Massachusetts want more government but they want somebody else to pay for it.

They rationalized it by calling it a "fair share."

$5100 and is complaining.

>Equitable & sensible.

Wow, you got both of those words wrong. Impressive!

How are you going to fund ballooning special education needs with a one-off surplus?

The idea is that the people who earn more are able to lose more money. Through this cap you've pointed out, it allows poorer people to be given a tax break which the rich have the ability to shoulder

5% is a lot more to someone earning 50K than someone earning a million. 9% is even more while people earning a million can live comfortably with that just fine

So you’re asking why we need more money? Just tryna clarify

People are making more money now, so that's where the tax surplus comes in. Now they'll have to adjust budgets in line with increased W2s across the state.

The 4% is to be handed to workers unions that work on the T, which inevitably still catches on fire.

This is Massachusetts, "cut" and "taxes" don't go in the same sentence unless it's to say the collector will "cut" you to collect.

Hell they can't even come up with progressive tax cuts for parents, students, etc... All they know is "moar."

The law is about taxing the rich. Sold to the people as a tax to improve schools and roads. the T.

FTFY

They're never doing anything for commuters that drive. Socialism needs you to be dependent upon state owned transportation. So walk or bike your ass to the commuter rail, to the subway, onto a bus, walk another half mile to work, pay more taxes, then do the whole thing backwards.

Nobody here got your point. Its a good question. If the cap is 2.91B and we're getting refunds, why is there a need to raise taxes without then reducing the tax burden for those under the $1M limit? Won't this additional tax still go above the 2.91B limit?

I see all these comments about paying a fair share. How is it fair if you pay a higher percentage then the next guy for the same and in most cases less benefits. Consider that financial assistance paid from the taxes collected is distributed according to income where the people that pay the most taxes get the least and usually no assistance. Why should someone be punished because they happen to have a job where they make more money then the next guy. I’ve worked my butt off since I was 15 years old in multiple jobs. After over 30 years of hard work I finally make a good paycheck and already am in a higher tax bracket then others. Which means after all my years of hard work I get to pay a larger portion of what I make to the government so they can mismanage it. Fair is everyone pays the same tax rate as the next guy. Stop using the term fair share unless you actually have a plan that is fair. Not just envy over what someone else worked hard to accomplish

[deleted]

Question 1 is keep the sheep distracted with rich v poor ideology

Massachusetts is terrible for taxes

The refund happened because we have very poor leadership at the statehouse. A large package of tax cuts and spending was in the works but they could not get it passed which left a surprise surplus. I’d rather not have had question one on the ballot. Raising and spending taxpayer money is their job and they don’t do it well. That said transportation and education have been underfunded for decades so you can see why people pushed and voted for it.

>The state law sets a cap of $2.91B in tax revenue.

No it doesn't. That is the amount over the revenue cap which is set yearly by a calculation so it is a moving target. This law was enacted in the 1980s I think and this is only the second time we have ever trigger it.

It’s not that the state doesn’t need more funds, it’s that the tax laws for this state limited the amount to collect. Since the state collected more than that amount, it’s being sent back. But they DO need more money to provide services. Question 1 allows for that. And even if it didn’t, it would make the rich in MA pay a more equal percentage of their income as they traditionally have paid much less per dollar income than middle class households. It would also ensure that any refunds would go to people who are in the middle or lower income ranges, rather than the taxes being avoided through tax loopholes for the rich.

so when your boy Oz lost you quit on PA and moved to be with the Massholes? Was there Fraud Cannie? LOLOLOL Block me again please.

I agree to an extent. I don’t think income should be taxed progressively. However I do think that wealth should be taxed. There are people hoarding 10s of millions of dollars and just keep passing it on for generations, and that money never trickles down to us peasants. I’ve worked my butt off too to get where I am now, and I still don’t even have a penny for every dollar that some of my friends have, solely because their ancestors were rich.

[deleted]

Because you cannot make a million dollars without exploiting or abusing others.

For someone to make a million there has to be a lot of others making very little.

The least someone who takes advantage can do is to pay 4% for roads and education.

This tax is the gateway drug for increasing taxes on everyone over time. The state can never have enough money. How else would they vote themselves pay raises?

Your tax is reduced due to the refunds.

Learn what equity is

Teach me. I want to hear this explanation.

Money is worth more to people with less of it. Rich people benefit greatly from society existing. They have the means support it's continued existence. You are never punished for making more money in terms of taxes.

If the tax rate was "fair" as you put it then it would put massive strain on our lower class.

I know this concept is hard to wrap your head around but you will get it eventually.

Conspiracy theories are so cool aren't they? Don't need to provide evidence. Can make any claim you want. Truly encapsulates the current political climate.

Let's say the tax rate is flat nationwide. This puts extreme pressure on the lower class since each dollar is worth more to them as they have less of it.

This tax isn't going to ruin any millionairs way of life. There going to make less money but they will still be able to lead a lavish lifestyle. But if this tax was levied on everyone then it would harm people making min wage alot. When your living paycheck to paycheck any increased cost can be the tipping point.

The federal individual tax revenue was 2.04 trillion. That means if the tax burden was evenly split between all taxpayers it would be a little under 14,000 dollars. That's almost more then minimum wage workers make a year. That's why we use a progressive tax system.

How do you get to the $14K?

How are those words used wrong?

Individual federal income tax / number of taxpayers.

That would be how much everyone would need to pay to raise the same revenue we do now if we did it "fairly".

Hopefully you see the flaw in your analysis.

Look at the history of taxation. The state and feds always want more of our money.

Meanwhile we get very little results with a bloated government payroll.

Sure Some taxes are necessary but not all of the taxes.

Also look at New York and New Jersey, a lot of the very large income earners left the state. Many moved their headquarters. If you don’t think this will be an unintended consequence in this state, then you are delusional.

Point it out or don't bother leaving a comment

Interesting. So your analysis and what I am taking away from it is that someone making $15/hour ($30K a year) pays $14K. And someone making $1M is also paying $14K if it’s a flat tax system. Not the person making $30K pays $1,500 (5%) and someone making $1M pays $50K.

That section was explaining the problem with raw tax values. It's an idea that libertarians love for some reason.

My point remains the same.

>Look at the history of taxation. The state and feds always want more of our money.

There have been tax cuts before.

>Meanwhile we get very little results with a bloated government payroll.

What specifically on the payroll bothers you. Goverment workers are paid less then private sector workers.

>Also look at New York and New Jersey, a lot of the very large income earners left the state. Many moved their headquarters. If you don’t think this will be an unintended consequence in this state, then you are delusional.

Yet they still have strong economies. New York is still the financial center of the US.

Your point was awful and makes 0 sense. I have never heard anyone explain a flat tax that way.

The revenue cap law and Prop 2.5 are the two worst pieces of legislation that happened to the state in the last 50 years. They both need to be seriously amended or repealed.

Equitable - taxing someone who can't afford new shoes at 4% of their income is reprehensible. Taxing someone with two yachts and three homes 8% of their income is an undertax.

Sensible - nobody, other than libertardian buttclowns and the ancap economists that they subscribe to, could ever call a flat tax sensible.

I was explaining the issue with holding fairness above everything else. Equal payment is the most fair system but it's awful.

Increasing the lower classes financial hardship while our upper class can afford taxes is wrong.

No one has ever made that argument that everyone should make a payment the way you described. Fair share is pick a percent and everyone pays that percent of income. 5% would be the same for everyone.

I was explaining the issue with holding fairness above everything else. Equal payment is the most fair system but it's awful.

Increasing the lower classes financial hardship while our upper class can afford taxes is wrong.

Funny I thought equitable meant being fair. How is treating one group different from another, fair?

Sensible = practical. It would be practical to have a flat tax, so we can incentivize people that have wealth to move into the state. Rather than have them move out because they are being treated unfairly.

[deleted]

You are incorrect.

The budget was set based on the expected taxable income. When covid hit, that number (last years budget) was lowered as a response to expected lost income. That lost income never materialized, and so the state went over the budget revenue because the budget was smaller than expected.

The refund you are getting is only in response to last year's budget, which was less than the amount of tax taken in. Next year's budget will be raised because there is no expected drop in productivity.

Also I did full math and it was a flat tax on all income (wage, investment, everything) it would need to be 24%. That's before state taxes and such this is just federal. This means that if you make minimum wage and work 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year you would take home a whopping 11,460% a year. That's why below the poverty line. The line that's already incredibly lower then what's required to survive.