Massachusetts Tax on Income Above $1 Million for Education and Transportation Amendment (2022)

Massachusetts Tax on Income Above $1 Million for Education and Transportation Amendment
Election date November 8, 2022
Topic Taxes
Status On the ballot
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

The Massachusetts Tax on Income Above $1 Million for Education and Transportation Amendment is on the ballot in Massachusetts as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022.

A "yes" vote supports amending the state constitution to create an additional tax of 4% for income over $1 million, in addition to the existing 5% flat-rate income tax, and dedicate revenue to education and transportation purposes.

A "no" vote opposes amending the state constitution to create an additional tax of 4% for income over $1 million, thereby maintaining the existing flat-rate income tax of 5% with revenue dedicated to the state's general fund.

Overview

How would the amendment change Massachusetts' income tax rate?

See also: Text of measure

The ballot measure would create an additional 4% tax on the portion of income above $1 million for the purpose of providing funds for public education, roads and bridges, and public transportation. The tax would be levied in addition to the state's 5% flat income tax, for a total tax rate of 9% on income above $1 million. The amendment would also authorize the $1 million threshold to be adjusted according to any changes in the cost of living in Massachusetts using the same method used to establish federal income brackets. The tax would take effect on January 1, 2023.

Who supports and opposes the amendment?

See also: Support and Opposition

Raise Up Massachusetts is leading the Fair Share Massachusetts campaign in support of the amendment. The committee reported $1.2 million in cash and in-kind contributions. The nonprofit coalition previously sponsored an initiative campaign to place the same amendment on the 2018 ballot, but it was removed by the Massachusetts Supreme Court after it was certified. Raise Up Massachusetts said, "Long before the pandemic, Massachusetts needed new investments in our transportation and public education systems. These investments are needed now more than ever to lift up our economy for everyone and to ensure Massachusetts remains a great place to live, work, and raise a family. Massachusetts needs sustainable, long-term revenue for these investments that don’t require low- and middle-income families to pay more."

The amendment was sponsored in the state legislature by Rep. James O'Day (D).

There is one committee registered in opposition to the amendment: Coalition to Stop the Tax Hike Amendment. The committee reported $437,486.00 in cash and in-kind contributions. The coalition said on its website, "If passed, it would be one of the state’s highest income tax increases in history and immediately impose an 80% tax increase on tens of thousands of small business owners, large employers, and retirees. And, it would give politicians a blank check to spend billions of taxpayer dollars however they want, with no accountability."

How does the amendment relate to a 2018 initiative that did not make the ballot?

See also: Income Tax Initiative removed from the ballot in 2018

In 2018, signatures for the Income Tax for Education and Transportation Initiative were certified and the legislature voted to refer the initiative, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court blocked the initiative from appearing on the ballot. The initiative would have enacted the same income tax with revenue dedicated to education and transportation as the 2022 amendment. The ballot initiative, according to the ruling, encompassed two subjects—a tax and a dedication of revenue, which violated the state constitution's requirement that the initiative contains subjects "which are related or which are mutually dependent." The state constitution does not require legislative referrals to meet the same subject requirement as citizen initiatives.

Text of measure

Constitutional changes

See also: Article XLIV, Massachusetts Constitution

The amendment would add the following underlined text to Article XLIV of the Massachusetts Constitution. The following text would be added:

To provide the resources for quality public education and affordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation, all revenues received in accordance with this paragraph shall be expended, subject to appropriation, only for these purposes. In addition to the taxes on income otherwise authorized under this Article, there shall be an additional tax of 4% on that portion of annual taxable income in excess of $1,000,000 (one million dollars) reported on any return related to those taxes. To ensure that this additional tax continues to apply only to the commonwealth’s highest income taxpayers, this $1,000,000 (one million dollars) income level shall be adjusted annually to reflect any increases in the cost of living by the same method used for federal income tax brackets. This paragraph shall apply to all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023.

Support

Fair Share Massachusetts is leading the campaign in support of the amendment.

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Sen. Edward J. Markey (D)
• Senate President Karen Spilka (D)
• State Rep. Adrian Madaro (D)
• House Speaker Ronald Mariano (D)
• State Rep. James O'Day (D)

Candidates

• Benjamin Downing (D) - 2022 gubernatorial candidate

Government Entities

• Springfield City Council

Unions

• American Federation of Teachers
• Massachusetts Teachers Association
• SEIU Massachusetts State Council

Organizations

• Greater Newburyport Anti-Racism Affinity Group
• Merrimack Valley Project
• Raise Up Massachusetts
• Unitarian Universalist Mass Action

Arguments

• Andrew Farnitano, a spokesman for Raise Up Massachusetts: "The Fair Share Amendment is not about one budget cycle. It’s about making generational investments over the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years. From our perspective, the need for the investment has never been greater coming out of the pandemic."
• Marie-Frances Rivera, president of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center: "[The coronavirus pandemic has] shown us in real time what the effects of chronic disinvestment in communities of color and low-income communities around the state actually look like."
• Raise Up Massachusetts: "Long before the pandemic, Massachusetts needed new investments in our transportation and public education systems. These investments are needed now more than ever to lift up our economy for everyone and to ensure Massachusetts remains a great place to live, work, and raise a family. Massachusetts needs sustainable, long-term revenue for these investments that doesn’t require low- and middle-income families to pay more."
• State Rep. James O'Day (D-14th Worcester District): "The Massachusetts economy is working great for those in the upper 1%. The time is now for all Massachusetts residents to reap the benefits of what this great state can accomplish with the revenue of the Fair Share Amendment."

Opposition

The Coalition to Stop the Tax Hike Amendment is leading the campaign in opposition to the amendment.

Opponents

The campaign provided a list of endorsements, which is available here.

Officials

• State Rep. Marc Lombardo (R)

Candidates

• Geoff Diehl (R) - 2022 gubernatorial candidate

Former Officials

• State Rep. James Lyons Jr. (R)

Organizations

• Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM)
• Boston Chamber of Commerce
• Massachusetts Seafood Collaborative
• Pioneer Institute
• Retailers Association of Massachusetts

Individuals

• Christopher Carlozzi - State Director of the National Federation of Independent Business

Arguments

• Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: "A sizable number of people who will be subject to this tax aren’t what I’d call perennial millionaires. It would likely capture a lot of one-time millionaires — a person selling their business once in a lifetime, a person selling their family home once in a lifetime — all those people could potentially be captured by this tax hike."
• Alex Brill, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute: "The surtax’s impact on federal tax revenue raises bigger concerns. Every $100 decline in taxable income among millionaires in Massachusetts would reduce federal revenues by as much as $37, depending on the type of income and the adopted tax avoidance strategy. Strikingly, the federal revenue loss, which I estimate to be $1.9 billion, would exceed the revenue gain for Massachusetts. And who would save on their federal tax bill? Millionaires in Massachusetts. Advocates of the surtax may not realize that it would result in some wealthy Massachusetts residents actually paying less total tax than they would have."
• CJ Ganji, general manager of Fresh Valley Foods Corporation in Haverhill, Massachusetts: "Every penny that they take out of our pockets, that's another job we can't create and more investment that we can't put back into our business. This income surtax would be another slap in the face."
• David Tuerck president of the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research: "This is the wrong tax increase at the wrong time."
• State Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-22nd Middlesex District): "These taxpayers are paying their fair share, they’re paying more dollars than any other taxpaying class in the commonwealth."
• Christopher Carlozzi, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in Massachusetts: "A millionaire’s tax could also send wealthy people fleeing the state and leave Massachusetts with less revenue, which would place a financial burden upon the remaining residents who would see taxes go up, small business owners included."
• Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman Jim Lyons: Lyons said the amendment is “a blatant cash grab masquerading as class warfare.” He added, "Massachusetts doesn’t have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem."

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recently scheduled reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through December 31, 2021. The deadline for the next scheduled reports is September 9, 2022.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Massachusetts ballot measures

Ballotpedia identified one committee registered in support of the amendment: Raise Up Massachusetts. The committee reported $1.2 million in cash and in-kind contributions. There is one committee registered in opposition to the amendment: Coalition to Stop the Tax Hike Amendment. The committee reported $437,486.00 in cash and in-kind contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$737,228.00	$465,211.58	$1,202,439.58	$668,590.11	$1,133,801.69
Oppose	$435,275.00	$2,211.00	$437,486.00	$148,374.41	$150,585.41

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.

Committees in support of Massachusetts Tax on Income Above $1 Million for Education and Transportation Amendment (2022)
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Raise Up Massachusetts 2022	$737,228.00	$465,211.58	$1,202,439.58	$668,590.11	$1,133,801.69
Total	$737,228.00	$465,211.58	$1,202,439.58	$668,590.11	$1,133,801.69

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in support of the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Massachusetts Teachers Association	$220,000.00	$203,893.28	$423,893.28
Massachusetts AFL-CIO	$125,000.00	$16,304.00	$141,304.00
1199 SEIU MA PAC	$110,000.00	$0.00	$110,000.00
Omidyar Network Services LLC	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Jewish Alliance For Law and Social Action	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot measure.

Committees in opposition to Massachusetts Tax on Income Above $1 Million for Education and Transportation Amendment (2022)
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Coalition to Stop the Tax Hike Amendment	$435,275.00	$2,211.00	$437,486.00	$148,374.41	$150,585.41
Total	$435,275.00	$2,211.00	$437,486.00	$148,374.41	$150,585.41

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in opposition to the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Robert Reynolds	$200,000.00	$0.00	$200,000.00
Nino Micozzi	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Jeffrey Markley	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00
Mark Casady	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2022 ballot measure polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Massachusetts Tax on Income Above $1 Million for Education and Transportation Amendment (2022)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

MassINC Polling Group	12/20/21 - 12/26/21	1,026 RV	N/A	69.0%	21.0%	10.0%
	Question: "There will be a question on the ballot in November 2022 that would create an additional 4% tax on the portion of someone’s income over $1 million a year. The minimum amount to trigger the tax would go up with inflation every year. The money collected would be dedicated to transportation and public education. Based on this description, would you support or oppose this additional 4% tax on the portion of someone’s income over $1 million a year?"

MassINC Polling Group	12/8/20 - 12/20/20	1,522 RV	N/A	72.0%	20.0%	7.0%
	Question: "In 2022, there may be a ballot question that would create an additional 4% tax on income over $1 million a year. The minimum amount to trigger the tax would go up with inflation every year. The funds collected by the tax would be dedicated to public K-12 and higher education and transportation, including roads, bridges, and public transportation. Based on this description, would you support or oppose this additional 4% tax on income over $1 million a year?"
Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Background

Income Tax Initiative removed from ballot in 2018

See also: Massachusetts Income Tax for Education and Transportation Initiative (2018)

In 2018, signatures for the Income Tax for Education and Transportation Initiative were certified and the legislature voted to refer the initiative, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court blocked the initiative from appearing on the ballot. The initiative would have created an additional 4% tax on the portion of incomes above $1 million for the purpose of providing funds for public education, roads and bridges, and public transportation. The state Supreme Court ruled that the initiative violated Article LXXIV, which requires that an initiative "contain only subjects not excluded from the popular initiative and which are related or which are mutually dependent." The ballot initiative, according to the ruling, encompassed two subjects—a tax and a dedication of revenue.

History of income taxes in Massachusetts

As of 2021, the Massachusetts Constitution specified that all income must be taxed uniformly by the state. For tax year 2020, Massachusetts was one of nine states implementing a flat income tax rate. Personal income tax generated $19.9 billion or 63.1% of total taxes collected by the state in 2020. All income tax revenue is dedicated to the state's general fund.

In 2000, voters approved Question 4, the Massachusetts Income Tax Rate Reduction Initiative, to reduce the state income tax rate from 5.85% to 5%, beginning with a reduction to 5.6% in 2001 and to 5.3% in 2002. The state legislature passed a law in 2002 to reduce the rate by 0.05% per year thereafter only if economic triggers were met. The income tax rate for tax year 2020 was 5%. The following table shows the rate each year from 1977 to 2020.

Income tax on the ballot in Massachusetts

Between 1962 and 2020, Massachusetts voters decided on 11 ballot measures related to state income tax. Four were referred to the ballot by the state legislature, and the other seven were citizen initiatives. Nine measures were defeated, and two were approved. Three measures were designed to reduce the income tax rate. Two of the three were approved. Two initiatives were designed to eliminate the state's income tax. They were both defeated. Six measures were designed to create a graduated tax rate instead of a flat rate; they were all defeated.

Measure	Purpose	Type	Outcome
Question 1 (2008)	Eliminate	Initiative	d
Question 1 (2002)	Eliminate	Initiative	d
Question 4 (2000)	Reduced rate	Initiative	a
Question 3 (1998)	Reduced rate	Initiative	a
Question 7 (1994)	Graduated rate	Initiative	d
Question 6 (1994)	Graduated rate	Initiative	d
Question 3 (1990)	Reduced rate	Initiative	d
Question 2 (1976)	Graduated rate	Referral	d
Question 6 (1972)	Graduated rate	Referral	d
Question 2 (1968)	Graduated rate	Referral	d
Question 1 (1962)	Graduated rate	Referral	d

Education funding in Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, funding for education is governed by the Chapter 70 Program, which establishes a minimum per-pupil funding level and the proportions of that minimum that are funded by state and local governments. The portion of local funding is determined through a formula that considers the district's income level and property values. Local governments can appropriate more than the required amount per pupil without penalty.

In 2020, Massachusetts ranked 6th in school funding. The state funds on average $7,824 per pupil ($7.1 billion total), and local governments fund on average $11,953 per pupil ($10.8 billion total). The state received $804 per pupil ($728.1 million) from the federal government.

Income tax in other states

As of 2022, 43 states tax individual income—41 taxed wages while New Hampshire taxed only dividend and interest revenue and Washington taxes the capital gains income of high earners. The remaining seven states did not tax personal income. Of the 41 states with an income tax, 11 states—including Massachusetts—have a flat rate, and the other states have graduated rates that varied depending on different income brackets. The number of income tax brackets ranged from three in Kansas to 12 in Hawaii.

The tax rate applied to income within the highest bracket across the 43 states with income taxes ranging from 2.9% applied to income above $445,000 in North Dakota to 13.3% applied to income above $1,000,000 in California. Compared to 2022 rates, this initiative would make Massachusetts the state with the seventh-highest income tax rate that applied to income above $1,000,000.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Massachusetts Constitution

In Massachusetts, both chambers of the state General Court meet as a single convention to vote on amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. An amendment needs to receive the vote of 101 of 200 state legislators during two successive legislatures to appear on the ballot.

191st General Court

The 191st Massachusetts General Court was elected on November 6, 2018, to meet in 2019 and 2020.

Rep. James O'Day (D-14th, Worcester) introduced the constitutional amendment as House Bill 86 in 2019. On June 12, 2019, the state General Court convened a convention to vote on the constitutional amendment. The convention approved the amendment, thereby forwarding it to the 192nd General Court for a second vote during the 2021-2022 session. The vote was 147 to 48 with five Democratic members absent or not voting. Members of the House voted 112-43, and members of the Senate voted 35-5.

Vote in the Massachusetts General Court June 12, 2019
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in a joint session of both chambers in two sessions
Number of yes votes required: 101  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	147	48	5
Total percent	73.5%	24.0%	2.5%
Democrat	145	11	5
Republican	1	37	0
Independent	1	0	0

192nd General Court

The 192nd Massachusetts General Court was elected on November 3, 2020, to meet in 2021 and 2022.

The state General Court held a joint session on June 9, 2021, where they approved the amendment by a vote of 159-41. The amendment was introduced in the 2021 legislative session as Senate Bill 5. All but one Republican, Sen. Patrick O'Connor, voted against the amendment, and all but nine Democrats favored it. The sole Independent member, Rep. Susannah Whipps, voted in favor of it.

Vote in the Massachusetts General Court June 9, 2021
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in a joint session of both chambers in two sessions
Number of yes votes required: 101  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	159	41	0
Total percent	79.5%	20.5%	0.0%
Democrat	157	9	0
Republican	1	32	0
Independent	1	0	0

Lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether the ballot summary is accurate or misleading
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs; The ballot summary is fair and not misleading
Plaintiff(s): Christopher R. Anderson, president of the Massachusetts High Technology Council	Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey (D) and Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Galvin
Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary is misleading because it does not explain that the legislature is not mandated to appropriate the additional income tax revenue to education and transportation.	Defendant argument: Unknown

  Source: Bloomberg

On January 27, 2022, a lawsuit was filed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court by Christopher R. Anderson, president of the Massachusetts High Technology Council, against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) and Secretary of State William Galvin (D). The lawsuit argues that the ballot summary misleads voters about how the revenue from the proposed income tax would be spent. An attorney for Anderson said, "Ultimately, we’re looking for the court either to order the attorney general to inform voters in the ballot material that the legislature has discretion on how to spend the money or to keep it off the ballot altogether."

On June 22, 2022, the state Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs concluding that the ballot summary is fair and not misleading. The justices said, "The Attorney General’s summary need not opine on whether, as plaintiffs contend, monies that historically have been spent on education and transportation could, at some future point, be spent elsewhere. The summary need only describe the amendment itself; we hold that it does so fairly."

Reports and analyses

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here. If you would like to submit a report or analysis to be considered for inclusion in this section, email editor@ballotpedia.org.

The Beacon Hill Institute report

The Beacon Hill Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, published a report on June 8, 2021, that concluded the 2022 amendment "will likely harm the state’s economy with the loss of jobs, investment and disposable income." The study used the Institute’s State Tax Analysis Modeling Program, a computer modeling program, and found that Massachusetts was likely to lose high-income households to other states because of the tax. According to the report, the Institute predicted the additional tax would generate $1.2 billion in revenue in its first year in effect.

The full text of the report can be read here.

The Center for State Policy Analysis report

The Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University published a report in January 2022 that concluded the amendment would generate about $1.3 billion in 2023. The report also concluded that the tax would affect 0.6% of households in Massachusetts and that the "short-term impact on the Massachusetts economy is likely to be negligible" and the long-term impact depends on whether the state allocates the revenue to education and transportation investments.

The full text of the report can be read here.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Massachusetts

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Massachusetts.

How to cast a vote in Massachusetts

Poll times In Massachusetts, most polling places are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. However, municipalities may open their polls as early as 5:45 a.m. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration To vote in Massachusetts, one must be a United States citizen, a resident of Massachusetts, and at least 18 years old on or before Election Day. The deadline for registration is 20 days prior to the election. A voter can register online, by mail, or in person at any registration office or the Registry of Motor Vehicles. A form of identification is required to register. The following are acceptable forms of identification: Valid driver's license State-issued identification card Current utility bill Bank statement Paystub Government-issued check Any other government document displaying the voter's name and address Automatic registration Massachusetts automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles, division of medical assistance, health insurance connector authority, and other agencies that collect what state law defines as reliable citizenship information. Online registration See also: Online voter registration Massachusetts has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration Massachusetts does not allow same-day voter registration. Residency requirements To register to vote in Massachusetts, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States Massachusetts does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. Verifying your registration The Elections and Voting page, run by the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements Massachusetts does not require voters to present identification (ID) while voting, in most cases. However, voters will be asked to show ID in the following circumstances: “ You are voting for the first time in Massachusetts in a federal election; You are an inactive voter; You are casting a provisional or challenged ballot; The poll worker has a reasonable suspicion that leads them to request identification. ” The following list of accepted ID was current as of November 2019. Click here for the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information. “ Acceptable identification must include your name and the address at which you are registered to vote. Examples of acceptable identification include: a driver's license, state-issued ID card, recent utility bill, rent receipt, lease, a copy of a voter registration affidavit, or any other printed identification which contains the voter's name and address. ”

See also

2022 measures

• 2022 ballot measures
• Taxes on the ballot
• Education on the ballot
• Transportation on the ballot
• 2022 legislative sessions

Massachusetts

• Massachusetts ballot measures
• Massachusetts ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Massachusetts House Bill 86 (2019)

Support

• Raise Up campaign website
• Raise Up Facebook page
• Raise Up Twitter page

Opposition

• Stop the Tax Hike Amendment campaign website
• Stop the Tax Hike Amendment Facebook page
• Stop the Tax Hike Amendment Twitter page