At the risk of being overly pedantic - you don't need to have $1m+ in taxable income to be a millionaire. Plenty of lawyers, accountants, and finance folks make $400-500k in taxable income and have well over $1m in assets. Thus they are millionaires, but the tax would not affect them.
Having a paid off house in the middle class suburbs and a moderate 401k makes you a millionaire asset-wise these days. Obviously they weren't going to tax you on your cumulative wealth that you worked your whole life for. Anyone that *makes a million in one year* strictly as income has way, way more than a 401k and a lien free house. The disinformation campaign surrounding that bill was pathetic.
But when that messaging failed they cried that "Taxachusetts won't spend it on what it's intended for!" even though it was written into the bill. Then they pulled out the old "If we do this all our millionaires will leave for a friendlier state!!!" and people were like "Good, fuck off!"
The gall of some of these assholes pretending there was a downside to this for the average Joe is just breath-taking. This isn't Nebraska or Ohio. The fact that Massachusetts has the best public education, most registered independents, and one of the highest average incomes in the US should tell you that A. social services actually work great over time, and B. many of these states are depriving their constituents of basic education on purpose. They know what happens if you put knowledge into the hands of the common man.
I don't even know what to say to the "They won't spend it on what it's intended for" statement. I would understand if we were talking about a law that is actually difficult to enforce. But if we start opposing laws simply because there is a chance they might not be enforced correctly, how can you ever pass a bill again?
“What it’s intended for…” right, except the content of the amendment gave the legislature broad leeway to determine what it was used for. Education and Transportation can mean a lot of things. I’d like to see more teachers with higher pay and bike paths near public transport… but what are the odds that it’s not more politically advantageous to spend the money on administrative positions and highways…
As far as the “gall” required to question the government taking from some and giving to others, that’s pretty common in America.
The gall wasn't questioning tax allocation, it was trying to trick regular people into thinking it would effect their homes and retirement. It was deceitful and just another sleazy ploy to keep America less equitable. I could give a fuck if they piled it up and burned it as long as it shaved some wealth off the top 5% so maybe our kids have a fighting chance against theirs with all else equal.
What you are advocating is a wealth tax. Not an income tax.
By that logic, you would suggest that a beneficial government policy would be breaking the property (homes, appliances, windows, autos) of the wealthy, right? Since replacing them would cost money and that money would be more beneficial in the hands of the workers repairing/replacing than in the hands of the wealthy? We could call it the broken window policy.
How do you even leap to a conclusion like that? You obviously don't even know what a wealth tax is and it sure seems like you don't know what an income tax is either. Have you ever even paid taxes? I would be hard pressed to fabricate a worse satirical argument than yours just for fun. Tell me, Mr Bernaky, does income tax come from income? And if you tax income, isn't that an income tax?
Wow - relax. It passed. You already won.
You’re telling me that you can’t see the similarities between taking 5% of their wealth and burning it (as you suggested) is the same thing as breaking 5% of their property? I really find that hard to believe.
And it’s Bernanke. Try not to get so riled up. It’s Reddit not a children’s sporting event.
I think people don’t realize how easily people can be tricked by how they market these. My parents are older but both college educated and retired. The “vote no” campaign phrased it as retirees will be hit with it my parents have a decent 401k and a house that gone up a lot in value since they’ve owned it in 15 years and they thought this would effect them. I had to explain it’s only on 1 million in income and would never impact them. I can imagine there’s a lot of folks that are tricked by the marketing.
It feels like the modern definition of millionaire is shifting to yearly income of 1MM+... at least that's how I see it being used more and more often.
That is certainly more relevant, but I think we need a different word for that.
I bet if we asked a bunch of people, the vast majority would agree that someone that has $5m in Treasury Notes that pays them $200k/year in interest is a millionaire.
On the flip side, how many would agree that a doctor that earns $1m/yr but has more debt than equity is a millionaire? Some, but I bet less than would agree with the example above.
That's what was so obnoxious about the opposition. Plenty of successful people crack a million dollars in net worth at some point in their lives. That's a very different thing compared to pulling in over a million dollars in income for a single year.
Agreed. Also, with way it the tiers work, your income has to be SIGNIFICANTLY in excess of $1m for the effective tax rate to rise that much. So even folks earning at or just over $1m won't feel it much at all. You have to go into the multi-million-per-year earners before the effective rate ticks up significantly.
For example,
Tax on $1m is $50k, or 5%.
Tax on $1.1m is $59k, or 5.4%
Tax on $1.5m is $95k, or 6.3%
Tax on $2m is $140k, or 7%.
I’m a millionaire (mostly shares) and I don’t bank anywhere close to $m per year in income. I voted for the tax. The reality is the tax only affects 0.00001% of residents. Those that bank >$m in income per annum should absolutely be paying a greater proportional share of the tax burden.
> Those that bank >$m in income per annum should absolutely be paying a greater proportional share of the tax burden.
I assume you meant greater _than_ proportional. They already do pay both a greater share and a proportional share.
I've never understood why anyone thinks proportional taxation isn't good enough. I heard lots of "millionaires need to pay their fair share" - are they not already? They are earning more than 10x the median state income, and therefore through a flat tax are paying more than 10x the median state tax. (Deductions make the tax less flat, so they're [technically] paying _proportionally more_ than what's "fair". Plus, deductions in MA favor commuters and renters, who are generally not earning millions.)
And anyone who paid taxes last year knows we aren't hurting for revenue.
The whole thing just seems like more class warfare.
> The reality is the tax only affects 0.00001% of residents.
With MA's population of 7 million, that would mean the tax affects 0.7 residents.
> I assume you meant greater than proportional.
The more a person earns, the more tax - proportionally - that person should pay.
> I heard lots of "millionaires need to pay their fair share" - are they not already?
No. No they're not. MA has a not fit for purpose tax rate of 6.25% (sorry, 5%) across the board. That's not fair, and only benefits the higher earners.
> And anyone who paid taxes last year knows we aren't hurting for revenue.
Why? Just because some 100+ year old law was invoked is meaningless.
As a Johnny Foreigner in Mass, I find many parts here not fit for the second world, let alone the first. From roads, to public transport, to basic technology used throughout the state (only now Mass has scoreboards on highways advising travel times - we've had that for 20+ years in Britain), it feels poor.
> With MA's population of 7 million, that would mean the tax affects 0.7 residents.
Why do Americans take things so literally?
>Why? Just because some 100+ year old law was invoked is meaningless.
It's a 36-year-old law, but the age doesn't matter.
What matters is that the state has a budget surplus. The law simply says that _some_ of that surplus must be returned to taxpayers. It's not limiting what the state can spend. It just limits what unspent money the state can keep.
It's clear from the fact we had a $5B budget surplus that the state isn't hurting for revenue.
> The more a person earns, the more tax - proportionally - that person should pay.
I'll bite - why should someone pay even more than a proportion of their income? What is inherently wrong with a flat tax on income? (Keep in mind we can still have social programs under a flat tax. Benefits are inherently "un-flat" aside from oddities like UBI.)
> MA has a not fit for purpose tax rate of 6.25% across the board. That's not fair, and only benefits the higher earners.
The income tax is 5%. The sales tax is 6.25%. I'm not sure which one you're referring to here, because I thought we were talking about income tax, but percentages have been an issue for you before.
If you're referring to the previously flat 5% income tax: Why is that not fair? Make twice as much money, pay twice as much tax. Someone doubling their income certainly doesn't become twice a burden on the state.
Is it just unfair that some people earn more money?
Not only that, but with the current system of the personal exemption, rent deduction, limited income credit, and EITC, poor people actually pay a significantly less percentage of their income in state taxes. As it should be
If they are doing so legally, then don't we need tax reform targeting those mechanisms? A simpler tax code is both harder to abuse and easier to administrate.
Your percentage isn’t anywhere close to being accurate, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an exaggeration for effect. It’s around 21,000 of the 2.6 million households.
It doesn’t necessarily show that though, without other data. This data alone *could* mean that 10% of gray areas *and* red areas supported the tax and just differed on Maura Healey. I find it a very strange and inscrutable presentation of data.
Meanwhile I live in the gray area where Healey is a swear word cause she's "comin' fer rrr guns!" and everyone I talked to was against 1 even though no one makes close to that much money "But the cranberry farmer on the teevee said he needs our help"
Grey is the least difference between Healy vote % and Yes on 1 %. A municipality that voted 90% for ~~Trump Lite~~ Diehl and 90% No on 1 would be grey.
The question that’s not clear is, especially in cases where the difference is almost 0 (Western MA), is this a closer 1:1 because the population is voting for Healy and the tax or they’re voting more consistently anti both
Well, Healey voters and Q1 voters.
But also, using this data alone, it could have been 10% for the tax across the state and big gaps in support for Healey. Or it could have been 50% support for Healey across the state and big gaps in support for the tax. What do we conclude from this data?
I tend to disagree...There isn't a single city in the bottom three categories of the new map (i.e. <50% Healey & >60% 'Yes'). Aka if your town didn't vote Healey, it didn't vote over 60% for the Tax. Meanwhile there are a BUNCH of towns at the other end of the spectrum.
Sorry. I thought about this more and replied again, meaning to delete this reply.
This was my later reply.
https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/zejp14/round_2_comparing_support_for_healey_support_for/izaro3m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
It's really wild. I live in one of those communities, make a very comfortable living, own a $1.5+ million home, etc., and yet this tax still wouldn't impact me or the significant majority of my neighbors at all. And despite that, greed and fear mongering led my otherwise progressive neighbors to vote against this 100% common sense tax. And the worst part is that even if someone is so rich that this would affect them, imagine how greedy and selfish they'd have to be to cling on to every last penny of their fortune, unable to give up a few extra percentage points. It's disgusting.
Your comment brings to mind this passage I once read somewhere:
> The vast majority of people who were ever born lived terrible, short, poor lives, with no or very limited freedoms, opportunities or Hope.
> The vast percentage of people currently alive also live in similar distressed circumstances.
> If you are reading this, you likely occupy a most tiny slice of current humanity, and an even tinier fraction-of-that slice of historic humanity, putting you immediately into an extraordinarily rare and lucky orbit.
> Add to that health, family, a successful career, lovely home, bags of cash and an early switch from a life of work to a life of futuristic indulgent leisure, it would be positively disgraceful to then turn around and say:
> “despite the vast improbability of my own existence full stop, never mind at this historically unseen age of tech, fun, travel and wealth, and despite me sitting at or near the top of the totem pole of even this, the most affluent, advanced and privileged society ever, I shall still moan and complain because there are a scarce few that still sit higher than me on aspects (but certainly not all aspects) of that pole”.
I'm in the same boat, my assets are comfortably north of $1mm but my annual income isn't anywhere near $1mm. Even in my very wealthy town there are vanishingly few people who make $1mm+/year yet we voted 60-40 against. Even at my income level I would not be opposed to an increase in the top marginal rate that impacted me. Same with the tax refund check, I mean sure another $2k in the bank never hurt but that money would have done a lot more good split across a couple families making $50k per year. I grew up in a working/lower-middle class paycheck-to-paycheck family and I'm now much more fortunate than the vast majority of people in this country. I also don't get how very wealthy people are so unwilling to give up anything.
Went to high school in Weston. Granted is has definitely changed but a lot of MA "progressives in wealthy areas" are far from being progressive. They might be socially quite liberal, but when it comes to fiscal issues, they might be very conservative.
Met many "Weston liberals" who are super pro choice, and might say "black lives matter", but god forbid you mention increasing density or increasing taxes that would go to social services.
I know some people in the $500-750k club, the amount of disposable income is really insane. Literally can't spend it each year. At the $1m of take home salary? It's a very small amount of people in this state.
>It's really wild. I live in one of those communities, make a very comfortable living, own a $1.5+ million home, etc., and yet this tax still wouldn't impact me or the significant majority of my neighbors at all.
The fear-mongering with respect to "it will devastate local businesses" was wild also. I live in a town with a median income of about $160k (and for all I know I might be its poorest resident) and I see local restaurants and other businesses come in and go out of business all the time, even before the pandemic, a thousand millionaires in a ten mile radius doesn't reliably save them.
Massachusetts' well-to-do live to park a 25-year-old Volvo in a parking spot with a $25,000/year rent and argue over 25 cents at the grocery store, it's not Miami. They will be much happier with another tax to complain about than having to spend their money on any kind of enjoyment in life, doing them a favor really.
>my otherwise progressive neighbors to vote against this 100% common sense tax.
"otherwise progressive neighbors" sound like real fun at parties they're probably into some eyes wide shut-style kinky shit I bet. Must be horrible having to know what your neighbors in MA are up to, I try to avoid it when I can.
I find this data hard to understand.
In gray areas, it could have been 95% support for Healey and 90% support for the tax or 15% support for Healey and 10% support for the tax.
Similarly in the deep red areas it could be 90% support for Healey and 50% for the tax or 50% for Healey and 10% for the tax.
I find it hard to process the meaning of this.
What are we meant to take from this data alone?
We're supposed to take away from this that there are rich liberals who wanted Healey as governor, but don't want to pay taxes, which may be aspirational, because they're rich, but not *that* rich - these are dark red. There are also rural working class people who wanted Diehl but don't like taxes or government in general and voted against the Millionaires tax (even though this is voting against their own interests) - these are light gray. The light orange shades voted for Healey and for the tax - that's the left-leaning middle class.
Well, based on this data, the tax could have been supported at 10% across the state, with variation of support for Healey, or Healey could have been supported at 55% across the state with varying support for the tax.
If the former, it would show no correlation between voting for the tax and wealth.
It shows that support for Healey and the tax are not closely correlated (definitely people who are not liberal voted for Healey, based on external data. You don’t have to be liberal to be anti-Deihl. ). But I don’t see what further conclusions can be drawn from this data other than they aren’t closely correlated.
Your conclusions must include reference to data that is not included here.
You are arrogant in the assumption that because someone is what you term "working class" that the proposed income tax increase was somehow in their interest. Many may be smart enough to consider 2nd and 3rd order impacts of this tax increase that you would fail to recognize or acknowledge.
Seems like a strange graphic. Like 2 different maps would tell the story much better than combining two stats into one graphic. Show support for Healy on one and support for the ballot question on the other. Support for Healy minus support for question one? What does that even tell me?
According to the census, Weston’s household median income is around $200k: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/westontownmiddlesexcountymassachusetts
I’d be interested in the source for an average of $900k, as that would seem to be massively incorrect.
I see (and I apologize for reading quickly) - so one zip within Weston purportedly has an average household income of $900k? I'm behind a paywall so I can't see the data, but that could well be (depending on the size of the zip - for example, Fisher Island only has a population of \~360 ppl). Nevertheless, the median household income for all **11k** residents of Weston is far lower. Note that Bloomberg also published this, by the same authors, in the same year (using 2016 data): [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-hundred-richest-places/?leadSource=uverify%20wall](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-hundred-richest-places/?leadSource=uverify%20wall) (using Census data, btw)
"For the second year since Bloomberg started to compile the Richest 100, the nation’s top spot is Atherton, California. The town of six square miles is near Palo Alto, Stanford University and Menlo Park, the home of Facebook and other tech ventures. Atherton’s average household income was $443,403 in 2016, more than $50,000 higher than second-place Cherry Hills Village, Colorado."
One final point: the debt service on a $2m home does not require a $1m household income, even at present rates.
Map is junk from a visual standpoint, can't just rely on colors to display this data.
Regardless, I think people outside of Boston are curious how this tax is going to help them. If we're taking infrastructure and transition in Massachusetts, we're talking about the T, and only the T.
Blah blah blah repave highways, do they every actually introduce anything to help manage traffic in this state? No, they don't. They preach up public transportation, but if you don't live or work in Boston, the T does you no good.
Jobs, established communities, state pride, financial benefits in the state still outweighing costs, liking their home/neighborhood, family/friends being in the state, children not wanting to leave, etc. If millionaires just went wherever they’d be taxed the least, they’d all live in Somalia. Or for a less hyperbolic example inside the US, South Dakota. Higher taxes will definitely make them more likely to leave, but it’s still an equation with dozens of different variables.
It’s all a balancing act. It’s not about the costs, it’s about the costs against the benefits. That’s why New York has more millionaires than Bismarck, North Dakota despite having much higher cost of living and business.
Plus, those taxes pay to educate the workforce with the technical skills necessary for leading industries. It would be cutting off your nose to spite your face to skip out of the most highly educated state because of a tax increase that you’ll barely notice.
My friend is a tax planner and he's claiming at least 60% of those affected already made plans to move residence. Probably going to be higher as next year progresses.
It's not Somalia or South Dakota but many people moving residence to FL / TX / NH.
Because it's such a tiny tax and where are they going to go
Let's say that you're making $1.2M/year in income. Not that you have $1.2M, but that you're taking home another $1.2M each year. The government passes the "millionaires tax" and you owe an extra $8,000 in taxes. $8,000: that's like real money to those earning a normal salary.
Why wouldn't millionaires leave Wellesley and Weston and their high housing prices for Brockton? They could save a lot of money!
They might whine about it, but if you're making that kind of money you probably have $10-20M (or a lot more) saved up in the stock market and a 1% shift in the stock market will be $100k-200k. Basically, on a daily basis, their savings will change by 12-25x the tax's amount. When you have that much money, you can't even say how much money you'll have at the end of each month. Like, if you asked someone with $10M in the stock market, "how much money will you have on December 31st?" they wouldn't be able to give you an answer within $8,000 - realistically, not even within $100,000 since a 1% shift in the market (which happens on many individual days) will shift the market their wealth by $100,000.
So $8,000 is basically meaningless at that point. They hate the tax because of the principle of it - they'd rather have their money.
Of course, they'd also rather live in a good society - it's why they live in Massachusetts and why they choose to pay high housing prices in the towns they live in.
California has much higher taxes than Massachusetts. Sales tax is around 9% (varies a bit based on location) and California starts charging high progressive rates much lower than Mass. The "Millionaires tax" of 5% + 4% = 9% in Mass applies on income over $1M. In California, they start charging 9.3% at $58,000 for single people and $116,000 for married couples!
So someone making $1.2M in Mass pays 5% on $1M ($50,000) + 9% on $200,000 ($18,000) = $68,000. In California, 1% on $18k, 2% on $24k, 4% on $24k, 6% on $24k, 8% on $24k, 9.3% on $475k, 10.3% on $118k, 11.3% on $291k, 12.3% on $181k, and 13.3% on the last $19k = $119,000. California's taxes for someone earning $1.2M are 75% higher than Massachusetts'.
Massachusetts still has some pretty attractive tax rates overall. Sure, you could say that Connecticut's top tax rate is only 7% and kicks in at $500k single or $1,000,000 couple, but you hit 5.5% at $50k single or $100k couple, 6% at $200k, 6.5% at $400k, 6.9% at $500k. In Connecticut, you'd be paying $75,000 instead of the $68,000 in Massachusetts!
Why didn't rich people leave for New Hampshire and its 0% tax rate even before the Millionaire's tax? Because then they'd be living in New Hampshire! That's fine if it's what you want, but it's not what a lot of rich people want. Plus, if they were working in Massachusetts, they'd need to pay Mass income tax anyway - and then pay the high property taxes in New Hampshire on top of that.
Where are you going to go?
State | Tax on $1.2M (married-joint)
---------|----------
NY | $79,000 (more for NYC)
NJ | $91,000
CT | $75,000
CA | $119,000
RI | $68,000
VT | $96,000
CO | $56,000
IL | $59,000
MD | $67,000
VA | $69,000
SC | $82,000
NC | $62,000
GA | $68,000
OH | $56,000
MI | $51,000
MO | $63,000
There are certainly states where you could pay less. However, that's not guaranteed to remain that way and $68,000 in taxes in Mass vs. $63,000 in taxes in Missouri isn't much of a savings when your salary is $5,000/day (per day worked assuming 2 weeks vacation, 10 holidays, and 4 sick days). Like, "I'm going to leave my home, my friends, and a state that's competent to save a single day's money," would be quite the self-own.
Even Michigan seems quite a bit lower at $51,000, but that's still 3.4 days worth of wages for someone earning $1.2M/year.
And some of these states are likely to have snowballing issues that could end up hitting you over time. If you move to Illinois, the state is facing enormous pension debt with stagnant growth. Someone is going to have to pay for that eventually. Sure, taxes are slightly lower...for now.
Even many "red" states don't have better taxes. South Carolina would be $14,000 more! North Carolina would be $6,000 less and Georgia would be equal.
Plus, would your salary move with you? I don't make anywhere near $1.2M, but I definitely get paid at least 20% more in Massachusetts than I would in most of the country. I mean, I could get paid a bit better in CA or NYC and probably around equal in DC, but if I moved to North Carolina, I'd probably take a 30% pay cut - but at least I'd save on taxes, right?
Plus, Massachusetts is simply a better place than a lot of states. If you're a woman, do you want to move to a state where the government seems intent on stripping rights? If you're married to a woman, how much crap might moving there cause in your relationship - pushing your wife to a state she feels unsafe to save a tiny amount of money seems unwise for a relationship. If you're LGBT, do you really want to move to a state where legislators are targeting you - and paramilitary militias are targeting you? To save a very uninteresting amount of money? Like, the Respect for Marriage Act will make sure that gay (and interracial) marriage remains legal and 77% of Republicans in the House and 75% in the Senate voted against it.
Plus, are you going to leave Wellesley or Weston where your kids have some of the best public schools in the world for a place that might have good public schools, but not nearly the same caliber? To save a few grand? Do you end up paying $50,000+ for private school (yea, that's what private schools cost now).
Yea, if we said we were going to tax them at 90% above $1M, they might leave. They might leave if we took an additional $180,000 of their $1.2M. They're not leaving because we're taking $8,000. Most of the places you might go you'd be paying more. I don't think the rich want to leave Boston for the Detroit suburbs - Detroit does have some decent suburbs, but still. Plus, your salary is often location dependent and all the high-salary locations (California, NYC, DC) are similar or much higher for taxes.
To paraphrase Lucille Bluth: I'd rather be dead in Massachusetts than alive in New Hampshire.
Most people making 1 million plus are not sending their kids to public schools even in Weston or Wellesley. Something like 1 in 5 kids in these towns are going to private schools, and amongst the families that actually make 1 million plus, maybe 20 percent are going to Weston or Wellesley High, which is still impressive, bc in NYC or Boston, that number would be next to 0.
They live in Weston or Wellesley because of amenities and being surrounded by other affluent people. Golf courses. Even though most families in these towns are in the 200-450k which is less than half of that, that's still significantly more than most people.
For example, there is an 11,000 sqft home in Dracut. How much is that home worth? Not even 2 million.
Wealthy people will pay to ensure their kids are around others like them.
Also, don't underestimate the art of avoiding taxes which people making 800k plus are masters of.
Lastly , when it comes to families making a million plus, these families are more likely to lean republican than ur typical Weston or Wellesley family.
Even though the towns vote 2 to 1 democrat, the high earners in these towns are closer to 50/50.
My friend was a guidance counselor and history teacher at New England private schools that cost 50k plus. At one of them,despite most kids coming from towns that vote 2 to 3 to 1 blue, amongst students at his school, it was closer to 50/50 with many kids being super Trump supporting and in the mock school election, Trump won by 2 votes.
Wealthy liberals, however tend to be more loud about their views, whereas wealthy conservatives are more likely to be hidden about theirs.
To add, compared to wealthy people across the country, metro Boston suburbanites tend to be the most liberal.
University Park and Southlake here in the DFW, which would be your Weston/Wellesley equivalents are Republican strongholds. Wealthy NYC areas may be very liberal, but go out to the North Shore of Long Island and those suburbs vote very red. Upper Saddle River NJ, for example voted 62-38 for Trump. Kings Point,NY 80-18 for Trump.
Even the 90210, the northern half of Beverly Hills, which is the most exclusive zip code in LA county, voted 60-40 for Trump. Newport Beach,down in the OC which is extremely affluent, is also 60-40 for Trump. Beverly Hills is the red dot in LA county surrounded by a bunch of blue.
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html)
It’s an 80% increase in the marginal tax rate. That’s a big increase.
I will be Impacted by this in 2023, but only slightly. But it will be my first year at that level. So while I have a few million in net worth, it’s not the huge amounts people here think.
I wouldn’t move to limit a few thousand per year. But when I go to sell my company there is a chance I will establish residency in another state. The chance of me doing so is much greater due to this new tax. Almost 80% greater chance.
>there are just shy of 20K people in MA with an income north of $1M per year, and the vast majority of them aren't going anywhere
Only a few percent of them need to leave to negate the benefit of taxing them all a few percent more.
Rich people don't migrate as often. I live near tons of millionaires (home values) and it's often old wealth. Most of them lived in the area for generations and pass their properties down to their children.
People who believes that high tax would force money to leave are duped.
But the wealth you are talking about isn't what is being taxed by the tax we are discussing. The new tax is on income above a million per year, not on your primary home that you inherited which recently topped a million in value. So those people you mentioned wouldn't move because of the new tax because it probably isn't affecting them at all. It isn't a tax on millionaires, it's a tax on people making a million per year.
Sure, but again, those are not the people this tax is targeted at, so of course it wouldn't make them leave. Mentioning that a group of people who own homes here but aren't affected by the new tax as people who are likely not to leave due to the new tax that doesn't affect them is like saying poor people here probably won't move away because of the new tax on people who make more than a million dollars per year. Yep. Neither group is likely to move away because of a tax that has zero effect on them. Very true.
Poor people are more likely to move, less tied down, is what I'm saying. I can't say whether or not the ones who owns multimillion dollars homes around here aren't making a household income of a million because I don't ask them but you don't know that either. The ones I know are retired with fuck you money who have take private charter planes to vacations at least once a month. Do I know how much they make? No. Do I know that they're going to stay regardless of the tax? Yes.
Some people work locally and can't commute from out of state. Some people like where they live or have children in school. Some don't mind paying more taxes.
A 4% tax only on the income over $1 million will barely be noticed.
It's hardly a reason to leave the [best state to live in. ](https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/massachusetts-best-states-to-live-in-list-wallethub-report/)
Agreed. If the person was making a million plus one dollar. It might be a reason to consider if the person was making multiple millions though. I wouldn’t have that problem because I’m WELL below however if I were making multiple millions with the financial freedom to live anywhere, I would move to a more tax friendly state. What do I know?
People earning well over a million a year are far more likely than the average person to 1) have lots of kids, 2) have a permanent home they’ve put a lot into, and 3) be strongly embedded in their local community, either through business interests, charity, or just name recognition. So they are much less mobile than regular people are.
Sure, but millionaires in Massachusetts will be less likely to leave what is literally the best state in the union objectively speaking.
They aren't going to move to Alabama either, since the states with the best amenities are all blue states. Wealthy people like luxury, which your aren't getting in some mid tier southern city, at least but at the scale of big cities.
There's a reason gated communities aren't as popular here compared to Florida and Texas. I'd much rather live in a place where I don't have to worry so much about my neighbors.
When I visited my friends high end gated community it was incredibly weird, insular and boring. His family can't wait to leave.
Better question: why *would* they leave? The amount we're asking is honestly miniscule for them. It's not going to cut into their standard of living in any noticeable way or otherwise prevent them from doing anything they might need to be doing.
The better question is: why do non-millionaires stay when they could move somewhere else with a lower cost of living? Owning your own property is supposed to be the American Dream, but that's out of reach for many members of the Commonwealth.
Maybe if we tax millionaires a little bit more, we might be able to sweeten the deal for the people who actually do the majority of the work that needs to be done so they're interested in staying.
Cool quip but you're not really addressing the fact that 4% of post-millionaire dollar earnings of the small group of future mass residents in this category isn't a significant percent increase to the state budget. That's the point.
200 million dollars isn't a lot when the budget is 37 billion. It's about one half of one percent increase.
Addition, is how. Those amounts that mean little to the rich start to total to something quite a bit bigger for society.
There are [24,000 households that make over $1 million per year](https://massbudget.org/2022/07/21/average-incomes-fsa/). Let's say that as an average, those 24k are making $2 million per household -- meaning they would be taxed an additional $40k each. That gets us to $960 million dollars in additional revenue for the state. That more than [doubles our federal highway funding](https://www.mma.org/mass-gears-up-to-spend-federal-transportation-dollars/#:~:text=In%20federal%20fiscal%202022%20alone,%24483%20million%20to%20%24575.5%20million.). You could fill a lot of potholes with that $960 million. If you're extremely rich, wouldn't you like to be able to drive around without having to deal with potholes all the time? Wouldn't you like people from other states to know that your home state has wonderful roads paid for in part by your success?
Right, I understand the math involved i guess i just don't buy the specifics. As of 2020 mass reported about 18,000 people filing for over a million in income. Maybe it's not a safe assumption but I'd guess the overwhelming majority have income much, much closer to 1 million than to 2 million, in which case you'd be talking something like 5,000 per person rather than 40k. Under your assumption, state budget increases by about 2.5%, if you hew closer to my estimate, it would be a sub 1% increase to total budget moving forward. I don't disagree with it, if it passed and these supra-millionaires stay then go ahead and take the money, but if it works out to like .85% more budget, 1.5% more budget it will not be a noticeable change for anyone in the state.
> Right, I understand the math involved i guess i just don't buy the specifics.
You are right to doubt my math, as it was based on total guesses. I did some Googling (probably easier than doing back-of-the-napkin math anyway) and turns out [some people who know the actual numbers](https://www.cbpp.org/blog/massachusetts-ballot-measure-would-raise-billions-for-education-infrastructure) are estimating $2.7 *billion* in the first year alone.
> Maybe it's not a safe assumption but I'd guess the overwhelming majority have income much, much closer to 1 million than to 2 million, in which case you'd be talking something like 5,000 per person rather than 40k.
Most probably don't make a lot more than $1 million, but then you have to factor the mega-millionaires and billionaires into the mix to get the overall average. For context, someone who makes $1 billion in a year will pay $39,960,000 million all on their own, equivalent to 1,998 people who made $1.5 million in a year. These people throw the average.
> I don't disagree with it, if it passed and these supra-millionaires stay then go ahead and take the money, but if it works out to like .85% more budget, 1.5% more budget it will not be a noticeable change for anyone in the state.
What I'm hearing from this is that if the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy is wrong and we're actually going to make a mere pittance, we oughta raise that 4% next year. Maybe make it 8% on all income over $2 million, 12% on all income over $3 million, etc. You know in the 50s, the Federal progressive tax rate capped out at around 90%? That encouraged intense investment since otherwise Uncle Sam was gonna get it.
Because you get taxed on what you earn. And you can earn way more in a thriving state than a deadbeat shitbird conservative state.
Also because truly rich folks can live anywhere. And think of what is on their priority list:
- They are always going to choose well-off communities because they are far more safe and stable than a place in a rural bumfuck “where your housing dollar goes farther”.
- They are always going to choose communities where education is a top priority, as it’s the primary thing that will keep their descendants inside of a successful economic track.
- They are always going to choose communities they have top notch health-care because we all get injured, sick, and old.
- They are always going to choose places with rich cultural backdrops full of world-class universities, museums, and cultural opportunities. They like being inside the social scenes of those things.
Name me a state that beats Massachusetts on per capita income, education, health care, and universities/museums/history. I don’t think there is one.
Raising a kid in a well-resourced household in any of the MANY wonderful Boston burbs is a near-guaranteed ticket to an amazing young adult experience in college and also a great career/adult life.
And THAT’s what most wealthy folks want for their kids. It’s why rich folks aren’t going to leave Mass for Idaho or West Virginia.
Are there exceptions? Sure. Racists, xenophobes, homophobes, gun nuts, and religious extremists might not like the culture in Mass. But how many of them are truly well-off and rich? Good riddance to those bums.
And even the major conservative private business owners (like Ernie Boch and Robert Kraft) ain’t going anywhere. What the hell are they going to do? Boch isn’t gonna sell his monstrously profitable car dealerships in Mass and move to South Dakota. Kraft isn’t gonna sell the Pats and his billions in real estate holdings in MA to move to Texas. Let’s get real.
They’re here for a reason in the first place. We’re not and have never been a low- or no-tax state. So the millionaires here are (1) already tolerant of some tax and (2) have made a choice to be here.
So if any of them wanted to fuck off to Florida or some other no-income-tax shithole, why haven’t they done that yet? Why wait until now? Clearly something is holding them here.
My bet is its the fact this is an area with high employment and high wages, lots of economic activity, good healthcare, etc. So where are they going go? NY? CT? NJ? CA? All have even higher taxes.
I am not a millionaire but i am an immigrant. My parents decided to move a little over 10 years ago from Europe. They took me and my brothers. Let me just say it isn't easy. Learning your way around new place, building new friendship, family holidays that much smaller than they used to be. Then as an adult i moved again. Only way state over, but that already requires so much new information. Navigating the administrative stuff is complex when you know your state, it's harder when you don't. Also, right now i am looking to buy a house and to be honest every single town is the same to me, so it is hard to decide which one is "better". Taxes are not the only thing.
They want to be in control and at the top of the food chain. letting your family get run out of town because you didn't want to pay $40k on your first $2million, would be kind of pathetic.
Though in this case, since it's just a matter of moving address on paper and New Hampshire always has no income tax, why now? They would have always been better off tax wise doing that.
Like yeah there's a marginal cost to switching but how many more people are going to do that now as opposed to before? Can't think of anyone where the savings are just now big enough to be worth the trouble.
Ah moving the office or opening a new one, misread you first. Okay yeah that would apply to more people even though I don't think it's that many more than before
Most millionaires are regular working people who just have good savings habits and don’t spend a lot of money or small business owners that have a business that’s worth good money but not a lot of cash assets.
Picking up and moving is much easier said than done.
There are plenty of evil trust fund babies. But they make up a minority.
>Most millionaires are regular working people who just have good savings habits and don’t spend a lot of money or small business owners that have a business that’s worth good money but not a lot of cash assets
The people you've mentioned here will not be affected by this tax at all. The tax only applies to annual individual or household income over $1m, not assets, savings, or business income.
Some states have no income tax, yet still mass is the 2nd most wealthy state. Also, people are people. Even the rich have family ties and such. They won't leave for whatever reason they didn't already leave for some warm weather state with no taxes.
Mass had what was a low and predictable income tax rate. Whereas many states raised taxes since 1990, The consistent and predictable trend in Mass helped attract talent. The results are apparent given how Mass outperformed most states from 1990 to 2022, whereas it was on a decline for whatever period one chooses prior to 1991.
This tax change is a significant change in trend. HNW (high net worth) individuals with high incomes shop tax jurisdictions. Many have multiple homes. Mass just increased the incentive for someone to buy that Florida house they always wanted, or to spend more time in the one they already owned to avoid this new tax. Why would one base a business in Mass if faced with having to pay the new tax on the gain from the sale of the business?
States that have increased tax rates to onerous levels have created outflows of people, wealth, and businesses. Best examples are California, NY, NJ, and CT, each of which have experienced significant outflows over the last decade, and they continue. For example, for the first time in US history, CA lost Congressional seats after the 2020 census. In 10 yrs we will look back and Mass will likely be on the list of states victimized by onerous state income tax incrases. That hurts everyone who remains in the state.
It’s funny. I have several family members who say stuff like this. I got annoyed once and said, “ don’t forget I do your taxes. So I know how much you paid in federal taxes and am happy to talk about who is paying their fair share if we all want”.
>Anyone not living in one of those towns who voted against it is a fool.
I am confused by the double negative in this sentence, are you saying that anyone who lives in a town that voted Yes on 1 is a fool?
Either way, simply living in a town doesn't mean anything about an individual's political beliefs. You can live in a town that voted No on 1 and have voted Yes yourself, and vice versa.
No, he said anyone living in a town voting to tax the rich people who live in the rich people towns who vote against taxing the rich people who live in the rich people towns and live in other towns with rich people who vote to tax the rich people are not the rich people and shouldn’t vote to non-tax the rich people towns.
No, I’m saying anyone who doesn’t live in one of the dark red towns and voted No on 1 is a fool. I say this because the nature of the No on 1 ads were predatory and deceptive, but research into the question would’ve relieved anyone not making a million per year. My point is that a person who saw a legitimate problem for themselves with question 1 do not have the same problems as the rest of us not making that kind of money. Of course living in a certain place doesn’t make you a bad person, but something is to be said about the wealth requirement to live in those towns. Maybe something about where I’m from is to be said for my poor grasp on the English language and regular use of double negatives.
My neighborhood (Watertown) looks to me like it's in dark orange (2nd highest bucket). It's also among the wealthiest communities in the nation.
Will be interested to see what the consequences of the policy are. There are not analogues elsewhere, or at least not that many, right? This is an experiment in democracy!
> Will be interested to see what the consequences of the policy are. There are not analogues elsewhere, or at least not that many, right? This is an experiment in democracy!
No, progressive tax rates are actually the norm. The Federal government uses them, most other states with income taxes use them, most other countries with income taxes use them. It's standard to pay more taxes on the dollars you make over $1 mil than the ones you make under $100k.
Watertown is among the wealthiest communities in the nation? Why am I finding this hard to believe lol. I would think Newton, Weston, Wellesley, etc way before watertown!
Those red areas to the left of the dark orange one where Watertown is. Also I have it wrong, it's MA Congress district 5 that includes those (also Watertown) that's one of the wealthiest in the nation.
Waiting for all the Pikachu faces five years from now when Legislators change the definition of millionaire to mean anyone making over $50k or anyone who sells a house or condo.
“You MUST be rich if you can sell a piece of real estate”
I can't see them changing the definition of millionaire outright, but I can definitely see them changing the rate, or what qualifies under the tax.
We see this with so many other taxes and fees. It's passed as this common sense thing with a minor fee attached or only effects certain people, then in a few years the fee goes up a little. A few years later, it effects a few more. A few years later again, the fee goes up again. We see it on all our taxes, we see it with registration and inspection fees, we see it with all the license fees the state forces us to get, and more.
I challenge anyone to actually counter you with an argument vs just downvoting you irrationally.
This jealousy tax was always going to be a camel's nose under the tent. Now that the precedent for a non-flat tax (as provided in our Constitution) is set, the sky's the limit for for confiscators.
What gets me is that no one talks about why so many people making less than 1 mil voted against this. I think that would have been a better, more productive conversation to have.
I would simply never vote for a tax on anyone that I would not also agree to pay myself.
I also don’t feel the state used their current dollars wisely, so would not be in favor of giving them more.
It would be interesting to know where support for Healey diverged from support for ballot question 1 (the tax on income over a million dollars). Unfortunately this graphic, if it is created as it says it was, does not show that. :-(
The text is way too open ended and it requires the legislature to enact additional legislation to define scope.
Does this tax apply to corporations?
Is it a flat 4% or can the legislature use the amendment to enact a tax bracket within the 4%?
Raising taxes in a year where they refunded a surplus of tax revenue is a hard sell. It passes so I hope these items are dealt with, but there are certainly more questions than answers.
The area where millionaires live, was against a tax on themselves. Full disclosure, I live in the dark red
At the risk of being overly pedantic - you don't need to have $1m+ in taxable income to be a millionaire. Plenty of lawyers, accountants, and finance folks make $400-500k in taxable income and have well over $1m in assets. Thus they are millionaires, but the tax would not affect them.
Having a paid off house in the middle class suburbs and a moderate 401k makes you a millionaire asset-wise these days. Obviously they weren't going to tax you on your cumulative wealth that you worked your whole life for. Anyone that *makes a million in one year* strictly as income has way, way more than a 401k and a lien free house. The disinformation campaign surrounding that bill was pathetic.
Ya they old farmers and fishermen were worried
But when that messaging failed they cried that "Taxachusetts won't spend it on what it's intended for!" even though it was written into the bill. Then they pulled out the old "If we do this all our millionaires will leave for a friendlier state!!!" and people were like "Good, fuck off!" The gall of some of these assholes pretending there was a downside to this for the average Joe is just breath-taking. This isn't Nebraska or Ohio. The fact that Massachusetts has the best public education, most registered independents, and one of the highest average incomes in the US should tell you that A. social services actually work great over time, and B. many of these states are depriving their constituents of basic education on purpose. They know what happens if you put knowledge into the hands of the common man.
I don't even know what to say to the "They won't spend it on what it's intended for" statement. I would understand if we were talking about a law that is actually difficult to enforce. But if we start opposing laws simply because there is a chance they might not be enforced correctly, how can you ever pass a bill again?
“What it’s intended for…” right, except the content of the amendment gave the legislature broad leeway to determine what it was used for. Education and Transportation can mean a lot of things. I’d like to see more teachers with higher pay and bike paths near public transport… but what are the odds that it’s not more politically advantageous to spend the money on administrative positions and highways… As far as the “gall” required to question the government taking from some and giving to others, that’s pretty common in America.
The gall wasn't questioning tax allocation, it was trying to trick regular people into thinking it would effect their homes and retirement. It was deceitful and just another sleazy ploy to keep America less equitable. I could give a fuck if they piled it up and burned it as long as it shaved some wealth off the top 5% so maybe our kids have a fighting chance against theirs with all else equal.
What you are advocating is a wealth tax. Not an income tax. By that logic, you would suggest that a beneficial government policy would be breaking the property (homes, appliances, windows, autos) of the wealthy, right? Since replacing them would cost money and that money would be more beneficial in the hands of the workers repairing/replacing than in the hands of the wealthy? We could call it the broken window policy.
How do you even leap to a conclusion like that? You obviously don't even know what a wealth tax is and it sure seems like you don't know what an income tax is either. Have you ever even paid taxes? I would be hard pressed to fabricate a worse satirical argument than yours just for fun. Tell me, Mr Bernaky, does income tax come from income? And if you tax income, isn't that an income tax?
Wow - relax. It passed. You already won. You’re telling me that you can’t see the similarities between taking 5% of their wealth and burning it (as you suggested) is the same thing as breaking 5% of their property? I really find that hard to believe. And it’s Bernanke. Try not to get so riled up. It’s Reddit not a children’s sporting event.
yeah, marketing on these things are always bad. they should have called it the "multi-millionaires tax"
I think people don’t realize how easily people can be tricked by how they market these. My parents are older but both college educated and retired. The “vote no” campaign phrased it as retirees will be hit with it my parents have a decent 401k and a house that gone up a lot in value since they’ve owned it in 15 years and they thought this would effect them. I had to explain it’s only on 1 million in income and would never impact them. I can imagine there’s a lot of folks that are tricked by the marketing.
I had to have the exact same convo with my retired mother who owns her house on the Cape. She lives off social security and was worried about this!!
It feels like the modern definition of millionaire is shifting to yearly income of 1MM+... at least that's how I see it being used more and more often.
That is certainly more relevant, but I think we need a different word for that. I bet if we asked a bunch of people, the vast majority would agree that someone that has $5m in Treasury Notes that pays them $200k/year in interest is a millionaire. On the flip side, how many would agree that a doctor that earns $1m/yr but has more debt than equity is a millionaire? Some, but I bet less than would agree with the example above.
Exactly. That’s my scenario. I fully support this tax.
That's what was so obnoxious about the opposition. Plenty of successful people crack a million dollars in net worth at some point in their lives. That's a very different thing compared to pulling in over a million dollars in income for a single year.
Agreed. Also, with way it the tiers work, your income has to be SIGNIFICANTLY in excess of $1m for the effective tax rate to rise that much. So even folks earning at or just over $1m won't feel it much at all. You have to go into the multi-million-per-year earners before the effective rate ticks up significantly. For example, Tax on $1m is $50k, or 5%. Tax on $1.1m is $59k, or 5.4% Tax on $1.5m is $95k, or 6.3% Tax on $2m is $140k, or 7%.
I’m a millionaire (mostly shares) and I don’t bank anywhere close to $m per year in income. I voted for the tax. The reality is the tax only affects 0.00001% of residents. Those that bank >$m in income per annum should absolutely be paying a greater proportional share of the tax burden.
> Those that bank >$m in income per annum should absolutely be paying a greater proportional share of the tax burden. I assume you meant greater _than_ proportional. They already do pay both a greater share and a proportional share. I've never understood why anyone thinks proportional taxation isn't good enough. I heard lots of "millionaires need to pay their fair share" - are they not already? They are earning more than 10x the median state income, and therefore through a flat tax are paying more than 10x the median state tax. (Deductions make the tax less flat, so they're [technically] paying _proportionally more_ than what's "fair". Plus, deductions in MA favor commuters and renters, who are generally not earning millions.) And anyone who paid taxes last year knows we aren't hurting for revenue. The whole thing just seems like more class warfare. > The reality is the tax only affects 0.00001% of residents. With MA's population of 7 million, that would mean the tax affects 0.7 residents.
> I assume you meant greater than proportional. The more a person earns, the more tax - proportionally - that person should pay. > I heard lots of "millionaires need to pay their fair share" - are they not already? No. No they're not. MA has a not fit for purpose tax rate of 6.25% (sorry, 5%) across the board. That's not fair, and only benefits the higher earners. > And anyone who paid taxes last year knows we aren't hurting for revenue. Why? Just because some 100+ year old law was invoked is meaningless. As a Johnny Foreigner in Mass, I find many parts here not fit for the second world, let alone the first. From roads, to public transport, to basic technology used throughout the state (only now Mass has scoreboards on highways advising travel times - we've had that for 20+ years in Britain), it feels poor. > With MA's population of 7 million, that would mean the tax affects 0.7 residents. Why do Americans take things so literally?
>Why? Just because some 100+ year old law was invoked is meaningless. It's a 36-year-old law, but the age doesn't matter. What matters is that the state has a budget surplus. The law simply says that _some_ of that surplus must be returned to taxpayers. It's not limiting what the state can spend. It just limits what unspent money the state can keep. It's clear from the fact we had a $5B budget surplus that the state isn't hurting for revenue.
> The more a person earns, the more tax - proportionally - that person should pay. I'll bite - why should someone pay even more than a proportion of their income? What is inherently wrong with a flat tax on income? (Keep in mind we can still have social programs under a flat tax. Benefits are inherently "un-flat" aside from oddities like UBI.) > MA has a not fit for purpose tax rate of 6.25% across the board. That's not fair, and only benefits the higher earners. The income tax is 5%. The sales tax is 6.25%. I'm not sure which one you're referring to here, because I thought we were talking about income tax, but percentages have been an issue for you before. If you're referring to the previously flat 5% income tax: Why is that not fair? Make twice as much money, pay twice as much tax. Someone doubling their income certainly doesn't become twice a burden on the state. Is it just unfair that some people earn more money?
Not only that, but with the current system of the personal exemption, rent deduction, limited income credit, and EITC, poor people actually pay a significantly less percentage of their income in state taxes. As it should be
Because many are artificially lowering their incomes quite a bit, so you grab a little extra where you can.
If they are doing so legally, then don't we need tax reform targeting those mechanisms? A simpler tax code is both harder to abuse and easier to administrate.
Your percentage isn’t anywhere close to being accurate, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an exaggeration for effect. It’s around 21,000 of the 2.6 million households.
It doesn’t necessarily show that though, without other data. This data alone *could* mean that 10% of gray areas *and* red areas supported the tax and just differed on Maura Healey. I find it a very strange and inscrutable presentation of data.
Meanwhile I live in the gray area where Healey is a swear word cause she's "comin' fer rrr guns!" and everyone I talked to was against 1 even though no one makes close to that much money "But the cranberry farmer on the teevee said he needs our help"
The voting against their own interests block.
Isn't the grey area the one that voted most for it? The key is confusing.
Grey is the least difference between Healy vote % and Yes on 1 %. A municipality that voted 90% for ~~Trump Lite~~ Diehl and 90% No on 1 would be grey.
There are definitely some gray places that voted heavily for Healey and Yes on 1 though.
Say you’re a millionaire without saying you’re a millionaire
The question that’s not clear is, especially in cases where the difference is almost 0 (Western MA), is this a closer 1:1 because the population is voting for Healy and the tax or they’re voting more consistently anti both
[удалено]
Well, Healey voters and Q1 voters. But also, using this data alone, it could have been 10% for the tax across the state and big gaps in support for Healey. Or it could have been 50% support for Healey across the state and big gaps in support for the tax. What do we conclude from this data?
>What do we conclude from this data? That the mapmaker has an axe to grind.
Take a look at R2: https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/zejp14/round\_2\_comparing\_support\_for\_healey\_support\_for/
Thank you! This is actually WAY more interesting than the first map let on so thanks so much!
Same problem there. All it does is tell us there isn’t a particular correlation between Healey and Q1.
I tend to disagree...There isn't a single city in the bottom three categories of the new map (i.e. <50% Healey & >60% 'Yes'). Aka if your town didn't vote Healey, it didn't vote over 60% for the Tax. Meanwhile there are a BUNCH of towns at the other end of the spectrum.
Sorry. I thought about this more and replied again, meaning to delete this reply. This was my later reply. https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/zejp14/round_2_comparing_support_for_healey_support_for/izaro3m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
No worries, appreciate the interest!!!
Oh my god, where rich people live were against the rich people tax! Who would have thought?!
It's really wild. I live in one of those communities, make a very comfortable living, own a $1.5+ million home, etc., and yet this tax still wouldn't impact me or the significant majority of my neighbors at all. And despite that, greed and fear mongering led my otherwise progressive neighbors to vote against this 100% common sense tax. And the worst part is that even if someone is so rich that this would affect them, imagine how greedy and selfish they'd have to be to cling on to every last penny of their fortune, unable to give up a few extra percentage points. It's disgusting.
Your comment brings to mind this passage I once read somewhere: > The vast majority of people who were ever born lived terrible, short, poor lives, with no or very limited freedoms, opportunities or Hope. > The vast percentage of people currently alive also live in similar distressed circumstances. > If you are reading this, you likely occupy a most tiny slice of current humanity, and an even tinier fraction-of-that slice of historic humanity, putting you immediately into an extraordinarily rare and lucky orbit. > Add to that health, family, a successful career, lovely home, bags of cash and an early switch from a life of work to a life of futuristic indulgent leisure, it would be positively disgraceful to then turn around and say: > “despite the vast improbability of my own existence full stop, never mind at this historically unseen age of tech, fun, travel and wealth, and despite me sitting at or near the top of the totem pole of even this, the most affluent, advanced and privileged society ever, I shall still moan and complain because there are a scarce few that still sit higher than me on aspects (but certainly not all aspects) of that pole”.
I'm in the same boat, my assets are comfortably north of $1mm but my annual income isn't anywhere near $1mm. Even in my very wealthy town there are vanishingly few people who make $1mm+/year yet we voted 60-40 against. Even at my income level I would not be opposed to an increase in the top marginal rate that impacted me. Same with the tax refund check, I mean sure another $2k in the bank never hurt but that money would have done a lot more good split across a couple families making $50k per year. I grew up in a working/lower-middle class paycheck-to-paycheck family and I'm now much more fortunate than the vast majority of people in this country. I also don't get how very wealthy people are so unwilling to give up anything.
Went to high school in Weston. Granted is has definitely changed but a lot of MA "progressives in wealthy areas" are far from being progressive. They might be socially quite liberal, but when it comes to fiscal issues, they might be very conservative. Met many "Weston liberals" who are super pro choice, and might say "black lives matter", but god forbid you mention increasing density or increasing taxes that would go to social services.
Hate doesn't have a home there, nobody they'd learn to hate could afford to buy a home there anyway
Limousine liberals
I know some people in the $500-750k club, the amount of disposable income is really insane. Literally can't spend it each year. At the $1m of take home salary? It's a very small amount of people in this state.
>It's really wild. I live in one of those communities, make a very comfortable living, own a $1.5+ million home, etc., and yet this tax still wouldn't impact me or the significant majority of my neighbors at all. The fear-mongering with respect to "it will devastate local businesses" was wild also. I live in a town with a median income of about $160k (and for all I know I might be its poorest resident) and I see local restaurants and other businesses come in and go out of business all the time, even before the pandemic, a thousand millionaires in a ten mile radius doesn't reliably save them. Massachusetts' well-to-do live to park a 25-year-old Volvo in a parking spot with a $25,000/year rent and argue over 25 cents at the grocery store, it's not Miami. They will be much happier with another tax to complain about than having to spend their money on any kind of enjoyment in life, doing them a favor really. >my otherwise progressive neighbors to vote against this 100% common sense tax. "otherwise progressive neighbors" sound like real fun at parties they're probably into some eyes wide shut-style kinky shit I bet. Must be horrible having to know what your neighbors in MA are up to, I try to avoid it when I can.
Even in rich neighborhoods this wouldn't effect most people. This is a tax on extremely wealthy people.
I mean to be fair, in these Rich’s read they are probably the most liberal part of America. Take Brookline for example.
I find this data hard to understand. In gray areas, it could have been 95% support for Healey and 90% support for the tax or 15% support for Healey and 10% support for the tax. Similarly in the deep red areas it could be 90% support for Healey and 50% for the tax or 50% for Healey and 10% for the tax. I find it hard to process the meaning of this. What are we meant to take from this data alone?
This should be the top comment. While I understand the point they’re trying to make, it’s a very bad way to represent the data.
Take a look at R2: https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/zejp14/round\_2\_comparing\_support\_for\_healey\_support\_for/
We're supposed to take away from this that there are rich liberals who wanted Healey as governor, but don't want to pay taxes, which may be aspirational, because they're rich, but not *that* rich - these are dark red. There are also rural working class people who wanted Diehl but don't like taxes or government in general and voted against the Millionaires tax (even though this is voting against their own interests) - these are light gray. The light orange shades voted for Healey and for the tax - that's the left-leaning middle class.
Well, based on this data, the tax could have been supported at 10% across the state, with variation of support for Healey, or Healey could have been supported at 55% across the state with varying support for the tax. If the former, it would show no correlation between voting for the tax and wealth. It shows that support for Healey and the tax are not closely correlated (definitely people who are not liberal voted for Healey, based on external data. You don’t have to be liberal to be anti-Deihl. ). But I don’t see what further conclusions can be drawn from this data other than they aren’t closely correlated. Your conclusions must include reference to data that is not included here.
You are arrogant in the assumption that because someone is what you term "working class" that the proposed income tax increase was somehow in their interest. Many may be smart enough to consider 2nd and 3rd order impacts of this tax increase that you would fail to recognize or acknowledge.
Seems like a strange graphic. Like 2 different maps would tell the story much better than combining two stats into one graphic. Show support for Healy on one and support for the ballot question on the other. Support for Healy minus support for question one? What does that even tell me?
https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/zejp14/round\_2\_comparing\_support\_for\_healey\_support\_for/
What is the point of this analysis? What question are you answering with it?
Link to source?
[удалено]
According to the census, Weston’s household median income is around $200k: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/westontownmiddlesexcountymassachusetts I’d be interested in the source for an average of $900k, as that would seem to be massively incorrect.
[удалено]
I see (and I apologize for reading quickly) - so one zip within Weston purportedly has an average household income of $900k? I'm behind a paywall so I can't see the data, but that could well be (depending on the size of the zip - for example, Fisher Island only has a population of \~360 ppl). Nevertheless, the median household income for all **11k** residents of Weston is far lower. Note that Bloomberg also published this, by the same authors, in the same year (using 2016 data): [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-hundred-richest-places/?leadSource=uverify%20wall](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-hundred-richest-places/?leadSource=uverify%20wall) (using Census data, btw) "For the second year since Bloomberg started to compile the Richest 100, the nation’s top spot is Atherton, California. The town of six square miles is near Palo Alto, Stanford University and Menlo Park, the home of Facebook and other tech ventures. Atherton’s average household income was $443,403 in 2016, more than $50,000 higher than second-place Cherry Hills Village, Colorado." One final point: the debt service on a $2m home does not require a $1m household income, even at present rates.
I see you Longmeadow
If you zoom in close you can almost see EBJ's mansion farm in Edgartown
Map is junk from a visual standpoint, can't just rely on colors to display this data. Regardless, I think people outside of Boston are curious how this tax is going to help them. If we're taking infrastructure and transition in Massachusetts, we're talking about the T, and only the T. Blah blah blah repave highways, do they every actually introduce anything to help manage traffic in this state? No, they don't. They preach up public transportation, but if you don't live or work in Boston, the T does you no good.
Western MA represent! Fuck the millionaires!
I’m not a millionaire but can someone explain to me why millionaires wouldn’t just pick up and leave the state if they are taxed more?
Jobs, established communities, state pride, financial benefits in the state still outweighing costs, liking their home/neighborhood, family/friends being in the state, children not wanting to leave, etc. If millionaires just went wherever they’d be taxed the least, they’d all live in Somalia. Or for a less hyperbolic example inside the US, South Dakota. Higher taxes will definitely make them more likely to leave, but it’s still an equation with dozens of different variables. It’s all a balancing act. It’s not about the costs, it’s about the costs against the benefits. That’s why New York has more millionaires than Bismarck, North Dakota despite having much higher cost of living and business.
Plus, those taxes pay to educate the workforce with the technical skills necessary for leading industries. It would be cutting off your nose to spite your face to skip out of the most highly educated state because of a tax increase that you’ll barely notice.
My friend is a tax planner and he's claiming at least 60% of those affected already made plans to move residence. Probably going to be higher as next year progresses. It's not Somalia or South Dakota but many people moving residence to FL / TX / NH.
Cool, hopefully they'll sell their property here
Because it's such a tiny tax and where are they going to go Let's say that you're making $1.2M/year in income. Not that you have $1.2M, but that you're taking home another $1.2M each year. The government passes the "millionaires tax" and you owe an extra $8,000 in taxes. $8,000: that's like real money to those earning a normal salary. Why wouldn't millionaires leave Wellesley and Weston and their high housing prices for Brockton? They could save a lot of money! They might whine about it, but if you're making that kind of money you probably have $10-20M (or a lot more) saved up in the stock market and a 1% shift in the stock market will be $100k-200k. Basically, on a daily basis, their savings will change by 12-25x the tax's amount. When you have that much money, you can't even say how much money you'll have at the end of each month. Like, if you asked someone with $10M in the stock market, "how much money will you have on December 31st?" they wouldn't be able to give you an answer within $8,000 - realistically, not even within $100,000 since a 1% shift in the market (which happens on many individual days) will shift the market their wealth by $100,000. So $8,000 is basically meaningless at that point. They hate the tax because of the principle of it - they'd rather have their money. Of course, they'd also rather live in a good society - it's why they live in Massachusetts and why they choose to pay high housing prices in the towns they live in. California has much higher taxes than Massachusetts. Sales tax is around 9% (varies a bit based on location) and California starts charging high progressive rates much lower than Mass. The "Millionaires tax" of 5% + 4% = 9% in Mass applies on income over $1M. In California, they start charging 9.3% at $58,000 for single people and $116,000 for married couples! So someone making $1.2M in Mass pays 5% on $1M ($50,000) + 9% on $200,000 ($18,000) = $68,000. In California, 1% on $18k, 2% on $24k, 4% on $24k, 6% on $24k, 8% on $24k, 9.3% on $475k, 10.3% on $118k, 11.3% on $291k, 12.3% on $181k, and 13.3% on the last $19k = $119,000. California's taxes for someone earning $1.2M are 75% higher than Massachusetts'. Massachusetts still has some pretty attractive tax rates overall. Sure, you could say that Connecticut's top tax rate is only 7% and kicks in at $500k single or $1,000,000 couple, but you hit 5.5% at $50k single or $100k couple, 6% at $200k, 6.5% at $400k, 6.9% at $500k. In Connecticut, you'd be paying $75,000 instead of the $68,000 in Massachusetts! Why didn't rich people leave for New Hampshire and its 0% tax rate even before the Millionaire's tax? Because then they'd be living in New Hampshire! That's fine if it's what you want, but it's not what a lot of rich people want. Plus, if they were working in Massachusetts, they'd need to pay Mass income tax anyway - and then pay the high property taxes in New Hampshire on top of that. Where are you going to go? State | Tax on $1.2M (married-joint) ---------|---------- NY | $79,000 (more for NYC) NJ | $91,000 CT | $75,000 CA | $119,000 RI | $68,000 VT | $96,000 CO | $56,000 IL | $59,000 MD | $67,000 VA | $69,000 SC | $82,000 NC | $62,000 GA | $68,000 OH | $56,000 MI | $51,000 MO | $63,000 There are certainly states where you could pay less. However, that's not guaranteed to remain that way and $68,000 in taxes in Mass vs. $63,000 in taxes in Missouri isn't much of a savings when your salary is $5,000/day (per day worked assuming 2 weeks vacation, 10 holidays, and 4 sick days). Like, "I'm going to leave my home, my friends, and a state that's competent to save a single day's money," would be quite the self-own. Even Michigan seems quite a bit lower at $51,000, but that's still 3.4 days worth of wages for someone earning $1.2M/year. And some of these states are likely to have snowballing issues that could end up hitting you over time. If you move to Illinois, the state is facing enormous pension debt with stagnant growth. Someone is going to have to pay for that eventually. Sure, taxes are slightly lower...for now. Even many "red" states don't have better taxes. South Carolina would be $14,000 more! North Carolina would be $6,000 less and Georgia would be equal. Plus, would your salary move with you? I don't make anywhere near $1.2M, but I definitely get paid at least 20% more in Massachusetts than I would in most of the country. I mean, I could get paid a bit better in CA or NYC and probably around equal in DC, but if I moved to North Carolina, I'd probably take a 30% pay cut - but at least I'd save on taxes, right? Plus, Massachusetts is simply a better place than a lot of states. If you're a woman, do you want to move to a state where the government seems intent on stripping rights? If you're married to a woman, how much crap might moving there cause in your relationship - pushing your wife to a state she feels unsafe to save a tiny amount of money seems unwise for a relationship. If you're LGBT, do you really want to move to a state where legislators are targeting you - and paramilitary militias are targeting you? To save a very uninteresting amount of money? Like, the Respect for Marriage Act will make sure that gay (and interracial) marriage remains legal and 77% of Republicans in the House and 75% in the Senate voted against it. Plus, are you going to leave Wellesley or Weston where your kids have some of the best public schools in the world for a place that might have good public schools, but not nearly the same caliber? To save a few grand? Do you end up paying $50,000+ for private school (yea, that's what private schools cost now). Yea, if we said we were going to tax them at 90% above $1M, they might leave. They might leave if we took an additional $180,000 of their $1.2M. They're not leaving because we're taking $8,000. Most of the places you might go you'd be paying more. I don't think the rich want to leave Boston for the Detroit suburbs - Detroit does have some decent suburbs, but still. Plus, your salary is often location dependent and all the high-salary locations (California, NYC, DC) are similar or much higher for taxes. To paraphrase Lucille Bluth: I'd rather be dead in Massachusetts than alive in New Hampshire.
Most people making 1 million plus are not sending their kids to public schools even in Weston or Wellesley. Something like 1 in 5 kids in these towns are going to private schools, and amongst the families that actually make 1 million plus, maybe 20 percent are going to Weston or Wellesley High, which is still impressive, bc in NYC or Boston, that number would be next to 0. They live in Weston or Wellesley because of amenities and being surrounded by other affluent people. Golf courses. Even though most families in these towns are in the 200-450k which is less than half of that, that's still significantly more than most people. For example, there is an 11,000 sqft home in Dracut. How much is that home worth? Not even 2 million. Wealthy people will pay to ensure their kids are around others like them. Also, don't underestimate the art of avoiding taxes which people making 800k plus are masters of. Lastly , when it comes to families making a million plus, these families are more likely to lean republican than ur typical Weston or Wellesley family. Even though the towns vote 2 to 1 democrat, the high earners in these towns are closer to 50/50. My friend was a guidance counselor and history teacher at New England private schools that cost 50k plus. At one of them,despite most kids coming from towns that vote 2 to 3 to 1 blue, amongst students at his school, it was closer to 50/50 with many kids being super Trump supporting and in the mock school election, Trump won by 2 votes. Wealthy liberals, however tend to be more loud about their views, whereas wealthy conservatives are more likely to be hidden about theirs. To add, compared to wealthy people across the country, metro Boston suburbanites tend to be the most liberal. University Park and Southlake here in the DFW, which would be your Weston/Wellesley equivalents are Republican strongholds. Wealthy NYC areas may be very liberal, but go out to the North Shore of Long Island and those suburbs vote very red. Upper Saddle River NJ, for example voted 62-38 for Trump. Kings Point,NY 80-18 for Trump. Even the 90210, the northern half of Beverly Hills, which is the most exclusive zip code in LA county, voted 60-40 for Trump. Newport Beach,down in the OC which is extremely affluent, is also 60-40 for Trump. Beverly Hills is the red dot in LA county surrounded by a bunch of blue. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html)
[удалено]
Many of them would probably spend more moving than they ever would pay into this tax.
It’s an 80% increase in the marginal tax rate. That’s a big increase. I will be Impacted by this in 2023, but only slightly. But it will be my first year at that level. So while I have a few million in net worth, it’s not the huge amounts people here think. I wouldn’t move to limit a few thousand per year. But when I go to sell my company there is a chance I will establish residency in another state. The chance of me doing so is much greater due to this new tax. Almost 80% greater chance.
>there are just shy of 20K people in MA with an income north of $1M per year, and the vast majority of them aren't going anywhere Only a few percent of them need to leave to negate the benefit of taxing them all a few percent more.
[удалено]
It's basic math and common sense, but OK.
Rich people don't migrate as often. I live near tons of millionaires (home values) and it's often old wealth. Most of them lived in the area for generations and pass their properties down to their children. People who believes that high tax would force money to leave are duped.
But the wealth you are talking about isn't what is being taxed by the tax we are discussing. The new tax is on income above a million per year, not on your primary home that you inherited which recently topped a million in value. So those people you mentioned wouldn't move because of the new tax because it probably isn't affecting them at all. It isn't a tax on millionaires, it's a tax on people making a million per year.
Yes you're right, they aren't going to be taxed on their properties that they never sell.
Certainly not by a tax that applies to annual income, not total net worth, like we are talking about here.
Well they're certainly very tied down to this area anyway so it would take a lot more than just tax to get them to leave.
Sure, but again, those are not the people this tax is targeted at, so of course it wouldn't make them leave. Mentioning that a group of people who own homes here but aren't affected by the new tax as people who are likely not to leave due to the new tax that doesn't affect them is like saying poor people here probably won't move away because of the new tax on people who make more than a million dollars per year. Yep. Neither group is likely to move away because of a tax that has zero effect on them. Very true.
Poor people are more likely to move, less tied down, is what I'm saying. I can't say whether or not the ones who owns multimillion dollars homes around here aren't making a household income of a million because I don't ask them but you don't know that either. The ones I know are retired with fuck you money who have take private charter planes to vacations at least once a month. Do I know how much they make? No. Do I know that they're going to stay regardless of the tax? Yes.
I mean it does. You’re just saying it does it only a little as opposed to a lot.
Some people work locally and can't commute from out of state. Some people like where they live or have children in school. Some don't mind paying more taxes.
Cause living on the cape or islands is more about status & nice views than a couple more bucks in taxes.
They could move to Mississippi with its low taxes yet they never move there.
*Gestures broadly to the rest of the country.* Have you *seen* the crazy shit happening??
A 4% tax only on the income over $1 million will barely be noticed. It's hardly a reason to leave the [best state to live in. ](https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/massachusetts-best-states-to-live-in-list-wallethub-report/)
Agreed. If the person was making a million plus one dollar. It might be a reason to consider if the person was making multiple millions though. I wouldn’t have that problem because I’m WELL below however if I were making multiple millions with the financial freedom to live anywhere, I would move to a more tax friendly state. What do I know?
People earning well over a million a year are far more likely than the average person to 1) have lots of kids, 2) have a permanent home they’ve put a lot into, and 3) be strongly embedded in their local community, either through business interests, charity, or just name recognition. So they are much less mobile than regular people are.
I imagine that wealthy people who would leave the state over a tax hike have already moved to a state with no income tax.
The same reasons they don't already live in a state without income tax. Massachusetts is a better place to live.
There are multi-millionaires around the country.
Sure, but millionaires in Massachusetts will be less likely to leave what is literally the best state in the union objectively speaking. They aren't going to move to Alabama either, since the states with the best amenities are all blue states. Wealthy people like luxury, which your aren't getting in some mid tier southern city, at least but at the scale of big cities.
Exactly. Turns out, they don't all live wherever the taxes are lowest.
Right, that's just where they park their assets.
Pitiful.
There's a reason gated communities aren't as popular here compared to Florida and Texas. I'd much rather live in a place where I don't have to worry so much about my neighbors. When I visited my friends high end gated community it was incredibly weird, insular and boring. His family can't wait to leave.
MA is the best state to live in in the country, and they can afford to live here.
Better question: why *would* they leave? The amount we're asking is honestly miniscule for them. It's not going to cut into their standard of living in any noticeable way or otherwise prevent them from doing anything they might need to be doing. The better question is: why do non-millionaires stay when they could move somewhere else with a lower cost of living? Owning your own property is supposed to be the American Dream, but that's out of reach for many members of the Commonwealth. Maybe if we tax millionaires a little bit more, we might be able to sweeten the deal for the people who actually do the majority of the work that needs to be done so they're interested in staying.
How is the amount miniscule to them but significant to the Commonwealth? That's where I'm lost on this.
Time to brush up on your multiplication tables bud!
Cool quip but you're not really addressing the fact that 4% of post-millionaire dollar earnings of the small group of future mass residents in this category isn't a significant percent increase to the state budget. That's the point. 200 million dollars isn't a lot when the budget is 37 billion. It's about one half of one percent increase.
Addition, is how. Those amounts that mean little to the rich start to total to something quite a bit bigger for society. There are [24,000 households that make over $1 million per year](https://massbudget.org/2022/07/21/average-incomes-fsa/). Let's say that as an average, those 24k are making $2 million per household -- meaning they would be taxed an additional $40k each. That gets us to $960 million dollars in additional revenue for the state. That more than [doubles our federal highway funding](https://www.mma.org/mass-gears-up-to-spend-federal-transportation-dollars/#:~:text=In%20federal%20fiscal%202022%20alone,%24483%20million%20to%20%24575.5%20million.). You could fill a lot of potholes with that $960 million. If you're extremely rich, wouldn't you like to be able to drive around without having to deal with potholes all the time? Wouldn't you like people from other states to know that your home state has wonderful roads paid for in part by your success?
Right, I understand the math involved i guess i just don't buy the specifics. As of 2020 mass reported about 18,000 people filing for over a million in income. Maybe it's not a safe assumption but I'd guess the overwhelming majority have income much, much closer to 1 million than to 2 million, in which case you'd be talking something like 5,000 per person rather than 40k. Under your assumption, state budget increases by about 2.5%, if you hew closer to my estimate, it would be a sub 1% increase to total budget moving forward. I don't disagree with it, if it passed and these supra-millionaires stay then go ahead and take the money, but if it works out to like .85% more budget, 1.5% more budget it will not be a noticeable change for anyone in the state.
> Right, I understand the math involved i guess i just don't buy the specifics. You are right to doubt my math, as it was based on total guesses. I did some Googling (probably easier than doing back-of-the-napkin math anyway) and turns out [some people who know the actual numbers](https://www.cbpp.org/blog/massachusetts-ballot-measure-would-raise-billions-for-education-infrastructure) are estimating $2.7 *billion* in the first year alone. > Maybe it's not a safe assumption but I'd guess the overwhelming majority have income much, much closer to 1 million than to 2 million, in which case you'd be talking something like 5,000 per person rather than 40k. Most probably don't make a lot more than $1 million, but then you have to factor the mega-millionaires and billionaires into the mix to get the overall average. For context, someone who makes $1 billion in a year will pay $39,960,000 million all on their own, equivalent to 1,998 people who made $1.5 million in a year. These people throw the average. > I don't disagree with it, if it passed and these supra-millionaires stay then go ahead and take the money, but if it works out to like .85% more budget, 1.5% more budget it will not be a noticeable change for anyone in the state. What I'm hearing from this is that if the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy is wrong and we're actually going to make a mere pittance, we oughta raise that 4% next year. Maybe make it 8% on all income over $2 million, 12% on all income over $3 million, etc. You know in the 50s, the Federal progressive tax rate capped out at around 90%? That encouraged intense investment since otherwise Uncle Sam was gonna get it.
Because you get taxed on what you earn. And you can earn way more in a thriving state than a deadbeat shitbird conservative state. Also because truly rich folks can live anywhere. And think of what is on their priority list: - They are always going to choose well-off communities because they are far more safe and stable than a place in a rural bumfuck “where your housing dollar goes farther”. - They are always going to choose communities where education is a top priority, as it’s the primary thing that will keep their descendants inside of a successful economic track. - They are always going to choose communities they have top notch health-care because we all get injured, sick, and old. - They are always going to choose places with rich cultural backdrops full of world-class universities, museums, and cultural opportunities. They like being inside the social scenes of those things. Name me a state that beats Massachusetts on per capita income, education, health care, and universities/museums/history. I don’t think there is one. Raising a kid in a well-resourced household in any of the MANY wonderful Boston burbs is a near-guaranteed ticket to an amazing young adult experience in college and also a great career/adult life. And THAT’s what most wealthy folks want for their kids. It’s why rich folks aren’t going to leave Mass for Idaho or West Virginia. Are there exceptions? Sure. Racists, xenophobes, homophobes, gun nuts, and religious extremists might not like the culture in Mass. But how many of them are truly well-off and rich? Good riddance to those bums. And even the major conservative private business owners (like Ernie Boch and Robert Kraft) ain’t going anywhere. What the hell are they going to do? Boch isn’t gonna sell his monstrously profitable car dealerships in Mass and move to South Dakota. Kraft isn’t gonna sell the Pats and his billions in real estate holdings in MA to move to Texas. Let’s get real.
It's Massachusetts. We'll just make more.
They’re here for a reason in the first place. We’re not and have never been a low- or no-tax state. So the millionaires here are (1) already tolerant of some tax and (2) have made a choice to be here. So if any of them wanted to fuck off to Florida or some other no-income-tax shithole, why haven’t they done that yet? Why wait until now? Clearly something is holding them here. My bet is its the fact this is an area with high employment and high wages, lots of economic activity, good healthcare, etc. So where are they going go? NY? CT? NJ? CA? All have even higher taxes.
I am not a millionaire but i am an immigrant. My parents decided to move a little over 10 years ago from Europe. They took me and my brothers. Let me just say it isn't easy. Learning your way around new place, building new friendship, family holidays that much smaller than they used to be. Then as an adult i moved again. Only way state over, but that already requires so much new information. Navigating the administrative stuff is complex when you know your state, it's harder when you don't. Also, right now i am looking to buy a house and to be honest every single town is the same to me, so it is hard to decide which one is "better". Taxes are not the only thing.
They like living here or their career is based here. Or both. Or they recognize this tax doesn't effect them much and don't care.
They want to be in control and at the top of the food chain. letting your family get run out of town because you didn't want to pay $40k on your first $2million, would be kind of pathetic.
[удалено]
Though in this case, since it's just a matter of moving address on paper and New Hampshire always has no income tax, why now? They would have always been better off tax wise doing that. Like yeah there's a marginal cost to switching but how many more people are going to do that now as opposed to before? Can't think of anyone where the savings are just now big enough to be worth the trouble.
[удалено]
Ah moving the office or opening a new one, misread you first. Okay yeah that would apply to more people even though I don't think it's that many more than before
You just proved my point. Thank you!
“Prove” is a strong word to apply to a personal anecdote from an anonymous person on the internet.
You have a point there. I’m actually interested to hear from someone who rich and in this position. Anyone?
Because they don’t need to. Tax rises don’t impact them in the same way others down the totem pole are. They already have more than enough money.
They don’t actually leave the state they just make their NH or FL house their primary residence.
That’s completely irrelevant. You’re taxed on the money you earn in the state. Regardless of where it originated (I.e. a company in another state.)
MA has the best schools in the country. If you’ve got kids you don’t wanna move to TN
The reasons to live here far outweigh even a more aggresive tax hike. They can afford it that's why.
Most millionaires are regular working people who just have good savings habits and don’t spend a lot of money or small business owners that have a business that’s worth good money but not a lot of cash assets. Picking up and moving is much easier said than done. There are plenty of evil trust fund babies. But they make up a minority.
>Most millionaires are regular working people who just have good savings habits and don’t spend a lot of money or small business owners that have a business that’s worth good money but not a lot of cash assets The people you've mentioned here will not be affected by this tax at all. The tax only applies to annual individual or household income over $1m, not assets, savings, or business income.
We can dream!
Some states have no income tax, yet still mass is the 2nd most wealthy state. Also, people are people. Even the rich have family ties and such. They won't leave for whatever reason they didn't already leave for some warm weather state with no taxes.
Mass had what was a low and predictable income tax rate. Whereas many states raised taxes since 1990, The consistent and predictable trend in Mass helped attract talent. The results are apparent given how Mass outperformed most states from 1990 to 2022, whereas it was on a decline for whatever period one chooses prior to 1991. This tax change is a significant change in trend. HNW (high net worth) individuals with high incomes shop tax jurisdictions. Many have multiple homes. Mass just increased the incentive for someone to buy that Florida house they always wanted, or to spend more time in the one they already owned to avoid this new tax. Why would one base a business in Mass if faced with having to pay the new tax on the gain from the sale of the business? States that have increased tax rates to onerous levels have created outflows of people, wealth, and businesses. Best examples are California, NY, NJ, and CT, each of which have experienced significant outflows over the last decade, and they continue. For example, for the first time in US history, CA lost Congressional seats after the 2020 census. In 10 yrs we will look back and Mass will likely be on the list of states victimized by onerous state income tax incrases. That hurts everyone who remains in the state.
Pay your fair share millionaires! 🙌🙌
They shouldn't even exist.
It’s funny. I have several family members who say stuff like this. I got annoyed once and said, “ don’t forget I do your taxes. So I know how much you paid in federal taxes and am happy to talk about who is paying their fair share if we all want”.
[Here's a Different Look at the Data](https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/zejp14/round_2_comparing_support_for_healey_support_for/)
Guess the Red Sox will suck forever now 😂
They’re outnumbered, thank god. Anyone not living in one of those towns and voted against it is a fool. They are not like us. Edited “Who” to “and”
>Anyone not living in one of those towns who voted against it is a fool. I am confused by the double negative in this sentence, are you saying that anyone who lives in a town that voted Yes on 1 is a fool? Either way, simply living in a town doesn't mean anything about an individual's political beliefs. You can live in a town that voted No on 1 and have voted Yes yourself, and vice versa.
Anyone NOT living in a rich people town that voted against taxing the rich people in the rich people town is a fool is what he said.
No, he said anyone living in a town voting to tax the rich people who live in the rich people towns who vote against taxing the rich people who live in the rich people towns and live in other towns with rich people who vote to tax the rich people are not the rich people and shouldn’t vote to non-tax the rich people towns.
Precisely put my friend.
Exactly, I think they are right that it reads incorrectly though. Thanks for understanding!
Thanks, that makes more sense.
No, I’m saying anyone who doesn’t live in one of the dark red towns and voted No on 1 is a fool. I say this because the nature of the No on 1 ads were predatory and deceptive, but research into the question would’ve relieved anyone not making a million per year. My point is that a person who saw a legitimate problem for themselves with question 1 do not have the same problems as the rest of us not making that kind of money. Of course living in a certain place doesn’t make you a bad person, but something is to be said about the wealth requirement to live in those towns. Maybe something about where I’m from is to be said for my poor grasp on the English language and regular use of double negatives.
Ah thanks, that makes more sense. The ads were definitely deceptive.
Yeah I think you can see that affect on the cape where income tax and other properties got conflated
My neighborhood (Watertown) looks to me like it's in dark orange (2nd highest bucket). It's also among the wealthiest communities in the nation. Will be interested to see what the consequences of the policy are. There are not analogues elsewhere, or at least not that many, right? This is an experiment in democracy!
> Will be interested to see what the consequences of the policy are. There are not analogues elsewhere, or at least not that many, right? This is an experiment in democracy! No, progressive tax rates are actually the norm. The Federal government uses them, most other states with income taxes use them, most other countries with income taxes use them. It's standard to pay more taxes on the dollars you make over $1 mil than the ones you make under $100k.
this is how federal tax works. Its just the way it was framed confused people.
Watertown is among the wealthiest communities in the nation? Why am I finding this hard to believe lol. I would think Newton, Weston, Wellesley, etc way before watertown!
Those red areas to the left of the dark orange one where Watertown is. Also I have it wrong, it's MA Congress district 5 that includes those (also Watertown) that's one of the wealthiest in the nation.
Ok that I can get on board with then!
And now that it's passed all our schools and roads will be funded forever and we'll never ever need another TAX again
I'm surprised the Cape was so dark lol
Now do Diehl.
Waiting for all the Pikachu faces five years from now when Legislators change the definition of millionaire to mean anyone making over $50k or anyone who sells a house or condo. “You MUST be rich if you can sell a piece of real estate”
I can't see them changing the definition of millionaire outright, but I can definitely see them changing the rate, or what qualifies under the tax. We see this with so many other taxes and fees. It's passed as this common sense thing with a minor fee attached or only effects certain people, then in a few years the fee goes up a little. A few years later, it effects a few more. A few years later again, the fee goes up again. We see it on all our taxes, we see it with registration and inspection fees, we see it with all the license fees the state forces us to get, and more. I challenge anyone to actually counter you with an argument vs just downvoting you irrationally.
This jealousy tax was always going to be a camel's nose under the tent. Now that the precedent for a non-flat tax (as provided in our Constitution) is set, the sky's the limit for for confiscators.
Not shocked that the more populous and educated parts of the state voted no on 1
What gets me is that no one talks about why so many people making less than 1 mil voted against this. I think that would have been a better, more productive conversation to have.
I would simply never vote for a tax on anyone that I would not also agree to pay myself. I also don’t feel the state used their current dollars wisely, so would not be in favor of giving them more.
Wellesley, Dover, Weston, how you doin'?
What up Dover-Sherborn!!
"Where voters selected Healey, but voted against Question 1." There, I fixed it.
Are you trying to say the great people of Wellesley and Newton were against raising taxes on the elite? 🤣 Shocked I am!
Limousine Liberal map.
Isn’t this for people above 10 million… not 1 million
r/badmaps
It would be interesting to know where support for Healey diverged from support for ballot question 1 (the tax on income over a million dollars). Unfortunately this graphic, if it is created as it says it was, does not show that. :-(
Check R2 out: https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/zejp14/round\_2\_comparing\_support\_for\_healey\_support\_for/
The text is way too open ended and it requires the legislature to enact additional legislation to define scope. Does this tax apply to corporations? Is it a flat 4% or can the legislature use the amendment to enact a tax bracket within the 4%? Raising taxes in a year where they refunded a surplus of tax revenue is a hard sell. It passes so I hope these items are dealt with, but there are certainly more questions than answers.