Last November, voters sent a message by voting for the Fair Share Amendment: the rich should pay their fair share so that we can invest in public education and infrastructure. For years, the Legislature has used the line “We don’t have the money” to justify inaction and underinvestment; we got them the money.
But on Thursday, the MA House made clear that they plan to give money right back to the rich and large corporations by passing a tax cut package filled with giveaways to the richest residents of the Commonwealth. Last year, many representatives were quite clear that they intended for the new revenue from the Fair Share Amendment to be fully additive, rather than backfilling cuts. Even though the House laid out promising and important uses for the constitutionally dedicated funds, voters should wonder how much legislators believe their own pledges given the permanent tax cuts they just passed.
The vote was 150 to 3, with only Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge), Rep. Dan Sena (D-Acton), and Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville) voting no.
Almost half of the cost of their tax proposal comes from the three regressive tax cuts:
- A $231 million cut to the estate tax designed to disproportionately benefit the wealthiest estates
- A $130 million cut for day traders and speculators by cutting the short-term capital gains tax
- A $79 million tax cut for the state’s largest corporations through what is called “single sales factor apportionment”
Think of all that we could do with $440 million if instead we invested it in our public transit systems, in education, in child care, in climate resilience, in affordable housing, or in health care. Indeed, tackling our housing crisis should be the #1 priority if legislators actually cared about the goals of “affordability” and “competitiveness.” By passing such regressive tax cuts, the House is disrespecting the will of the voters, and they are setting Massachusetts up for brutal cuts when the next recession hits.
Even the less regressive parts of the tax package could go further if invested in robust social programs. The House bill would spend $40 million on an increase in the Renters Deduction from $3,000 to $4,000. However, this in reality, only yields to a tax credit of up to $50 for eligible renters. An extra $50 in the pocket of renters ultimately won’t go very far, given escalating rents and costs in general. As Rep. Mike Connolly pointed out, the state could have used the same money to guarantee all renters access to legal counsel in eviction cases, a measure with far lasting benefits.
The largest part of the tax package is the child and family tax credit, which would amount to $600 per child under 13 or dependent adult and cost $487 million. As I noted before, it is unclear why parents of teenagers should not get the same benefit: any parent of a teenager will tell you how much it costs to feed a teenager. Families with low and middle incomes will certainly benefit from extra money in their pocket, but $600 will not last long given that two weeks of child care costs more than that. The credit thus does little to address the real drivers of the cost of living in Massachusetts, even if it can help around the edges.
A more progressive part of the House’s tax package that was not in the Governor’s proposal was the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which would benefit about 396,000 taxpayers with incomes under $57,000, and would cost $91 million. However, it is important to remember that the EITC was originally a conservative proposal, born of opposition to a strong minimum wage and a robust safety net.
According to Mass Budget, we could make all public colleges and universities in the state tuition-free — or make all community colleges debt-free — for approximately $1 billion. State legislators would demand that such a proposal be funded. So why shouldn’t their tax expenditures have to be funded as well?