Here’s How Your State Senator Voted in the Tax Reform Debate

Sunlight - Beacon Hill

Earlier tonight, the MA Senate passed a $586 million tax reform package. As I noted earlier today, the MA Senate’s tax reform package was a much better proposal than the House’s:

  • The Senate bill rejects the proposed $117 million tax cut for day traders and speculators proposed by Gov. Healey and passed by the MA House in April. Notably, both chambers rejected this idea last year when Governor Baker proposed it.
  • The Senate bill rejected a $79 million corporate tax giveaway that the House back in April with no public debate.
  • The Senate bill offers a less expensive and less regressive cut to the estate tax than either Governor Healey or the MA House. Unfortunately, every estate tax proposal includes tax cuts for the largest estates rather than limiting them to more modest estates subject to the tax.

During the debate, the Senate voted to protect the Fair Share victory from last year by closing tax loopholes and defeating attempts to give more tax cuts to the rich; however, the Senate unfortunately also rejected an attempt to improve our state’s response to the affordable housing crisis.

THE GOOD

The Senate voted 33 to 5 for an amendment from Sen. Jason Lewis to close a joint filing loophole that could have led to the loss of $200 million of Fair Share revenue each year. It would have required couples that jointly file their federal taxes to do so in Massachusetts as well. Without this technical change, Massachusetts would remain the only state with an additional tax code for higher incomes without either an incentive for couples to file jointly or a prohibition against their filing separately. Such a loophole would encourage tax avoidance through the illegal misattribution of income.

Two Democrats–Sen. Barry Finegold of Andover and Sen. Michael Moore of Millbury–joined the 3 Republicans in voting no.

The Senate defeated, by a vote of 32 to 5, a proposed Republican tax giveaway to day traders and speculators. Only Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and the three Republicans voted for it.

The Senate defeated, by a vote of 33 to 5, a regressive and fiscally irresponsible Republican attempt to raise the estate tax threshold to $5 million, which would have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to such multi-million-dollar estates. Only Nick Collins (D-South Boston) and Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and the three Republicans voted for it.

The Senate defeated, by a vote of 32 to 6, a second Republican effort to erode the revenue raised by the estate tax. Only Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), John Velis (D-Westfield), and the three Republicans voted for it.

THE BAD

The Senate’s tax package expands the Housing Development Incentive Program, which provides millions in state tax credits and local tax breaks for developers of market-rate housing in Gateway cities. However, the units built through these incentives can be shockingly expensive, and incentives often go to areas that are already attractive to developers.

According to an analysis from the Mass Law Reform Institute, more than half of HDIP funds go to only five of the 26 Gateway cities, only 2% of HDIP units are affordable, and rents routinely exceed prevailing wages and prices. We need to build more housing, but our public dollars should be going toward affordable housing if we want to meaningfully address our housing crisis.

In response, Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) offered an amendment to create basic affordability standards for HDIP projects: a requirement that at least 20% of the units created in any HDIP-funded project be permanently affordable.

Despite our large Democratic supermajority, the commonsense amendment was defeated 30 to 9.

If your senator was one of the 9 who stood up to Senate Leadership to vote yes, make sure to thank them.

This Bill Can Help Us Wean Our State off Plastics

plastic bag trash

Thursday, June 15, 2023

Chair Rausch, Chair Cahill, and members of the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I’m the policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy organization fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Commonwealth. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.882/S.570: An Act to reduce plastics (The Plastics Reduction Act), filed by Rep. Ted Philips and Sen. Becca Rausch. 

Many of us are familiar with the mantra “reduce, reuse, recycle.” We too often focus on the third command and ignore the first. Indeed, when it comes to plastics, a focus on reduction is vital, not simply because “reduce” should always be the first part of the hierarchy, but because plastics recycling lacks the success of paper (especially cardboard) and metal recycling, where clear markets for repurposing materials exist. Many plastic items put into recycling bins end up in landfills because of such a lack. I personally own a number of shirts that are made from polyester from recycled plastic, but that is a niche market. Melting down and recomposing plastic is expensive, and plastic degrades each time it is used. 

Moreover, as plastic is a petroleum-based product, we need to wean ourselves off it—and do so quickly—if we are to meet climate goals. Fossil fuels need to be left in the ground, not dug up to be turned into products that end up buried under the ground in landfills. 

These bills take a comprehensive approach. They would enact a statewide plastic bag ban: more than two-thirds of our state’s population live in municipalities where such a ban already exists, and we are the only Northeastern state other than New Hampshire not to have passed a statewide law yet.  To ensure that people in environmental justice communities who already bear the burden of pollution do not face undue burden from a new fee on paper bags, the bill would create a fund to cover the costs of reusable bags in such communities. The bill would limit disposable food service packaging (bowls, plates, cuts, cartons, straws, etc.) to biodegradable or compostable products; limit the sale and public purchasing of smaller plastic water bottles; and take other important steps.

When we keep our parks, streets, and rivers clean; reduce the trash that goes into landfills that leak methane and pollute groundwater; and leave fossil fuels in the ground, we all benefit.
 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts 

What to Say to Your State Senator about Today’s Tax Vote

Since last year’s Fair Share victory, our state’s super-rich and their allies in the media have been pushing a myth that we need to cut taxes on the rich to prevent people from leaving Massachusetts. Even though this has been widely debunked, Governor Healey heeded such demands by proposing a tax reform package skewed toward the very rich. The House, back in April, followed suit.

The Senate is taking up its own tax package this afternoon. So take some time this morning to email your state senator about protecting the Fair Share victory and better responding to our housing crisis — then read on for more.

Saying No to Tax Cuts for the Super-Rich and Large Corporations

Let’s start with some good news:

  • The Senate bill rejects the proposed $117 million tax cut for day traders and speculators proposed by Gov. Healey and passed by the MA House in April. Notably, both chambers rejected this idea last year when Governor Baker proposed it.
  • The Senate bill rejected a $79 million corporate tax giveaway that the House back in April with no public debate.
  • The Senate bill offers a less expensive and less regressive cut to the estate tax than either Governor Healey or the MA House. Unfortunately, every estate tax proposal includes tax cuts for the largest estates rather than limiting them to more modest estates subject to the tax.

Voters last year were clear that they wanted the super-rich to pay more so that we can invest in our schools and infrastructure, so it’s important that senators hold the line here in today’s vote and in negotiations to come.

Housing: The Real Reason Why People Are Moving out of MA

High-ranking senators have rightly noted that the reason people are moving out of MA is not taxes–it’s the high cost of housing. However, the Senate’s proposals on housing are mixed. Although the expansion of the low-income housing tax credit can help our state address a growing housing crisis, increasing the Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP) without accountability or affordability measures is a false solution.

The HDIP program provides millions in state tax credits and local tax breaks for developers of market-rate housing in Gateway cities. However, the units built through these incentives can be shockingly expensive, and incentives often go to areas that are already attractive to developers. Moreover, the program lacks basic monitoring and oversight to ensure that it is achieving desired ends. Only with affordability and accountability requirements can the program be part of the solution to our housing crisis.

How Your Senator Can Make the Bill Better

Your senator can better protect Fair Share and better respond to our housing crisis by supporting these three amendments:

  • Amendment #16 (Sen. Eldridge): Improve HDIP to create affordable housing, which would ensure that HDIP funds support badly needed mixed income housing by requiring developments funded under the program to have at least 20% permanently affordable housing.
  • Amendment #19 (Sen. Eldridge): Improve transparency of HDIP program, which would establish regular reporting on the awarding of such tax incentives
  • Amendment #26 (Sen. Lewis): Reducing high income tax avoidance, which would protect the revenue raised by the Fair Share Amendment by ensuring that couples who file jointly on their federal taxes do so in Massachusetts as well.

Can you email your state senator this morning about supporting these three amendments?