Reviewing Senate votes on tax reductions – Lowell Sun

The halls of the State House on Feb. 10, 2022. (Staff Photo By Stuart Cahill/Boston Herald)

THE HOUSE AND SENATE: There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week.

TAX REDUCTION PACKAGES STILL LINGERING IN COMMITTEE — It’s been almost three months since the House and Senate created a conference committee to hammer out a compromise version of different tax relief packages approved by each branch. The Senate’s package would cost the state about $590 million annually, while the House’s would cost close to $1.1 billion. There is no immediate solution in sight at the moment.

This week, Beacon Hill Roll Call reviews how local senators’ votes on several roll calls on tax reductions.

$590 MILLION TAX REDUCTION PACKAGE (S 2397)

Senate 39-0, approved a package that provides $590 million in tax relief. Key provisions of the Senate package include raising the Earned Income Tax Credit from 30 percent of the federal credit to 40 percent of the federal credit; raising the cap on the rental deduction from $3,000 to $4,000; increasing from $1 million to $2 million the value of a person’s estate that is exempt from the the state’s estate/death tax that a person is required to pay following their death before distribution to any beneficiary; increasing from $1,200 to $2,400 the maximum senior circuit breaker credit; increasing the statewide cap for the Dairy Tax credit from $6 million to $8 million; and doubling the credit for lead paint abatement to $3,000 for full abatement and $1,000 for partial abatement.

The package also provides that student loan payment assistance offered by employers will not be treated as a taxable salary and gives cities and towns the option to adopt a local property tax exemption for real estate that is rented to a person below a certain area-dependent income level.

FILE TAXES JOINTLY (S 2387)

Senate 33-5, approved an amendment that would require Massachusetts couples who file income tax returns jointly at the federal level do the same at the state level.

Supporters said this amendment will close a loophole that allows some married couples to file individually – an action that could be used to minimize or avoid the person’s state tax obligations under the newly approved 4 percent surtax which is in addition to the current flat 5 percent one, on taxpayers’ earnings of more than $1 million annually.

Opponents said if filers are forced to file jointly at the state level, the 4 percent surtax will apply to many more filers which is not what the voters approved on the November 2022 ballot question imposing the 4 percent surtax.

(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment requiring joint filing. A “No” vote is against the amendment.)

YES: Sen. Michael Barrett; Sen. John Cronin; Sen. James Eldridge; Sen. Cindy Friedman; Sen. Edward Kennedy. NO: Sen. Barry Finegold; Sen. Bruce Tarr.

REDUCE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAX (S 2397)

Senate 5-32, rejected an amendment that would reduce the short-term capital gains tax from 12 percent to 5 percent.

Amendment supporters said that there are 26 states that currently tax short-term capital gains at a rate of 5 percent or lower, including all of our surrounding states. They noted that both the House and the governor favor the reduction. They asked why the capital gains tax or any tax imposed should be charged at a higher rate than earned income.

Amendment opponents said the state cannot afford the $117 million loss in revenue that this tax cut would cost this year. They argued the cut would do nothing to help the costs of housing and living.

(A “Yes” vote is for the reduction to 5 percent. A “No” vote is against the reduction.)

NO: Sen. Michael Barrett; Sen. John Cronin; Sen. James Eldridge; Sen. Cindy Friedman; Sen. Edward Kennedy. YES: Sen. Barry Finegold; Sen. Bruce Tarr.

INCREASE ESTATE/DEATH TAX EXEMPTION (S 2397)

Senate 5-33, rejected an amendment that would increase from $1 million to $5 million the amount of money that is exempt from the value of a person’s estate from the state’s estate/death tax that a person is required to pay following their death before distribution to any beneficiary. The increase to $5 million would be implemented over ten years.

Most Republicans are against any such tax and coined the name “death tax” to imply that the government taxes you even after you die. Most Democrats support the tax and call it an “estate tax” to imply that this tax is only paid by the wealthy.

Amendment supporters said that Massachusetts is one of only 12 states that have an estate/death tax and that the Bay State’s is the most aggressive of the 12. They said that in light of the high value of houses, with the average home price more than $500,000, the $1 million threshold of this “unfair and regressive” tax is too low and noted the federal tax exempts the first $12 million. They noted that Massachusetts is losing many residents, who move to Florida and other states where this tax does not even exist.

Amendment opponents said the proposed bill already raises the exemption from $1 million to $2 million and noted that will cost $185 million. They said a hike to $5 million is excessive and unaffordable and will cost hundreds of millions of dollars more. They noted that lowering the estate tax is not the only way to help seniors and their families and noted there are many other initiatives that help seniors.

(A “Yes” vote is for increasing the exemption to $5 million. A “No” vote is against raising it.)

NO: Sen. Michael Barrett; Sen. John Cronin; Sen. James Eldridge; Sen. Barry Finegold ; Sen. Cindy Friedman; Former Sen. Anne Gobi; Sen. Edward Kennedy. YES: Sen. Bruce Tarr.

TAX REVENUE FROM MILLIONAIRE’S TAX (S 3)

Senate 5-34, rejected an amendment that would remove a section in the budget that exempts tax revenue generated from the recently voter-approved Millionaire Tax from counting toward the allowable state tax revenue limitations, under Chapter 62F, which provides that whenever revenue collections in a fiscal year exceed an annual cap tied to wage and salary growth, the excess is returned to taxpayers.

Last year, $3 billion in refunds were returned to taxpayers when the law was triggered for just the second time since its passage in 1986. The revenue from the Millionaire Tax is deposited into the new Education and Transportation Stabilization Fund.

Amendment supporters said the section should be repealed because it goes against the will of the voters by excluding the new millionaire’s tax revenue from the total calculation for rebates back to the taxpayers and reducing the amount of tax relief resulting from Section 62F.

Amendment opponents said the amendment will put the new revenue in jeopardy and argued this new revenue is earmarked for education and transportation and must be protected and treated differently than other tax revenue.

(Please note what a “Yes” and “No” vote mean. The amendment was on striking the section that exempts tax revenue generated from the recently voter-approved Millionaire Tax from counting toward the allowable state tax revenue limitations. A “Yes” vote is for the amendment that favors tax revenue generated from the recently voter-approved Millionaire Tax counting toward the allowable state tax revenue limitations. A “No” vote is against the amendment and supports exempting the revenue from the allowable state tax revenue limitations.)

NO: Sen. Michael Barrett; Sen. John Cronin; Sen. James Eldridge; Sen. Cindy Friedman; Former Sen. Anne Gobi; Sen. Edward Kennedy. YES: Sen. Barry Finegold; Sen. Bruce Tarr.

SEND 90 PERCENT OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX REVENUE ABOVE $1 BILLION TO THE RAINY DAY FUND (S 3)

Senate 3-36, rejected an amendment that would maintain the current 90/5/5 law under which 90 percent of the capital gains tax collections exceeding $1 billion goes to the Rainy Day Fund, 5 percent to the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund and 5 percent to the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund. The amendment would replace a pending 60/20/20 proposal that would send, in fiscal 2024 only, 60 percent of the $1 billion excess to the Rainy Day Fund while sending 20 percent to the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund and 20 percent to the State Pension Liability Fund.

Amendment supporters said it is essential to provide 90 percent to the Rainy Day Fund which helps bail out the state during slow economic times when tax revenues shrink.

Amendment opponents said the Rainy Day Fund is flush with $7 billion and argued these retiree and pension funds are currently underfunded and need some additional money for just one year.

(A “Yes” vote is for maintaining the current 90/5/5 formula. A “No” vote is for the 60/20/20 formula.)

NO: Sen. Michael Barrett; Sen. John Cronin; Sen. James Eldridge; Sen. Barry Finegold ; Sen. Cindy Friedman; Former Sen. Anne Gobi; Sen. Edward Kennedy. YES: Sen. Bruce Tarr.

Also up on Beacon Hill

ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIFIES POSSIBLE BALLOT QUESTIONS ELIGIBLE FOR THE 2024 BALLOT – Attorney General Andrea Campbell has determined that 34 out of the 38 possible 2024 ballot question that propose new laws have met the requirements outlined in the Massachusetts constitution and are authorized to proceed to the next step in the process to get their proposed law on the ballot in November 2024. Petitioners often file multiple versions of a question for review in hopes of getting at least one certified by the attorney general’s office. The actual number of subjects addressed is only 25.

Proposals include ones to change the rights and benefits for on-demand drivers like Uber and Lyft; require voters to show an ID in order to vote; allow cities and towns the right to impose rent control, a practice which voters banned nearly 30 years ago on a 1994 ballot question; permit the auditor’s office to audit the Legislature; remove the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam as a high school graduation requirement and instead require students to complete coursework certified by the student’s district as demonstrating mastery of the competencies contained in the state academic standards in mathematics, science and technology and English; and exempt from the state’s 24-cents-per-gallon gas tax any sale of gas for drivers at any time when the retail price for regular gas in Massachusetts is $3 or more per gallon;

Othere certified proposals include ones to provide tax credits and point-of sale rebates on the purchase of electric vehicles, conversion of gas powered vehicles to electric vehicles and purchase and installation of eligible home improvement systems including high efficiency heat pumps, solar power systems and energy storage systems; permit eligible citizens to register to vote at a polling place on Election Day in person, at a local registrar’s office before noon on the Friday before the election or by mail postmarked on or before the Friday before the election; increase over five years the minimum wage for tipped workers to the same as the general minimum wage; legalize some psychedelic substances including  psilocybin and psilocyn found in mushrooms; replace “Columbus Day” as a state holiday by establishing in its place a new holiday — Indigenous Peoples Day; require that public school students in grades K-12 receive instruction in public health and epidemiology including the causes and origins of diseases and strategies aimed at preventing the spread of diseases, including vaccination and hygiene practices. The new educational standards would replace the current requirement that K-12 students receive instruction on the issues of nutrition and exercise.

The next step is for supporters to gather 74,574 signatures and file them with local officials by Nov. 22 and then with the secretary of state’s office by Dec. 6. The proposal would then be sent to the Legislature and if not approved by the Legislature by May 1, 2024, proponents must gather another 12,429 signatures and file them with local officials by June 19, 2024, and then the secretary of state’s office by July 3, 2024, in order for the question to appear on the November 2024 ballot.

Proposed laws that were not certified include creating a new voting system under which candidates on the ballot are ranked by voters in order of their preference.

Other petitions that were not certified include limiting to $5,000 the amount of money that can be donated to a Super PAC; requiring Internet service providers, manufacturers of mobile phones and other wireless devices, carriers, personal wireless services, and wireless facilities to limit the emission of non-ionizing radiation that cannot directly remove electrons from atoms or molecules, to as low or safe as reasonably achievable; directing the Legislature to adopt California’s pending Age Appropriate Design Code bill, consider improvements to privacy laws and minimize on-line data collection in public primary and secondary schools and public colleges.

See the complete list of proposed ballot questions and their fate at https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-filed-for-the-2024-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws-and-2026-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-constitutional-amendments

LOGO CONTEST – The Executive Office of Veterans Services has announced a contest for residents to design a new logo for that office which in March was elevated to be part of the governor’s cabinet rather than just a state agency. The announcement notes that over the past six months, the office has undergone a significant transformation in the departments and programs under its umbrella, including overseeing the state’s veteran’s homes in Holyoke and Chelsea.

For details on how to enter, go to: https://www.mass.gov/eovs-logo-contest

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING – The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on several bills. This hearing was the one that began on July 18 was disrupted by an electrical fire and was rescheduled for last week. Bills before the committee include:

BODY PIERCING AND TATTOOS (H 1386) – Would impose a $500 fine on anyone who sells or gives a body piercing or tattooing kit to an unlicensed practitioner or a minor.

“Studies show that home piercing or tattooing leads to an increased risk of communicable diseases such as hepatitis, HIV and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) infection,” said sponsor Rep. Bruce Ayers (D-Quincy). “This legislation would install further protections to ensure that only licensed trained professionals are providing these services. With a rise in popularity of home piercing and home tattooing kits, we need to ensure our laws are current with the trend.”

EXPUNGE HARASSMENT PREVENTION ORDERS (H 1620) – Would require harassment prevention orders to be expunged from a defendant’s record if and when the order is vacated on a motion made by the plaintiff.

“I sponsored this bill because under the current law the process of having a defendant’s record expunged when the harassment prevention order is vacated is nearly impossible and can have negative consequences for those undergoing background checks when applying for various jobs,” said sponsor Rep. David Linsky (D-Natick).

MINORS AND PROTECTIVE ORDERS (H 1605) – Would allow minors, ages 13 to 17 years old, to appear in court, without a parent, guardian or attorney when filing for a protective order. Under current law, these minors are required to be accompanied by one of the above.

Supporters say that these requirements impede the child’s ability to obtain immediate relief from abuse, dating violence and trafficking. They note the bill will provide increased access to the court and open a pathway to resources, including the Department of Children and Families and other advocate services, that can help keep a child safe.

DONATE FOOD (H 1594, S 920 and S 1016) – These three bills would provide civil liability protections to individuals, restaurants and organizations that make direct food donations to persons in need. The donor would also receive a tax credit of up to $5,000.

Supporters say that food insecurity levels across the commonwealth remain high and note that approximately 900,000 tons of food still end up in Bay State landfills every year.

Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at [email protected]