Question 1: Proposed Amendment to the Constitution - Additional Tax on Income Over One Million Dollars

Summary

This proposed constitutional amendment would establish an additional 4% state income tax on that portion of annual taxable income in excess of $1 million. This income level would be adjusted annually, by the same method used for federal income-tax brackets, to reflect increases in the cost of living. Revenues from this tax would be used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, for public education, public colleges and universities; and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges, and public transportation. The proposed amendment would apply to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023.

A "yes" vote supports amending the state Constitution to impose an additional 4% tax on that portion of incomes over one million dollars to be used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, on education and transportation.

A "no" vote opposes making any change in the state Constitution relative to income tax.

Arguments

"With a fair share tax on the wealthiest 1 percent, we can address growing income inequality and rebuild from this pandemic with stronger schools and improved roads, bridges and public transit." - Senator Ed Markey, in support of Question 1: Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (Learn more)

"Long before the pandemic, Massachusetts needed new investments in our transportation and public education systems. These investments are needed now more than ever to lift up our economy for everyone and to ensure Massachusetts remains a great place to live, work, and raise a family. Massachusetts needs sustainable, long-term revenue for these investments that doesn't require low- and middle-income families to pay more." - The Raise Up Coalition, in support of Question 1: Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (Learn more)

"The Massachusetts economy is working great for those in the upper 1%. The time is now for all Massachusetts residents to reap the benefits of what this great state can accomplish with the revenue of the Fair Share Amendment." - State Rep. James O'Day, in support of Question 1: Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (Learn more)

"A millionaire's tax could also send wealthy people fleeing the state and leave Massachusetts with less revenue, which would place a financial burden upon the remaining residents who would see taxes go up, small business owners included." - Christopher Carlozzi, Massachusetts State Director of the National Federation of Independent Business, in opposition to Question 1: Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (Learn more)

"A sizable number of people who will be subject to this tax aren't what I'd call perennial millionaires. It would likely capture a lot of one-time millionaires — a person selling their business once in a lifetime, a person selling their family home once in a lifetime — all those people could potentially be captured by this tax hike." - Eileen McAnneny, President of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, in opposition to Question 1: Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (Learn more)

"The surtax's impact on federal tax revenue raises bigger concerns. Every $100 decline in taxable income among millionaires in Massachusetts would reduce federal revenues by as much as $37, depending on the type of income and the adopted tax avoidance strategy. Strikingly, the federal revenue loss, which I estimate to be $1.9 billion, would exceed the revenue gain for Massachusetts. And who would save on their federal tax bill? Millionaires in Massachusetts. Advocates of the surtax may not realize that it would result in some wealthy Massachusetts residents actually paying less total tax than they would have." - Alex Brill, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in opposition to Question 1: Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (Learn more)

Measure Details