Demoralized. That’s the best word to describe the reaction of advocates for the so-called Millionaires Tax measure, which was dealt a massive blow on Monday.
The state’s Supreme Judicial Court— in a 5-2 ruling— agreed with the pro-business groups that had banded together and sued to stop the referendum from appearing on the ballot this fall. If it had been allowed, and if voters had supported the measure, the state Constitution would then be amended to impose a 4 percent surtax on annual household incomes of over $1 million, with the associated revenue dedicated to education and transportation.
Lew Finfer, one of the leading local advocates for the surtax measure, is a Dorchester organizing legend who has spent the last few years gathering signatures, button-holing lawmakers, and rallying the troops in support of the measure. On Monday, he did not pull punches in his characterization of the SJC decision.
“Losing the chance to pass the Millionaires Tax means we lost ‘a chance of a generation’ to get significant revenues for education and transportation,” he wrote. “The loss of this money will deprive thousands of students from Dorchester from getting a better education, deprive young adults from having more affordable state colleges, keep 20,000 people on the waiting lists for ESL, not enable people to get job training, not help fix our roads, and keep the MBTA better maintained and more affordable.
“This is a huge blow to all low to moderate income people and communities and again especially to people of color,” he added.
Polls show that most Massachusetts voters were poised to agree with Lew— at least when it came to the merits of raising revenues. A Suffolk University poll of 500 likely voters conducted earlier this month found more than 66 percent in favor of the surtax, according to the State House News Service. As Finfer notes, the measure also withstood the grueling legislative process of consecutive Constitutional conventions— a requisite for a measure such as this.
So, what’s left on the table after the SJC ruling?
According to one estimate by the state Department of Revenue, roughly $1.9 billion a year in new revenue. It’s worth noting that opponents say that figure would decrease if – as they argue – large companies left the state to flee the higher taxes on their executives. But whatever extra revenue it did generate would have been directed specifically to common goals, such as “fixing” the MBTA, a constant appeal by taxpayers and corporate interests who agree that the state’s aging infrastructure hurts our economy.
Finfer and his like-minded advocates are right: This is a huge missed opportunity for the state to capitalize on our current churn of growth and wealth to make smart investments that could have kept that train chugging along for future residents.
– Bill Forry
