By BRIDGET TURCOTTE
SAUGUS — Two local Republican state representatives are opposed to a November 2018 state ballot question that would allow an additional tax on millionaires.
“My main reason for voting against the ‘Millionaire Tax’ is because there is no way of guaranteeing that the money will go directly to education and transportation,” said state Rep. Donald Wong (R-Saugus). “Some people say that it’s unconstitutional to make specific appropriations of the money. But if you already broke the Constitution to have a ‘Millionaire Tax,’ why can’t you then break the Constitution to appropriate the money.”
The Massachusetts Tax for Education and Transportation, known commonly as a millionaire’s tax, would create an additional 4 percent tax on residents whose incomes exceed $1 million, or $21,000 per week.
The state currently assesses all residents’ income at a flat rate of 5.1 percent, and capital gains at a 12 percent rate.
House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading), who represents Lynnfield, cited concerns about the ballot question’s constitutionality, as well as lingering questions about how the additional tax revenues will be allocated.
“The Millionaire Tax is being promoted as a means of securing additional funding for public education and transportation, two areas which I consider to be worthy of the state’s spending priorities,” said Jones. “However, I am still not convinced the ballot question will actually achieve this goal, and my fear is that even if the initiative passes next year, it may not result in any net increase in spending for our schools or our transportation infrastructure.”
The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) estimated the tax hike could generate as much as $2.2 billion annually. DOR said fewer than 20,000 taxpayers, or less than 1 percent of tax filers, would be affected by the change.
The proposal was approved on a 134-55 vote during a joint session of the House and Senate earlier this month, which sends it to the November ballot. It received initial approval during last year’s Constitutional Convention, where it passed on a vote of 135-57.
In addition to concerns about its Constitutionality, Wong said he fears there is no way to guarantee that the money will be spent on education and transportation.
Although the state Constitution explicitly prohibits any amendment that “makes a specific appropriation of money,” the ballot proposal attempts to designate the money as “subject to appropriation” by the Legislature, Wong said. The money collected through the surtax would be placed in the General Fund, then the Legislature would determine how it would be allocated, he said.
Adam Swift contributed to this report. Bridget Turcotte can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @BridgetTurcotte.