AIMBlog_Logo_Resized

John Regan

Recent Posts

Potential Legislative Involvement in Lockout Sets Dangerous Precedent

Posted by John Regan on Nov 2, 2018 8:34:04 AM

Proposed legislation that would penalize National Grid during the ongoing lockout of gas workers represents a troubling – and perhaps unconstitutional – foray by Beacon Hill into a private-sector labor dispute.

State House 2015The bill, called An Act relative to the employment of certain workers by National Grid, would prohibit National Grid from:

  • receiving public funds for the upgrade, repair, installation or maintenance of its gas distribution system
  • applying for funds to assist in paying the costs of gate box maintenance and improvements, or
  • receiving from the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities any increase in its rates for consumer gas or electric distribution.

The bill would also require National Grid to continue to provide health insurance under its expired collective bargaining agreements with Steelworkers Locals 12003 and 12012-04.

The House of Representatives has admitted the bill, but no hearing has been scheduled. The measure is unlikely to pass before January since the Legislature remains in informal session when a single legislator may stop a bill.

National Grid, which provides natural-gas service to 116 Massachusetts communities, has 85 communities impacted by a lockout of 1,250 workers after the Steelworkers rejected a five-year contract offer that will boost the current average employee salary, including overtime, from $120,000 a year to $137,000.

The offer also includes a 10 percent increase in the pension plan for current employees, while new employees would be assigned to a completely company-funded defined contribution plan with a 3 to 9 percent company match, in addition to a regular 401 (k) with a company match. The company’s health insurance proposal would also introduce modest deductibles and coinsurance, which the unions currently do not pay.

Intervention in a private labor dispute is beyond the scope of the Massachusetts Legislature and sets a dangerous precedent for the ability of government to takes sides in negotiations between companies and their workers. If lawmakers interject themselves in the National Grid lockout, what would prevent them from also becoming involved in disputes involving manufacturing, service or technology companies across the commonwealth?

The bill would tread upon and regulate a sphere of private sector collective bargaining that is intended to be unregulated by the U.S. Congress.  As such, the legislation is pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act.  Strikes and lockouts are both federally protected actions.

The federal courts have a long history of pre-empting local and state efforts to shape labor disputes. In 1986, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court pre-empted the Los Angeles City Council’s bid to condition renewal of a taxi license on the resolution of a labor dispute.

The proposal could also violate the United States Constitution because, in targeting National Grid and only National Grid, it constitutes a Bill of Attainder proscribed by Article 1 of the Constitution. 

No one likes labor disputes and AIM joins others in hoping that National Grid and its unions can find common ground soon. That hope should not, however, lead elected officials down the road of political expediency.

Topics: Organized Labor, Massachusetts Legislature, Energy

What is the Biggest Issue Facing Your Business?

Posted by John Regan on Oct 22, 2018 8:00:00 AM

What is the single most important public-policy issue facing your business?

  • The ability to find qualified employees?
  • The accelerating cost and complexity of providing health insurance to your workers?
  • Declining revenue brought about by newly instituted tariffs against China and the European Union?

Small BusinessSounds like an amusing parlor game, but it’s serious business to those of us here at Associated Industries of Massachusetts who develop our policy agendas every two years based upon the needs and concerns of 4,000 member employers.

Hundreds of those employers have already told us about the issues that keep them awake nights by completing the biennial AIM Issues Survey, which will become the basis of the association’s public-policy agenda for 2019-2020. It will also become the basis of an updated version of The Blueprint for the Next Century, our long-term plan for economic growth in Massachusetts.

We expect to hear from hundreds of additional employers more as we move past the November 6 mid-term election and prepare for the new Beacon Hill legislative session that begins in January.

Employer feedback and participation are essential amid an increasingly uncertain political environment both here in Massachusetts and in Washington, DC.  It’s an environment marked by polarization and partisanship, hostility and incivility, and a Twitter-driven, bumper-sticker approach to serious issues.

Employers accustomed to working in a predictable and collaborative political process here in Massachusetts suddenly find themselves demonized by both the left and right in a political food fight in which there are few rules and precious little middle ground. Increasingly radical shifts by the two major parties are eroding long-held centrist ideologies that have framed our nation’s approach to economic growth since the early 20th century.

Moderate, pro-business Democrats in the Massachusetts Legislature face insurgent challenges from progressive activists supporting increased taxes, heavy business regulation and a notion that employers are somehow failing to “pay their fair share.” Now is the time for employers to speak up and articulate their unique role in providing economic opportunity for the people of Massachusetts.

What are employers who have already completed the Issues Survey saying?

“Can we stop making legislative changes at the ballot box?  It is an inefficient way to govern.”

“(The health-care surcharge) tax has placed an incredible financial strain, particularly on smaller to medium-sized businesses, which are already struggling to balance the health care needs of their employees with those that are mandated, but the company may not have the resources available to do.”

“Rising costs to operate in Massachusetts must be addressed.  EMAC, paid family leave, minimum wage - all of these in and of themselves are an issue but piled on it is becoming prohibitive.  We are actively working on efficiency and automation gains that will allow us to reduce the size of our work force, which is not what the commonwealth would like.  We need to recognize that many companies have competitors in other parts of the country where operating costs are not what they are here.” 

 We look forward to hearing from you.

Take the AIM Issues Survey

Topics: Associated Industries of Massachusetts, massachsetts legislature, Issues

Compromise Produces Solid Legislative Scorecard

Posted by John Regan on Oct 3, 2018 1:30:00 PM

A legislative session marked by grand compromises and outside ballot initiatives gave state lawmakers generally solid grades in the 2017-2018 AIM Legislative Scorecard released today.

Scorecard2AIM publishes the Legislative Scorecard at the end of each two-year Beacon Hill session to ensure that employers know legislators’ records on key economic and public-policy issues, and to recognize lawmakers who understand the importance of a vibrant economy for all residents.

The 2017-2018 legislative session was dominated by a wave of ballot initiatives that forced employers and lawmakers to forge a broad compromise establishing paid family and medical leave, increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour and eliminating overtime pay for Sunday retail work.

AIM helped to negotiate the compromise because the proposed ballot questions on those issues were dangerous to business and almost certainly would have passed in a year of unprecedented electoral activism.

A separate potential ballot question establishing a surtax on incomes of more than $1 million died in the face of a court challenge lodged by AIM President Richard Lord and four other prominent business leaders.

And employers struggling to provide good health insurance to their employees remained frustrated at having to pay a $200 million annual assessment to close a budget gap in the MassHealth program for low-income people with no prospect of reforms.

Virtually every member of the House of Representatives earned grades of 60 percent or higher. Eight representatives topped the list at 100 percent, while 36 ended the session at 80 percent.

The ratings were based on five roll-call votes dealing with issues ranging from economic development to energy.

In the Senate, 29 of 36 members posted scores of 50 percent or better, with three senators leading the way at 75 percent. Six senators ended the session at 38 percent and three were at 25 percent.

The Senate scores were based upon many of the same issues debated by the House, as well as additional votes on so-called wage theft.

The Legislative Scorecard selects votes that reflect the objectives of The Blueprint for the Next Century, AIM’s long-term plan for economic prosperity in Massachusetts. The plan maintains that only a vibrant, private-sector economy creates opportunity that binds the social, governmental, and economic foundations of our commonwealth.

The Blueprint contains four specific recommendations against which AIM measures public policy issues:

  1. Develop the best system in the world for educating and training workers with the skills
    needed to allow Massachusetts companies to succeed in a rapidly changing global economy.
  2. Support business formation and expansion by creating a uniformly competitive economic
    structure across all industries, geographic regions and populations, rather than picking
    winners and losers. That structure must include a reliable and efficient transportation system.
  3. Establish a world-class state regulatory system that ensures the health and welfare
    of society in a manner that meets the highest standards of efficiency, predictability, transparency and responsiveness.
  4. Moderate the immense long-term burden that health care and energy costs place on
    business growth.

Should the Legislature resume formal sessions before January, AIM may issue an updated Scorecard.

Topics: Massachusetts Legislature, Massachusetts House of Representatives, Massachusetts senate, Charlie Baker

Baker Signs Energy, Non-Compete Bills; Vetoes Patent Trolling

Posted by John Regan on Aug 13, 2018 8:00:00 AM

Governor Charlie Baker last week signed a clean-energy bill and new rules governing the use of non-compete agreements, but vetoed a “patent-trolling” provision that could have prevented companies from protecting their intellectual property.

Baker.2017The energy bill was among 53 pieces of legislation passed in the waning hours of the formal legislative session that Baker signed on Thursday. His actions on non-competes and patent-trolling, both of which were part of a $1.2 billion economic development bill, came on Friday.

AIM supported the energy measure and the compromise bill on non-competes but opposed the patent-trolling language.

“We are grateful to Governor Baker for thoughtful decisions that will benefit both the business community and the larger community,” said Richard C. Lord, President and Chief Executive Officer of Associated Industries of Massachusetts.

AIM had urged Baker to strike the problematic patent-trolling language from the economic development bill.

“The patent-trolling language contained in the bill pending before you is materially different from the compromise language approved by the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure committee (S.2432),” Lord wrote to Baker early last week.

“The changed language appeared within the final days of the legislative session and has raised significant concerns from employers who believe it may limit the ability of companies to protect intellectual property.”

AIM supported other portions of the economic-development bill ranging from an apprenticeship tax credit to changes to the Economic Development Incentive Program.

The non-compete language signed by Baker mirrors an agreement that AIM and other business groups reached two years ago with House Speaker Robert DeLeo. The measure limits non-competes to one year and gives employees the opportunity to consult a lawyer when signing a non-compete but does not require companies that compensate employees at the time they sign non-competes to pay them again during the restricted period.

The new energy bill authorizes an additional procurement of offshore wind power, increases the renewable portfolio standard that governs the amount of clean energy utilities must purchase, and establishes an energy storage target. The renewable portfolio standard will increase by one percent until the end of 2019, then by two percent each year until the end of 2029. It would then set the state on a track of one-percent increases each year thereafter.

Topics: Charlie Baker, Non-Compete Agreements, Energy, Patent Trolling

Beacon Hill Passes Energy, Non-Compete Bills; No Agreement on Health Measure

Posted by John Regan on Aug 1, 2018 8:16:11 AM

The Massachusetts Legislature ended its 2017-2018 formal session last night by mandating increased use of clean energy, establishing limits on the use of non-compete agreements and curbing the practice of “patent trolling.”

statehousedome1Lawmakers meanwhile were unable to reach agreement on a massive health-care bill that had generated concern among employers because it leveled assessments on medical providers and insurers that would eventually be passed on to consumers. The bill also contained no reform of the MassHealth program even as employers contribute $200 million per year to close a budget gap in the health-insurance program for low-income people.

Beacon Hill lawmakers crossed the finish line early this morning after a frenetic day that saw passage of bills covering everything from economic development to opioid care.

Governor Charlie Baker now has 10 days to review all the legislation. AIM will consult with member employers on the issues before recommending that the governor sign or veto each measure.

The new energy law authorizes an additional procurement of offshore wind power, increases the renewable portfolio standard that governs the amount of clean energy utilities must purchase, and establishes an energy storage target.

The compromise calls for the renewable portfolio standard to increase by one percent until the end of 2019, then by two percent each year until the end of 2029. It would then set the state on a track of one-percent increases each year thereafter.

Associated Industries of Massachusetts had supported a measured approach that would neither harm ratepayers nor elbow out other zero-carbon generation such as hydro-electric power. AIM supports the final bill.

“H.4857 An Act to Advance Clean Energy constructively builds upon the success of last year’s omnibus energy legislation,” said Robert Rio, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at AIM.

“By following this measured approach, Massachusetts avoids disrupting the energy sector by making significant changes to programs that are themselves in the middle of being finalized. AIM feared that course would have delayed our effectiveness in meeting our greenhouse gas reduction goals.

“The measure will continue our aggressive transition from fossil fuels to a zero-carbon future while at the same time recognizing the importance of cost on Massachusetts ratepayers.”

(Contact Rio at rrio@aimnet.org or 617.262.1180 to learn more.)

The law governing use of non-competes, included in an economic development bill, mirrors a compromise that AIM and other business groups reached two years ago with House Speaker Robert DeLeo. The measure limits non-competes to one year and gives employees the opportunity to consult a lawyer when signing a non-compete but does not require companies that compensate employees at the time they sign non-competes to pay them again during the restricted period.

“AIM has fought relentlessly for more than 11 years on behalf the vast majority of Massachusetts employers who wish to preserve the use of non-competes to protect intellectual property. The new bill accomplishes that goal and reflects the productive compromise brokered two years ago by the speaker,” said Brad MacDougall, Vice President of Government Affairs.

The economic development bill also contains a provision to limit the practice of patent trolling, in which third parties demand financial settlements for alleged infringement on patents they do not even own. AIM maintains concerns about the language of the provision because some employers may be unable to engage in legitimate protection of their intellectual property amid an avalanche of state litigation.

“The language of the bill is materially different from the compromise language previously approved by the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure,” MacDougall said.

“This is an important and legally complex issue, one that should be addressed by federal law.  However, given Congress’ failure to act, if Massachusetts is to establish a policy, we need to get right for our AIM members who are victims of patent trolls and patent holders.”

(Sign up for future updates here on non-compete and patent legislation, or contact MacDougall at bmacdougall@aimnet.org or 617-262-1180 to learn more.)

The demise of the health-care bill turned on differing approaches by the House and Senate to capitalizing community hospitals. 

House Majority Leader Ronald Mariano told the State House News Service early this morning, "We were just too far apart philosophically to a come to a resolution that fit our agenda."

The Quincy Democrat said the House was focused on trying to find a way to financially stabilize community hospitals in the short-term with assessments on insurers and large hospitals, while he said the Senate "wanted a market driven approach." "We just thought we couldn't wait," Mariano said.

Katie Holahan, Vice President of Government Affairs at AIM, said, the lack of agreement on health care reflects the enormous complexity of the issue. She said AIM and its employer-members will continue to work with the Legislature to find ways to moderate the cost that companies face in providing health coverage for employees.

“While final action was not taken on major health-care legislation, we remain gravely concerned that – without long-term reform to MassHealth and the commercial market – Massachusetts’ health-care costs will continue to increase unchecked. Until reform is achieved, no relief is in sight for employers and their workers seeking to access care at a reasonable cost,Holahan said.

The conclusion of formal sessions on July 31 of even-numbered years generally means the end of the line for controversial bills. Lawmakers will meet for the remainder of 2018 in informal sessions, when a single lawmaker may stop any measure with an objection.

(Contact Holahan at kholahan@aimnet.org or 617.262.1180 for more information.)

Topics: Massachusetts Legislature, Non-Compete Agreements, Energy, Health Care

Health Care, Energy, Non-Competes on Table in Final Days for Legislature

Posted by John Regan on Jul 30, 2018 9:12:20 AM

Beacon Hill lawmakers will complete their version of final-exam week Tuesday at midnight as the Legislature races to complete bills before the end of formal meetings for 2017-2018 Beacon Hill session.

State House 2015The conclusion of formal sessions on July 31 of even-numbered years generally means the end of the line for controversial bills. Lawmakers will meet for the remainder of 2018 in informal sessions, when a single lawmaker may stop any measure with an objection.

The most important issues to employers have already been resolved in advance of this year’s end-of-session rush. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last month invalidated a potential income-tax surcharge constitutional amendment, while negotiations over three other ballot questions produced agreement on a compromise paid family and medical leave law, as well as a minimum-wage increase.

Three key employer issues remain on the table during the waning hours of debate:

  • Health care reform – The House and Senate passed different versions of health reform and a conference committee is working to hammer out a consensus bill. AIM remains concerned about both bills because they include expensive assessment. Neither bill reforms the MassHealth program for low income residents, where employers are paying a $200 million assessment to close a funding gap.
  • Energy – Measures passed by both the House and Senate could significantly increase the percentage of clean-source electricity used by Massachusetts consumers. AIM believes the bills could have the perverse effect of squeezing out clean hydro power and interrupting the successful roll-out of the 2016 energy law.
  • Non-compete agreements – The Senate, as part of an economic development bill, largely adopted the same modest restrictions on non-competes that AIM and other business groups supported two years ago as part of a compromise with House Speaker Robert DeLeo. But deep-pocketed venture capitalists continue to press for an outright ban and prospects for passage remain uncertain.

Employers also received some good news last week when Governor Charlie Baker signed the budget for the fiscal year that began July 1. The budget authorizes the administration to develop a hardship waiver for employers liable for the MassHealth surtax. Details remain to be developed.

The budget also provided full funding for the Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership.

Please contact me at 617.262.1180, or jregan@aimnet.org if you need more information on any of these issues. 

Topics: Massachusetts Legislature, Non-Compete Agreements, Energy, Controlling Health Care Costs

The Unintended Consequences of Energy Legislation

Posted by John Regan on Jul 16, 2018 11:53:29 AM

Listen as AIM Senior Vice President Robert Rio talks to the CommonWealth Codcast about  why focusing only on renewable power makes it harder for Massachusetts to reach its clean energy goals. 

Topics: Energy, Massachusetts Legislature

'Grand Bargain' Reached on Paid Leave, Minimum Wage, Sales Tax

Posted by John Regan on Jun 20, 2018 11:18:45 AM

The Massachusetts Legislature will today consider a sweeping compromise between the business community and progressive groups on the issues of paid family and medical leave, minimum wage and a reduction of the state sales tax. 

StateHouse-resized-600The so-called “grand bargain” follows months of negotiations among employers, labor unions, community groups and legislators seeking to eliminate three potential November ballot questions – one asking voters to approve paid leave, a second to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour and a third to reduce the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 5 percent.

Debate on the compromise comes two days after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court disallowed a proposed constitutional amendment that would have imposed a surtax on incomes of more than $1 million and earmarked the money for transportation and education.

“AIM has worked diligently under difficult circumstances to get the best deal possible for Massachusetts employers on all three issues,” said Richard C. Lord, President and Chief Executive Officer of AIM.  “We commend the representatives of the Raise Up Coalition, other business groups, and the members of the General Court for working long and hard to reach an agreement.”

“While everyone gives something during a negotiation, we are satisfied and believe that our member employers are better off with a legislative compromise than with voter approval of the language of the ballot questions as drafted.” 

The compromise will phase in mandated paid family and medical leave over three years for all Massachusetts employers. AIM and other business groups negotiated reductions in the duration of family leave from 16 weeks in the proposed ballot question to 12 weeks, and of personal medical leave from 26 weeks to 20 weeks.

The cost of the program may be split between employers and workers, though the sharing arrangements are different based upon the type of leave and the size of a company.

More importantly, the compromise includes an opt-out provision for employers with programs that offer benefits greater than or equal to what an employee would receive in the state program.

Workers on paid leave will earn 80 percent of their wages up to 50 percent of the state average weekly wage, then 50 percent of wages above that amount, up to an $850 cap.

The compromise envisions that the Retailers Association of Massachusetts will drop its proposed ballot question on reducing the sales tax. In return, the compromise will phase out the requirement that retail workers earn time-and-a half for working on Sundays; create a permanent, two-day sales tax holiday; and will not include an automatic indexing provision of the minimum wage, currently $11 per hour and increasing to $15 per hour over five years.

The negotiations were carried out against the backdrop of polls indicating overwhelming support for all three ballot questions, not surprising given that the proposals appeared to offer something for nothing. Recent polls put support for the paid family and medical leave question at 82 percent and support for a $15 minimum wage at 78 percent.

Experts believe that a campaign to defeat questions with those sorts of poll numbers could cost $10 million per initiative. The ballot process is one-sided, winner-take-all. Coming to a legislative compromise avoids that by allowing a broader group of people to have input into key decisions to create policies that work for everyone.

AIM’s objectives for the negotiations were clear:

  • Encourage a legislative compromise that is balanced and fair, and that protects a strong Massachusetts economy.
  • Create programs that are accountable, have strong controls, and allow employers the flexibility to offer benefits that will attract and retain their employees.

Topics: Mandated Paid Leave, Minimum Wage, tax

Looking for Employees? Evacuees from Puerto Rico are Looking for Work

Posted by John Regan on May 3, 2018 8:30:00 AM

AIM is working with the Baker Administration to assist the thousands of people who fled hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico to live in Massachusetts - people who are ready to go to work for Bay State employers who have struggled to find workers in a full-employment economy.

HurricaneMariaMore than 140 people who left Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria destroyed the island in September have already been hired by Massachusetts companies, including several AIM members. Many of the evacuees have work experience in office and administration, sales and related fields, food preparation and serving, transportation and moving materials, education/library, landscaping, production, management, and health-care related occupations.

The largest group of evacuees is found in Springfield, Holyoke and rest of Hampden County. Other significant populations have settled in Great New Bedford, central Massachusetts and the Merrimack Valley.

The state’s network of one-stop career centers is coordinating efforts to secure employment and housing for people relocated from Puerto Rico. The career centers are also working with the evacuees on issues such as work readiness, English-language skills and conversion of specific licenses for professional occupations such as nursing, social work and cosmetology.

The list of AIM-member employers who have already hired Puerto Rican evacuees include DeMoulas Market Basket, MassMutual, Packaging Corporation of America, Staples and Walmart.

Category 4 Hurricane Maria caused an estimated $94 billion in damage when it struck Puerto Rico on September 20. The storm left more than one million people without power and prompted more than 250,000 island residents to relocate to the continental United States.

Employers interested in hiring evacuees may contact Massachusetts Undersecretary for Workforce Development, Jennifer James, at 617.626.7124.

Topics: Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Skills Gap, Massachusetts economy

Income Tax Surcharge Would Harm Business

Posted by John Regan on Jun 14, 2017 2:07:38 PM

We call ourselves a commonwealth.

From the preamble of the Massachusetts Constitution:

“The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people.”

This notion, affirmed in the language of Article XLIV of the Constitution, states that taxes “shall be levied at a uniform rate throughout the commonwealth upon incomes derived from the same class of property.” Everyone is treated the same.

Now the Legislature is considering a petition to amend the language of Article XLIV in a manner that would increase by 80 percent the taxes paid on incomes in excess of $1 million, adjusted annually by the same method used for federal income tax brackets to reflect any cost-of-living increases. According to the ballot question language, every dollar of income more than $1 million would face a tax of 9.1 percent.

Those earning $1 million of income per year currently pay 95 percent more tax than those making $50,000 annually - an income of $50,000 generates a tax obligation of $2,550, while the $1 million dollar income generates $51,000 of income tax (all things being equal).

Some additional facts to note:

  • This significant new tax burden will fall on individuals and certain business entities paying taxes at the individual rate. It is hard to imagine that this new obligation will not impede investment, employment, and certain locational decisions.
  • The Department of Revenue estimates (with some assumptions) that the proposal will generate between $1.6 billion to $2.2 billion, with $1.9 billion identified as the median.
  • The $1.9 billion tax increase will be paid by roughly 19,500 filers, 80 percent of whom are anticipated to file with some business income.
  • Those 19,500 filers represent half of 1 percent of all tax returns filed with the Department of Revenue.
  • Eighty-six percent of the affected taxpayers will be married couples filing jointly, and 11 percent will be individual filers with earnings of more than $1 million.

Advocates for this constitutional amendment focus on the revenue derived therefrom rather than the uneven or inequitable method of its generation. The amendment requires that generated revenues shall be used:

“…to provide the resources for quality public education and affordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation, all revenues received in accordance with this paragraph shall be expended, subject to appropriation, only for these purposes.”

However, Section 2 of Article XLVIII of the Constitution clearly enumerates so-called “Excluded Matters” by stating in part: “No measure… that makes a specific appropriation of money from the treasury of the commonwealth shall be proposed by an initiative petition…” For a petition to be constitutionally valid, the Legislature must retain the ability to use tax revenues for any public purpose the Legislature deems appropriate.

It follows that a “yes” vote necessarily diminishes the authority and responsibility invested in the members of the Massachusetts General Court. Our Constitution gives members of the House and Senate the sole authority to authorize how tax revenues are appropriated. Any assertion by the petition's proponents about limiting how the money is used is folly and prohibited by the Constitution. By passing the amendment, legislators abdicate their constitutionally protected authority.

The 4,000 member employers of Associated Industries of Massachusetts therefore urge a “No” vote on this measure.

Before we approve a policy that raises so much from so few we must ask – does this imbalance make the commonwealth a better, or a worse place?

We would suggest that it makes Massachusetts an unfair place.

Topics: Income Surtax, Taxes

Subscribe to our blog

Posts by popularity

Browse by Tag