AIMBlog_Logo_Resized

John Regan

Recent Posts

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: Non-Compete Agreements, Energy, Charlie Baker, 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, Controlling Health Care Costs, Non-Compete Agreements, Energy

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: Massachusetts Legislature, Energy

'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: Minimum Wage, Mandated Paid Leave, 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: Skills Gap, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, 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: Taxes, Income Surtax

Paid Leave Proposals Not Reasonable or Manageable

Posted by John Regan on Jun 13, 2017 1:00:00 PM

Editor’s Note: The following testimony opposing paid leave was delivered to the State House by AIM today. The testimony was provided to the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development regarding HB 2172 and SB 1048.

My name is John R. Regan, Executive Vice President of Government Affairs for Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM.); the state’s largest nonprofit, nonpartisan association of Massachusetts’ employers.

StateHouse-resized-600.pngWith thousands of members employing nearly one out of every five workers in Massachusetts, AIM’s mission is to promote the well-being of its members and the prosperity of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by improving the economic climate, proactively advocating fair and equitable public policy, and providing relevant, reliable information and excellent services.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our testimony today.

We respectfully ask that HB 2172, SB 1048, and any similar bills receive adverse reports from this Committee.

We agree with the proponents of these bills that Massachusetts’ citizens need to balance the needs of work and family. In fact, according to the 2016 AIM Benefit Survey, 87% of responding companies offer short-term disability to their employees with benefits ranging from 51 to 70% salary replacement; 79% offer long-term disability insurance and 59% have a leave of absence policy, all in addition to the leave benefits under FMLA.

However, we do not agree, and do not believe, that the legislation before you is a reasonable, manageable, or affordable approach to address those needs, either from an employee or employer perspective.

Last session, we asked a series of questions that we would like to ask this Committee again.

We strongly believe that the Committee should have answers to each of these questions before any bill can be reasonably released from your consideration. (For this portion of our testimony, we will be using section references to the language of Senate 1048. Similar language and concepts are found in the House bill as well.)

  • Section 2, of the proposed new Chapter 175M, creates a new office within the Executive Office of Labor will be created to administer the new leave program for the Commonwealth; does the Committee know the costs associated with this new office?1
  • Sections 3 & 4 creates the benefit durations and levels of wage replacement for the leave program; does the Committee know what the estimated take-up rate is for individuals taking both the maternity leave and disability leave? For cost estimating purposes, take-up rates per program are critical to know.
  • Further, what is the Committee’s estimate of the total program costs incurred by employers and the Commonwealth for administering this program and providing these new benefits?2
  • In Section 8, the director of the fund is charged with “assessing” the tax to fund this new program. Is this Committee aware of any precedent for the creation of this type program as well as the power to set and raise revenue by a non-elected individual? Are we sure that this is constitutional?
  • The director will become responsible for numerous operational duties in managing the funds related to this bill. Is there a cost estimate for this function?
  • In addition, has anyone determined what the tax assessment per employee might be for this program and, if so, could we see that analysis?3
  • Lastly, the bill requires that claims for family and medical leave benefits shall be filed with the department and handled under the procedures prescribed in sections 1, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 of chapter 30A. Is there an estimate of the number of claims to be adjudicated and the costs for that process?4

The terms of this legislation are far-reaching. Although the initial implementation in January of 2019 would require 50% salary replacement levels, that level is increased to 90% by January of 2021 and the average weekly wage is then tied to the Consumer Price Index for the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy consolidated metropolitan statistical area. Not only is this an extraordinarily high rate of compensation, but it also derives the wage rate from on the area of the Commonwealth with the most expensive cost of living. This will not accurately reflect the economic complexity of different areas in Massachusetts, placing an undue burden on employers and employees living in less costly areas.

Of late, many have wondered why with a recovered economy and lower unemployment rates Massachusetts own-source revenue continues to fall below even relatively conservative benchmark levels. One reason cited by our members is lack of wage growth.

According to the Pew Charitable Trust, personal income growth in Massachusetts has only grown by 2.0% since Q4 of 2007.5 Employers in the Commonwealth are faced with considerable non-wage job costs for health care, unemployment insurance, workers compensation insurance, and other Massachusetts-only high costs, like electricity rates. Combine these with higher than average base wage costs, and you restrict employers’ ability to raise wages in a manner similar to other post-recessionary recovery periods.

Inevitably and necessarily, this lack of wage growth affects tax revenue growth for Massachusetts.

A new, and expensive paid family and medical leave program, as envisioned by these bills, will contribute to a diminished pool from which to fund additional jobs and additional wage growth.

Register for the Paid Leave Webinar

Topics: Employment Law, Mandated Paid Leave, Paid Family Leave

The Constitutional Amendment Tax Trap - Myths and Facts, Part 4

Posted by John Regan on Jun 13, 2017 9:08:03 AM

Editor's note - Beacon HIll lawmakers will vote on Wednesday whether to place on the 2018 statewide ballot a proposed constitutional amendement that would impose a four percentage-point surtax (an 80 percent increase) on incomes of more than $1 million. AIM opposes the Constitutional Amendment Tax Trap and will look at the myths and facts surrounding the issue each day through Wednesday.

Myth: High income earners in Massachusetts are not paying their “fair share” to support the cost of state government programs and investments.

Fact: The existing Massachusetts income tax is highly progressive, with the highest income earners paying the highest share of taxes and the highest effective tax rates.

According to data from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, the top 20 percent of earners already pay 73 percent of all the income taxes paid to the state. (The top 1 percent of earners alone account for 28 percent of all income taxes paid.) Furthermore, the top 20 percent of earners had an average effective tax rate of 4.7 percent, nearly double the average effective rates paid by the lowest 40 percent of earners.

Share.jpg

 

Myth: The proposal will help to narrow wealth and income gaps and enhance our status as a true “commonwealth.”

Fact: The proposal is intentionally divisive and misleading. Special interest groups are using the popular vote and their ability to spend unlimited campaign funds to advance their own narrow self-interests by targeting a minority of citizens to foot the bill.

The proposal will not increase any citizen’s income, lower anyone’s tax rate, provide any new tax credit or deduction or provide any guaranteed benefit to anyone. There is no guarantee the revenue raised will benefit lower income citizens-or any citizen at any income level in any way.

Topics: Taxes, Income Surtax

The Constitutional Amendment Tax Trap - Myths and Facts, Part 3

Posted by John Regan on Jun 12, 2017 2:32:49 PM

Editor's note - Beacon HIll lawmakers will vote on Wednesday whether to place on the 2018 statewide ballot a proposed constitutional amendement that would impose a four percentage-point surtax (an 80 percent increase) on incomes of more than $1 million. AIM opposes the Constitutional Amendment Tax Trap and will look at the myths and facts surrounding the issue each day through Wednesday.

Myth: Without new tax revenue, Massachusetts’ economy will suffer.

Craneandworkerssmall.jpgFact: Massachusetts is thriving right now and our economy is expanding. Unemployment rates remain low and state tax revenues are at an all-time high.

During the past 20 years, Massachusetts has taken positive steps to shed much of its “Taxachusetts” moniker and high-tax brand. Adoption of the proposed tax increase would be a damaging step backward for the state. It will send the wrong message to many job creators and entrepreneurs: namely if you come to Massachusetts and succeed, we’ll punish you.

Myth: The new tax will help stabilize and strengthen the state’s financial foundation.

Fact: The proposal would inject significant instability into the state’s finances by adding billions of dollars in new, permanent special-interest spending to the state budget based upon on a volatile, non-recurring revenue stream.

Other states that have made the same mistake have found themselves in dire budgetary crises when estimated revenue failed to materialize. This year, Connecticut budget makers saw anticipated tax revenues drop by a staggering $450 million, putting the lie to a long history of promises that new and additional taxes on high income earners would solve the state’s fiscal challenges.

On April 28, Connecticut’s Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy was forced to acknowledge the state’s failed policy of trying to support ever-increasing state spending a too-narrow group of high income earners, publicly admitting "Connecticut is too dependent on our highest-income earners for our revenue.”

(Sources: Maryland Public Policy Institute; Hartford Courant 4.28.17)

Myth: Impacted taxpayers will remain in Massachusetts and pay the increased taxes.

Fact: The recent experiences of other states indicate that retirees and high-income earners often relocate to lower tax states in response to increased taxes.

Within three years of Maryland enacting its “millionaire tax,” 40 percent of the state’s seven-figure earners were gone from the tax rolls - and so was $1.7 billion from the state tax base.

Similarly, in 2010 Boston College researchers released a report on the migration of wealthy households to and from New Jersey. They concluded that wealthier New Jersey households did in fact consider the high-earner taxes when deciding whether to move to or remain in New Jersey.

The researchers’ data analysis found that from 1999 to 2003 - before the millionaires’ tax was imposed- there was a net influx of $98 billion in household wealth into the state. After the tax was implemented, an increasing number of wealthy families left the state, resulting in a loss of $70 billion in wealth.

(Source: Wall Street Journal, 2.7.12; Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College)

Topics: Taxes, Income Surtax

Subscribe to our blog

Posts by popularity

Browse by Tag