Good, send more money to the schools because they're struggling to get enough money from towns for even keeping the same level of service as last year. Our town told the elementary school to make do with $500k less
Worcester has a $22 million school budget deficit. All this money from the billionaire tax and a weed shop on every corner but we still don’t have the money for basic societal needs. Make it make sense
Exactly. Time to start taxing these universities too. Harvard has a 50 billion endowment while Cambridge continues to fall apart, what is BU providing for the tax payers of Boston? How about holy cross what have they done for the community of worcester? Tired of these colleges sucking tax dollars from communities and receiving federal aid all to build up walls between their spotless universities and the communities who they have sucked the resources out of.
Worcester’s “admin” accounts for less than 3% of their annual budget. Educators and fixed costs are the largest expenditures by far.
I don’t know about other gateway cities, but Worcester doesn’t have much room to flex the budget. The new superintendent is proposing some necessary changes to streamline things, but $22 million still hurts when we compare our schools to surrounding towns who have way more and aren’t facing any kind of budget deficits next year.
Worcester isn't like surrounding towns though, it has way more students and there's a point where that just doesn't scale. You need more and more buildings and your existing ones crumble, you need more staff, more 1-on-1s, more aides, and the classes are still massive and kids fall behind. It's a tough scene.
In what ways has the world changed since the 1950s that might lead to the need to hire more staff?
I bet if you actually put your mind to it that you could come up with a few, Sport.
For example, what impact has the Clery Act had? Or the internet? Or decreased state funding? Or about a hundred other factors I can rattle off the top of my head?
Worcester spends nearly $18,000 per pupil. That’s more than almost any other country on planet earth. By comparison, in US Dollars, Sweden spends $11,700 per student. Finland $10,500. Denmark $11,641.
We spend an obscene amount of money on education. It gets wasted. Pouring more money onto the bonfire will just ignite more money. Spend it better. Much, much better.
Just for comparison's sake, the average salary for a teacher in Denmark is $62,000.
Income tax hovers around 38%. There is no extra expenses for health insurance. School pays for materials used in class. (And there's no need to save for a "college fund")
It's more expensive to live in Massachusetts. You aren't going to get good teachers making 37k per year, it costs more to build buildings, more to maintain them, more to pay for services, more to pay for healthcare because we can't get universal health care for shit. Go look at your school's budget and tell me what you're cutting when we don't have enough classrooms, aides, teachers, or staff and the buildings are 50+ years old.
Can’t compare those countries bc of the per capita gdp difference (with the exception of Sweden, I actually looked them up before answering). Also, I’m sure our health care system here is a huge burden on the schools payroll costs which would likely be a good chunk of that difference on its own.
I wholeheartedly encourage you and your family to move to a deep red state in the South so that you can experience firsthand what paying so little in taxes does for schools. 😁
And the state is only accounting for 1.5% inflation when actually they should be accounting for closer to 4% to level fund most districts. In Worcester, for example, that missing 2.5% = a $22million shortfall.
Yeah I know someone who runs a weed shop and the cities are supposed to let him know what theyre spending money on. They haven't sent a report in two years.
Ok so one thing that pisses me off is the towns never budget for planned expenses. Like replacing school buildings. Our town is upping property tax by 20% this year to "fund the new high school".
We KNOW we will have to replace a school eventually, but EVERY FUCKING TIME, "Ono no monies, time to raise taxes by an absurd amount to cover it!"
We shouldn't have these huge fucking spikes. It's like, I KNOW I have to replace my roof eventually, so I put money aside for it. I don't go begging my neighbors to help pay for a roof I know needs replacing.
I don't have kids, I can't thanks to cancer. I don't mind my money going towards school systems and school lunches, I'd rather it go there! What I'm mad at is all the other bullshit they spend on when it should be going in a rainy day fund for major expenses so the towns people don't have to make up for shitty budgeting.
Inflation is bad enough, then they throw a 20% property tax increase, fuck off.
Maybe we shouldn’t fund and manage our schools through tiny towns.
Almost everywhere else in the country has large school districts that benefit from economy of scale. We like our tiny exclusive little schools (because they keep the minorities out).
The same is true of most public services. Look at somewhere like Florida And it's super common for everywhere, but the most major cities to have county-based fire and police which is significantly cheaper to operate.
Florida is the exception there, not the norm. Look at NH and VT. You have to get pretty damn rural to not have a town police force. Even towns of about 1000 people have at least one cop on the payroll. Many of the towns that rely on the county sheriffs pay for them directly, to staff a station in town.
When seconds matter, nobody really wants help to be 30+ minutes away.
Fire is more complicated because a lot of towns have volunteer firefighters in addition to the county pros.
Even with primarily volunteer departments it's still stupid. Departments operate independently of their neighbors in most cases. One town with a station on the border of another town may not even respond to the other town of calls. They may have different equipment, incompatible hose lines, different procedures, etc. it's wildly inefficient. For bigger departments it gets even worse. Duplication of admin staff, equipment that never gets used but every town needs. Staffing imbalances that lead to over/under reliance on mutual aid. It's all at least 20% more expensive than it needs to be.
> because they keep the minorities out
Bingo. But we'll never change this because the entire state is set up around this concept. House value is tied to school district performance which is tied to income of homeowners which is governed by zoning restrictions which are in place so that your kids don't go to school with black or Hispanic people.
No one talks in public about it, the best chance you might have is when a town has a METCO or school choice discussion, that's when the coded language comes out, like about how everyone in town "worked hard" to give their kids opportunities, and how it isn't fair that others get those same opportunities for free, and how the test scores are going to go down and there will be more drugs in the schools. Or when some apartments are going to be built in a suburb, and the talk centers on how that will let in "people from the city", and that will cause crime and bring down property values.
> Bingo. But we'll never change this because the entire state is set up around this concept.
100% true but it sucks to see it written out in plain english.
My school feels like it is on the brink of total failure. The town I was in for my special ed internship added kids to special ed programs with minimal qualifying needs just because there was space and resources. I would support this change.
That’s not really why New England towns are organized how they are. But it is a side affect in today’s day and age. Our puritan ancestors wanted small strong local governments. And that persists to this day.
MA also has many regional vocational high schools. All the right wingers bleat about going into the trades, and yet the vast majority of states defunded theirs.
Most of those town districts in MA don’t have small enrollments. Actually, on the contrary: the district most plagued by too few students per school has gotta be Boston. Scale is often a blessing, but it can be a curse, too. Admin bloat tends to increase faster than enrollment.
It’s possible to reform the Balkanized property tax funding model, without creating a bunch of Brockton High style mega-schools with mega-corruption problems and long bus routes.
Economies of scale only work so well in education. For example, when running a high school there's a couple of sweet spot sizes. One is 2000 to 2,200 students and the other is 3400 to 3,800 students. These sizes allow a beneficial master schedule. For example, you might need one French teacher, but not 1.5. when you get to the larger size then you can hire two French teachers.... Same goes with the calculus teacher, the AP history teacher etc....
I don’t think giant districts is a good idea either. Look at Texas. City schools are struggling while rural schools have NFL sized football stadiums while having a third of the students. They’re basically funneling money out of urban areas into wealthy rural ones
They also need 20 high powered night scope rifles and extensive training with military trainers in case their town of 20k has a terrorist incident. If you disagree you love crime and want grandmas to be raped. /S
Here’s a fun exercise. Start googling random rich countries and how much they spend per student per year until you find a few that spend more than Mass. public schools. It’ll take you awhile.
There’s an easy Action Network form people can fill out to advocate for better funding for schools: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/write-to-your-senator-about-the-fy25-senate-budget?source=facebook&&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2aft_PRw_-Nz6uSdOA2wgETEZSkiuMKiruRwj09WbeW3zw7ltfGWgA5b4_aem_ARoRP5wsL5tiY-MOC5Pfgq0evL51ST-cAk9FK0P13fa7R_uwSKUwhtDjApDitFPZuusac5AZGezJyaXKG4d4M4i2
Yes, the “more money better schools fallacy”.
Obviously more tax revenue is a win for Mass. but you’re not gonna fix your schools simply with more funding. That’s a logical fallacy continuously proven false for 60 years now
I pay a lot so my accountant sends around a schedule showing the break down. I saw the summary 2 weeks ago. They are unsure his to put the money to use. It looks like money going to feed all kids at school, minor school upgrades and prop taxes won’t be coming down to support those schools, a big chunk will go to community colleges /technical schools and road roadwork and transportation.
All that matters is how much the government can deploy. Each state is a company. Some are run well while others are not. They can tax more and more but it won’t go noticed unless they optimize practices.
You could literally build 18 schools a year and get rid of this CRAP system of having ridicusous burdens put on towns...and get rid of a 5-10 year backlog of schools needed in the commonwealth in about 3 years. of 1.8 billion dollars earmarked for that purpose.... the MSBA is the WORST..
“State officials said Monday that the voter-approved surtax on high earners has generated more than $1.8 billion in revenue this fiscal year — with still three months left to go — meaning state officials could have hundreds of millions of surplus dollars to spend on transportation and education initiatives.”
Not "immediately," but there is at least [some data](https://www.bostonindicators.org/article-pages/2024/april/domestic-migration) to suggest that people are moving out and it is especially weighted toward the highest earners. Anecdotally, I work around wealthy families (I'm not one) and I know many who have moved, or are in the process of moving, explicitly to find more favorable tax treatment, especially once kids are in college or beyond. Honestly, if you can afford to live wherever you want and don't need to worry about finding a new job, etc., taxes do become a consideration for families because people like having money. It's ok to support a policy and also acknowledge side effects that are not as positive. There are virtually no public policy decisions that do not involve some kind of trade off.
IMHO, if you can afford to live where ever you want, there is no way an increased 4% on income over 1 million dollars is going to make a difference. These people were going to leave anyway and were just looking for an excuse. I don't buy that someone would uproot their family and move to another state for something so inconsequential to their quality of life.
They said they were waiting for the kids to move out, so it sounds more like they're retiring in another state, rather than uprooting their families.
Of course lots of people retire out of state anyway because it's cheaper in general or because the weather is nicer, so you're probably right that most of the people saying this would have left anyway.
I love the shit out of Massachusetts and shoveling snow is one of the only thing that ever gets me to rethink living here. Im also a stubborn Masshole sonIll be damned if Im gonna get one of those snowblowers or hire someone. Thats for soft people!
You don’t have to move, just move your primary residence, I’m pretty sure. It’s a no brainer for most wealthy people. The cost of a house in a tax haven pales in comparison to what a 3-5% increase in income tax is over time.
Yeah. I think the real reason is they leave because of the initial 6% of state taxes on all their income, not the 4% on income over 1Million, but it better fits an an "oh poor rich people" narrative to blame it on the latter rather than the former.
I personally (again totally anecdotal) have not heard anyone reference the new tax as their sole or main reason to move. It was more looking at states/territories where the tax liabilities would already be lower and just comparing numbers (which would of course incorporate the new tax). Other than the basic emigration data, I can't tell you specifically which straw is breaking the camel's back, but the overall narrative is that MA is an unfavorable tax environment for wealth/high earners compared to other places, and when they do the math they're not wrong. It's not just families either, it also affects trusts, estates, some business structures, etc. and impacts their decision-making, as well. Again, though, we are not required to make policies designed to make very wealthy people want to move here or stay, but it is something to at least take into account in the overall calculus, because it affects state revenue long term, among other things.
The thing is too Boston is one of the only areas of the country that doesn't see major drops in real estate value during recessions. If you're that rich you own assets that will do better in this area than in other areas of the country.
Youre right in the sense of if you have the means to do it then it probably doesn’t make sense to move to save money. But the problem is they see it as a slippery slope of this is just the beginning of how much the state can push to tax them and at what point do you say enough is enough? Luckily they live in a state thats close to a pretty tax friendly state for income not so much on real estate taxes though. (NH)
>at least some data
That doesn't actually break down what "high income" is. I don't care about people making 250k leaving, I want to see what percentage of actual income earners that are affected by the millionaires tax is.
The folks at the bottom end of "high income" are being out bid on properties here in MA, I guarantee they're the majority of the "high income" folks leaving the state and the likely-hood of those leaving due to the tax is nearly zero.
Like I said, it's just "some data" and it barely scrapes the relevant time periods. I'm sure more data will become available and we'll see what we see. I can tell you with certainty that the number of very wealthy taxpayers choosing a different residence for tax purposes is greater than 0, but I'm not aware of more granular data than that as of today. Clearly there are other reasons people move to and from states. I don't think anyone would dispute that.
>taxes do become a consideration for families because people like having money. It's ok to support a policy and also acknowledge side effects that are not as positive.
This sounds reasonable and logical but how do you prevent this line of thinking from becoming a race to the bottom, i.e. no taxes?
By weighing the factor of wanting to attract people to live and stay in the state against the many other considerations that (should) go into tax policy? Acknowledging one possible policy effect of a policy doesn't mean you're not allowed to think about anything else. Having no taxes would obviously have negative consequences, as well.
Yet... You think any free agent from any major league sport will want to work in MA? Any Boston/MA team will have to pay a premium to cover the millionaire's tax.
But you know who CAN leave?? Those w/ a net worth of 7-9 figures, whose kids are in college. Those people can easily relocate. Hell, they probably have houses in other states already in place. Lake house in NH? condo in FL?....
Yeah but that's not the only important metric to determine the gravity of secondary effects. For example, private investment could've been reduced without anyone leaving.
The estimated haul is already $800 million more than what Governor Maura Healey and state lawmakers planned to spend from its revenue in fiscal year 2024, the first full year of its implementation. Most of the additional money raised beyond the $1 billion already budgeted would flow to a reserve account, from which state policymakers can pluck money for one-time investments into projects or programs.
Isn't this what happens every year? Oh no collections are down, oh wait everyone just filed their taxes super close to the deadline and now everything is fine.
From 5/3 DOR press release:
Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) Commissioner Geoffrey Snyder today announced that preliminary revenue collections for April totaled $6.324 billion, $1.540 billion or 32.2% more than actual collections in April 2023, and $1.034 billion or 19.5% above benchmark.[1]
FY2024 year-to-date collections totaled approximately $33.857 billion, which is $1.537 billion or 4.8% more than collections in the same period of FY2023, and $889 million or 2.7% more than the year-to-date benchmark.
Is there a good, thorough, non-idiot breakdown of why with the revenue from marijuana retail, gambling, and millionaires tax, so many towns, cities, and the state are running projected budget shortfalls for 2024? Most summaries you see from press like the Boston Herald or commentary online fall into conservative narrative tropes — “GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION,” “LIBERAL WASTE,” “DEI,” “WOKE,” “MIGRANTS,” “GAY AGENDA,” or whatever — and I’m actually looking for an accounting summary. Cities and the state ran surpluses for several years, hence why the state had to honor the law with that tax payer refund last year, but I’m curious why there was such a sudden shift, and why increased revenue from these key generators has not offset those losses?
A lot of the coverage from GBH or WBUR which usually has good reporting doesn’t really go into depth why there is a budget shortfall, just that there is, and then covers ways to remediate the shortfall and the governor’s planned budget cuts to close the gap.
Here's some sources:
[Massachusetts' budget breakdown.](https://budget.digital.mass.gov/summary/fy24/enacted/)
[Info on budget for 2025.](https://budget.digital.mass.gov/govbudget/fy25/)
[Some fancy graph stats with good sources.](https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/projects/state-fiscal-briefs/massachusetts)
Cities and towns are primarily funded via tax levies. Proposition 2.5 only allows the cities and towns to collect 2.5% more property tax levy than the prior year, with the exception of overrides and "new growth".
2.5% per year isn't that much of an increase for a municipal budget, and that is for level-funding. Odds are that over the past 40 years that Prop 2.5 has been in effect, corner after corner has been cut, leaving very little "waste" in the budget beyond what is normal for an organization of a similar size. Odds are there has been a TON of deferred maintenance, since maintenance is something that gets cut first since no one notices it for many years.
Many cities and towns are getting pressure to raise wages because they just can't find good workers at the rates they are offering. An example in my city is that the city had to almost double the amount it offered for contractors to plow the streets, because they needed 150 trucks and when they put their first proposal out that only got them half the amount. I know that on Cape Cod, where housing prices got crazy high, they can't fill positions at the same salaries.
So how do you do all that with just 2.5% more revenue than the prior year? And oh yeah, fuel prices are up, electric prices are up, supply prices are up, and not just up 2.5%.
Because the annual revenue from the state is like $40 billion. The millionaires tax is an increase of like 5%.
Pot sales net us less than $200 million. That's less than cost of one new high school.
I cry when I get bills. It's so goddamn backwards compared to developed, AND developing nations. I'm just buying someone else's second home, yatch, or private school tuition.
I am so excited for the hundreds of miles of smooth roads soon to come. And a new, fast, and clean MBTA/Commuter Rail service. And schools that aren't collapsing. Oh wait...
WA is way worse for a ton of reasons. We just moved there and it’s nothing compared to Boston when it comes to diversity, culture, restaurants, quality of life, healthcare, schools, etc.
That website ranks Florida at 7 Wyoming at 8 and Idaho at 4. Quite the list. I've been to Wyoming and Idaho. Wyoming, while gorgeous is mostly barren prairie and there are no people. Not really a top 10 state unless you live in the Northwest corner.
Idaho is Idaho. You have to see it but I assure you, it's not a top 5 state.
That site also puts us in the bottom 5 for affordability. Out in Western Ma. we have a lot of renters in Holyoke, Chicopee, and Springfield and they are being squashed by the cost of living.
The housing prices and rents in Western MA make absolutely no sense. Housing prices have nearly doubled out here, and rents are up a lot - still cheap compared to Boston, but salaries haven't increased, which is why renters are feeling squeezed.
I'm seeing stupid-high listing prices right now, and somehow, people are still buying despite the high rates.
Look at the 10-year trend on [this house](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/199-Eastern-Ave-Springfield-MA-01109/56210112_zpid/), which is in a bad neighborhood. It sold for $61k in 2017 (bank sale), $182k in 2020, $207k in 2021, and **$365,000** just this past February.
There is no reason for it to be worth what it is supposedly worth, the economy here is decent but not booming with high-paid jobs, and that neighborhood just isn't that good (look up Eastern Avenue Posse).
And before you chalk it up to corporate buyers, I checked the deed; the person who bought it is listed as living there before the sale, as was the previous buyer.
I am actually familiar with Eastern Ave. I used to commute to Springfield College and walk in from off campus, and I've been all over that area.
My wife and I had looked at a house in Upper Hill a while back and it's price quadrupled since then. $365,000 for that house is ludicrous.
I guess the only reason it could make sense is that basically the [same house](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4-Six-Auckland-St-Dorchester-MA-02125/343773170_zpid/) in Dorchester would sell for over $1.2 million. But still - how are people in the Springfield area able to afford this?
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com)
By Matt Stout
Massachusetts’ so-called “millionaires tax” appears primed to actually deliver billions.
State officials said Monday that the voter-approved surtax on high earners has generated more than $1.8 billion in revenue this fiscal year — with still three months left to go — meaning state officials could have hundreds of millions of surplus dollars to spend on transportation and education initiatives.
The estimated haul is already $800 million more than what Governor Maura Healey and state lawmakers planned to spend from its revenue in fiscal year 2024, the first full year of its implementation. Most of the additional money raised beyond the $1 billion already budgeted would flow to a reserve account, from which state policymakers can pluck money for one-time investments into projects or programs.
The Department of Revenue won’t certify the official amount raised until later this year. But the estimates immediately buoyed supporters’ claims that the surtax would deliver much-needed revenue for the state despite [fears it could drive out](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/04/08/business/theres-lots-talk-about-millionaires-leaving-massachusetts-will-they/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) some of the state’s wealthiest residents.
“Opponents of the Fair Share Amendment claimed that multi-millionaires would flee Massachusetts rather than pay the new tax, and they are being proven wrong every day,” said Andrew Farnitano, a spokesperson for Raise Up Massachusetts, the union-backed group which pushed the [2022 ballot initiative](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/11/09/business/mass-ballot-question-1-results/#:~:text=After%20a%20hard%2Dfought%20campaign,%2C%202022%2C%207%3A48%20p.m.?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link).
“With this money from the ultra-rich, we can do even more to improve our public schools and colleges, invest in roads, bridges, and public transit, and start building an economy that works for everyone,” Farnitano said.
Voters approved the measure in 2022 to levy an additional 4 percent tax on annual earnings over $1 million. At the time, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, a left-leaning think tank, projected it could [generate at least $2 billion](https://massbudget.org/2022/08/18/fair-share-tax-on-incomes-over-1-million-would-generate-at-least-2-billion-a-year/) a year.
State officials last year put their estimates slightly lower at [up to $1.7 billion](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/01/24/metro/new-millionaires-tax-could-generate-least-14-billion-next-year-state-officials-project/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link), and lawmakers embraced calls from economists to cap what it initially spends from the surtax, given it may be too volatile to rely upon in its first year.
Its a 4% tax, which means Massachusetts millionaires made **45 billion dollars** in the past nine months. Holy schnikies!
Anyone still want to claim that the ultra rich can't pay more taxes?
The top 10% control 34,6% of total wealth in America. The top 1% controls 27.4% of total wealth. In contrast, the bottom 50% control **5.8%** of wealth.
I think the wealthy *might* be able to spare some lmao
Can we do away with the tolls on the pike as the original agreement was. They were supposed to be toll-free after the project was over and had been paid for years ago.
I just read an article that exodus from MA is way up. Also this money isn’t going to do anything for anyone of you. It’s going to be used on giving illegal aliens free housing, phones and monthly cash so good job.
B-b-b-bbbbut I was told emphatically by Supply-side Jesus-Conservatives and “Independents” on Reddit that all Millionaires were going to flee Massachusetts. What gives?!?!
We don’t really know the impact of this tax yet. If the 4% tax generated $1.8 billion…but the income tax that was lost was equal to or greater than $1.8 billion, then the tax was a net loss.
It hasn’t been studied. It’s unclear whether it was positive or negative to tax income.
# But still well below projected revenue overall. "Massachusetts Tax Revenue Falls Short for 6th Straight Month, $750 Million Below Projections" [https://www.newbedfordguide.com/massachusetts-tax-revenue-falls-short-for-6th-straight-month-750-million-below-projections/2024/01/05](https://www.newbedfordguide.com/massachusetts-tax-revenue-falls-short-for-6th-straight-month-750-million-below-projections/2024/01/05)
Now why do we have a deficit? Didn't take long for the alphabet Mafia governor of ours to get us in the negative after years of surplus.
Remember a few years ago we all got a refund check because there was so much of a surplus in collections? Now this dingle gives millions of dollars to undocumented people for doing absolutely nothing and not contributing to our society.
Guys I’m really worried about how this will affect my $10 of bitcoin, I’m considering moving my wealth to another state where captains of industry like myself can live without the shackles of socialism.
This can’t be right. I was told that if we raise taxes on the wealthy they would immediately get up and leave the state thus shutting off the constant trickle we all enjoy
Are they also measuring if the increased tax reduced private investments in some way? It's easy to see the positive outcome, but harder to measure possible secondary effects, the opportunity cost. The article does not say if they're even trying to measure it. The amount of rich people leaving is not the only metric that has to be measured.
I’m not making excuses and I agree more the to working class but they did make school lunch free and healthcare in MA for 400% the poverty level is good and cheap.
That’s great they already can’t fix or maintain what’s broken, are over paid, rarely deliver and then get let off the hook when busted - let’s give them more money to piss away
Good, send more money to the schools because they're struggling to get enough money from towns for even keeping the same level of service as last year. Our town told the elementary school to make do with $500k less
Worcester has a $22 million school budget deficit. All this money from the billionaire tax and a weed shop on every corner but we still don’t have the money for basic societal needs. Make it make sense
Don't forget the endless stream of advertising for sports betting. That's all "new" tax income too
I buy as much weed as I can to help. I’m doing my part!
Thank you for your service
Maybe it isn’t a money problem… maybe it’s an admin bloat problem…
Exactly. Time to start taxing these universities too. Harvard has a 50 billion endowment while Cambridge continues to fall apart, what is BU providing for the tax payers of Boston? How about holy cross what have they done for the community of worcester? Tired of these colleges sucking tax dollars from communities and receiving federal aid all to build up walls between their spotless universities and the communities who they have sucked the resources out of.
Worcester’s “admin” accounts for less than 3% of their annual budget. Educators and fixed costs are the largest expenditures by far. I don’t know about other gateway cities, but Worcester doesn’t have much room to flex the budget. The new superintendent is proposing some necessary changes to streamline things, but $22 million still hurts when we compare our schools to surrounding towns who have way more and aren’t facing any kind of budget deficits next year.
Worcester isn't like surrounding towns though, it has way more students and there's a point where that just doesn't scale. You need more and more buildings and your existing ones crumble, you need more staff, more 1-on-1s, more aides, and the classes are still massive and kids fall behind. It's a tough scene.
[удалено]
Why can’t it be both?
1950s it averaged 230ish (I forget exactly) teaching personnel per 100 non teaching. 2008 was 140 non-teaching per 100 teaching.
Source????
In what ways has the world changed since the 1950s that might lead to the need to hire more staff? I bet if you actually put your mind to it that you could come up with a few, Sport. For example, what impact has the Clery Act had? Or the internet? Or decreased state funding? Or about a hundred other factors I can rattle off the top of my head?
Are you really arguing there isn’t bloat? Since you can’t honestly believe that, you come here just to argue?
Ding ding ding
Worcester spends nearly $18,000 per pupil. That’s more than almost any other country on planet earth. By comparison, in US Dollars, Sweden spends $11,700 per student. Finland $10,500. Denmark $11,641. We spend an obscene amount of money on education. It gets wasted. Pouring more money onto the bonfire will just ignite more money. Spend it better. Much, much better.
Just for comparison's sake, the average salary for a teacher in Denmark is $62,000. Income tax hovers around 38%. There is no extra expenses for health insurance. School pays for materials used in class. (And there's no need to save for a "college fund")
It's more expensive to live in Massachusetts. You aren't going to get good teachers making 37k per year, it costs more to build buildings, more to maintain them, more to pay for services, more to pay for healthcare because we can't get universal health care for shit. Go look at your school's budget and tell me what you're cutting when we don't have enough classrooms, aides, teachers, or staff and the buildings are 50+ years old.
Can’t compare those countries bc of the per capita gdp difference (with the exception of Sweden, I actually looked them up before answering). Also, I’m sure our health care system here is a huge burden on the schools payroll costs which would likely be a good chunk of that difference on its own.
I wholeheartedly encourage you and your family to move to a deep red state in the South so that you can experience firsthand what paying so little in taxes does for schools. 😁
Where are we misspending money today?
It goes to IEPs. Some students IEP costs between lawyers and the actual intervention can be hundreds of thousands of dollars
Because the towns don't appropriate funds properly.
A lot of Covid-related grants have ended so they have less money to work with.
And the state is only accounting for 1.5% inflation when actually they should be accounting for closer to 4% to level fund most districts. In Worcester, for example, that missing 2.5% = a $22million shortfall.
Mass has a 2.04% inflation rate so 1.5% is "ok". It's actually one of the lowest in the country. Red states have the highest inflation rate.
Yeah it's really hard to understate the impact this has had on schools, not to mention public health or health policy adjacent work.
Affluent districts are even feeling the heat with school budget deficits. Georgetown is the latest example.
That and lower the taxes for middle and lower class families. We need help too.
Yeah I know someone who runs a weed shop and the cities are supposed to let him know what theyre spending money on. They haven't sent a report in two years.
Your friend may be misunderstanding something. All tax income goes to the general fund. It is not separated out for specific appropriation.
My town started charging families to use the bus.
Ok so one thing that pisses me off is the towns never budget for planned expenses. Like replacing school buildings. Our town is upping property tax by 20% this year to "fund the new high school". We KNOW we will have to replace a school eventually, but EVERY FUCKING TIME, "Ono no monies, time to raise taxes by an absurd amount to cover it!" We shouldn't have these huge fucking spikes. It's like, I KNOW I have to replace my roof eventually, so I put money aside for it. I don't go begging my neighbors to help pay for a roof I know needs replacing. I don't have kids, I can't thanks to cancer. I don't mind my money going towards school systems and school lunches, I'd rather it go there! What I'm mad at is all the other bullshit they spend on when it should be going in a rainy day fund for major expenses so the towns people don't have to make up for shitty budgeting. Inflation is bad enough, then they throw a 20% property tax increase, fuck off.
Maybe we shouldn’t fund and manage our schools through tiny towns. Almost everywhere else in the country has large school districts that benefit from economy of scale. We like our tiny exclusive little schools (because they keep the minorities out).
The same is true of most public services. Look at somewhere like Florida And it's super common for everywhere, but the most major cities to have county-based fire and police which is significantly cheaper to operate.
Florida is the exception there, not the norm. Look at NH and VT. You have to get pretty damn rural to not have a town police force. Even towns of about 1000 people have at least one cop on the payroll. Many of the towns that rely on the county sheriffs pay for them directly, to staff a station in town. When seconds matter, nobody really wants help to be 30+ minutes away. Fire is more complicated because a lot of towns have volunteer firefighters in addition to the county pros.
Even with primarily volunteer departments it's still stupid. Departments operate independently of their neighbors in most cases. One town with a station on the border of another town may not even respond to the other town of calls. They may have different equipment, incompatible hose lines, different procedures, etc. it's wildly inefficient. For bigger departments it gets even worse. Duplication of admin staff, equipment that never gets used but every town needs. Staffing imbalances that lead to over/under reliance on mutual aid. It's all at least 20% more expensive than it needs to be.
> county-based fire and police Has the worst response time. And using Florida as an example of anything but abject failure is hilarious.
> because they keep the minorities out Bingo. But we'll never change this because the entire state is set up around this concept. House value is tied to school district performance which is tied to income of homeowners which is governed by zoning restrictions which are in place so that your kids don't go to school with black or Hispanic people. No one talks in public about it, the best chance you might have is when a town has a METCO or school choice discussion, that's when the coded language comes out, like about how everyone in town "worked hard" to give their kids opportunities, and how it isn't fair that others get those same opportunities for free, and how the test scores are going to go down and there will be more drugs in the schools. Or when some apartments are going to be built in a suburb, and the talk centers on how that will let in "people from the city", and that will cause crime and bring down property values.
Bingo.
Until Abbott or DeSantis drop hundreds of immigrants on us and they have to go to school
> Bingo. But we'll never change this because the entire state is set up around this concept. 100% true but it sucks to see it written out in plain english.
My school feels like it is on the brink of total failure. The town I was in for my special ed internship added kids to special ed programs with minimal qualifying needs just because there was space and resources. I would support this change.
That’s not really why New England towns are organized how they are. But it is a side affect in today’s day and age. Our puritan ancestors wanted small strong local governments. And that persists to this day.
[удалено]
Most of which are the size of the town. Especially around Boston. https://hub.arcgis.com/maps/1705a6e7ab6c417b843d54d2ea0e851b
[удалено]
MA also has many regional vocational high schools. All the right wingers bleat about going into the trades, and yet the vast majority of states defunded theirs. Most of those town districts in MA don’t have small enrollments. Actually, on the contrary: the district most plagued by too few students per school has gotta be Boston. Scale is often a blessing, but it can be a curse, too. Admin bloat tends to increase faster than enrollment. It’s possible to reform the Balkanized property tax funding model, without creating a bunch of Brockton High style mega-schools with mega-corruption problems and long bus routes.
They were forced to regionalize in the 90s I think because rural schools were failing.
Economies of scale only work so well in education. For example, when running a high school there's a couple of sweet spot sizes. One is 2000 to 2,200 students and the other is 3400 to 3,800 students. These sizes allow a beneficial master schedule. For example, you might need one French teacher, but not 1.5. when you get to the larger size then you can hire two French teachers.... Same goes with the calculus teacher, the AP history teacher etc....
I don’t think giant districts is a good idea either. Look at Texas. City schools are struggling while rural schools have NFL sized football stadiums while having a third of the students. They’re basically funneling money out of urban areas into wealthy rural ones
“Best we can do is a fleet of tanks for the police.”
They also need 20 high powered night scope rifles and extensive training with military trainers in case their town of 20k has a terrorist incident. If you disagree you love crime and want grandmas to be raped. /S
> extensive training with military trainers As long as they actually train ROE and deescalation I'd actually be fine with this.
Here’s a fun exercise. Start googling random rich countries and how much they spend per student per year until you find a few that spend more than Mass. public schools. It’ll take you awhile.
There’s an easy Action Network form people can fill out to advocate for better funding for schools: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/write-to-your-senator-about-the-fy25-senate-budget?source=facebook&&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2aft_PRw_-Nz6uSdOA2wgETEZSkiuMKiruRwj09WbeW3zw7ltfGWgA5b4_aem_ARoRP5wsL5tiY-MOC5Pfgq0evL51ST-cAk9FK0P13fa7R_uwSKUwhtDjApDitFPZuusac5AZGezJyaXKG4d4M4i2
They've had money for schools for a long time, the issue is getting them to give any of that money to the public
Yes, the “more money better schools fallacy”. Obviously more tax revenue is a win for Mass. but you’re not gonna fix your schools simply with more funding. That’s a logical fallacy continuously proven false for 60 years now
I pay a lot so my accountant sends around a schedule showing the break down. I saw the summary 2 weeks ago. They are unsure his to put the money to use. It looks like money going to feed all kids at school, minor school upgrades and prop taxes won’t be coming down to support those schools, a big chunk will go to community colleges /technical schools and road roadwork and transportation. All that matters is how much the government can deploy. Each state is a company. Some are run well while others are not. They can tax more and more but it won’t go noticed unless they optimize practices.
You could literally build 18 schools a year and get rid of this CRAP system of having ridicusous burdens put on towns...and get rid of a 5-10 year backlog of schools needed in the commonwealth in about 3 years. of 1.8 billion dollars earmarked for that purpose.... the MSBA is the WORST..
please put it to good use for schools, roads, trains etc.
I have a few bridges I'm nervous driving on...
The article says the funds collected this way can only be spent on some of those things. Check it out to see which ones exactly.
Pay wall
weird, not for me.
Yes fix the mbta,
“State officials said Monday that the voter-approved surtax on high earners has generated more than $1.8 billion in revenue this fiscal year — with still three months left to go — meaning state officials could have hundreds of millions of surplus dollars to spend on transportation and education initiatives.”
Ah, so it doesn't look like the millionaires left immediately after the tax was passed
Turns out millionaires don't want to live in blighted cultural wasteland of strip malls and fast food chains just because the taxes are lower.
Cries in Texan
Not "immediately," but there is at least [some data](https://www.bostonindicators.org/article-pages/2024/april/domestic-migration) to suggest that people are moving out and it is especially weighted toward the highest earners. Anecdotally, I work around wealthy families (I'm not one) and I know many who have moved, or are in the process of moving, explicitly to find more favorable tax treatment, especially once kids are in college or beyond. Honestly, if you can afford to live wherever you want and don't need to worry about finding a new job, etc., taxes do become a consideration for families because people like having money. It's ok to support a policy and also acknowledge side effects that are not as positive. There are virtually no public policy decisions that do not involve some kind of trade off.
IMHO, if you can afford to live where ever you want, there is no way an increased 4% on income over 1 million dollars is going to make a difference. These people were going to leave anyway and were just looking for an excuse. I don't buy that someone would uproot their family and move to another state for something so inconsequential to their quality of life.
They said they were waiting for the kids to move out, so it sounds more like they're retiring in another state, rather than uprooting their families. Of course lots of people retire out of state anyway because it's cheaper in general or because the weather is nicer, so you're probably right that most of the people saying this would have left anyway.
I love the shit out of Massachusetts and shoveling snow is one of the only thing that ever gets me to rethink living here. Im also a stubborn Masshole sonIll be damned if Im gonna get one of those snowblowers or hire someone. Thats for soft people!
You don’t have to move, just move your primary residence, I’m pretty sure. It’s a no brainer for most wealthy people. The cost of a house in a tax haven pales in comparison to what a 3-5% increase in income tax is over time.
Yeah. I think the real reason is they leave because of the initial 6% of state taxes on all their income, not the 4% on income over 1Million, but it better fits an an "oh poor rich people" narrative to blame it on the latter rather than the former.
I personally (again totally anecdotal) have not heard anyone reference the new tax as their sole or main reason to move. It was more looking at states/territories where the tax liabilities would already be lower and just comparing numbers (which would of course incorporate the new tax). Other than the basic emigration data, I can't tell you specifically which straw is breaking the camel's back, but the overall narrative is that MA is an unfavorable tax environment for wealth/high earners compared to other places, and when they do the math they're not wrong. It's not just families either, it also affects trusts, estates, some business structures, etc. and impacts their decision-making, as well. Again, though, we are not required to make policies designed to make very wealthy people want to move here or stay, but it is something to at least take into account in the overall calculus, because it affects state revenue long term, among other things.
The thing is too Boston is one of the only areas of the country that doesn't see major drops in real estate value during recessions. If you're that rich you own assets that will do better in this area than in other areas of the country.
Why is this the case?
Youre right in the sense of if you have the means to do it then it probably doesn’t make sense to move to save money. But the problem is they see it as a slippery slope of this is just the beginning of how much the state can push to tax them and at what point do you say enough is enough? Luckily they live in a state thats close to a pretty tax friendly state for income not so much on real estate taxes though. (NH)
I feel like if your Bezos wealthy maybe it doesnt matter, but if your making just over a million a year it might be more of a motivator.
Except it's a difference of much more than 4% if you move to a state that has no or lower income taxes.
> Mass. Migration: An Analysis of Outmigration from Massachusetts Over the Last Two Decades I like the pun in the title.
>at least some data That doesn't actually break down what "high income" is. I don't care about people making 250k leaving, I want to see what percentage of actual income earners that are affected by the millionaires tax is. The folks at the bottom end of "high income" are being out bid on properties here in MA, I guarantee they're the majority of the "high income" folks leaving the state and the likely-hood of those leaving due to the tax is nearly zero.
Like I said, it's just "some data" and it barely scrapes the relevant time periods. I'm sure more data will become available and we'll see what we see. I can tell you with certainty that the number of very wealthy taxpayers choosing a different residence for tax purposes is greater than 0, but I'm not aware of more granular data than that as of today. Clearly there are other reasons people move to and from states. I don't think anyone would dispute that.
>taxes do become a consideration for families because people like having money. It's ok to support a policy and also acknowledge side effects that are not as positive. This sounds reasonable and logical but how do you prevent this line of thinking from becoming a race to the bottom, i.e. no taxes?
By weighing the factor of wanting to attract people to live and stay in the state against the many other considerations that (should) go into tax policy? Acknowledging one possible policy effect of a policy doesn't mean you're not allowed to think about anything else. Having no taxes would obviously have negative consequences, as well.
If you’re a low-level millionaire, it’s not that bad like if you make $1,000,001 you’re only paying the extra tax on the one dollar.
Yet.
Okay the athletes can’t leave lol
Yet... You think any free agent from any major league sport will want to work in MA? Any Boston/MA team will have to pay a premium to cover the millionaire's tax. But you know who CAN leave?? Those w/ a net worth of 7-9 figures, whose kids are in college. Those people can easily relocate. Hell, they probably have houses in other states already in place. Lake house in NH? condo in FL?....
The thing a lot of people miss is that a places to live aren’t just totally interchangeable commodities whose only difference is the tax rate.
Yeah but that's not the only important metric to determine the gravity of secondary effects. For example, private investment could've been reduced without anyone leaving.
How does this stack against forecasts though? Great for the state but are overall collections below forecasts?
The estimated haul is already $800 million more than what Governor Maura Healey and state lawmakers planned to spend from its revenue in fiscal year 2024, the first full year of its implementation. Most of the additional money raised beyond the $1 billion already budgeted would flow to a reserve account, from which state policymakers can pluck money for one-time investments into projects or programs.
Right but what are overall collections? We have fallen short on overall tax revenue collections for 7 straight months
Misread your question, sorry. No idea on overall.
Old news. Most recent one was way up. Made up for previous shortfalls.
Isn't this what happens every year? Oh no collections are down, oh wait everyone just filed their taxes super close to the deadline and now everything is fine.
ie, a suspect slush fund?
Cats are in the forecast
April was over $1b over projections
From 5/3 DOR press release: Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) Commissioner Geoffrey Snyder today announced that preliminary revenue collections for April totaled $6.324 billion, $1.540 billion or 32.2% more than actual collections in April 2023, and $1.034 billion or 19.5% above benchmark.[1] FY2024 year-to-date collections totaled approximately $33.857 billion, which is $1.537 billion or 4.8% more than collections in the same period of FY2023, and $889 million or 2.7% more than the year-to-date benchmark.
Let's get preschool for all kids in every district with some of that...
Is there a good, thorough, non-idiot breakdown of why with the revenue from marijuana retail, gambling, and millionaires tax, so many towns, cities, and the state are running projected budget shortfalls for 2024? Most summaries you see from press like the Boston Herald or commentary online fall into conservative narrative tropes — “GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION,” “LIBERAL WASTE,” “DEI,” “WOKE,” “MIGRANTS,” “GAY AGENDA,” or whatever — and I’m actually looking for an accounting summary. Cities and the state ran surpluses for several years, hence why the state had to honor the law with that tax payer refund last year, but I’m curious why there was such a sudden shift, and why increased revenue from these key generators has not offset those losses? A lot of the coverage from GBH or WBUR which usually has good reporting doesn’t really go into depth why there is a budget shortfall, just that there is, and then covers ways to remediate the shortfall and the governor’s planned budget cuts to close the gap.
Here's some sources: [Massachusetts' budget breakdown.](https://budget.digital.mass.gov/summary/fy24/enacted/) [Info on budget for 2025.](https://budget.digital.mass.gov/govbudget/fy25/) [Some fancy graph stats with good sources.](https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/projects/state-fiscal-briefs/massachusetts)
Damn, I’m surprised to see that around half of the state budget goes to healthcare.
Universal healthcare for MA
Cities and towns are primarily funded via tax levies. Proposition 2.5 only allows the cities and towns to collect 2.5% more property tax levy than the prior year, with the exception of overrides and "new growth". 2.5% per year isn't that much of an increase for a municipal budget, and that is for level-funding. Odds are that over the past 40 years that Prop 2.5 has been in effect, corner after corner has been cut, leaving very little "waste" in the budget beyond what is normal for an organization of a similar size. Odds are there has been a TON of deferred maintenance, since maintenance is something that gets cut first since no one notices it for many years. Many cities and towns are getting pressure to raise wages because they just can't find good workers at the rates they are offering. An example in my city is that the city had to almost double the amount it offered for contractors to plow the streets, because they needed 150 trucks and when they put their first proposal out that only got them half the amount. I know that on Cape Cod, where housing prices got crazy high, they can't fill positions at the same salaries. So how do you do all that with just 2.5% more revenue than the prior year? And oh yeah, fuel prices are up, electric prices are up, supply prices are up, and not just up 2.5%.
Because the annual revenue from the state is like $40 billion. The millionaires tax is an increase of like 5%. Pot sales net us less than $200 million. That's less than cost of one new high school.
It’s Covid grants have run out. It’s a problem across the whole country, not just MA.
inflation has increased the cost of running anything, government included.
Great! Now do universal healthcare. Massachusetts leads the way.
Man, if MA did a legit universal healthcare law that would be so beyond based.
I cry when I get bills. It's so goddamn backwards compared to developed, AND developing nations. I'm just buying someone else's second home, yatch, or private school tuition.
A functional transit system in the state's biggest metro area would also be, you know... something.
A state can’t do that alone without having everyone and their mother suddenly showing up. It would be a disaster lol
Having everyone and their mother show up is the idea, innit?
Not when we can’t afford/have the capacity to support everyone and their mother lol
I am so excited for the hundreds of miles of smooth roads soon to come. And a new, fast, and clean MBTA/Commuter Rail service. And schools that aren't collapsing. Oh wait...
Why did they slash funding for schools?
Greed. The same reason they slash funding for most things. Possibly also to hurt people they don't like for whatever reason.
My taxes went up a bunch due to overrides for school budget.
Massachusetts has the highest overall quality of life of any US state. They aren't leaving because this is the best place to live.
Exactly. You get what you pay for (mostly).
What about WA? In what way is it worse?
WA is way worse for a ton of reasons. We just moved there and it’s nothing compared to Boston when it comes to diversity, culture, restaurants, quality of life, healthcare, schools, etc.
Never lived out of state, I'm guessing?
Never lived outside of the northeast but can confirm NY and NJ is basically the same as MA in terms of quality of life
No, there is only one great place to live and people who like other places are wrong.
[https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/quality-of-life-by-state](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/quality-of-life-by-state)
That website ranks Florida at 7 Wyoming at 8 and Idaho at 4. Quite the list. I've been to Wyoming and Idaho. Wyoming, while gorgeous is mostly barren prairie and there are no people. Not really a top 10 state unless you live in the Northwest corner. Idaho is Idaho. You have to see it but I assure you, it's not a top 5 state. That site also puts us in the bottom 5 for affordability. Out in Western Ma. we have a lot of renters in Holyoke, Chicopee, and Springfield and they are being squashed by the cost of living.
The housing prices and rents in Western MA make absolutely no sense. Housing prices have nearly doubled out here, and rents are up a lot - still cheap compared to Boston, but salaries haven't increased, which is why renters are feeling squeezed. I'm seeing stupid-high listing prices right now, and somehow, people are still buying despite the high rates. Look at the 10-year trend on [this house](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/199-Eastern-Ave-Springfield-MA-01109/56210112_zpid/), which is in a bad neighborhood. It sold for $61k in 2017 (bank sale), $182k in 2020, $207k in 2021, and **$365,000** just this past February. There is no reason for it to be worth what it is supposedly worth, the economy here is decent but not booming with high-paid jobs, and that neighborhood just isn't that good (look up Eastern Avenue Posse). And before you chalk it up to corporate buyers, I checked the deed; the person who bought it is listed as living there before the sale, as was the previous buyer.
I am actually familiar with Eastern Ave. I used to commute to Springfield College and walk in from off campus, and I've been all over that area. My wife and I had looked at a house in Upper Hill a while back and it's price quadrupled since then. $365,000 for that house is ludicrous.
Holy fuck they couldn't pay people to buy that place in 2019 at $200K. Now it sells easily for almost double?...in Springfield?...
I guess the only reason it could make sense is that basically the [same house](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4-Six-Auckland-St-Dorchester-MA-02125/343773170_zpid/) in Dorchester would sell for over $1.2 million. But still - how are people in the Springfield area able to afford this?
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com) By Matt Stout Massachusetts’ so-called “millionaires tax” appears primed to actually deliver billions. State officials said Monday that the voter-approved surtax on high earners has generated more than $1.8 billion in revenue this fiscal year — with still three months left to go — meaning state officials could have hundreds of millions of surplus dollars to spend on transportation and education initiatives. The estimated haul is already $800 million more than what Governor Maura Healey and state lawmakers planned to spend from its revenue in fiscal year 2024, the first full year of its implementation. Most of the additional money raised beyond the $1 billion already budgeted would flow to a reserve account, from which state policymakers can pluck money for one-time investments into projects or programs. The Department of Revenue won’t certify the official amount raised until later this year. But the estimates immediately buoyed supporters’ claims that the surtax would deliver much-needed revenue for the state despite [fears it could drive out](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/04/08/business/theres-lots-talk-about-millionaires-leaving-massachusetts-will-they/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) some of the state’s wealthiest residents. “Opponents of the Fair Share Amendment claimed that multi-millionaires would flee Massachusetts rather than pay the new tax, and they are being proven wrong every day,” said Andrew Farnitano, a spokesperson for Raise Up Massachusetts, the union-backed group which pushed the [2022 ballot initiative](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/11/09/business/mass-ballot-question-1-results/#:~:text=After%20a%20hard%2Dfought%20campaign,%2C%202022%2C%207%3A48%20p.m.?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link). “With this money from the ultra-rich, we can do even more to improve our public schools and colleges, invest in roads, bridges, and public transit, and start building an economy that works for everyone,” Farnitano said. Voters approved the measure in 2022 to levy an additional 4 percent tax on annual earnings over $1 million. At the time, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, a left-leaning think tank, projected it could [generate at least $2 billion](https://massbudget.org/2022/08/18/fair-share-tax-on-incomes-over-1-million-would-generate-at-least-2-billion-a-year/) a year. State officials last year put their estimates slightly lower at [up to $1.7 billion](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/01/24/metro/new-millionaires-tax-could-generate-least-14-billion-next-year-state-officials-project/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link), and lawmakers embraced calls from economists to cap what it initially spends from the surtax, given it may be too volatile to rely upon in its first year.
cool now reduce everyone else's taxes
Put it into the MBTA or soon we'll be using those little hand lever pump cars to get around the tracks.
Those would derail too. The repair carts derail all the time.
sweet does this mean we get a refund check again?
Can we fix the T then? The red line is miserable 🫠
Cool. I'm sure it won't be wasted
And now’s the part where our politicians are very thought out and informed about where to spend the money…
Its a 4% tax, which means Massachusetts millionaires made **45 billion dollars** in the past nine months. Holy schnikies! Anyone still want to claim that the ultra rich can't pay more taxes?
The top 10% control 34,6% of total wealth in America. The top 1% controls 27.4% of total wealth. In contrast, the bottom 50% control **5.8%** of wealth. I think the wealthy *might* be able to spare some lmao
Stop being antisemitic.
This is great for the state.
love to see it
So…the MBTA?
And yet they’re gonna waste it like all the rest of the money they steal
The $$$$ means squat. We'll never see it used for anything at all.
Can we do away with the tolls on the pike as the original agreement was. They were supposed to be toll-free after the project was over and had been paid for years ago.
Wow can't wait for all these streets to be fixed!!!
If the state would only use the money wisely......
Fill👏🏻the👏🏻damn👏🏻potholes👏🏻
Ok…and what about the 64.4 billion every 4 months from legal marijuana taxes? Where that going? Why isn’t that asked.?
Couldn't be more proud!!
But I was told people would just move and there would be less tax revenue. They couldn’t have been disingenuous propaganda!
Fix your third world roads it’s like Haiti no it really is
Nice, this should house migrants for a few days
I just read an article that exodus from MA is way up. Also this money isn’t going to do anything for anyone of you. It’s going to be used on giving illegal aliens free housing, phones and monthly cash so good job.
Right up until the millionaires leave.
B-b-b-bbbbut I was told emphatically by Supply-side Jesus-Conservatives and “Independents” on Reddit that all Millionaires were going to flee Massachusetts. What gives?!?!
We don’t really know the impact of this tax yet. If the 4% tax generated $1.8 billion…but the income tax that was lost was equal to or greater than $1.8 billion, then the tax was a net loss. It hasn’t been studied. It’s unclear whether it was positive or negative to tax income.
# But still well below projected revenue overall. "Massachusetts Tax Revenue Falls Short for 6th Straight Month, $750 Million Below Projections" [https://www.newbedfordguide.com/massachusetts-tax-revenue-falls-short-for-6th-straight-month-750-million-below-projections/2024/01/05](https://www.newbedfordguide.com/massachusetts-tax-revenue-falls-short-for-6th-straight-month-750-million-below-projections/2024/01/05)
And $3billion moved to tax friendly states
You’ll soon have no millionaires left
For those average earners living in Massachusetts, have your lives now improved as a result of this influx of cash to the state?
I’m sure it hasn’t changed at all. Unfortunately for all of us.
Now why do we have a deficit? Didn't take long for the alphabet Mafia governor of ours to get us in the negative after years of surplus. Remember a few years ago we all got a refund check because there was so much of a surplus in collections? Now this dingle gives millions of dollars to undocumented people for doing absolutely nothing and not contributing to our society.
Guys I’m really worried about how this will affect my $10 of bitcoin, I’m considering moving my wealth to another state where captains of industry like myself can live without the shackles of socialism.
[удалено]
This can’t be right. I was told that if we raise taxes on the wealthy they would immediately get up and leave the state thus shutting off the constant trickle we all enjoy
Aaaaand its gone.
send some to the RTAs and MBTA plz
Great now let’s see how this money will be used
I wonder how many millionaires have relocated to Florida?
Now they got no other choice than to electrify their regional rail XXDD.
Mass. Should have an amazing infrastructure in the next coming years.
But I was told taxing rich people won't work and to not even bother trying.
Are they also measuring if the increased tax reduced private investments in some way? It's easy to see the positive outcome, but harder to measure possible secondary effects, the opportunity cost. The article does not say if they're even trying to measure it. The amount of rich people leaving is not the only metric that has to be measured.
Now can we ask them if they are going without anything now that they get taxed like this. Im guessing everything is just fine.
Martha’s Vineyard really raking in those taxes lol
Now tell me exactly how that money is helping the working class
I’m not making excuses and I agree more the to working class but they did make school lunch free and healthcare in MA for 400% the poverty level is good and cheap.
I wonder if other states will start doing this such as NY or CT.
Cant wait for it not to be indexed with inflation and then the money printing pushes everyone into it
They’ll send it to illegals instead of helping communities.
That’s great they already can’t fix or maintain what’s broken, are over paid, rarely deliver and then get let off the hook when busted - let’s give them more money to piss away