20

Page 20 THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, APRIL 21, 2023 By Bob Katzen If you have any questions about this week’s report, e-mail us at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com or call us at (617) 720-1562 GET A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO MASSTERLIST – Join more than 25,000 people, from movers and shakers to political junkies and interested citizens, who start their weekday morning with MASSterList—the popular newsletter that chronicles news and informed analysis about what’s going on up on Beacon Hill, in Massachusetts politics, policy, media and infl uence. The stories are drawn from major news organizations as well as specialized publications selected by MASSterlist’s new editor, Erin Tiernan, with help from Matt Murphy. Both are pros, with a wealth of experience, who introduce each article in their own clever way. MASSterlist will be e-mailed to you FREE every Monday through Friday morning and will give you a leg up on what’s happening in the blood sport of Bay State politics. For more information and to get your free subscription, go to: https://lp.constantcontactpages. com/su/aPTLucK a THE HOUSE AND SENATE: BHRC records local representatives and senatots’ otes from the week of April 10-14. $1.1 BILLION TAX CUT PACKAGE (H 3770) House 153-3, approved and sent to the Senate a $1.1 billion tax relief package. Provisions include combining the Child Care Expenses Credit with the Dependent Member of Household Credit to create one refundable $600 credit per dependent, while eliminating the current cap; exempt the fi rst $2 million, instead of the current $1 million.of the value of a person’s estate from the state’s estate/death tax that a person is required to pay following their death before distribution to any benefi ciary; double the Senior Circuit Breaker Tax Credit from $1,200 to $2,400; increase the rental deduction cap from $3,000 to $4,000; reduce the short-term capital gains tax rate from 12 percent to 5 percent; raise the Earned Income Tax Credit from 30 percent to 40 percent of the federal credit; and replace the current business tax from the 3-factor apportionment based on location, payroll, and receipts with a single sales factor apportionment based solely on receipts. Another provision changes the tax refund distribution formula under a current law, known as 62F, that ~ ANNOUNCEMENT~ REVERE AMERICAN LEGION POST # 61 Is reopening soon! requires that annual tax revenue above a certain amount collected by the state go back to the taxpayers. Under current law, the money is returned to taxpayers based on how much he or she paid in 2021 taxes, while this tax relief package changes the formula and provides a fl at rate refund, unrelated to what the individual paid in taxes. The measure would also change a current law that provides when the state’s Stabilization Fund, also known as the Rainy Day Fund, exceeds 15 percent of budgeted revenues, the excess is transferred to the Tax Reduction Fund which eventually is returned to taxpayers. The Democrats’ tax relief bill would raise that percent to 25.5 percent. “We have been focused on how we can help the people of the commonwealth with the cost of living and make life a little easier, and we do so in this legislation,” said Revenue Committee House chair Rep. Mark Cusack (D-Braintree). “We have also focused on our economic competitiveness, and where we can lower and remove our outlier status to make Massachusetts a better place to live, work and invest and we do that in this package as well.” “With increases to the earned income tax credit, the senior circuit breaker and the renters deduction, there’s a lot in this bill that we can all support,” said Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge). “And yet, other parts of the bill, such as the big cut to the short-term capital gains tax rate, will disproportionately benefi t the very wealthy. In this time of unprecedented inequality, housing emergency and MBTA disaster, I believe we need to reconsider the provisions of this bill that are inequitable and will ultimately deprive us of the revenue we need to invest in our future.” “Despite the Chapter 62F changes, I voted for the underlying legislation because it will provide over $1 billion in tax relief to Massachusetts residents and business owners,” said Rep. Mike Soter (R-Bellingham). Bellingham). “Over the last three years, our state has seen a net loss of over 100,000people,” said Paul Craney, spokesperson for Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “As the full eff ect of the income surtax amendment begins to be felt, we’re absolutely going to see that trend continue, but this time with a cohort composed of our largest taxpayers. Our economic competitiveness rankings are in free fall. If our state government is to address this issue and We are happy to announce that we have begun making reservations for our function hall. For events being held on/after May 20th, please call: 781-284-9511 Leave your name and telephone number. head it off before it becomes catastrophic, they need to take bold action. The changes to the estate and capital gains taxes put forth by the House won’t cut it and the speaker’s attempt to gut the voter approved tax cap and rebate law known as 62F is nothing more than provocation to the taxpayers. (A “Yes” vote is for the $1.1 billion in tax relief. A “No” vote is against it). Rep. Jessica Giannino Yes Rep. Jeff Turco Yes HOW TO DISTRIBUTE SOME FUTURE TAX REFUND (H 3770) House 26-128, rejected an amendment that would change the current law (known as 62F), approved by voters on the 1986 ballot, that requires that annual tax revenue above a certain amount collected by the state go back to the taxpayers. A few months ago, the law resulted in $2.9 billion being returned to taxpayers, using a formula based on how much each taxpayer paid in income taxes in 2021. In the House $1 billion tax reduction bill, the formula is changed so that each taxpayer will receive a fl at rate refund, unrelated to what they paid in taxes. The amendment would strike the change and revert back to the refund based on what a person paid in income taxes in 2021. “The Legislature needs to respect the will of the voters, and that means keeping the existing Chapter 62F tax law in place,” said sponsor GOP House Minority Leader Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “If we really want to change the law, we should not act unilaterally, but instead should hold public hearings to solicit input from the state’s taxpayers or put it before the voters again as a statewide ballot question to see whether there is actual public support for making those changes.” Opponents of the income-based amendment said the fl at rate refund would ensure everyone in the state, regardless of income, will share equally in the state’s economic success. “This is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy,” said Rep. Sarah Peake (D-Provincetown). “Yes, there are some ballot initiatives, things that go on the ballot that come to us. And [as] often as not, we make tweaks to those ballot initiatives and change them after they are voted on by the people to make them better legislation. What recently comes to mind is the legislation and the ballot initiative that legalized the sale of cannabis in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. What appeared on the ballot is not what appears in our statute books today, so this isn’t some outlier. This is the common practice.” Massachusetts Republican Party Chair Amy Carnevale said the fl at rate refund changes the 1986 law from a refund into a government handout. “Instead of taxpayers getting a percentage based on what they paid to the state, the Democrats want to send just a fl at rate check to everyone. It is a redistribution of wealth. It is not fair. Your refund should be based on what you pay.” (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment distributing the refund based on what each taxpayer paid in taxes. A “No” vote is against the amendment and favors a fl at rate refund of the same amount for each taxpayer). Rep. Jessica Giannino No Rep. Jeff Turco Yes RAISE TRIGGER POINT FOR TAX REFUND (H 3770) House 25-129, rejected a Republican amendment to a section of the Democrats’ tax relief bill that would change a current law that provides when the state’s Stabilization Fund, also known as the Rainy Day Fund, exceeds 15 percent of budgeted revenues, the excess is transferred to the Tax Reduction Fund which eventually is returned to taxpayers. The Democrats’ tax relief bill would raise that percent to 25.5 percent. The Republican amendment would eliminate that change and revert to the current 15 percent formula. “When excess funding is transferred to the Tax Reduction Fund, that helps provide for some modest tax relief to the commonwealth’s residents by allowing for an increase in their personal exemption when fi ling their taxes,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Brad Jones. “The whole purpose of this bill is to make Massachusetts more competitive, aff ordable and equitable, but raising the threshold makes it less likely that taxpayers will actually get a break, which runs contrary to the stated goals of the legislation.” Opponents said that raising the cap will allow more money to remain in the Rainy Day Fund so that when it does “rain” and state revenues decline, the Legislature will not have to cut important programs or raise taxes. They noted hiking the cap is not without precedent, noting that the Legislature previously raised the cap from 7.5 percent BEACON | SEE Page 22

21 Publizr Home