New Study Looks to Connecticut as Cautionary Tale for Impact of Proposed Ballot Initiative Hiking Taxes

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on
LinkedIn
+

Hear Greg Sullivan discuss this report on Bloomberg Radio.

Raising taxes on companies and high earners has resulted in less revenue, exodus of large employers and wealthy individuals

BOSTON – Proponents of a 2018 statewide ballot initiative that would add a surcharge on the state taxes of those earning over $1 million annually should look at the experience of Connecticut, where multiple rounds of tax hikes aimed at high earners triggered an exodus of large employers and high-earning individuals that resulted in declining tax revenue, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

“Before going to the polls next year, voters should take a close look at the impact that tax hikes similar to the ones being proposed have had on our neighbor to the south,” said Greg Sullivan, author of “Back to Taxachusetts? Lessons from Connecticut.”

The ballot initiative, Proposition 80, would add a four percentage-point surcharge on all taxable income above $1 million annually.  It stipulates that the incremental revenue be used for education and transportation.  If it passes, Massachusetts’ top income tax rate will rise to 9.1 percent and our top capital gains tax rate will be among the highest in the world.

Over the last quarter-century, Connecticut has endured a series of budget crises.  To cover ballooning costs, the state enacted sharp tax hikes, including four income tax hikes in the last 14 years that caused the top rate to jump by 77 percent.

In recent years, Connecticut has increasingly turned to high earners and large companies to close budget gaps, doubling a surcharge on large firms, establishing and then increasing a tax on luxury goods, and raising the income tax for the state’s highest earners.

The results have been disastrous.  From 2007 to 2016, the state placed 49th among the states and D.C. in private sector wage growth.  In just the last couple of years, General Electric and Alexion Pharmaceuticals decided to move their headquarters to Massachusetts, while Aetna Insurance has announced plans to move to New York.

According to a 2014 Connecticut Department of Revenue study, the state’s 357 wealthiest families account for 11.7 percent of all income tax revenue.  Between 2011-12 and 2014-15, Connecticut lost high earners at a rate that trailed only Washington, D.C., and those who fled earned more on average than high earners leaving other states.

Despite rate increases, the amount of taxes paid by Connecticut’s 100 top taxpayers plummeted 45 percent between 2015 and 2016 alone.

Massachusetts took a very different approach in the wake of the 1990-91 recession.  A state income tax that was once 6.25 percent now stands at 5.1 percent.  Since the end of that recession, the commonwealth has attracted millionaires at more than twice the rate of Connecticut.

Since February 2010, Massachusetts has created more than three times the number of jobs it lost during the Great Recession.  In contrast, Connecticut still hasn’t recovered all the jobs it lost and those it has created are, on average, lower paying.

Like Connecticut, Massachusetts relies on a relatively small number of wealthy taxpayers to foot a significant chunk of the commonwealth’s bills.  If a third of those impacted by Proposition 80 decided to move, it would result in a loss of $750 million in annual tax revenue.

“‘Leaving’ has never been easier,” said Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios.  “In some cases, high earners can stay put and simply move money into trusts located in other states.”

About the Author

Gregory W. Sullivan is Pioneer’s Research Director. Prior to joining Pioneer, Sullivan served two five-year terms as Inspector General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and was a 17-year member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Greg holds degrees from Harvard College, The Kennedy School of Public Administration, and the Sloan School at MIT.

About Pioneer

Pioneer Institute is an independent, non-partisan, privately funded research organization that seeks to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts through civic discourse and intellectually rigorous, data-driven public policy solutions based on free market principles, individual liberty and responsibility, and the ideal of effective, limited and accountable government.

Get Updates on Our Economic Opportunity Research

Related research:

Are Massachusetts taxes regressive? Massachusetts State with Money Background

Study Finds Deep Flaws in Advocates’ Claims that the Massachusetts Tax Code is Regressive

Proponents of a state constitutional amendment to add a 4 percent surtax on all households with annual income above $1 million frequently cite 2015 data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which argues that the Massachusetts tax code is regressive, but a new study published by Pioneer Institute debunks many of the underlying assumptions used in ITEP’s 2015 report.

Open Letter: Extend the Term of the MBTA’s Fiscal and Management Control Board

Read Pioneer Institute's Open Letter urging policymakers to extend the term of the MBTA’s Fiscal and Management Control Board (FMCB), which is currently scheduled to sunset at the end of June.  The Letter also calls for the Control Board to continue to be made up of transit experts rather than political appointees, and recommends that an independent audit office be created that reports directly to the FMCB.

Study Says Interstate Tax Competition, Relocation Subsidies Exacerbate Telecommuting Trends

A spate of new incentive and subsidy programs seeking to lure talented workers and innovative businesses away from their home states could constitute an additional challenge to Massachusetts’ economic and fiscal recovery from COVID-19, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

7 Reasons to Reject the Graduated Tax and Instead Focus on Growing Jobs

Pioneer Institute's Statement before the Joint Committee on Revenue In Opposition to: HB 86 (Pages 1-4), a legislative amendment to the Constitution to provide resources for education and transportation through an additional tax on incomes in excess of one million dollars.

Study Warns Massachusetts Tax Proposal Would Deter Investment, Stifling the “Innovation Economy”

A state constitutional amendment promoted by the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Service Employees International Union adding a 4 percent surtax to all annual income above $1 million could devastate innovative startups dependent on Boston’s financial services industry for funding, ultimately hampering the region’s recovery from the COVID-19 economic recession, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

Study Shows the Adverse Effects of Graduated Income Tax Proposal on Small Businesses

The state constitutional amendment promoted by the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Service Employees International Union to add a 4 percent surtax to all annual income above $1 million will adversely impact a significant number of pass-through businesses, ultimately slowing the Commonwealth’s economic recovery from COVID-19, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

Study: Graduated Income Tax Proposal Fails to Protect Taxpayers from Bracket Creep

The state constitutional amendment proposed by the Service Employees International Union and the Massachusetts Teachers Association to add a 4 percent surtax to all annual income above $1 million purports to use cost-of-living-based bracket adjustments as a safeguard that will ensure only millionaires will pay. But historic income growth trends suggest that bracket creep will cause many non-millionaires to be subject to the surtax over time, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

Pioneer Institute, The Immigrant Learning Center Co-Produce New Weekly Podcast

Pioneer Institute is pleased to announce the launch of JobMakers, a new weekly podcast that explores the world of risk-taking immigrants who create new products, services, and jobs in New England and across the United States. JobMakers is produced in collaboration with The Immigrant Learning Center (ILC) of Malden, MA.

New Study Warns Graduated Income Tax Will Harm Many Massachusetts Retirees

If passed, a constitutional amendment to impose a graduated income tax would raid the retirement plans of Massachusetts residents by pushing their owners into higher tax brackets on the sales of homes and businesses, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute. The study, entitled “The Graduated Income Tax Trap: A retirement tax on small business owners,” aims to help the public fully understand the impact of the proposed new tax.

Study: Graduated Income Tax Proponents Rely on Analyses That Exclude the Vast Majority Of “Millionaires” to Argue Their Case

Advocates for a state constitutional amendment that would apply a 4 percent surtax to households with annual earnings of more than $1 million rely heavily on the assumption that these proposed taxes will have little impact on the mobility of high earners. They cite analyses by Cornell University Associate Professor Cristobal Young, which exclude the vast majority of millionaires, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

Report Contrasts State Government and Private Sector Employment Changes During Pandemic

Massachusetts state government employment has been virtually flat during COVID-19 even as employment in the state’s private sector workforce remains nearly 10 percent below pre-pandemic levels, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute. The study, “Public vs. Private Employment in Massachusetts: A Tale of Two Pandemics,” questions whether it makes sense to shield public agencies from last year’s recession at the expense of taxpayers.

Study Finds Massachusetts Graduated Income Tax May Be a “Blank Check” and Not Increase Funding for Designated Priorities

Advocates claim a proposed 4 percent surtax on high earners will raise nearly $2 billion per year for education and transportation, but similar tax hikes in other states resulted in highly discretionary rather than targeted spending, according to a new policy brief published by Pioneer Institute. That same result or worse is possible in Massachusetts because during the 2019 constitutional convention state legislators rejected — not just one, but two — proposed amendments requiring that the new revenues be directed to these purposes.