Public Statement: SJC Decision on Prop 80

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on

LinkedIn

Pioneer Institute and its public-interest law initiative, PioneerLegal, applaud the decision of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in Christopher Anderson et al. v. Maura Healey.

The SJC upheld decades of precedent in finding that Proposition 80, a ballot initiative that would have instituted a graduated income tax in Massachusetts, violates the “relatedness” provisions of state constitution, thereby precluding voters from expressing a unified statement on public policy.

The Institute, through PioneerLegal, filed an amicus brief with the SJC in support of the plaintiffs before the Court heard oral arguments in February. The Tax Foundation also signed onto the brief.

Pioneer research looked into key legal issues and the negative economic impact that would have resulted from adoption of the ballot measure. The Institute also shared facts with community and business leaders, elected officials, the media and the general public through social and traditional media channels.

Pioneer studies demonstrated that a proposed millionaires tax in Massachusetts would:

Accelerate the out-migration of businesses and high earners;
Ensnare an ever-increasing share of the population over time because it includes an inadequate inflation adjustment index;
Double the effective tax rate for high earners and exacerbate the measure’s economic damage because of the limit on deductions for state and local taxes included in the recent federal tax law;
Generate less than the projected $1.9 billion in annual revenue and increase the Commonwealth’s top capital gains tax rate from 25^th highest in the country to second;
Leave Massachusetts with the sixth highest capital gains rate in the world; and
Lead to a “Connecticut effect,” that is, slower growth, an employer exodus and declining tax revenue;
Finally, the Pioneer released a report thoroughly debunking the methodology of Stanford Associate Professor of Sociology Cristobal Young, whose research served as a singular point of reference for ballot proponents and media outlets that claimed “millionaires” don’t move out of high-tax states.

Alleviating these negative impacts would have taken a minimum of three years, since the measure would have amended the state constitution rather than just change state law. Massachusetts residents, employees and businesses are all beneficiaries of the SJC’s wise decision.

Stay Connected!

Related Posts

Opioid Usage in Massachusetts: A Painful and Tragic Trend

0 Comments

August 8, 2016

In March, Governor Baker signed An Act Relative to substance…

Key takeaways from new ride-for-hire legislation

0 Comments

August 4, 2016

There is, fortunately, no major cause for concern in the bill…

Event To Call For Moving “Know-Nothing” Governor’s Portrait From State House Wall

August 1, 2016

Bigoted Know-Nothing Amendments still part of state constitution Read…

Leveling the Playing Field for the Taxi Industry

0 Comments

July 29, 2016

As a Massachusetts state legislative committee considers a contentious…

Study: Expand Use of Transponder Technology to Parking, Other Non-Tolling Services

July 27, 2016

Report calls for creation of single account to simplify customer…

PioneerLegal Joins Amicus Brief In Takings Case Before Sixth Circuit

July 20, 2016

Pioneer Institute (Pioneer) has joined in an amicus brief in…

The Mysterious World of NCAA Apparel Contracts

0 Comments

July 19, 2016

The world of collegiate athletics is, besides great entertainment,…

The Battle over Logan Airport—Will TNCs Prevail?

0 Comments

July 14, 2016

Since 2011, transportation network companies (TNCs) have established themselves as a popular mode of transportation in the City of Boston. Given their convenience and low cost, TNCs such as Uber and Lyft have become local consumers’ first choice over taxis.