Editorial Staff

Study Says Massachusetts Surtax Proposal Could Reduce Taxable Income in the State by Over $2 Billion

/in , , , /by Editorial Staff
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on
LinkedIn
+

BOSTON – As Massachusetts voters now begin to weigh the potential impact of a ballot proposal to increase taxes on business owners, retirees and wealthier households, a new literature review by Pioneer Institute shows that many existing academic studies find that wealthy individuals are particularly sensitive to changes in tax policy. Other studies explicitly warn policymakers that behavioral responses to taxing the rich could erode the tax base and ultimately strain state budgets.

Many of the individual research papers described in the report focus on particular sub-groups of the wealthy, such as chief executive officers at major corporations and particularly innovative “star scientists.”

“The breadth of research covered in this paper really highlights the variety of ways in which income tax hikes can leave states vulnerable to wealth flight and fiscal and economic harm,” said Andrew Mikula, author of Tax Flight of the Wealthy: An Academic Literature Review. “Besides physical relocation out of Massachusetts, such policies are also deterring innovators from coming here to begin with, and encouraging stock-based salaries that are used to delay tax payments.”

The Pioneer Institute study ties the results of these academic pieces into Massachusetts’ current graduated income tax proposal. For example, a 2012 study from the University of Pennsylvania found that, for every 1 percent increase in the share of income retained after taxes, the total value of taxable income in a jurisdiction increases by between 0.12 percent and 0.40 percent in the long run. This would imply that Massachusetts’ proposed surtax would decrease the amount of taxable income in the state by between $606 million and $2.02 billion.

A 2008 study in the Journal of Urban Economics spoke to the interaction between the proposed surtax and a pending court case between New Hampshire and Massachusetts over whether remote workers in the Granite State are obligated to pay taxes in Massachusetts when their companies are based here. The study found that, in states without “reciprocity agreements” that would prevent such disputes, the impact of tax hikes on migration patterns is far stronger.

Pioneer’s new policy brief also highlights nuances in past studies that have downplayed the role of tax hikes in the migration decisions of the wealthy. For example, a 2016 paper by Cornell University Professor Cristobal Young claims that “when Florida is excluded, there is virtually no” correlation between income tax rates and migration patterns in the United States.

However, underpinning this headline-worthy line is that Young doesn’t rule out that there is an “especially appealing combination” of tax avoidance and geography driving the so-called Florida effect. In addition, the database used in Young’s paper only includes households that earned over $1 million in the year before they move, a severe limitation that misses households that migrate for the purpose of avoiding taxes on the anticipated sale of a valuable asset.

Other papers described in the report discuss the tax policy implications of the Tiebout hypothesis that people tend to “vote with their feet.” In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, taxpayers may be especially mobile as they are able to work from home in greater numbers than ever before. All but one of the papers described in the report predate the pandemic, and most of them predate the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as well, whose limitation on the state and local tax deduction could also encourage increased migration among the wealthy.

“Research data allow us to put some hard numbers on the devastating and perhaps permanent impact of a graduated income tax – as much as $2 billion in lost taxable income,” said Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios. “And calculating the impact on state tax revenues ignores the enormous human toll: lost jobs and less security for homeowners. The long-term effects may include, as is abundantly clear in the case of Connecticut, anemic growth in state tax receipts and therefore fewer resources for social programs and public investments.”

About the Author

Andrew Mikula is an Economic Research Analyst at Pioneer Institute. Mr. Mikula was previously a Lovett & Ruth Peters Economic Opportunity Fellow at Pioneer Institute and studied economics at Bates College.

About Pioneer

Pioneer’s mission is to develop and communicate dynamic ideas that advance prosperity and a vibrant civic life in Massachusetts and beyond.

Pioneer’s vision of success is a state and nation where our people can prosper and our society thrive because we enjoy world-class options in education, healthcare, transportation and economic opportunity, and where our government is limited, accountable and transparent.

Pioneer values an America where our citizenry is well-educated and willing to test our beliefs based on facts and the free exchange of ideas, and committed to liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise.

Get Updates on Our Economic Opportunity Research

Related Posts:

This Is No Time for a Tax Increase

This is no time to threaten Massachusetts’ prospects for an immediate economic recovery and the long-term competitiveness of the Commonwealth’s businesses. As Massachusetts lawmakers prepare to vote on whether to send a proposed constitutional amendment that would impose a 4 percent surtax on residents who earn $1 million or more in a year to the statewide ballot in 2022, Pioneer Institute urges them to recognize that tax policy sizably impacts business and job location decisions and that jobs are more mobile than ever.
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.

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.