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 25th 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.
Oops! We could not locate your form.
Related Posts

New Census Bureau Data Show Northeast is an Outlier on New Housing Characteristics

New Study Finds Massachusetts Is Not Progressive When It Comes to Taxing Lower- and Middle-Income Families

Massachusetts Infrastructure Report Card Calls Attention to Pandemic Shifts and Long-Term Questions

MA Voters Denied Voice On State Income Tax Reduction

Massachusetts Has a Small-Home Shortage; Zoning Reform Can Help Fix It

Pioneer Institute Urges Caution as Legislature Considers New Restrictions on Ballot Initiatives

Pioneer Institute Applauds Healey Administration’s Proposal to Reduce LLC Filing Fees; More Reforms Needed to Address Economic Malaise

Pioneer Institute Study Calls for Attrition Strategy to Rein in Record-High Massachusetts State Workforce

Blog: Massachusetts Needs Growth—Not More of the Same

As Thousands of College Students Graduate Across Massachusetts, New Report Warns Many Will Leave

Court Allows Boston Commercial Taxpayer Lawsuit to Move Forward

Pioneer Study: Seniors Paid More for Key Drugs Despite Federal Price Controls

Boston is 48th out of 55 Metro Areas in the Competition for Young Workers

New Study Finds Massachusetts Business Formation Has Plummeted Despite National Surge

Inaugural US DataLabs Ranking Finds Alaska the State Most Dependent on Federal Funds, Idaho the Least

Massachusetts Economic Development Bill Includes a Key Provision for Streamlining the Review of Housing Development Applications

Tax Day: A Reflection on State Income Taxes and Competitiveness
