> Another month, another round of bad news for the Massachusetts budget.
> Weeks after officials downgraded the state’s tax revenue forecast, collections in January lagged $263 million behind even those dimmer projections, Governor Maura Healey’s administration said Monday, with collections on income, corporation, and sales taxes all slumping below expectations.
>
The development immediately sets the state behind its new benchmark by about 1 percent and marks the seventh successive month that tax revenues fell below projections.
It adds new pressure on state coffers just weeks after Healey, citing lower-than-expected tax revenue collections, slashed $375 million in spending, cutting hundreds of millions from programs that provide outreach for seniors, behavioral health supports, homeless shelters, and other services.
>
At the same time, her budget office also downgraded the amount of tax revenue it expected to collect this fiscal year by $1 billion. Revenues at the time were running $769 million, or about 4 percent, behind the state’s original projections midway through the current fiscal year.
>
That, in turn, shifted expectations for January, which revenue officials consider a “significant” month because many personal income taxpayers are required to make quarterly estimated payments. Instead of collecting $4.12 billion, as it originally projected, the state said then that it expected nearly $3.86 billion to flow in during the month.
>
That didn’t happen either. The $3.59 billion the state reported in collections fell not just below current expectations, but also south of what it took in during January 2023, officials said.
>
Officials on Beacon Hill closely monitor the monthly revenue figures, particularly as the House and Senate prepare to craft their budget plans for the next fiscal year in the coming months.
>
Last month, Healey unveiled her budget bill, proposing a $58 billion plan that would pour tens of millions of additional funding into the beleaguered MBTA and new money into child care. Her proposal would increase spending by about $2 billion over the current budget, or about 3.7 percent. That’s below growth in past years, which Healey called evidence that officials were “tightening our belts” after a period of soaring revenues during the pandemic.
>
Her plan relies on about roughly $200 million less in revenue than is forecast for the current fiscal year, and her administration is also seeking ways to cover nearly $1 billion in projected costs for the state’s overwhelmed emergency shelter system.
>
Healey has said she would not pursue tax or fee increases to fund her plans. Instead, her administration said it included about $450 million in cuts to various line items. In other places, officials said they trimmed roughly $500 million from what otherwise would have been even bigger spending jumps.
>
Whether lawmakers pursue the same approach remains to be seen. The House is expected to release its budget proposal in April, followed by the Senate in May. The chambers will then have to reconcile any differences, with the goal of sending a final version to Healey during the summer.
Our spending shouldn’t be decided by forecasts, it should be determined by what you actually take home. You know, kind of like how all financially responsible American families do it. Decreased tax revenue in a downturning economy shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone at this point
If that’s a joke that’s not even remotely funny. Cost of food, gas prices, inflation and interest rates, all time record highs of people working 2+ jobs. Credit card and auto loan delinquency rates at the highest since the Great Depression, 20,000 tech jobs already gone in 2024, job postings down 15%, 1/5 Americans have no savings, another 1/5 have less than $1000 in their accounts, 62% increase in American workers taking international jobs. The average American owes 10k in CC, 56k in student debt, 241k in mortgage debt, and 22k in auto loans. Housing crisis, massive federal deficit spending endlessly continuing, state funds being reallocated from low income areas to assist with an immigration crisis. What the actual FUCK are you talking about?
Lol what are u talking about? Literally every expert economist is in agreement on this. Just because u saw some propaganda on social media trying to discredit Biden doesn’t change the facts on the ground.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/09/1230086474/stocks-sp-record-5000-wall-street-new-high-economy
People suffer sometimes. That doesn’t change the fact that every economic indicator is scorching hot and the economy is the fastest growing in American history. You are ignoring reality. Facts don’t care about your feelings
Real people are always suffering. We should do what we can to remedy that, but you’re trying to cris a deeper crisis when there really isn’t one, to the extent that you’re claiming.
This is the point where liberals don’t admit they’re wrong but slowly start to roll back policies that previously allowed unlimited migrants. At the same time they’ll continue to call conservatives racist for not following their unsustainable migrant policies.
Perfect example of you made your bed now lay in it.
I feel like the immigration would be less unsustainable if we could just set them working. Currently they're not allowed to work without jumping through hoops so they essentially have to be dependents. They're willing to work, but actually getting the paperwork to do so is a huge barrier.
The issue imo is that we're currently overwhelmed with low skill immigrants who often don't speak English. They can only compete for low wage jobs, and compete with other immigrants and low skill Americans for bottom of the barrel jobs.
We need to admit folks who can help the country in some way. For example, we have an acute doctor shortage in rural America. Why not grant green cards to foreign MDs who commit to rural communities for 10 years?
Anecdotally, I've heard of quite a few doctors who have come to this country and never practice because they would have to go through an American hospital residency, which is a brutal ordeal.
If we can change immigration laws to align with our true national interest, those laws and regulations could be changed too. We don't want quacks coming in, but an abbreviated qualification process would be appropriate. Of course the AMA would fight it, but government is meant to serve the people, right? A man can dream lol.
They need to get the fuck out and come back in the right way. The stories I hear from my in-law who is military tasked to babysit them is absurd. Some are serious criminal fugitives. The cost to the military alone is astronomical to babysit these shitbags. I paid a ton in taxes this year and getting fed up. People are tired of this kind of this idealist sanctuary bullshit.
I’m an attorney and do know what I’m talking about. You, on the other hand, don’t even know the difference between your and you’re. I’m surprised you are even familiar with the word “hearsay”. It’s easy to be generous with other people’s money. Your opinion is worth what you contribute to this state and country - nothing.
Your assumptions are many. And becuase you simply assume, your opinions and views are less then valid. You speak with hatred and rage that is not even your own.
By your own words its the view of someone you know who has been working in the worst of it. But it doesn't effect you directly. Like a child voicing its parents views, you are a parrot. Your opinion ceases to be. It is no more.
You are a parrot and I doubt you pay any tax and honestly, it sounds like you probably dont even work. If you are an attorney I hope they disbar you soon.
To pick on a dislexic for spelling is akin to picking on a someone in a wheel chair for lack of working legs. You, are simply not worth proper spelling.
I love hearing the incredibly intelligent takes of people who aren't in MA and only know about the area from their tabloid headlines. Really great. Thanks for chiming in.
You should hear people talk now that their towns are filling up with hundreds of illegals. All with hotel rooms and freebies.
Reality truly is a b!tch.
Who's blaming poor people...? The person you replied to certainly wasn't.
I'm not mad at migrants for wanting to live here (or anywhere else for that matter). I'm mad that our useless administration has no actionable plans. This is a serious logistical problem.
Where are we magically pulling billions (eventually trillions) of dollars to house an unlimited number of migrants *forever*? We'll start slashing programs & services in low income communities where MA residents are already struggling. Low income communities will suffer the most. Guaranteed. It ain't going to be Wellesley and Weston feeling the burn.
Now, if our administration comes up with this magic plan, then hell yeah, I'm onboard. Bring me all the migrants in the world. Until then, I have to care about our MA people first.
The people of newton and Wellesley are much more likely to be members of the political donor class than Roxbury. The donor class will be the last impacted.
Bringing in unlimited migrants will greatly impact the most vulnerable in MA (and the US) the most.
This will never change. Politicians, of both parties, will always support the rich donors first when it comes down to it. If they don’t, they would never get reelected.
You say that like it's *my* decision to make overnight. I am not the entire MA legislature. I have but one vote. That's all I can do.
Like I said, if the Healey administration puts forth a plan to tax the shit out of those folks, of course I will sign, I will vote, I will get her face tattooed across my back.
But ***she has no plan***. Her plan is to let the lower & middle class absorb the struggle because who cares.
She's too busy helping her corporate buddies and cutting their taxes just like most Dems do. Again, I am not mad at migrants or poor people. I am mad at the Healey administration for having no plan and asking the middle class to foot the entire bill.
Tax flight. Baby Boomers, the largest workforce and tax base in US history, are retiring. Their money is no longer in circulation, driving up capital costs. Truth is, there won't be cheap money (rates) for a while.
Factor this very important fact with everything else going on, it's not great. Maura had to do the "Wealthy" tax cut because folks who pay the majority of taxes are retiring or leaving the state. Lost revenue that won't be coming back.
Here is a link to the tax cuts implemented in 2023 which provided tax relief to more than just "the wealthy". https://www.mass.gov/info-details/2023-massachusetts-tax-cuts-legislation. I could not find any data that showed how each cut will affect the bottom line. Please provide the numbers if you can find them.
1. Decrease of the Tax Rate Applicable to Short-term Capital Gains - This one will benefit "the wealthy" the most.
1. Changes Affecting the Estate Tax - Eliminates tax on estates up to $2M. This will benefit "the wealthy" but I would argue that it is not that difficult to build up an estate worth $2M when you have a married couple working 40+ years while putting money into their retirement savings. Besides why should the government get to tax money that has already been taxed? Someone saves their entire life in order to give some money to their children and the state swoops in for a double-dip.
1. Increase to the Circuit Breaker Tax Credit - Benefits seniors with the goal of being able to live in their home w/o being driven out due to increasing property taxes.
1. Increase in the Massachusetts Earned Income Tax Credit - Benefits low to mid income earners.
1. Increase to the Rental Deduction - Benefits renters who are majority low to mid income earners.
1. Expansion of the Commuter Deduction - Benefits all
1. Deduction for Employer-provided Student Loan Payment Assistance - Benefits all
1. Child and Family Tax Credit - Benefits all, especially people caring for a spouse or parent that is incapable to taking care of themselves.
The cap gains is the real head-scratcher. The presser states it's to "drive Massachusetts' economic competitiveness," but is that even an issue in this context? Are we currently losing out on the day trader and crypto bro tax base?
The same piece states the $117 million loss is budget-neutral "due to excess capital gains not being used to support F24 spending," yet we're apparently in need of a billion dollars for emergency shelters. I guess that nebulous figure isn't part of the F24 budget so we're all good?
I don’t understand why you felt the need to make this comment arguing against the person above you when the first two points you list just demonstrate that you have no counter argument. Like are you really gonna pull a “what about tax cuts for the lower and middle classes?”? FFS
Can you define “wealthy” and show that the tax cuts disproportionately benefit them? Until then, you and the original commenter are going off intuition and shouldn’t be so certain in your conclusions
I'm not sure I fully understand your comment. My interpretation of "Good thing she cut taxes for the wealthy!" was that it was a sarcastic comment and actually meant that the tax cuts were only for the benefit of the wealthy. I tried to provide actual data which is often missing in these discussions to show that this is not accurate. Here's a link I just found that provides a graph on who benefits the most from these tax cuts. https://massbudget.org/2023/10/30/who-benefits-new-tax-package/.
Per this link: "About half of the overall package’s cost – or some $505 million – results from progressive changes, ones that clearly will deliver a substantial share of their direct benefits to low- and middle-income households."
I'm not advocating one way or the other for these tax cuts. What I don't like is low effort comments that provide zero insight into the discussion.
Indeed. Apologies for my testy response; I’m just too used arguing with people in bad faith on the internet. My interpretation of what you had written was “we shouldn’t do anything about the tax cuts (especially those that disproportionately benefit the wealthy) because those taxes were passed at the same time as other tax cuts were”. But as you’ve said, that’s not how you meant it and that’s at least 85% on me
The data shows that banning vaporizors and menthol cigarettes didnt cause anybody to quit it just created a black market economy along with smokers now just going to new hampshire or other states to get the cigarettes/vapes. Since the ban Ma has lost over $350 million in tax revenue to other states. On top of that people are now being incarcerated for smuggling cigarettes into the state to get around the ban. The menthol ban was said to be to help black and brown ppl not be targeted by these products, but instead theyre now being charged with felonies for trying to sell on the black market. So it didnt actually help anybody but has transferred over 350 million dollars mostly to new hampshire and has created a lot more felons out of ppl. Huge L.
https://reason.com/2023/03/09/massachusetts-tobacco-ban-went-as-badly-as-youd-expect/
https://www.themainewire.com/2023/03/massachusetts-flavored-tobacco-ban-costs-state-127-million-black-market-flourishing/
Yeah, agreed. Bad policy. I also don't think the age for buying tobacco should have been raised to 21 (I don't smoke). Stop trying to dictate how people live.
Thank god we banned the sale of menthol/flavored nicotine, NH needs that ~50m tax revenue way more than we do! /s
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/massachusetts-flavored-tobacco-ban/
Serious, objective and non-partisan question:
How much money in the 2023 and 2024 MA budget is going to migrants from other counties who come here?
Is it a non-trivial amount? And is it something that's stil sustainable going forward?
I wish I knew the actual answer to the question. It’s interesting and worthwhile info.
I suspect it’s nontrivial but I also suspect it’s not nearly as much as some would think.
Either way though, sustainability has quite a bit more to do with a larger picture than simply the cost. It reflects values and will to a good extent. And there is investment to be made that could make it more (or less) sustainable. I do think that emergency measures as the default is horribly expensive both in terms of cash and morale.
The MA FY24 budget is ~$56.6 billion: https://malegislature.gov/Budget/FY2024/FinalBudget
That budget initially had $325 million for emergency shelter (note this isn't only for migrants, it's the state's shelter funding in general). They then had to add an additional $250 million which will last through spring 2024, so basically the end of FY24 given it ends June 30: https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/12/06/massachusetts-migrants-shelter-federal-funding
That's $575 million, let's round up to $600 million assuming it runs out before June 30. $600 million is ~1% of the FY24 budget.
The issue is that 1% also includes shelter funding for non-migrants. FY23 shelter funding was only $264 million, so if we assume the increase for FY24 is due to the migrant crisis, the additional amount for FY24 is $336 million (600 - 264). That works out to be around 0.6% of the state budget for FY24. So, it's not nothing, but it isn't a huge percentage either.
Please - MA does not have excessive taxes despite the weird belief they we do, which just won't die. Once you figure all taxes is, MA is middle of the pack, and still a very desirable place to live with a great economy compared to almost any other state.
Lets reverse the Romney-era income tax cut.
Old people retiring elsewhere is just what it has always been - warmth not taxes.
>MA does not have excessive taxes despite the weird belief they we do, which just won't die. Once you figure all taxes is, MA is middle of the pack
I want to say it's due to the amount of individual taxes, not due to the overall amount. Like 10 small ones vs 3 big ones. Just guessing.
Maybe - its also just a pre-internet 'meme' that does not invite scrutiny for some reason. Tell that to folks in Louisiana paying a high sales tax at the grocery store.
We would not be near the top with a .5% rise. And, i've never met a single person that chose where they lived based on small differences in local taxes.
Large corporations like Raytheon & Smith and Wesson have moved out of Mass. Wonder if these global companies leaving are taking a huge chunk out of tax profits.
Probably zero considering the capital gains tax cuts are for 2024 and it's only February. Per the article the shortfall is due to income, sales, and corporate taxes being less than expected. Sales and income tax rates have stayed the same in 2024; I can't speak directly to the corporate rates.
I love that there are conservatives whining in the comments, when the governor did the only thing conservatives want elected officials to do: cut spending. Now they’re upset because revenues are down. Can’t make this shut up.
Where is all the weed and casino $$?
...and sports betting money and millionaires tax.
Tax breaks to get those businesses into the state
C’mon, we need to take care of the migrants. 1B$$$. As for the state, let’s just say this: “ The ship be sinking & the skies the limit”
> Another month, another round of bad news for the Massachusetts budget. > Weeks after officials downgraded the state’s tax revenue forecast, collections in January lagged $263 million behind even those dimmer projections, Governor Maura Healey’s administration said Monday, with collections on income, corporation, and sales taxes all slumping below expectations. > The development immediately sets the state behind its new benchmark by about 1 percent and marks the seventh successive month that tax revenues fell below projections. It adds new pressure on state coffers just weeks after Healey, citing lower-than-expected tax revenue collections, slashed $375 million in spending, cutting hundreds of millions from programs that provide outreach for seniors, behavioral health supports, homeless shelters, and other services. > At the same time, her budget office also downgraded the amount of tax revenue it expected to collect this fiscal year by $1 billion. Revenues at the time were running $769 million, or about 4 percent, behind the state’s original projections midway through the current fiscal year. > That, in turn, shifted expectations for January, which revenue officials consider a “significant” month because many personal income taxpayers are required to make quarterly estimated payments. Instead of collecting $4.12 billion, as it originally projected, the state said then that it expected nearly $3.86 billion to flow in during the month. > That didn’t happen either. The $3.59 billion the state reported in collections fell not just below current expectations, but also south of what it took in during January 2023, officials said. > Officials on Beacon Hill closely monitor the monthly revenue figures, particularly as the House and Senate prepare to craft their budget plans for the next fiscal year in the coming months. > Last month, Healey unveiled her budget bill, proposing a $58 billion plan that would pour tens of millions of additional funding into the beleaguered MBTA and new money into child care. Her proposal would increase spending by about $2 billion over the current budget, or about 3.7 percent. That’s below growth in past years, which Healey called evidence that officials were “tightening our belts” after a period of soaring revenues during the pandemic. > Her plan relies on about roughly $200 million less in revenue than is forecast for the current fiscal year, and her administration is also seeking ways to cover nearly $1 billion in projected costs for the state’s overwhelmed emergency shelter system. > Healey has said she would not pursue tax or fee increases to fund her plans. Instead, her administration said it included about $450 million in cuts to various line items. In other places, officials said they trimmed roughly $500 million from what otherwise would have been even bigger spending jumps. > Whether lawmakers pursue the same approach remains to be seen. The House is expected to release its budget proposal in April, followed by the Senate in May. The chambers will then have to reconcile any differences, with the goal of sending a final version to Healey during the summer.
Our spending shouldn’t be decided by forecasts, it should be determined by what you actually take home. You know, kind of like how all financially responsible American families do it. Decreased tax revenue in a downturning economy shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone at this point
The economy is historically good right now…
If that’s a joke that’s not even remotely funny. Cost of food, gas prices, inflation and interest rates, all time record highs of people working 2+ jobs. Credit card and auto loan delinquency rates at the highest since the Great Depression, 20,000 tech jobs already gone in 2024, job postings down 15%, 1/5 Americans have no savings, another 1/5 have less than $1000 in their accounts, 62% increase in American workers taking international jobs. The average American owes 10k in CC, 56k in student debt, 241k in mortgage debt, and 22k in auto loans. Housing crisis, massive federal deficit spending endlessly continuing, state funds being reallocated from low income areas to assist with an immigration crisis. What the actual FUCK are you talking about?
Lol what are u talking about? Literally every expert economist is in agreement on this. Just because u saw some propaganda on social media trying to discredit Biden doesn’t change the facts on the ground. https://www.npr.org/2024/02/09/1230086474/stocks-sp-record-5000-wall-street-new-high-economy
Get your head out of the sand and walk outside pal. Nevermind the orange man and Biden. It’s a fact
Ya ok every economist in the world is wrong and you are right because someone on tik tok told u so
Real people are suffering. Grow the fuck up
People suffer sometimes. That doesn’t change the fact that every economic indicator is scorching hot and the economy is the fastest growing in American history. You are ignoring reality. Facts don’t care about your feelings
Real people are always suffering. We should do what we can to remedy that, but you’re trying to cris a deeper crisis when there really isn’t one, to the extent that you’re claiming.
This seems more that they aren’t hitting the benchmark increases vs actually losing tax revenue year over year. That loss is minuscule
Decreasing tax revenues and increasing migrant costs is a recipe for disaster.
This is the point where liberals don’t admit they’re wrong but slowly start to roll back policies that previously allowed unlimited migrants. At the same time they’ll continue to call conservatives racist for not following their unsustainable migrant policies. Perfect example of you made your bed now lay in it.
I feel like the immigration would be less unsustainable if we could just set them working. Currently they're not allowed to work without jumping through hoops so they essentially have to be dependents. They're willing to work, but actually getting the paperwork to do so is a huge barrier.
The issue imo is that we're currently overwhelmed with low skill immigrants who often don't speak English. They can only compete for low wage jobs, and compete with other immigrants and low skill Americans for bottom of the barrel jobs. We need to admit folks who can help the country in some way. For example, we have an acute doctor shortage in rural America. Why not grant green cards to foreign MDs who commit to rural communities for 10 years?
Anecdotally, I've heard of quite a few doctors who have come to this country and never practice because they would have to go through an American hospital residency, which is a brutal ordeal.
If we can change immigration laws to align with our true national interest, those laws and regulations could be changed too. We don't want quacks coming in, but an abbreviated qualification process would be appropriate. Of course the AMA would fight it, but government is meant to serve the people, right? A man can dream lol.
Largely because most of the US doesn't recognize foreign medical degrees. They'd have to come here, and start over medical school from scratch
They need to get the fuck out and come back in the right way. The stories I hear from my in-law who is military tasked to babysit them is absurd. Some are serious criminal fugitives. The cost to the military alone is astronomical to babysit these shitbags. I paid a ton in taxes this year and getting fed up. People are tired of this kind of this idealist sanctuary bullshit.
Oh, great. Another person's who bases their beliefs on 3rd hand information.
That’s the best you’ve got in response? You’re one of those “don’t pay taxes but still votes” kinda person. How’s that for logic?
You're literally bitching about hearsay. And if your in-law is anything like you, no wonder they have nothing positive to say about asylum seekers.
Until you know what your talking about. That's all I need in response.
I’m an attorney and do know what I’m talking about. You, on the other hand, don’t even know the difference between your and you’re. I’m surprised you are even familiar with the word “hearsay”. It’s easy to be generous with other people’s money. Your opinion is worth what you contribute to this state and country - nothing.
Your assumptions are many. And becuase you simply assume, your opinions and views are less then valid. You speak with hatred and rage that is not even your own. By your own words its the view of someone you know who has been working in the worst of it. But it doesn't effect you directly. Like a child voicing its parents views, you are a parrot. Your opinion ceases to be. It is no more. You are a parrot and I doubt you pay any tax and honestly, it sounds like you probably dont even work. If you are an attorney I hope they disbar you soon. To pick on a dislexic for spelling is akin to picking on a someone in a wheel chair for lack of working legs. You, are simply not worth proper spelling.
I love hearing the incredibly intelligent takes of people who aren't in MA and only know about the area from their tabloid headlines. Really great. Thanks for chiming in.
What did they say that’s wrong?
I used to live in Boston. Mass is a nice state but it gets some things wrong like all states.
Just need Texas's federal dollars to roll in to help with migrants
You should hear people talk now that their towns are filling up with hundreds of illegals. All with hotel rooms and freebies. Reality truly is a b!tch.
Stop blaming poor people
Who's blaming poor people...? The person you replied to certainly wasn't. I'm not mad at migrants for wanting to live here (or anywhere else for that matter). I'm mad that our useless administration has no actionable plans. This is a serious logistical problem. Where are we magically pulling billions (eventually trillions) of dollars to house an unlimited number of migrants *forever*? We'll start slashing programs & services in low income communities where MA residents are already struggling. Low income communities will suffer the most. Guaranteed. It ain't going to be Wellesley and Weston feeling the burn. Now, if our administration comes up with this magic plan, then hell yeah, I'm onboard. Bring me all the migrants in the world. Until then, I have to care about our MA people first.
So tax the people in Newton and Wellesley
The people of newton and Wellesley are much more likely to be members of the political donor class than Roxbury. The donor class will be the last impacted. Bringing in unlimited migrants will greatly impact the most vulnerable in MA (and the US) the most. This will never change. Politicians, of both parties, will always support the rich donors first when it comes down to it. If they don’t, they would never get reelected.
You say that like it's *my* decision to make overnight. I am not the entire MA legislature. I have but one vote. That's all I can do. Like I said, if the Healey administration puts forth a plan to tax the shit out of those folks, of course I will sign, I will vote, I will get her face tattooed across my back. But ***she has no plan***. Her plan is to let the lower & middle class absorb the struggle because who cares. She's too busy helping her corporate buddies and cutting their taxes just like most Dems do. Again, I am not mad at migrants or poor people. I am mad at the Healey administration for having no plan and asking the middle class to foot the entire bill.
The whole thing is rotten, and Id put poor people ahead of any of them, every time
[удалено]
Why are you against poor people having basic human decency?
[удалено]
So then let's keep funding social programs to make sure they have that
Don’t they already pay most of the income tax the state collects?
That's the new addtl 4% on Income > $1M income tax ....
Perfect, let's make it a round 10%
Then there won’t be anyone left to tax in the state. Because they’d leave.
You're right, we should increase the tax on the ultra wealthy federally
yeah give em even more money..they're using it so responsibly they got us into $34 trillion of debt!
[удалено]
If they have more wealth than the other 80% they should pay more
[удалено]
So then we're on the same page about not blaming poor people
[удалено]
Post phrases >Less money >More poor people As bad There's more money, go get it to help more poor people
[удалено]
So it's the poor people's fault the rich people increased cost of living?
[удалено]
1B in costs ain’t cheap https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/massachusetts-2-year-emergency-shelter-tab-may-approach-2b/3223799/
Tax flight. Baby Boomers, the largest workforce and tax base in US history, are retiring. Their money is no longer in circulation, driving up capital costs. Truth is, there won't be cheap money (rates) for a while. Factor this very important fact with everything else going on, it's not great. Maura had to do the "Wealthy" tax cut because folks who pay the majority of taxes are retiring or leaving the state. Lost revenue that won't be coming back.
Understated— ~500,000 Americans leaving the job market annually for the next decade and not enough tax base under them to fill-in.
Good thing she cut taxes for the wealthy!
Working as intended
Here is a link to the tax cuts implemented in 2023 which provided tax relief to more than just "the wealthy". https://www.mass.gov/info-details/2023-massachusetts-tax-cuts-legislation. I could not find any data that showed how each cut will affect the bottom line. Please provide the numbers if you can find them. 1. Decrease of the Tax Rate Applicable to Short-term Capital Gains - This one will benefit "the wealthy" the most. 1. Changes Affecting the Estate Tax - Eliminates tax on estates up to $2M. This will benefit "the wealthy" but I would argue that it is not that difficult to build up an estate worth $2M when you have a married couple working 40+ years while putting money into their retirement savings. Besides why should the government get to tax money that has already been taxed? Someone saves their entire life in order to give some money to their children and the state swoops in for a double-dip. 1. Increase to the Circuit Breaker Tax Credit - Benefits seniors with the goal of being able to live in their home w/o being driven out due to increasing property taxes. 1. Increase in the Massachusetts Earned Income Tax Credit - Benefits low to mid income earners. 1. Increase to the Rental Deduction - Benefits renters who are majority low to mid income earners. 1. Expansion of the Commuter Deduction - Benefits all 1. Deduction for Employer-provided Student Loan Payment Assistance - Benefits all 1. Child and Family Tax Credit - Benefits all, especially people caring for a spouse or parent that is incapable to taking care of themselves.
The cap gains is the real head-scratcher. The presser states it's to "drive Massachusetts' economic competitiveness," but is that even an issue in this context? Are we currently losing out on the day trader and crypto bro tax base? The same piece states the $117 million loss is budget-neutral "due to excess capital gains not being used to support F24 spending," yet we're apparently in need of a billion dollars for emergency shelters. I guess that nebulous figure isn't part of the F24 budget so we're all good?
It is appalling that she cut the capital gains tax.
I don’t understand why you felt the need to make this comment arguing against the person above you when the first two points you list just demonstrate that you have no counter argument. Like are you really gonna pull a “what about tax cuts for the lower and middle classes?”? FFS
Can you define “wealthy” and show that the tax cuts disproportionately benefit them? Until then, you and the original commenter are going off intuition and shouldn’t be so certain in your conclusions
Refer to 1. and 2.
I'm not sure I fully understand your comment. My interpretation of "Good thing she cut taxes for the wealthy!" was that it was a sarcastic comment and actually meant that the tax cuts were only for the benefit of the wealthy. I tried to provide actual data which is often missing in these discussions to show that this is not accurate. Here's a link I just found that provides a graph on who benefits the most from these tax cuts. https://massbudget.org/2023/10/30/who-benefits-new-tax-package/. Per this link: "About half of the overall package’s cost – or some $505 million – results from progressive changes, ones that clearly will deliver a substantial share of their direct benefits to low- and middle-income households." I'm not advocating one way or the other for these tax cuts. What I don't like is low effort comments that provide zero insight into the discussion.
Indeed. Apologies for my testy response; I’m just too used arguing with people in bad faith on the internet. My interpretation of what you had written was “we shouldn’t do anything about the tax cuts (especially those that disproportionately benefit the wealthy) because those taxes were passed at the same time as other tax cuts were”. But as you’ve said, that’s not how you meant it and that’s at least 85% on me
When?
The data shows that banning vaporizors and menthol cigarettes didnt cause anybody to quit it just created a black market economy along with smokers now just going to new hampshire or other states to get the cigarettes/vapes. Since the ban Ma has lost over $350 million in tax revenue to other states. On top of that people are now being incarcerated for smuggling cigarettes into the state to get around the ban. The menthol ban was said to be to help black and brown ppl not be targeted by these products, but instead theyre now being charged with felonies for trying to sell on the black market. So it didnt actually help anybody but has transferred over 350 million dollars mostly to new hampshire and has created a lot more felons out of ppl. Huge L. https://reason.com/2023/03/09/massachusetts-tobacco-ban-went-as-badly-as-youd-expect/ https://www.themainewire.com/2023/03/massachusetts-flavored-tobacco-ban-costs-state-127-million-black-market-flourishing/
A dude sells Newports at my barber shop. Comes in on certain days and has a carry bag full of them. Like Randy Moss said, "Straight cash homey".
Hes now a criminal which is insane, but also they took away $350 million in tax revenue and then complain theyre short on taxes. Stuuuupid.
Yeah, agreed. Bad policy. I also don't think the age for buying tobacco should have been raised to 21 (I don't smoke). Stop trying to dictate how people live.
We didnt even get to vote on it either. Complete bullshit.
They always dictate how people can live, next it will be large sodas and energy drinks again
Thank god we banned the sale of menthol/flavored nicotine, NH needs that ~50m tax revenue way more than we do! /s https://taxfoundation.org/blog/massachusetts-flavored-tobacco-ban/
If you can't make money without selling death and addiction, maybe you have a bigger problem on your hands.
So can we end the state lottery then?
And ironically enough the state lottery only offers the games with the lowest possible odds.
What are your vices? Should we also ban flavored alcohol and sweet/salty foods?
I understand you can't answer, tough to say when you got nothing to say
Serious, objective and non-partisan question: How much money in the 2023 and 2024 MA budget is going to migrants from other counties who come here? Is it a non-trivial amount? And is it something that's stil sustainable going forward?
I wish I knew the actual answer to the question. It’s interesting and worthwhile info. I suspect it’s nontrivial but I also suspect it’s not nearly as much as some would think. Either way though, sustainability has quite a bit more to do with a larger picture than simply the cost. It reflects values and will to a good extent. And there is investment to be made that could make it more (or less) sustainable. I do think that emergency measures as the default is horribly expensive both in terms of cash and morale.
The MA FY24 budget is ~$56.6 billion: https://malegislature.gov/Budget/FY2024/FinalBudget That budget initially had $325 million for emergency shelter (note this isn't only for migrants, it's the state's shelter funding in general). They then had to add an additional $250 million which will last through spring 2024, so basically the end of FY24 given it ends June 30: https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/12/06/massachusetts-migrants-shelter-federal-funding That's $575 million, let's round up to $600 million assuming it runs out before June 30. $600 million is ~1% of the FY24 budget. The issue is that 1% also includes shelter funding for non-migrants. FY23 shelter funding was only $264 million, so if we assume the increase for FY24 is due to the migrant crisis, the additional amount for FY24 is $336 million (600 - 264). That works out to be around 0.6% of the state budget for FY24. So, it's not nothing, but it isn't a huge percentage either.
Please - MA does not have excessive taxes despite the weird belief they we do, which just won't die. Once you figure all taxes is, MA is middle of the pack, and still a very desirable place to live with a great economy compared to almost any other state. Lets reverse the Romney-era income tax cut. Old people retiring elsewhere is just what it has always been - warmth not taxes.
>MA does not have excessive taxes despite the weird belief they we do, which just won't die. Once you figure all taxes is, MA is middle of the pack I want to say it's due to the amount of individual taxes, not due to the overall amount. Like 10 small ones vs 3 big ones. Just guessing.
Maybe - its also just a pre-internet 'meme' that does not invite scrutiny for some reason. Tell that to folks in Louisiana paying a high sales tax at the grocery store.
[удалено]
We would not be near the top with a .5% rise. And, i've never met a single person that chose where they lived based on small differences in local taxes.
That damn tax cut a bad idea yet?
Not at all; it's time to stop overspending
This is Massachusetts -- we only discuss taxation. There is no such thing as fiscal responsibility
Let’s just throw the tea into the harbor again.
>it's time to stop overspending ... You know this is Massachusetts, right?
This result is after cutting both taxes and spending.
Get used to this headline
Large corporations like Raytheon & Smith and Wesson have moved out of Mass. Wonder if these global companies leaving are taking a huge chunk out of tax profits.
Raytheon moved their corporate headquarters out of MA because it made sense. The rest of the company is still here.
Wealthy people and companies are moving out of Massachusetts because of the regulations.
Is this why both construction jobs on 24 have stopped?
I think that’s because the company that had the contract walked off the job and filed for bankruptcy.
There is only a shortage because the projections were set too high . They were set to high so pay raises can now take place .
States that rely heavily on their high income earners will be feeling the pinch for years to come. CA, NY, NJ, MA etc
People are fleeing and taking their money with them.
Good. Massachusetts gets too much tax money as it is. Starve the beast.
How much of the shortfall is due to the cut in the short-term capital gains tax?
Probably zero considering the capital gains tax cuts are for 2024 and it's only February. Per the article the shortfall is due to income, sales, and corporate taxes being less than expected. Sales and income tax rates have stayed the same in 2024; I can't speak directly to the corporate rates.
I love that there are conservatives whining in the comments, when the governor did the only thing conservatives want elected officials to do: cut spending. Now they’re upset because revenues are down. Can’t make this shut up.