Healey slapped down on unconstitutional "millionaires tax"

[Boston4567]

Nice to see her finally lose one.

Misguided millionaires tax was a nonstarter - The Boston Globe

Even the attorney general can’t wave her magic wand and turn an unconstitutional ballot question into a winner just because she likes it and wouldn’t mind currying favor with the progressive activists who supported it.

“The attorney general has not articulated a common purpose between these spending priorities [education and transportation] beyond the abstract determination that both purposes are ‘broad areas of public concern,’ ” the opinion noted.

So is the opioid crisis, for that matter, but it doesn’t mean it should be tied to an income surtax.

Raise Up Massachusetts, aided and abetted by an attorney general who chose to be more tax hike cheerleader than objective arbiter of that which properly belongs on the ballot, did itself a huge disfavor. If it truly believes the state’s wealthiest — and dare we say, most productive — citizens need to be taxed more, it could have proposed a clean surtax bill.

Instead the group outsmarted itself and wasted the past three years. But then again, it’s what they deserve.

The court's opinion was pretty good:

In other words, art. 48 was designed to safeguard the rights of the voters to be presented with a coherent, single statement of public policy, rather than be misled by efforts to "wheedle or deceive [them] into granting the privileges that our representatives never would permit" by presenting "measures that become law through the . . . wording of titles or . . . catchy provisions . . . that the people had previously rejected." Carney I, 447 Mass. at 227 n.20, quoting Constitutional Debates, supra at 567. It is hard to view a proposed "constitutional amendment" that one of its proponents said was deliberately "very differently constructed" from prior similar amendments, and where "because it is focused specifically on money for education and transportation will stand a better chance of being approved," as other than the precise type of wheedling and deceiving that the delegates had in mind when they adopted the relatedness requirement.

 

[enbloc]

Wait. I thought "Wheedling" was when you haggle with your pot guy?

 

[Lowbird]

Wait. I thought "Wheedling" was when you haggle with your pot guy?

In Maine it's dickering, right?

There's a Mora joke in there if someone wants to take a poke at it.

 

[enbloc]

Is "wheedling" pronounced like "Wheat thins"?...

 

[Paul455]

Good.

We don't need a hard core left wing political activist in that role.

Time for Maura to go away.

 

[W.E.C]

She ate up that flat tax menu, but her dem limousine liberal. Masters made her puke it back up.

 

[rcoolbaugh]

I love seeing the words "Healey" and "Slapped" in the same sentence!

 

[Noreaster]

I love seeing the words "Healey" and "Slapped" in the same sentence!

Please fix that to say "slapped down". Keep your spanking fantasies to yourself.

 

[not new guy]

In Maine it's dickering, right?

There's a Mora joke in there if someone wants to take a poke at it.

No joke. A wheedle dickering fer ol' Moira'd be good fer the lotta us.

 

[Boston4567]

By the way, although Baker has been terrible on 2A, credit where credit is due - all but one of his appointees voted to not allow this on the ballot.

Deval's social justice warrior Chief Justice wanted it on the ballot. His other appointee filed a separate opinion leaving the door open for a future question with a few tweaks. Thanks to Baker's appointees, that can't happen, by a 4-3 margin.

 

[drgrant]

The SJC sucks but this is hilarious...

"You REALLY know you're a piece of shit AG when even the moonbat run MA SJC votes against you. "

-Mike

 

[rwl1955]

The SJC sucks but this is hilarious...

"You REALLY know you're a piece of shit AG when even the moonbat run MA SJC votes against you. "

-Mike

Yup, she's drunk with power.

 

[Brewer]

This is hilarious. Some comments on that article could be straight off a page from Atlas Shrugged.

I know several people who make more than $1 million who are not at all among the "most productive" people in the state but rather use their legal knowledge to evade regulations and taxes for their customers. One guy is a "property tax consultant." His entire job is to argue on behalf of the ultra-rich that their properties should be assessed at a lower rate. How is that productive for anyone other than the clients and himself?

Likewise, I myself don't make a million dollars a year but am incredibly productive, creating a lot of value for society in my start-up that might make money someday but doesn't right now.

Bottom line: conflating "most productive" with highest-paid is very insulting to many of the 99% of us who do not make $1 million/year.

And response:

How can you be "incredibly productive" and create a lot of value for society at a start up that doesn't make money? If you created real value for society, society would reward you by buying your product and making you wealthy. It hasn't. You are confusing motion for accomplishment.

 

[not new guy]

You are confusing motion for accomplishment.

Love it.

 

[Brewer]

How is that productive for anyone other than the clients and himself?

It's so classic. The guy is bitter that a consultant and client have mutual benefit, but NO ONE ELSE? What an outrage! It offends my sense of entitlement, either "Why don't I benefit from his work, too?" or "Why don't I get paid so much for my completely different work?"

Goods and services. You supply either to someone and you get paid, because you deserve it... and you alone.

 

[Dennis in MA]

1. Yeah, Commonwealth. I thought for sure the SC would rule that it was dandy because it made sense to the $ grabbers. Glad they actually SAW the law for once.

In Maine it's dickering, right?

There's a Mora joke in there if someone wants to take a poke at it.

Hey - however you pay for your weed is between you and your dealer.

 

[Boston4567]

This is hilarious. Some comments on that article could be straight off a page from Atlas Shrugged.

I know several people who make more than $1 million who are not at all among the "most productive" people in the state but rather use their legal knowledge to evade regulations and taxes for their customers. One guy is a "property tax consultant." His entire job is to argue on behalf of the ultra-rich that their properties should be assessed at a lower rate. How is that productive for anyone other than the clients and himself?

Likewise, I myself don't make a million dollars a year but am incredibly productive, creating a lot of value for society in my start-up that might make money someday but doesn't right now.

Bottom line: conflating "most productive" with highest-paid is very insulting to many of the 99% of us who do not make $1 million/year.

And response:

How can you be "incredibly productive" and create a lot of value for society at a start up that doesn't make money? If you created real value for society, society would reward you by buying your product and making you wealthy. It hasn't. You are confusing motion for accomplishment.

Since he's upset that someone was trying not to pay more property taxes than legally required, I'm sure he checks the box for the optional 5.85% tax rate on his state income taxes, right?

 

[Dennis in MA]

That's what a Progressive is: Someone who wants YOU to pay more so they THEY can get something they want.

I may not like anyone from the other side of the political spectrum, I respect those who put their $ where their mouth is. Which is why I have zero appreciation for Warren Buffett. He can go pound sand.

 

[rwl1955]

That's what a Progressive is: Someone who wants YOU to pay more so they THEY can get something they want.

I may not like anyone from the other side of the political spectrum, I respect those who put their $ where their mouth is. Which is why I have zero appreciation for Warren Buffett. He can go pound sand.

Yup, ask Liawatha if she checked the box to pay the higher State Tax?

 

[JohnZ]

It's so classic. The guy is bitter that a consultant and client have mutual benefit, but NO ONE ELSE? What an outrage! It offends my sense of entitlement, either "Why don't I benefit from his work, too?" or "Why don't I get paid so much for my completely different work?"

Goods and services. You supply either to someone and you get paid, because you deserve it... and you alone.

You forgot the benefit of reduced food for the beast that is .gov.

 

[Junior314]

Can someone explain to me what business the AG has in changing tax laws/code?

 

[Boston4567]

Can someone explain to me what business the AG has in changing tax laws/code?

This was a proposed ballot measure. The MA Constitution has strict requirements for what types of ballot measures can be presented to the voters. They're basically the guardrails that keep MA from becoming California, a state with a million stupid ballot measures every election that no one understands. The AG plays a role in determining the constitutionality of these ballot measures. She either certifies them or rejects them. People who think her ruling was wrong can sue and the SJC decides who's right.

Ballot measures can only be on one subject. In this case, it was three. Adding a new tax, allocating half of the revenue from the tax to transportation, and allocating the other half to education. The "one topic per ballot measure" is a longstanding, fairly bright-line rule. But Healey certified the measure anyway because every aspect of her office has become politicized.

 

[67ray]

Healy still gets a check box because she can say she supported the initiative but it was out of her hands. Supporters will commiserate and think they have a great advocate on their behalf.

 

[Palladin]

Dems are going to try and pass legislation for it

Reactions to the court ruling on the Mass. millionaire tax | Boston.com

 

[amm5061]

Dems are going to try and pass legislation for it

Reactions to the court ruling on the Mass. millionaire tax | Boston.com

Well, that is the way it's supposed to happen. If they want to steal more money and drive more business out of state, then it's supposed to go through the legislature.

This was a way for the thieves on bacon hill to get more money to line their pockets without looking like a bunch of dicks by passing legislation to raise taxes. Now they'll have to get their hands dirty. Not that anyone in this state is even paying much attention anyhow.

 

[Boston4567]

Well, that is the way it's supposed to happen. If they want to steal more money and drive more business out of state, then it's supposed to go through the legislature.

This was a way for the thieves on bacon hill to get more money to line their pockets without looking like a bunch of dicks by passing legislation to raise taxes. Now they'll have to get their hands dirty. Not that anyone in this state is even paying much attention anyhow.

A voter-initiated constitutional amendment like the one that just got rejected only requires 25% of the legislature to vote for it. A legislative-initiated one requires a majority of legislators, two legislative sessions in a row, then it goes to the voters. So we'd be looking at a vote in 2022 or maybe even 2024, I believe.

That's a long time for the business community to fight it. And at the end of the day, they can just put their own initiative on the ballot to completely offset the revenue from the tax hike by cutting the sales tax or regular income tax. So legislators would be going out on a limb with a good chance of getting nothing. I think they'll leave this one alone.

 

[Waher]

It worked so well for Connecticut and New Jersey, those shining bastions of fiscal stability and all.

 

[HuntMaine]

Took only a few hours fro another Democrat from Westford to propose a new bill to change the states constitution to allow the tax. They never miss a chance to tax someone. Problem is when you are a small business owner with an LLc you get bent over with this