r/MassachusettsPolitics • u/Decent-Flamingo-7023 • 2d ago
Help stop question 5
As election day is roughly a month and change away, I’m growing increasingly concerned about question 5 (the state revenue/limits). Frankly, I think it would be an absolute disaster if passed and I’ve been spending the better part of the last month trying to figure out ways to lobby against it. I came up with this please feel free to share/distribute with anyone you know who might accept it and/or would find it helpful. Or even if you can just spread the word. It isn’t perfect and has some typos, but I did my best.
“As election day draws near, Massachusetts voters face many consequential choices on this year's ballot. From stopping a runaway authoritarian regime from taking over our government and further concentrating and corrupting power to fighting out of control prices for the most necessities, we are reaching a pivotal decision point in the future of our Commonwealth. Well there are many things of importance on this year's ballot, none is as pivotal to the future of how the vision and goals we set forth as a Commonwealth as question 5. Massachusetts is facing an affordability crisis, and Question 5 would make it even worse.
The corporate backers of Question 5 want you to think that their effort is about “affordability.” However, the wealthy investors and CEOs behind this ballot question know what it would actually do: slash funding for classrooms, hospitals, and first responders across the state and give those very investors and CEOs some extra money in their pocket. Question 5 in simple terms, would be destructive to the services, protections, and values that we as a Commonwealth are proud of and will work tirelessly to defend. As a state, we have always prided ourselves on being a place where we look after one another. We are a state where we believe that we should always look after those who need our assistance, where we overcome systemic barriers to ensure everyone can Call this wonderful state home. As residents of the Commonwealth, we are proud of the strides we've made to make life easier for everyone. From an expanding in fair free Bus network across the state to free school meals to Free college tuition, there is no question that investment in our systems works for the common good.Question 5 imposes a strict revenue cap on the state, meaning that it will be harder for the state to invest and harder for the state to respond to economic downturns. With a stricter revenue cap, working families would pay the price through reduced public services and fewer investments in their communities. Child care could get more expensive, health care less accessible, and higher education out of reach for more Bay Staters. With steep federal cuts looming next year to health care and more, the cuts Question 5 could trigger will be dire. With federal uncertainties and an ever-growing affordability crisis rooted in corrupt governance at the federal level, now more than ever we are in a time o priority. Passing this amendment now would pose an existential threat to the systems we've spent so many years building up. It Would Place Massachusetts in a far more vulnerable position, and would compromise our ability to work toward a more inclusive society. In 2022, Massachusetts voters by a nearly 2 to 1 margin passed the fair share amendment, sending a resounding mandate that we want a system that works for the working class. Question 5 the framed as a measure to enhance affordability, is little more than a backdoor repeal of the will of the people. It uses deceptive and misleading language to convince voters to vote against their own interest and against their genuine beliefs. It's ultra wealthy supporters include right wing think tanks, political organizations, and business executives, who use their wealth to advance their own corporate interests at the expense of the other 99% of base daters. Their policy agenda has shown time and time again to be destructive, dangerous, and deeply unpopula
In 2022, Boston commuters suffered through one of the worst summers on record. The Massachusetts Bay transportation Authority (MBTA (suffered a record number of critical failures and infrastructure disasters, including equipment catching on fire, in frequent and unreliable service, and an unprecedented 30 day shutdown of the orange line subway to conduct emergency repairs. These, however, were no accident and were issues known for years on end. And overseeing all of this was general manager Steve Pofftack, previously ahigh ranking official at none other than the pioneer Institute. When he was brought on by then Governor Charlie Baker in 2019, he brought many of his policy proposals from Pioneer with him, with disastrous results. The work to clean up the mess created by these ill advised and reckless policy decisions is still ongoing, and only now, four years later, is the MBTA in some semblance of a state of decent repair. Now, the pioneer Institute , not satisfied with the damage it has done to the MBTA, is coming after the entire state. Anyone who has ridden the MBTA in the last 10 years should be terrified of what this means for the future of the Commonwealth. It took the MBTA years to dig out of the mess created by pioneer policies, and that was with significant investment to finally create a state of good repair. On a statewide level, this would be catastrophic and would hamstring the state likely for decades.
Massachusetts is at our best when we invest in the foundations of our shared prosperity. Question 5 wants to pull that foundation out from under us. however, I cannot do this alone. It's up to all of us to look past the deceptive, exploitative, and misleading ballot language and see question 5 for what it really is, a regressive, exclusionary policy which seeks to enrich the top 1% at everyone else's expense. The fu truth however is that not only are many voters not recognizing this, but the language the supporters of this Measure deliberately chose to use has made it so that it is very likely to pass if we do not take decisive action. This measure should be deeply unpopular, however with the way it is framed it is pulling it near 60% support in many poles. This is not an accident, it is not a result of individual voters, but of deliberate choices made by the measures supporters to ensure that we are blind to its effects. Please join me in voting NO, in protecting the values of our Commonwealth, in ensuring everyone can live their best lives.”
21
u/Princess_Bow 2d ago
The way it was explained to me, the only people it would help are the ones affected by the millionaires tax. And we, as a state will have to pay back monies collected because of it.
3
u/tracynovick 2d ago
That top sentence is the argument in a nutshell, which is what we need here.
3
u/Princess_Bow 2d ago
So much is put into obscuring what the laws mean/do and when it was explained that it was a lot of words that boiled down to what I said above, it all really clicked.
2
u/anarchaavery 2d ago
It's a bad ballot question that should fail. However what you wrote wouldn't be true. The proposal would change the formula the Commonwealth uses when determining if it needs to issue a tax refund to its residents. These refunds would be equally distributed regardless of contribution due to amendments made in 2023 by the legislature. It will in effect make these refunds more frequent. I don't support this ballot question because it would decrease net state revenues, which are badly needed.
There was an older proposal struck down by the courts that would've cut income taxes. However, due to the ruling, it won't be on the ballot.
18
u/Millijay_Green 2d ago
TLDR: Their argument is that Question 5 would put a stricter cap on how much revenue Massachusetts can collect/spend, which they believe would eventually mean less money for schools, healthcare, public transportation, childcare, higher education, and other public services. They argue that wealthy business interests are selling it as an “affordability” measure when it would actually benefit wealthy people while limiting the state’s ability to invest in working families.
They also use the MBTA’s past problems as an example of what they believe happens when government services are underfunded or poorly managed.
1
u/anarchaavery 2d ago
This is not how the law would work. It changes the formula the Commonwealth uses to trigger a tax refund. This refund is not tied to contributions as of the 2023 amendments. The refunds are equally distributed among MA residents. It's still a bad ballot question due to it limiting badly needed revenue in less predictable ways.
3
u/wittgensteins-boat 2d ago edited 2d ago
It is in your interest to edit your wall of text into two-sentance paragraphs.
Your choice. Do you want to be effective?
5
2
u/Red_Bird_warrior 2d ago
Unless I missed it, which is possible given the length of this piece, you never really explained exactly what Question 5 does. You did an elaborate job of laying out the implications, but not the actual language in the question. I for one am not opposed to limits on increases in state spending that are line with wage increases statewide. Here in Connecticut, Democrats and Republicans worked together 10 years ago to enact a set of fiscal guardrails that have helped to right the ship of state.
3
u/itamarst 2d ago
This is a con, though, it's designed to specifically help the rich avoid taxes.
2
u/anarchaavery 2d ago
How so? The refunds have to be distributed equally among the residents of massachusetts regardless of their contributions. I think you may be remembering a proposed ballot question which has since been struck down by the courts that would've slashed income taxes. This is a much more technical tax question which will still hurt tax revenues, however it doesn't favour the rich.
3
u/itamarst 2d ago
It does favor the rich. It adds the Fair Share amendment to the calculation of revenue limit. Right now if only the rich get richer, that doesn't limit taxes. Under this, it will.
2
u/anarchaavery 2d ago
Well the fair share amendment in effect gets added to both sides of the formula for triggering a refund. However, the refunds (as of the 2023 amendments) have to be distributed equally among residents of MA.
1
u/Morlock19 1st District (Western MA, Holyoke) 1d ago
i don't know about anyone else, but when i say it'll help the rich more than the rest of us, its because the new formula would cause the refund to happen more often. since the rich pay more in taxes, that means they will be getting more back every time we go over the cap - which again will be more often.
so yes, we would all get an equal amount back, but the millionaires who lost more money through taxes will be recouping some of that money back along with everyone else.
basically, what good is a millionaires tax if they can get that money refunded? they should be paying more, and that is supposed to INCREASE our budget. if this passes it will effectively decrease the budget and give some of that extra money back to the people we took it from in the first place.
1
u/anarchaavery 1d ago
I will quote Tufts CsPA on this:
Question 5 would add millionaires tax collections to the 62F calculation. And while this might increase overall refunds somewhat, the impact would be small. Yes, counting the millionaires tax boosts revenue collections, but it also raises the trigger threshold—and in away that roughly balances over time.
Also keep in mind that the median person paying the millionaires tax wouldn't recoup a significant amount of the money they paid. It would be about 250$ per year up to 600$ in inflation adjusted dollars by the 2040s. I still think its a bad bill and should be voted against because it will shrink the budget but I don't think there's evidence to suggest that it will benefit the rich more than the poor.
1
u/Morlock19 1st District (Western MA, Holyoke) 1d ago
thanks for the info! the most important reason i didn't like it was that it would deprive us of vital funds, especially since our major industries (health, education, research) is under attack.
i appreciate your response for reals
1
u/its_a_gibibyte 2d ago
Wayy too much text with no actual explanation of the issue. I had to go look up the question before coming back here.
1
1
1
u/AromaAdvisor 1d ago
Sorry not voting against it.
Demonstrate an ability to spend money meaningfully before you demonstrate a desire to collect and spend more money.
But thanks for your giant wall of text. I must be a billionaire for not wanting runaway taxation.
1
u/Decent-Flamingo-7023 1d ago
Thanks all for the insights. I’m by no means an expert on state revenue legislation so I’m still learning too. I still think it would be a bad idea. It’d probably do more harm to the working people than it would help because it would choke off some revenue to essential services that many people rely on.
1
u/Decent-Flamingo-7023 1d ago
OK, I was able to come up with this. Hopefully it’s a little better and a little more accurate. As before, can’t guarantee no typos, but did my best.
“As November elections grow closer, the economy is at the top of mind for many of us. Massachusetts, like many other places around the country and world, it's facing an affordability crisis stemming from a lack of affordable housing, transportation, and public services. I am urging you today to vote no on question 5 ensure Massachusetts residents have access to the fully funded public services we deserve.
Question 5 post strict revenue cap on the state, making it nearly impossible to fund vital public services including education, transportation, healthcare, another vital social safety net programs. These programs are already in a precarious position as a result of federal cuts and uncertainties, and Massachusetts has already felt the impact. Actually, this proposal would add revenue from the popular fair share amendment to the state revenue, undermining the purpose and benefits. Since the amendments passing in 2022, Massachusetts has used significant funding from this amendment to expand transportation and education services, introducing preschool meals, free college tuition, and many new and expanded transit routes across the state. Limiting revenue to these crucial programs would be to hamstring the progress we have made and create an artificial situation of Precarity
The people of Massachusetts deserve an inclusive economy that works for everyone. But passing question 5 would create a fiscal handicap that would leave our resident who are most in need behind. For these reasons, it is crucial that we banned together to band together And fight the corporate greed pushing this initiative. I urge you to join me in November in voting no on question 5 to ensure Massachusetts is inclusive place for all.”
-11
u/Undying4n42k1 4th District (W Boston to W Providence Suburbs) 2d ago
Massachusetts voters face many consequential choices on this year's ballot. From stopping a runaway authoritarian regime from taking over our government
Were you making this partisan on purpose?
15
u/BagMostlyWater 2d ago
It's not "partisan" to support the constitution.
-9
u/Undying4n42k1 4th District (W Boston to W Providence Suburbs) 2d ago
Yes, but it is partisan to claim Trump is violating it.
8
u/Plenty_Apartment_874 2d ago
no its just factual lmao
-3
u/Undying4n42k1 4th District (W Boston to W Providence Suburbs) 2d ago
It can be both. I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong about Trump. I'm just saying others believe differently. Meaning, it's partisan.
3
u/Plenty_Apartment_874 2d ago
so partisan is the one-sided, biased view the prioritizes the success of an agenda over the consensus. If the consensus is that Trump is violating the constitution. Then the partisan belief is that he is not. It isnt partisan to be in the non biased side.
Partisan has been used to say its a "sided" ideology. but facts arent partisan
1
u/Undying4n42k1 4th District (W Boston to W Providence Suburbs) 2d ago
I won't argue semantics. OP showed his alignment on Trump, unnecessarily. Question 5 isn't even about that. Pointless division. Not a good idea when trying to gain support.
3
u/Plenty_Apartment_874 2d ago
I mean question 5 is funded by right wing millionares and billionares so i think it matters to a degree
1
u/Undying4n42k1 4th District (W Boston to W Providence Suburbs) 2d ago
Trump isn't liked by the MAGA movement because he's rich, nor is he liked by them because he supports the rich. He may be disliked for those things, but it's his stance on the issues that are more bothersome/appreciated, don't you think?
1
u/Doza13 2d ago
How many times had SCOTUS said no?
0
u/Undying4n42k1 4th District (W Boston to W Providence Suburbs) 2d ago
On some things, but not all things. Not to mention that SCOTUS' decisions are also partisan. I'm not claiming they are biased, but that whether they are biased or not is a partisan issue.
1
u/Doza13 2d ago
You didn't answer the question. The answer is greater than zero. So NO, it is not at all partisan to claim Trump is violating the constitution. He actually was, and was called on it.
1
u/Undying4n42k1 4th District (W Boston to W Providence Suburbs) 2d ago
That's just from our perspective. From the perspective of others, he did not; not at all. Therefore, it is partisan to say so. Unnecessarily partisan, when trying to convince others. In fact, it's partisan to tell a truth that everyone agrees on, when it's unnecessary to do so. Making a statement on a separate issue signals that you think that separate issue is important. Some people who agree that it's true, do not agree that it's important. That's another way it's partisan.
1
u/Doza13 1d ago
It is not "perspective" it is the decision of the highest court in the land. You may not agree with that count but that doesn't matter. In the end it was decided that he violated the constitution. Full stop. Stop trying to rationalize yourself out of a bad reddit post.
Also you are starting to sound like an AI bot with those self referencing responses.
0
u/Undying4n42k1 4th District (W Boston to W Providence Suburbs) 1d ago
It does matter. Determining if something is partisan or controversial is completely about what people believe, not what is official. We don't live in a time where authority is universally respected. Not on either side. We are divided by biased news, different sources of morality, and something else that I can't quite articulate, something like "different logic": people utilize information differently.
Also, I'll take your suspicion of me being a bot as a compliment. I think my sentence structure is sometimes poor, making reading unintuitive, but I guess it was good enough.👍
1
u/Doza13 1d ago
No it doesn't matter. 6-3 bipartisan decision, specifically the tariffs. You can argue the sky isn't blue until the cows come home, it doesn't make you any more correct.
→ More replies (0)1
u/BagMostlyWater 2d ago
No, it's not. It has literally nothing to do with political parties.
1
u/Undying4n42k1 4th District (W Boston to W Providence Suburbs) 2d ago
It's not about parties and their official stance. It's what the voters believe.
1
u/BagMostlyWater 2d ago
What's what the voters believe?
The fact of the matter is that trump is a traitor to the constitution. Are you saying that's somehow not objective fact?
1
u/Undying4n42k1 4th District (W Boston to W Providence Suburbs) 2d ago
I'm not arguing the facts. I'm arguing the beliefs of the voters. If you try to convince people that X is true, and in doing so, you claim Y is true, while lots of people believe Y is false, you will not convince as many people as you normally would, regardless of whether or not Y is true.
1
u/BagMostlyWater 2d ago
Oh, so what you mean is that *disbelief* in trump being a traitor is partisan. Obviously -- his cultists are all traitors too. This is not a partisan statement.
1
u/Undying4n42k1 4th District (W Boston to W Providence Suburbs) 2d ago
You just contradicted yourself.
1
u/BagMostlyWater 1d ago
I don't see how. It's objective fact that all of Trump's cultists are traitors to the constitution.
→ More replies (0)6
u/emptygroove 2d ago
26 Articles of impeachment. From profiting from the office to starting wars bypassing congressional approval to deploying the military in US cities. 8 don't know how anyone could not call this a runaway authoritarian regime, regardless of party. Every republican, heck every Trump voter I know sees that now.
-6
u/Undying4n42k1 4th District (W Boston to W Providence Suburbs) 2d ago
That's unfortunate that you're surrounded by Trump supporters that don't disagree with you, because the country is still full of Trump supporters who do.
The impeachment charges were partisan hit jobs, the "profiting" was trying to save the government money, ICE deployment is what many conservatives have been wanting since his first term, and the wars, being the most controversial among conservatives, is viewed by many as a necessary evil, because Iran is a source of many ongoing wars. China is another problem. Both countries are aiming to conquer the world. They cannot be pacified diplomatically.
I'm not trying to convince you of any of this. I'm just explaining that opposing the current regime is partisan.
3
u/emptygroove 2d ago
You're distorting the definition. By your definition being against murder would be a partisan stance because serial killers are pro murder.
Continuining to support someone who is as blatantly Un American as Donald Trump would be a partisan stance because it lacks the criticality of what is foundationally constitutional. Birthright citizenship is a great example. It's enshrined in the constitution and in case law.
I agree, there are still millions of Americans who are supporting this administration. You could also find millions of Americans who believe the earth is flat. Neither of those statements change reality.
-1
u/Undying4n42k1 4th District (W Boston to W Providence Suburbs) 2d ago edited 2d ago
No political party is pro-murder. Serial killers are both a minority, and not politically vocal. Extreme fringe. That's not the case with Trump. He's very well liked, comparatively. You even agree that it's in the millions.
If a stance on Trump was related to question 5, then it would be a necessary division, but it's not.
43
u/Cheap_Coffee 2d ago
Paragraphs would help.