Hey, there! Log in / Register
Court rules you won't get to vote on taxing rich people more, at least not this year
By adamg on Mon, 06/18/2018 - 1:47pm
The Supreme Judicial Court today barred a ballot question that would have asked voters to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year.
In a ruling today, a divided court said the proposed question was flawed under the state constitution because it not only called for a new graduated tax on the rich, but for money raised from the increased taxes to be spent on education and transportation - the issues of a graduated tax and spending on education and transportation don't really have anything directly to do with each other, and individual ballot questions are not supposed to address unrelated issues.
The court left the door open for a future ballot question only on raising taxes on the well off, noting voters have in the past voted on whether to change the current flat income-tax system to one with gradations based on income.
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete SJC decision | 236.64 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I'll ask the question. Was
I'll ask the question. Was there any legal consultation before this ballot question was written and could have pointed out such an obvious technical flaw? Did none of the backers of this question think it wouldn't end up in court?
Well, the people who know
Well, the people who know this stuff make over a million dollars a year, and we just couldn't afford them.
Wellll
The Attorney General and 2 Justices of the SJC think the question was ok, so I'll give the ballot question drafters a pass.
Sweetener
I think this was always a known risk, but the language was added as a sweetener as the state has voted down a graduated tax system before. But most people don’t mind new taxes geared at education and transportation.
change the current flat
this is not a bad idea
Holy crap
I've been living here for fifteen years, and it never even occurred to me that we might NOT have a graduated income tax. Just looked it up, and yup, flat 5.1%. Seriously, flat taxes are the Steve Forbes-iest, most regressive way possible of structuring income taxes--why isn't THIS on the ballot in November?
No, the most regressive way
No, the most regressive way of structuring taxes is not this "proportional tax" but an actual "flat tax" where everyone pays a flat fee.
We already have such taxes all over the place for everyday essentials, like drivers licenses, car registration, meter fees, E911 fees, bottle deposits, turnpike tolls, and fees for tons of other crap most people need.
These are not taxes
These are called FEES for what you USE. Most don't even come close to paying for the cost of the services that they cover.
You just want everyone else to pay for your driving. Know what? We already do.
A driver's license is not essential. Blind people do just fine without them. So do people who don't drive.
Until you want to buy alcohol
Until you want to buy alcohol, or board a flight, or get a passport, and the bureaucrat doesn't accept your non-driver ID even though it's supposed to be equivalent to a license.
shhhhh....
....we're a liberal bastion of magical progressive unicorns. Don't disrupt the narrative.
Is there
Any indication it would pass?
Yes
From Boston Mag.:
Very deceiving and dubious...
Both the Boston Magazine and WBUR articles on this "survey", conveniently, fail to mention how many individuals they interviewed...
I think they assumed web readers could follow obvious links
There's two such links right there in the second sentence (topline, crosstabs)
Salient excerpt:
Cute.
501 registered voters is HARDLY a cross-section of the Massachusetts electorate.
If they added a couple of zeroes to that, then it might have more credibility.
V
V
Have you studied statistics?
These things are well-established. The margin of sampling error and level of confidence are partly a result of the sample size.
This is a fair challenge to the sample
It isn't just sample size, but the fact that the sample relies on people who actually answer the phone and talk to pollsters.
I don't think it needs an extra couple of zeros, but 500 people is a bit too small for comfort. 5000 and I'd buy that it is a representative sample.
It’s a decent sample
In my undergrad days, I did statistics instead of real science. 500 is a decent size for a sample. 5,000 would slightly alter the margin of error, but not by much. Telephone polls are seen as valid as cord cutters are bipartisan, but they do ask for demographic identifiers to ensure the sample is representative of the overall (voting, in this case) population.
It depends
Are we talking about actual statistical variation or bias?
It is a decent sample for variation. It is a bit lean given known biases in polling.
+/- 5%
When 77% are supporting something, the margin of error doesn't quite matter.
My main concern would be how the question was asked. Ask people if the support protecting the flag, a majority will agree. Ask the same people if they support banning flag burning as a form of protest, the numbers would change greatly.
Most recent polls would seem to have the same failing, then.
As this sample size is typical for a statewide opinion poll. Correct me in I'm wrong, but I think for a population of as many as 10,000,000, 500 respondents is considered sufficient for a confidence interval of plus or minus 5%. Also, why would people who don't answer the phone or refuse to talk to pollsters be more likely than others to oppose a millionaire's tax?
I will correct you
That is a big enough sample if there is very little bias in the sampling methods. This is why Rasmussen polls are typically extremely skewed (older people with landlines in rural areas = bias).
Political polling methods usually come with a great deal of sample bias, so they shouldn't be relying on statistical noise estimates to underscore their validity.
There is a big difference between statistical noise (that +/- 5%) and sampling bias, which is harder to estimate. You might consider heading over to Wikipedia (of all places!) for some solid explanations of that, as well as 538 (which gets around the problem by aggregating polls to get larger metasample sizes).
Well at least....
....we should be able to vote on whether to cut sales tax. And then we can go back to complaining about a transit system that's falling apart.
Both/and
1. cut sales tax
2. tax the rich to fund transit
Ain't nothin' like spending other people's money
Until it runs out, that is.
Then you're going to have to dig out your copy of Atlas Shrugged to see what the villain is supposed to do next.
That's why
That's why it makes more sense to tax rich people. That well is deeper.
As for "my copy of Atlas Shrugged," I may be an idiot, but I'm not that kind of idiot.
Those that have been given much,
much is expected.
Guess what?
I probably has 5-10x your family income and over $2 million to my name (and no debt).
I agree with that sentiment - get rid of the sales tax and make me pay a higher tax rate than my landscaper does.
I also want my money back for the assistance you got when you came here, you ungrateful fool.
Of course.
A tool in a black robe is still just a tool. It's a budget bill, about revenue and expenditures. The topic is money. But the rich got what they wanted, as usual- democracy, logic, and fairness be damned.
Sometimes justice is blind
I might have voted yes on this one, but the logic of the majority opinion is there. The irony is that if they just pushed for the tax increase and just sold it to the votes as going towards specific goals, it would have made it on the ballot.
Any chance anyone here saw Howie Carr's column in the Herald today. He talked about this initiative, noting how it would screw the "working man." That's right. Carr's definition of a working man is one who makes more than a million dollars.
Too bad we can't tax moral bankruptcy
Howie Car is a classic enabler of greed.
But wait -
How can the working man ever hope to get trickled down on, if the millionaires have to give up another 4% of their income?
I was quite uncomfortable
I was quite uncomfortable writing tax rates into the state constitution, even though I support them and even though it will take some kind of constitutional amendment to allow for proper legislation.
I still probably would have voted yes, but now I don't have to worry about it. I'm voting against the sales tax cut for the same reason, even though I'd support lowering it to 5% if it were part of a plan to increase revenue while making the state tax code more progressive.