Cross posted from Progressive Mass, big shout out to Harmony Wu and Ben Wright for their tremendous editing, formatting, and imaging assistance
Here’s a sneak peak at a blog post I’ve had the privilege of writing for Progressive Massachusetts making the case for the Progressive Income Tax:
It’s Always Been a Revenue-and a Fairness-Problem
The biggest story in Massachusetts politics this summer, and perhaps, this year, is USOC’s rejection of the Boston 2024 Olympic bid. In the aftermath, pundits are wringing hands, various politicians are trying to take credit or deflect blame, and competing narratives are emerging about “what it means” about Massachusetts (are we a parochial also-ran, incapable of big ideas, not ready for the global stage? are we on the cutting edge of rejecting an Olympics project too tainted by corruption and laden with outsized costs?).
So, while the rejected bid will fade into memory, the Olympics discussion offers some takeaways of note for the Massachusetts progressive.
The pundits and politicians finally agree: Our infrastructure is in dire need of repair and expansion (progressives have been talking about it for a while).
Bold ideas require bold investments, but we shouldn’t presume it need be molded to private interests like the IOC and Boston 2024.Our political class is risk averse, and needed pressure from the outside to have the conversation about investment. While there was a robust debate about whether or not the Olympic Bid would help or hurt massive public investment, that question has now been settled. The question now is, ‘what’s next?’
The answer is a multi pronged argument in favor of the progressive income tax. I make the case that we have desperate infrastructure and early education investment needs that will consistently be unmet by the austerity budgets produced year after year on Beacon Hill, that our tax code favors the wealthy while burdening working families, that a grassroots campaign to pass a constitutional amendment is the best way to achieve a progressive income tax, and that we want to begin emulating states like California and New York making smart investments in their peoples future and their state’s economy rather than staying sidelined with a tax code closer to Alabama’s. Feel free to take a look!
doney says
instead of 2020?
Presidential years are far more favorable to Democratic/ progressive ideas and candidates
wouldn’t it be more important to get this passed than to get it done 2 years quciker?
jconway says
Since it’s a constitutional amendment it has to be on a statewide ballot rather than a presidential one. But I completely agree I would have preferred this for 2016 or 2020, this is why we are organizing now to get it on the ballot and make sure everyone knows about it and is pumped for it in 2018, when hopefully we have a strong Democratic gubernatorial nominee endorsing it as well.
Christopher says
This provision…
…does refer to a “state” election, but state elections do happen every two years. The state runs the election even for federal offices, which includes US House every time, Presidential (technically electors) every other time, and Senate two times in a three-election cycle. Statewide officers are elected every other time while State Reps., Senators, and Governor’s Councilors are elected every time. There is nothing in this that mandates amendments can only go on the ballot at the same time as Constitutional officers. It can’t be 2016 because two consecutive General Courts have to act on it. In fact, there have been Constitutional amendments voted on by the people in presidential years.
jconway says
doney says
I guess things worth fighting for don’t usually come easy
johntmay says
Get used to hearing that from all the usual suspects.
I suppose some might leave. I say, let them go.
jconway says
Which completely stabilized it’s local aid and education funding, no more layoffs in California. For Massachusetts we could see the possibility of avoiding contentious overrides by stabilizing revenue streams.
As for the ‘job creator’ exodus:
Jed Kolko, chief economist and vice president of analytics at the online real-estate marketplace Trulia, said that “taxes have not been the driving factor for migration recently, and it would be a surprise if Prop. 30 had a big effect on people leaving California.”
At the end of the day a highly educated workforce enjoying cultural amenities and fantastic weather-there was no exodus of the creative class to California. Worse weather aside, you won’t see it happen here either. Using this unfounded logic New Hampshire, with no income tax, should be the innovation and job creation capital of the region, and we all know it’s not even close.
Patrick says
I’ve always been dubious about the idea that people move somewhere for lower taxes with few exceptions. Rich people may domicile themselves somewhere if they can (I have an uncle who spends half his year + 1 day in FL to avoid state income tax), but if you have to go to a 9-5 job you rarely have that luxury.
I think most people who who move because of money move for better opportunity or to lower their total cost of living. People may leave SF/NYC/Boston because it’s expensive for everything (taxes included), but I think most people will say their rent/mortgage payment is too high before they say their tax bill is.
johntmay says
No. Well okay, maybe some do. But it’s a canard that the right wing will use over and over again in fighting against a progressive tax code.
mike-from-norwell says
is a pretty glaring counterexample though to your argument that people/businesses don’t move due to taxes. Pretty much every hedge fund is located there (right on the NY border) rather than in Manhattan.