Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Mass one of seven states with Flat Tax

By

The Globe’s endorsement of John Huntsman mentioned that

He delighted right-wing supporters by replacing a graduated state income tax with a flat tax.”

Can someone explain to me why Massachusetts delights right-wing supporters by having a flat tax? It’s the highest rate of seven states with a flat tax. How come we don’t have a progressive tax here in Massachusetts? Have we ever?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. …per the 44th amendment:

    Article XLIV.Full power and authority are hereby given and granted to the general court to impose and levy a tax on income in the manner hereinafter provided. Such tax may be at different rates upon income derived from different classes of property, but shall be levied at a uniform rate throughout the commonwealth upon incomes derived from the same class of property. The general court may tax income not derived from property at a lower rate than income derived from property, and may grant reasonable exemptions and abatements. Any class of property the income from which is taxed under the provisions of this article may be exempted from the imposition and levying of proportional and reasonable assessments, rates and taxes as at present authorized by the constitution. This article shall not be construed to limit the power of the general court to impose and levy reasonable duties and excises.

    It was approved in 1915, but I don’t know off hand what the political context was that prompted it.

    • imply geographic regions must be taxed the same, or the people must be taxed the same? A progressive rate is uniform for everyone, everywhere, it just gets higher on larger amounts of income.

      And it no excuse anyhow, if we need to amend the Constitution, why haven’t we? It’s embarrassing, are we coddling some super rich bankers or something?

  2. In the MA Constitution, the “uniform rate” means that the income tax has to be a flat tax.

    The Constitution should be amended so that the fat cats have to pay more. They have all of the money, and taking more from them to spend on everybody else would do so much good for the economy.

    Also, unlike most states, MA still has its original Constitution, written by John Adams. Most states have had several.

    • So I found the decision that interpreted A44 is prohibiting graded income tax rates, and I think they were flat out wrong.

      If it had been intended that there might be differences in rates based upon differences in amounts of income received by the taxpayers, as well as upon differences in sources of income received by the taxpayers, it would have been simple to express that purpose in art. 44 of the Amendments. No words of that article can be stretched to include that variation from the “uniform rate.” The omission of such words is significant. The Legislatures of the political years 1914 and 1915, which proposed art. 44 of the Amendments, and the people of the Commonwealth in 19101, who ratified and approved it, were not unfamiliar with taxes graded as to rates and progressively increasing in proportion to the amount of property involved. Such graded rates by way of an excise on legacies and inheritances were established by St. 1907, c. 563, § 1 (not required to be uniform or proportional because an excise instead of a property tax, c. 1, § 1, art. 4, of the Constitution of Massachusetts), and have continued to be a part of our system of taxation since that time. See now G. L. c. 65, § 1; Pratt v. Dean, 246 Mass. 300 , 307, 309; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 295-300; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 109. An income tax increasing progressively in rate as to those receiving more than a defined amount subject to the normal tax was in the Act of Congress of October 3, 1913, c. 16, § 2, 38 U. S. Sts. at Large, 166, and was matter of general knowledge.

      So they are saying that because the legislature said that different sources of income may be taxed differently, but didn’t explicitly say that different amounts of income may be taxed differently, then that must mean they were prohibiting a graded tax. But as the court notes, they knew about graduated tax rates, so why didn’t they explicitly say “on all amounts of income” rather than “throughout the commonwealth”?

      But again, why can’t we get rid of A44 with another Amendment?

        • Does it mean we are a bunch of hypocrites? Or not as many of us are progressive as we thought? Or is a state tax different from a federal tax, in that they need to be competitive to attract high earners?

Archives