Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives and senators’ votes from the week of April 10 to April 14.

$1.1 billion tax cut package (H 3770)

The House, 153 to 3, approved and sent to the Senate a $1.1 billion tax relief package. Provisions include combining the Child Care Expenses Credit with the Dependent Member of Household Credit to create one refundable $600 credit per dependent, while eliminating the current cap; exempting the first $2 million, instead of the current $1 million, of the value of a person’s estate from the Massachusetts estate/death tax that a person is required to pay following their death before distribution to any beneficiary; doubling the Senior Circuit Breaker Tax Credit from $1,200 to $2,400; increasing the rental deduction cap from $3,000 to $4,000; reducing the short-term capital gains tax rate from 12% to 5%; raising the Earned Income Tax Credit from 30% to 40% of the federal credit; and replacing the business tax from the three-factor apportionment based on location, payroll and receipts with a single-factor apportionment based solely on receipts.

Another provision would change the tax refund distribution formula under a current law, known as 62F, that requires that annual tax revenue above a certain amount collected by the state go back to the taxpayers. Under current law, the money is returned to taxpayers based on how much he or she paid in 2021 taxes, while this tax relief package changes the formula and provides a flat rate refund, unrelated to what the individual paid in taxes.

The measure would also change an existing law that dictates when the state’s Stabilization Fund exceeds 15% of budgeted revenues, the excess is sent to the Tax Reduction Fund, which is returned to taxpayers. The Democrats’ tax relief bill would raise that percent to 25.5%.

“We have been focused on how we can help the people of the commonwealth with the cost of living and make life a little easier, and we do so in this legislation,” said Revenue Committee House Chair Rep. Mark Cusack, D-Braintree. “We have also focused on our economic competitiveness, and where we can lower and remove our outlier status to make Massachusetts a better place to live, work and invest. We do that in this package.”

“Over the last three years, our state has seen a net loss of over 100,000 people,” said Paul Craney, spokesperson for Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “As the full effect of the income surtax amendment begins to be felt, we’re absolutely going to see that trend continue, but this time with a cohort composed of our largest taxpayers. Our economic competitiveness rankings are in free fall. If our state government is to address this issue and head it off before it becomes catastrophic, they need to take bold action. The changes to the estate and capital gains taxes put forth by the House won’t cut it and the speaker’s attempt to gut the voter-approved tax cap and rebate law known as 62F is nothing more than provocation to the taxpayers.”

A “Yes” vote is for the $1.1 billion in tax relief.

Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes

Rep. Aaron Saunders — Yes

Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes

How to distribute tax refunds (H 3770)

The House, 26 to 128, rejected an amendment that would change the Chapter 62F tax law, approved by voters on the 1986 ballot, that requires that annual tax revenue above a certain amount collected by the state go back to the taxpayers. A few months ago, the law resulted in $2.9 billion being returned to taxpayers, using a formula based on how much each taxpayer paid in income taxes in 2021.

In the House $1 billion tax reduction bill, the formula is changed so that each taxpayer will receive a flat-rate refund, unrelated to what they paid in taxes. The amendment would strike the change and revert back to the refund based on what a person paid in income taxes in 2021.

“The Legislature needs to respect the will of the voters, and that means keeping the existing Chapter 62F tax law in place,” said sponsor GOP House Minority Leader Rep. Brad Jones, R-North Reading. “If we really want to change the law, we should not act unilaterally, but instead should hold public hearings to solicit input from the state’s taxpayers or put it before the voters again as a statewide ballot question to see whether there is actual public support for making those changes.”

Opponents of the income-based amendment said a flat-rate refund would ensure everyone in the state, regardless of income, will share equally in the state’s economic success.

“This is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy,” said Rep. Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown. “Yes, there are some ballot initiatives, things that go on the ballot that come to us. And [as] often as not, we make tweaks to those ballot initiatives and change them after they are voted on by the people to make them better legislation. What recently comes to mind is the legislation and the ballot initiative that legalized the sale of cannabis in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. What appeared on the ballot is not what appears in our statute books today, so this isn’t some outlier. This is the common practice.”

Massachusetts Republican Party Chair Amy Carnevale said a flat-rate refund changes the 1986 law from a refund into a government handout.

“Instead of taxpayers getting a percentage based on what they paid to the state, the Democrats want to send just a flat-rate check to everyone,” Carnevale said. “It is a redistribution of wealth. It is not fair. Your refund should be based on what you pay.”

A “Yes” vote is for the amendment distributing the refund based on what each taxpayer paid in taxes. A “No” vote is against the amendment and favors a flat-rate refund.

Rep. Natalie Blais — No

Rep. Aaron Saunders — No

Rep. Susannah Whipps — No

Raise trigger point for tax refund (H 3770)

The House, 25 to 129, rejected a Republican amendment to a section of the Democrats’ tax relief bill that would change a current law that dictates when the state’s Stabilization Fund exceeds 15% of budgeted revenues, the excess is sent to the Tax Reduction Fund that is returned to taxpayers. The Democrats’ tax relief bill would raise that percent to 25.5%.

The Republican amendment would eliminate that change and revert to the current 15% formula.

“When excess funding is transferred to the Tax Reduction Fund, that helps provide for some modest tax relief to the commonwealth’s residents by allowing for an increase in their personal exemption when filing their taxes,” said sponsor GOP House Minority Leader Rep. Brad Jones, R-North Reading. “The whole purpose of this bill is to make Massachusetts more competitive, affordable and equitable, but raising the threshold makes it less likely that taxpayers will actually get a break, which runs contrary to the stated goals of the legislation.”

Opponents said raising the cap will allow more money to remain in the Stabilization Fund so that when state revenues decline, the Legislature will not have to cut important programs or raise taxes. They noted hiking the cap is not without precedent, noting that the Legislature previously raised the cap from 7.5% to 10% in 2001 and from 10% to the current 15% in 2004.

A “Yes” vote is for the amendment making the cap 15%. A “No” vote is against the 15% cap and favors the 25.5% cap.

Rep. Natalie Blais — No

Rep. Aaron Saunders — No

Rep. Susannah Whipps — No

Secretary of housing and livable communities (H 43)

The Senate, 39 to 0, approved and sent to the House Gov. Maura Healey’s reorganization plan that would split the current Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development into two separate cabinet-level departments: the new Secretary of Housing and Livable Communities and the renamed Secretary of Economic Development.

“The creation of a new secretariat will bring a cabinet-level focus to the commonwealth’s housing crisis,” said Sen. Nick Collins, D-Boston, chair of the Senate Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight.

A “Yes” vote is for the bill.

Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes

Sen. Anne Gobi — Yes

Sen. Paul Mark — Yes

Also on Beacon HillWays and Means proposes $56.2B state budget (H 4000)

The House fired the second shot in the long battle over the state budget for fiscal year 2024 that begins on July 1. Gov. Maura Healey fired the opening volley in January when she filed her version of the spending package. The House Ways and Means Committee last week unveiled its own $56.2 billion version.

The Ways and Means budget recommendation would increase spending by $3.73 billion, or 7.1% over the current budget. Debate on the House version is scheduled to begin during the week of April 24.

After the full House finally approves a version of the package, the Senate will follow suit with its own draft, and a House-Senate conference committee will eventually craft a plan that will be presented to the House and Senate for consideration and sent to the governor.

Change ‘Selectmen’ to ‘Selectboard’ (S 12)

The Municipalities and Regional Government Committee held a hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment that would replace the gendered reference to “Selectmen” with “Selectboard” in the state’s constitution.

Supporters said it is long past time to eliminate this outdated and sexist language from the state’s constitution.

“This is a change [that] many communities have already made in their local by-laws,” noted sponsor Sen. Will Brownsberger, D-Belmont.

Constitutional right to housing (H 29)

The Housing Committee held a hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment requiring that the state provide “sufficient and comprehensive planning for affordable, well-constructed and reasonably varied housing for all residents.” The housing policies would focus on restoration, rehabilitation and new construction of housing units to all identifiable population groups, without discrimination.

“Housing needs to be a right, more than just ‘shelter’ and ultimately, [we should be] looking at improved building codes that would encourage construction of longer-lasting and better-quality housing that will help to keep our often expanding workforce, and their families, with dignity and quality,” said private citizen Vincent Dixon, who sponsored the bill under a state law that allows a private citizen to ask their state legislators to file bills on his or her behalf.

Constitutional right to employable skills training (H 39)

The Labor and Workforce Development Committee held a hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment providing that “each and every inhabitant of the commonwealth of Massachusetts has a right to employable skills training.”

“Employable skills training must be a flexible and dynamic goal of economic and professional mechanisms for the success of the Massachusetts workforce,” said sponsor Vincent Dixon. “Looking forward, updating skills for workers in many fields, including those that change dramatically, will strengthen the lifelong ladder of workforce success and provide employers with better-quality worker skills, and greater opportunities for success.”

]]>