Know the FACTS:
Voting YES on the revenue growth limit would result in more frequent, larger refunds for Massachusetts taxpayers when the state collects too much money.
The affordability crisis in Massachusetts has led to us losing a resident every 12 minutes or less.
A recent Suffolk University poll showed that over 50% of polled voters have considered leaving the Commonwealth because of affordability concerns.
YES, according to the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University, refunds would be anywhere from three to five times more likely, and five to fifteen times larger than the current formula.
According to the Boston Globe, the current revenue growth limit is “untethered from what the state actually brings in each year”. A YES vote on the revenue growth limit will still allow state budgets to grow each year, but that growth can’t continue to exceed wage growth.
Bigger and more frequent refunds when the government overcollects.
Foundational spending for schools and municipal services like police, EMS, and fire departments comes from the state’s annual budget. A stronger revenue growth limit wouldn’t limit the legislature’s ability to put forward a balanced budget each year and would still allow for annual increases in state funding.
Absolutely not. Under a strengthened revenue growth limit all taxpayers would receive equal refunds when the state collects too much in taxes. This would put much-needed cash in the pockets of low to middle-income taxpayers, helping them to get ahead and stay ahead.
Each year, the state dedicates tens of millions of dollars to programs to prepare Massachusetts for the future. Strengthening the revenue growth limit would allow for reasonable investment into long-term initiatives, while delivering more money to taxpayers to allow them to make their own long-term investments.
The state’s “Rainy Day” stabilization fund, which would provide a fiscal safety net during a recession, stands at $8.2 billion - an all-time high. A stronger revenue growth limit wouldn’t prevent further investment in the fund and would ensure that the state prioritizes common-sense investments in programs that have tangible benefits for residents.