SEIU MA State Council

How Question 5 Would Damage Massachusetts

Question 5 Would Force Devastating Cuts to Public Services

Question 5 would impose a restrictive cap on state tax collections and investment that would lead to repeated cuts to public services, forcing Massachusetts to slash billions of dollars in public spending over the next decade. Research from MassBudget found that if Question 5 had been in effect over the past 38 years (1987-2025), the revenue cap would have been triggered 16 times, and would have reduced state revenues by nearly $13 billion in that same time period. The Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts estimates that going forward, the ballot initiative would reduce state revenues by $2 billion/year on average.

If Question 5 took effect, local communities across the state could be regularly forced to lay off thousands of teachers, police officers, and firefighters, making our communities less safe. Hospitals, nursing homes, schools and colleges could be forced to close their doors, leaving us all worse off.

Question 5 Would Severely Limit Our Ability to Recover from Recessions

Question 5 would trigger the largest budget cuts in the years following an economic recession, when state spending to stimulate the economy and support struggling residents is most necessary. That would mean cuts to job training programs, public colleges and universities, and MassHealth — just when those programs are needed the most.

It would also severely limit the state’s ability to save money in our ‘Rainy Day’ Stabilization Fund during good economic times, putting us at greater risk of major budget cuts during economic downturns. Research from the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation found that the proposed cap would have reduced state deposits into the Stabilization Fund by $4.6 billion had it been in place over the last decade — more than half of our state’s current emergency fund.

Question 5 Would Give Billions to the Rich While the Rest of Us Suffer

Question 5 would fund increased taxpayer rebates with the billions of dollars it cuts from public services like education, healthcare, and local aid to cities and towns. There’s no income limit, so multi-millionaires and billionaires would receive regular rebates even while public services are being slashed to the bone.

Most of us — low-income and middle-class people who send our kids to public schools, depend on public libraries and fire departments, and rely on public services like MassHealth, SNAP, and public transportation — would suffer much more from budget cuts than we would benefit from occasional rebates. Wealthy taxpayers who don’t need public services, on the other hand, would collectively pocket billions of dollars in tax breaks — without feeling the pain of budget cuts.

Question 5 Would Count Fair Share Dollars When Setting the Revenue Cap

Question 5 would count tax collections from the constitutionally-separated Fair Share ‘millionaires tax’ toward the calculation of the tax cap. Because the richest taxpayers make more of their income from investments such as stocks and real estate than from wages, this change would, over time, trigger the revenue cap more frequently and result in large cuts to public services.

While Fair Share revenues would not be directly impacted by the ballot initiative, the revenue cap would trigger budget cuts to public services funded with general state revenue, including to transportation and public education. That would violate the intent of the Fair Share Amendment, which dedicated Fair Share dollars to transportation and public education spending in order to generate additional spending in those areas. Fair Share has already generated more than $9 billion in funding for much-needed transportation and public education investments like universal free school meals, local road and bridge repairs, tuition-free community college, MBTA infrastructure, local school aid, and fare-free regional bus service. That new revenue shouldn’t help trigger budget cuts as a result of tax rebates (including rebates to multi-millionaires).

Question 5 Would Disrupt Our Ability to Invest in the Future

Question 5 would trigger the revenue cap somewhat arbitrarily based on economic trends such as rapid inflation, stock market fluctuations, or high unemployment. This would make it difficult for state budget-writers to plan ahead, and kneecap our state’s ability to make long-term investments in key areas like affordable housing, childcare, and lowering energy costs.

By compromising our ability to raise the revenue needed to invest in our infrastructure, respond to economic downturns, and achieve a balanced budget, Question 5 would seriously threaten our state’s bond rating. If bond rating agencies downgrade our bond rating, it would become much more expensive for the state to borrow money for things like bridge and highway construction, school-building, and economic development programs.

Unions, community groups, business leaders, local officials, and elected leaders all agree: Vote No on Question 5

PAID FOR BY PROTECT MASSACHUSETTS FUTURE. TOP CONTRIBUTORS: SEIU MA STATE COUNCIL, 1199SEIU, MASS TEACHERS ASSOC., SEIU LOCAL 509, AFT-MA. FOR MORE INFORMATION REGARDING CONTRIBUTORS, GO TO WWW.OCPF.US