A poll released today shows about two-thirds of Massachusetts voters back a potential ballot question that would drop the state’s income tax from 5% to 4%.
But the survey, conducted in March by the MassINC Polling Group, found that level of support dropped to 40% when respondents heard about what the measure could mean for the state budget.
Pollsters asked a second time about the proposed tax cut, but added that the lost revenue would force “deep cuts to education, health care and aid to cities and towns,” and that the wealthiest residents would see much greater savings.
Half of voters opposed the cut when presented with those details, according to the poll.
Rich Parr, vice president of the MassINC Polling Group, said shifts in opinion depending on more information are not unusual with ballot questions.
“It’s not like voting for a Democrat or a Republican, where there are some people who are always going to vote for their particular party and never vote for the other,” Parr said. “People are more open-minded. They’re also willing to take in additional information about the topic and the consequences of the topic.”
Supporters of the tax cut say it’s a way to put more money back in people’s pockets at a time when high costs are squeezing household and business budgets.
If the ballot question passes, the tax rate would be gradually lowered over three years. Experts project it would cost the state about $5 billion in revenue once fully implemented, and opponents say that would lead to dramatic cuts in state services.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association is the latest group to make that argument publicly. On Tuesday, a group of mayors and other local officials outside the State House voiced their opposition to the ballot question.
Adam Chapdelaine, MMA’s executive director, argued that there are relatively few areas where Beacon Hill leaders can cuts because so much of the state budget is taken up by fixed costs. Funding for cities and towns is one of those cuttable areas, he said.
“When municipalities lose state support, there are only a few other options available: significantly reduce services, delay investments, or shift more pressure onto local property taxpayers,” Chapdelaine said.
Amesbury Mayor Kassandra Gove said local governments rely on state dollars as they face financial pressures, including cost hikes for construction materials and employee health insurance.
“Any reduction in state revenues jeopardizes our delivery of basic day-to-day services that matter most to Massachusetts residents — filling potholes, cutting the grass, removing the snow, stocking the shelves at the library, planning our children’s programs and neighborhood traffic patrols,” she said.
Backers of the ballot question have knocked what they call “scaremongering” over the state budget, saying that taxpayers will put their savings back into the Massachusetts economy and that gradual tax cuts should be manageable for budget-writers
Republican candidate for governor Brian Shortsleeve, who supports the income tax cut, watched the municipal group’s press conference from the sidelines. He brought with him a chart showing that state aid to local governments has grown at a much slower rate than overall state spending over the past decade: While the budget’s bottom line grew 54% since fiscal 2017, local aid increased by 29%, his data showed.
Shortsleeve, who ran the MBTA under former Gov. Charlie Baker, said Beacon Hill has a “huge opportunity to take waste and abuse out of government” and could find savings by auditing state departments, while still increasing local aid.
He said he supports the tax cut question because “middle class families in Massachusetts are getting eaten alive by increasing property taxes and the cost of living here.”
The campaign behind the tax cut, like all ballot question campaigns, faces a July deadline to collect another 12,429 voter signatures to officially earn a spot on the ballot in November.
Parr, the MassINC pollster, said there’s no guarantee that support will drop off as it did in the survey. That will depend on messaging from both sides, he said.
“There’s a lot of work that the 'no’ campaign has to actually make ... and let people know what they think are the problems with this question,” he said. “On the other hand, 66% is a pretty good place for the 'yes’ campaign to be at this particular moment. But they also need to work to reinforce that and to anticipate the kinds of messages that they might be getting from the no side and come up with ways to respond to them.”
