Blog Archives

South Shore Chamber Announces New Infrastructure Report

8/30/2022

2 Comments

The South Shore Chamber of Commerce has released a new report which identifies current and future regional infrastructure priorities that promote economic growth for the South Shore.

The infrastructure report lays out the next steps for the chamber to focus on for its South Shore 2030 regional economic development project. The report identifies water resources and wastewater capacity as the most pressing concern – both for sustainable economic growth and to protect our natural resources.

The chamber has long advocated for improving commuting in and out of Boston and the report also prioritizes intra-regional transportation to the agenda. This includes reverse commuting of workers to jobs on the South Shore as important to future job creation and business expansion on the South Shore.

To drive some infrastructure efficiencies and cost controls the report recommends focusing efforts on new infrastructure around targeted development areas on the South Shore. Examples include the Kingston/North Plymouth; the Route 3A corridor from Quincy to Hingham; the corridors of Route 3 between Hanover and Weymouth (including the Rte. 53 & Rte.18 arteries) and potential development from the new MBTA Communities Housing law, which is requiring communities to think about development in a more targeted, concentrated way.

The chamber’s report was influenced by its work over the past four years promoting housing and some projections and assumptions about how the pandemic might shape future growth.

“We were beginning to see younger people move out of Boston to the suburbs before COVID and expect that to continue at a higher rate the next few years,” said chamber president and CEO Peter Forman. “We are seeing a lot of local business growth and entrepreneurship spreading throughout the region, but we do not expect a significant shift of Boston-based office space into the suburbs following the pandemic. Our future job growth will come from new businesses starting here, growth in businesses that serve residents, and businesses moving here because of the workforce talent.”

Forman said the group’s goal is to “identify transportation priorities that are most closely tied to the region’s economic future. Their recommendations will become a blueprint for the Chamber’s Transportation work and political advocacy for the next few years.”

The report also warned about future pressure on the MBTA and threat of service changes, most of that coming out of the pandemic and reduced numbers of workers commuting to Boston offices.

Former Braintree mayor and board member of the state Department of Transportation Joseph Sullivan and Janice Bergeron, a transportation consultant who lives on the South Shore, co-chaired the chamber’s Transportation Advisory group, a contributing group of experts for the report. The Advisory Group is part of South Shore 2030, a comprehensive economic and community development plan. Visit the website at (www.SouthShore2030.com) to learn more.

“Serious commitments, including investments to infrastructure and transportation are a centerpiece of economic development for the South Shore,” said Sullivan. “Without it we lose our vibrancy and undermine our future quality of life.”

2 Comments

Our position on the Millionaire Tax ballot question

8/10/2022

0 Comments

The South Shore Chamber of Commerce opposes Question 1 on the November Ballot. The proposed constitutional amendment imposes an additional 4% tax on any income over $1 million. Any future change or repeal will require another constitutional amendment – a process that can run from 30 months to many years. The chamber is concerned about how this may discourage people from moving here or opening a business in Massachusetts. The state already sees some of its wealthier residents leaving for states with more favorable taxes. An 80% increase in taxes (from 5% to 9%) on income over $1 million will not help. The need to permanently raise $1-2 billion dollars in new taxes is not compelling when we have record high state tax revenues.

The November ballot includes a proposed State Constitutional Amendment to tax individuals an additional 4%, above the current 5% tax, on all income over $1 million. ( 5% up to $1 million and 9% on every dollar after that.) This includes all income sources, not just salaries. It is often referred to as “the millionaires’ tax”, “fair share tax” and graduated income tax. The language suggests that the money raised will be used only for education and transportation. There is a cost-of living index applied to the $1 million so that the tax applies to slightly higher income levels than $1 million in the future.

The South Shore Chamber of Commerce opposes the ballot question.

This new tax would push the state closer to the class of states considered high tax states –company we do not want to keep. It risks accelerated wealth flight - wealthier individuals moving out of high tax states to lower tax states. Evidence indicates that wealth flight is already occurring in Massachusetts, partly because of the state’s highly unfavorable estate tax (the tax when a person dies). That exodus is potentially accelerating because of the new-found acceptance of remote work. It may also discourage younger people from starting businesses here. They may not be high earners but hope to be or to build successful businesses choosing to avoid high tax states.

If entrepreneurs leave the state or are discouraged from coming here, that will hurt overall economic activity and job creation. Wealth flight also harms our non-profits, one of the largest sources of employment in the state. Their missions and services are an important part of the region’s quality of life. Most of these organizations depend on the generosity of a relatively small number of wealthy people for a large part of their annual charitable giving. A loss of donor/local philanthropists will reduce support for our non-profit’s missions and the related jobs.

Th Chamber is not persuaded by proponents on the need for this large tax increase. They argue:

The tax revenue will be earmarked only for education and transportation. The amendment makes clear that any funds are controlled by future legislators. Even if political pressure makes good on the promise there is nothing that prevents the legislature from simply re-allocating existing budget funding for education and transportation to other priorities.
There is social equity in taxing wealthier residents at a higher tax rate rather than everyone paying the same 5% rate. This is the long-held argument for a graduated income tax. The state’s flat tax rate of 5% on all income is not really that flat and higher earners effectively pay higher rates. State tax rates are set at a percentage of federal taxable income. The federal tax code is heavily graduated with higher income people paying higher rates as income rises. Second, there is nothing in the amendment or from supporters arguing to lower taxes for lower income earners. This is not a shift in who pays how much in taxes but merely a proposal to raise and spend more money. It simply sounds more appealing to say “only the rich will pay.”
Four percent is only a small amount, and it only applies on every dollar of income over $1 million. It is not just 4%. It is 4% more. It is on top of all other state and local taxes. And it is not just “the rich” who will feel this. It is the homeowner whose largest asset is their home. It is the small business owner who works years or decades to build a successful business. Most small business owners do not earn $1 million in annual income. Many owners see that income once—when they sell their business, or the real estate associated with it. These are not the rich leisure class. They are the risk takers and entrepreneurs creating jobs and supporting our communities every year working to that eventual high-income year when they sell.

Housing values are now so high that most people living in homes worth $1 million are not earning close to that much in annual income. When the owners finally downsize, they will have to turn over another 4% to the state.

The Chamber is concerned about locking in a mistake. An amendment to the Constitution takes a minimum of 30 months (often many years) , two votes of the state legislatures, with one election between the two votes, and approval by the voters. If adopted any change or repeal would take the same effort, although likely many years longer because of the political difficulty in repealing something that is already law. That means even if this proves to be hurting the state economy it will be years before it can be corrected.

For more information on both sides of the proposal please see
https://noquestion1.com/ (opponent’s coalition group)
https://www.fairsharema.com (supporter’s coalition group)

The Proposed Amendment to the State Constitution
To provide the resources for quality public education and affordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation, all revenues received in accordance with this paragraph shall be expended, subject to appropriation, only for these purposes. In addition to the taxes on income otherwise authorized under this Article, there shall be an additional tax of 4 percent on that portion of annual taxable income in excess of $1,000,000 (one million dollars) reported on any return related to those taxes. To ensure that this additional tax continues to apply only to the commonwealth’s highest income taxpayers, this $1,000,000 (one million dollars) income level shall be adjusted annually to reflect any increases in the cost of living by the same method used for federal income tax brackets. This paragraph shall apply to all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023.

0 Comments

The Chamber Blog

South Shore Chamber Announces New Infrastructure Report

Our position on the Millionaire Tax ballot question

Archives

Categories

Upcoming Events