Massachusetts passed a 4% millionaire's tax last year. Now every public school student is going to get free lunch

We need different terms for people who HAVE a million dollars and people who MAKE a million per year. Lots of people will read this millionaire's tax and think it will apply to them when they are nearing retirement since they finally have a million dollars after saving all their life.
- That's what the campaign to quash the bill did. That, and tried to convince people that they might have a single multi-million-dollar transaction in their life (like selling a large successful business) and have to pay an extra 4% on it.
  Always a push to get the "temporarily embarassed millionaire" to support the reach. "Yeah, yanno. My little lawmowing operation that makes me $20,000 coild sell for over a million and then I'm fucked"
  
  Ah, the Philip J. Fry mentality
  "someday I might be rich, and then people like me better watch their step"
- We need different terms for people who HAVE a million dollars and people who MAKE a million per year.
  We have them. The first is referred to as "Wealth" or "Worth" and the other is referred to as "Income". Therefore what Mass instituted is called an Income Tax.

It's easier to sell a tax hike if you know exactly where it's going :)
- Unless you're Waukesha, Wisconsin, where they specifically voted to stop giving kids handouts (i.e. free lunch). Because, you know, kids should work for their food or something instead of using their energy to learn.
  
  probably the same people that say abortion is murdering kids...
  
  kids just don’t want to work anymore these days. they’re too busy with their avocados and ipad games. meanwhile the child unemployment rates are at historical highs. won’t someone think of the economy?
  
  Waukesha County is by far the most conservative in the state, and has been playing a massive role in destroying our state's democratic process for a few decades now.
  Another fun fact about it is that they've been trying for years to glom onto the Lake Michigan watershed, which, geographically, it is not a part of. They want to straight up take our water, which they do not need, in exchange for nothing whatsoever of any real value.
  
  "It's about time these kids had some skin in the game!"
  -Some Republican Somewhere I'm sure.

The descriptor "free" misleads - this is exactly the type of thing taxes were always meant to pay for.
- This I have always hated the "FREE STUFF!" talking point and how the mainstream bought it.
  I'm not talking about demanding some middle class guy be forced to buy me an Xbox, but rather I'm asking multiple billionaires start paying just a little more in taxes (instead of ya know.. constant rebates for "cReAtInG JoBs") so that little Timmy doesn't die of untreated pediatric cancer.
- It's mad that children could some how not deserve or accumulate debt to eat. It's even more mad that its exactly what happens.
  
  It's also mad that this is also the case for adults. When you turn 18, you shouldn't suddenly lose basic rights (like access to food and shelter), but that's exactly what most capitalists want to happen (and so that's how it works).
  Goods with inelastic demand shouldn't be driven by the profit motive. Food, healthcare, housing, etc. We can let luxury goods stay within the private sector for now since people don't need them to survive, and come back to that conversation at a later date.

Free school meals should be a given since our taxes should go to what our elected officials have so thoughtfully decided where to apply them. What no one rarely brings up let alone tries to solve is the disgusting and unsafe food that the local, state and fed officials decide to make available. There's too much politics in cafeteria food. They should focus there budget in getting healthy food not the cheapest, uncles cousins or corporate friend contract.
- Yes, we 100% should be using our school kitchens as kitchens, not just reheating premade "GFS Food."
  
  GFS food would be an upgrade over what most are using.
- Reason why #3648393847 why representative democracy simply does not work.
  
  When making that argument, you'll want to add a few examples.
  Otherwise people think you mean dictatorship.
  
  The vast majority (262 out of 351) of Massachusetts municipalities are direct democracy. A further 31 are near enough that it’s not hard to be elected if you run (my precinct has empty rep. slots every year).
  Also in contrast to the rest of the US, there are no unincorporated areas ("county land") in Massachusetts. Counties aren't a useful demarcation here. Everything is a Town or a city.
  
  I think you might be confusing representative democracy with capitalism.
  
  I think what is missing is control over the representatives. When you elect someone, you give them your power, you should be able to take it back when they abuse it.
  In a representative democracy, transparency and control are key and when this is not enforced, people tend to think the system is broken and does not work. It would work if that is fixed

It's not a free lunch. It's just your taxes going to something you actually benefit from.
- No shit. It literally says where the money that pays for it comes from right in the headline.
  
  I think the point of the comment was that in the last few decades the rhetoric has been: "Taxes bad" "Government provides free bus passes to underprivileged people" Always divorcing taxes from their positive effects on society. Maybe they were trying to fight that by directly uniting the fact that the government is just a coordinator, collecting taxes and using it to buy lunches for kids.
  "4% tax on millionaires pays for breakfasts and lunches for all school children" unlike the above example, is a sentence that reminds people that taxes are what provides these many positive social benefits they recieve, not "the government", not "for free", and that taxes aren't always "bad".
  Or maybe I'm projecting!
  
  Yeah but le redditor needs to show us how much smarts he is.
- Of course it is free for the children.
- Which I'm ok with
- "Nothing is free. Free isn't actually a word!"
- So you're implying that people regularly make $1,000,000 in annual income by working? Only about 150,000 people in the US make that much. It's their money.
- Kids don't pay taxes. It's a free lunch.
  
  This comment is just an extreme lack of understanding of any tax system there is, which is wild.
  
  Most of everything is free for kids. What's your point?

That's great news! No kid should ever be hungry at school, especially when they really are legally forced to be there!
- But that will teach them that free stuff is good which will make them communists who love big government!!1! I want children to hunt for their own food like in the good old days. Didn't catch anything? Too bad little Timmy, guess you won't eat tonight because we don't got no welfare state!
  Also I believe in protecting the children and am pro-life.
  /s

- COVID response is wild because for like 2 years we had a robust expansion of both direct government aid and healthcare coverage and accessibility, and the poof most of it disappeared. Like we literally had free healthcare at point of service for one disease which is crazy.
  Great to see that at least some states responding to the demand for these heightened services. We should be pointing towards the example of COVID aid to show what the government can do if the public pressure is there. If we did it once we can do it again!

As a student who grew up attending Massachusetts public schools, this is fantastic news. Just wish that could have been me!
I used to bring a lot of boxed lunch in most days instead because school lunches were an unnecessary expense, but sometimes I'd buy school lunch if it was one I liked.
I don't know if this applies everywhere, but my school district at least had a needs-based free lunch (and breakfast) program for those from low income families, but honestly all students deserve to eat a healthy and nutritious meal during school, which I am sure also takes quite a bit of stress off of parents.
- The trouble with needs based programs is that students who receive the free lunch then get shamed by other students for being poor. Thus the movement to give the lunch to everyone. The cost per student is fairly low compared to the other expenses of running a school. Plus there are savings resulting from getting rid of the bureaucracy that figures out who is needy enough to get a free lunch, getting rid of the payment collection operation, etc, that partly offset the cost of the additional free lunches.
  
  It depends on how you manage it. We had a system where parents could pay up front for your lunches, and students using that system got their lunches the same way the needs-based students did - the lunch lady just checked their name off the list for the day. You could guess at who had which, probably, but there was no way to confirm it.
  That being said, you're right about the bureaucracy and I'm all in favor of free lunches for all students regardless of their parents' income.
  
  Then, idk, sell the lunch program on a semester-by-semester basis and offer subsidies for students who can't afford it? It isn't rocket science.

But but that's socialism

Cool, but you know who isn’t getting a free lunch now? Those millionaires who worked so hard for that money. What have those kids done to earn theirs?
/s, to be clear. I wish these cool places to live (e.g, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan) weren’t so fucking cold. Why can’t there be a nice liberal southern state?
- There is. It is California and a 500sqft house cost $1000000000
- Uhh, the cold isn't the problem. It's too expensive to live here and the real fix for housing (forced upzoning by the State) is a political nonstarter.
  But I will gladly shovel snow versus face the heat, humidiity, snakes, bears, tornadoes, severe hurricanes, drought, wild fires, car oriented development, and whatever other nightmares the rest of the country has to offer. Just get a good coat, LL Bean boots, and a snowblower. It's not that bad.
- Stupid people are lazy and don't want to shovel snow, thus selecting out where they tend to end up living.
  
  Bro WTF.
  
  I really hope you're making a bad joke.
  
  Please explain Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia then. All of them are filled to the brim with some the dumbest people on Earth.

- I think it's fair to wonder why policy changes like those are being pushed so late into the presidents term. Seems like primaries and elections drive policy more than anything else.
  
  He's been pretty busy. The Inflation Reduction Act, the Safer Communities Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, the American Rescue Plan (ARP) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is a decent list for the first 2 years in office. A lot isn't super progressive but it's unlikely the ideas you're hearing about now will pass in their most progressive form either. But you have to start pretty far left to get anything even moderately left of center.
  And, I know our election cycle makes it seem super late, but we're like 5/8 of the way into his term. Just a bit over half way. In February it was pretty much half way.
  
  Yes, you are right!
  It is always the go-to for politicians, I see it workong less and less as more people get informed.

Let's fucking goooo!!!! I love my home state ❤️. I wish they did this sooner.
- Mass is doing so many things right. There's still a long way to go to get to European standards, but still doing a lot better than most states.
- Same! We are lucky to be in one of the best states to live under the current political circumstances.
- My home state too! Too bad I can’t afford to live there

A European here. Aside from going in the right direction, I have a question: Don't the rich already pay most of their earnings as taxes? So the problem is not that they are not getting taxed, but rather that they avoid paying them through loopholes? Or is that a billionaire problem?
- Yeah. The problem is that the richest people have many loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Getting a minimal salary and then just taking loans against their assets is one of them.
  
  This.
  And to add to it. If you were making 10 million dollar and someone approached and said that they could make it so that you keep 1 million in taxes if you pay them 100 thousand you would most likely be one of the ones doing it.
  If you make enough money you can afford hiring people to find new ways to keep your expenses down. Tax is an expense as any other to many rich people.
  "After all, you made your fortune without getting any help so why should your earnings go to p1eople who use the system"
  
  Is this the Steve Jobs $1 special??
- Part of it is loopholes, but an equally big part is that we tax the way the rich earn their money differently. Most working- and middle-class earners make their money from a wage or salary, which is taxed as income. However, the rich make almost all of their money through dividends on stocks, low- or no-interest loans backed by assets, and selling stocks through the market or companies (that they have a seat on the board) doing stock buybacks. All of the income made from the above are taxed differently as "capital gains tax," which is usually taxed at a much lower rate than income.
  
  Capital gains tax isn't 'much' lower, it's like 5% lower, depending on the bracket.
  Loans make it possible to avoid taxes--temporarily. You eventually have to pay off the loan, at which point you'll pay taxes. Of course, if you're making more from your investments than you're paying in interest (and with plenty of collateral, you can get lower-interest loans), it makes sense to just pay the interest and never the principal of the loan. Of course, if loan interest rates shoot up (which they now have), this can suddenly stop working.
  And right now, there is a loophole related to carrying loans--but it requires you to die. When you die, your heir is allowed to sell assets to pay off your loans without paying capital gains tax (or not as much? I don't quite remember).
  
  Thanks for your answer to my question! More specific answers like this one really help reinforce what the other told me. I also appreciate you not going into politics, like a few others have.
- Don't let anyone tell you high income earners don't pay tax. I'm a CPA (tax) and most of my individual clients are high and ultra high net worth.
  One of my biggest clients is a group of four hedge fund managers in NYC for example. They earned about $50 million each in the last few years. Idk what their net worths are but I'd imagine it's at least a few hundred million each. They pay at least 37% federal, plus investment income tax (Obamacare), plus 10% to the state of NY plus NYC. It's a lot and winds up being over $25 million a year. I don't shed any tears for them because they are left with $25 million to play with (each, per year), which they should be able to scrape by on.
  You can certainly argue it should be higher or lower or whatever but there's this idea out there that wealthy people don't pay tax and it's just absurd. Also frankly it makes my job harder because people think I'm a magic anti tax wizard that just makes it go away, I'm just sitting here like you made a fuckton of money and owe a fuckton of tax, what's the question? ¯(ツ)/¯
  
  Thanks for the answer to my question! I did not really look into this for a few years. And those that I did were when I really got into US politics. Thankfully I did 180 on that, but my knowledge from that time is untrustworthy to say the least.
  Your answer really clarified and added a lot rather than repeating what others said, along with it being from a professional, which is well appreciated. So again, thank you and the others for taking the time to answer my question.
  
  Do you ever get a sense of whether your clients 'get' just how disproportionate there income is compared to the median?
  According to this $50 million puts them comfortably in top 1%, receiving median annual US income in just under two hours (if my math is good: (40*52)*(46,001/50000000) = 1.91?).
  
  The issue is more likely that taxes aren't being used in ways that benefit the public, like they are in other countries. But also many Americans don't want that because grrr filthy socialism
- While true …. We have different income tax brackets where those with a higher income pay a higher percentage, for federal tax. However Massachusetts had a flat tax rate on income: we all pay the same percentage. Now that state tax will be more progressive, at least to the extent that rich people have “income”
  
  Thanks for your answer to my question! Simple and to the point, without getting into politics, like a few others have. I had a more general knowledge from a few years ago, so a specific for this case helped.
  Again, thank you and the others who took their time to answer me.
- That's hilarious. Only the "little people" pay taxes.
  Douchebag Trump hasn't paid taxes in about a decade
- Even ignoring every singly loophole, we tax the ways the rich collect and store their wealth at a much lower percent than actual income. Meaning even if the rich didn't dodge taxes, they end up paying much less % wise.
  Adding in loopholes they pay nothing or next to nothing.
- What do you propose the government should limit/stop spending on to reach over 0.5% of the real yearly earnings of Gates, Musk, Bezos, the Waltons and all their billionaire friends?
  (Note that I'm not even asking about if the actual real yearly earnings of millionaires.)

Slightly off topic. A lot of public schools already get free meals thanks to federal education dollars. The school lunches are free in my area because of this, even though the (red) state won’t act.
The state has attempted to kill off those dollars in the past.
- The GOP is dead set on continuing something called "school lunch debt." Let that phrase sink in for a moment.
  https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/03/1173535647/schools-ended-universal-free-lunch-now-meal-debt-is-soaring
  https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1167163106
  https://jacobin.com/2023/05/universal-free-school-meals-program-act-lunch-debt-opposition

It's like the us is always 20 years behind the rest of the world when it comes to things that actually matter.
- I don't know who said it. But one of my favorite lines about america goes: "America will always do the right thing. After it has tried everything else"

[https://www.investmentnews.com/welcome-to-the-millionaires-tax-240997](An overview for those that don't know anything about this.)
Edit: fixed the link An overview for those that don't know anything about this.
a 4% surtax on individual earnings above $1 million. This new provision, which comes into effect from Jan. 1, 2023, will be layered over the preexisting 5% state income tax rate.
- Heads up, it's supposed to be [text] then (link)
  
  Thank you, that explains a lot.

Common sense rules in these blue areas.

Indiana did free meals, then announced kids had to get approved nicknames like Florida...
- What are approved nicknames? That's usually not how nicknames work.
  
  I read an article about it recently. If a student asks to be called by a name other than the one they were registered with (for example, Benjamin asks to be called Ben or William asks to be called Sir Buttface) the school is supposed to inform the parents and get approval. A "side" effect of this is outing trans kids to their parents.
- That’s a weird nickname.
  
  Kids get named Montana, Washington, and Indiana. "Florida" could be an ironic nickname for any of those.
- Just to clarify for other here. Indiana does not do universal free lunch like Massachusetts. You have to apply for it.
- Honestly, as a Hoosier, surprised they even went for the free meals.

Colorado did something similar last year as well.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1134832752/colorado-free-school-lunch-results-measure-midterms

Good. Now slap a 0 to the end of that 4, and then double it.
- Made me curious what the total tax rate would be in Mass. Apparently it has a flat 5% income tax, plus 4% millionaires tax, plus federal rate for income over about 578k is 37%, so altogether it’s 46% for income over a mil in Mass.
  Definitely think it should be higher for such wildly high income. Also disappointed to see for being a relatively progressive state Mass has a flat rather than progressive income tax.
  
  Definitely think it should be higher for such wildly high income.
  Higher, nothing. There should be a rate above which it's taxed at 100%. No one needs to be as rich as Musk or Zuckerberg or Bezos.
  
  As your income increases, your ability to reduce taxable income also increases. The goal of the state is basically to target the lazy.
- In other words, “Don’t provide children with free meals.”
- I'm pretty sure at an 80% rate the millionaires would just spend the rate moving, out of state or out of country depending on how far reaching it was.
  
  And nothing of value was lost...
  Like, oh no, what would a state do without their money hoarding exploiters that alredy contribute less than the bare minimum???
  And worse - if everyone decided to make these laws, where will the poor millionaires escape to then???
  Oh, won't someone think of the millionaires!!!11
  
  Oh look, someone else who doesn't understand how progressive tax brackets work. Their effective tax rate wouldn't be 80%, only income above a certain (very high) number would be taxed at 80%.
  
  That’s exactly how that would go.

And my kid will still refuse to eat it.... We had free lunches here during the pandemic.
- How did you do the custom font on your username? It looks awesome!!!!
  
  emojis, doesn't look as good on iOS because half of them are tiny so it just looks like cOkANe

4% of WHAT is taxed?
- Yeah, most millionaires have no profit and they're in the red. We need even more taxes on small aircrafts that are used for private charter, more taxes on purchasing and operating helicopters, taxes on the kerosene not used in military scope.
  Taxes on luxury cars that only the billionaire's afford. Every car over 150.000 USD should have a 100% tax to feed the homeless and the kids
- Per the article, it's an income tax on any income over a million dollars, so it's essentially an additional state income tax bracket. So, if an entity makes exactly 1 million this year then they won't pay any extra, but if they make 2 million, then they pay 4 percent on that additional 1 mill (40k), over whatever else they would owe before the additional tax.
  Like all income tax, there are ways to avoid it or reduce your burden, but not every person/company goes to those lengths.
  I personally think a wealth tax is fairer for society, but it's pretty hard to implement and of course has a ton of very wealthy opposition.
  
  I personally think a wealth tax is fairer for society
  The most reasonable way I've seen so far is to assume that your wealth passively creates x% of extra income for you, and then tax that amount as income. That also simplifies the tax system, since you only need enter your assets, and not what exacts trades and profits you made.

Not to discourage continued bleeding of the rich, but I wonder if this is the right way to go about it. Theoretically, we should already have a lot of laws on the books that slam millionaires for their advantageous position. But, their budget also allows for accountants that shift and hide that money, sometimes on a questionable basis of legality.
Could one prong on this assault be to increase the IRS' operating budget, so that they're able to track down and stop more of these tax haven shenanigans?
- Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. This is working, let it work. If they start avoiding it the rules can be changed.
  
  Exactly. When I supported this, there was that wince of "this won't get the people it really needs to hit"... but it does enough.
  And tbh, I know some wealthy fucking people who legitimately don't cross the line. $1M/yr is a lot of bloody money. That means if I found a way to "only" make $900,000/yr, I'm immune to this tax.
  Also, anyone hiring for $900,000/yr?
- Could one prong on this assault be to increase the IRS' operating budget, so that they're able to track down and stop more of these tax haven shenanigans?
  Well you could simply start by plugging up a few questionable tax loopholes.
  Whether or not the reason the IRS can't collect the tax revenue to be able to provide certain services is because of them not having enough money, I don't know.
  But if you're issue is with certain laws on taxation, it would makes more sense to deal with those first.
  EDIT: To mention something else that's important to all of this, there's something called the Laffer Curve. The simple explanation is that there's a happy medium between the percentage of income tax and the amount of tax revenue gained. Too much or too little income taxation and you end up with less tax revenue. You can see this in a few times during US history where the income tax wasn't as high, but the tax revenue was great. So to further determine where we should go with income tax you could look at the past few years of projected and actual tax revenue, as well as spending to service government debt among other government spending.
  I'm not an economist nor an accountant, but this is likely what you'd have to do to figure out the balance between taxation and government spending in order to have money for certain social services. However, no one wants to do that and another big problem is the government doesn't like being told it needs to manage it's spending better.
- It's not bleeding anyone. My father was an airline flag carrier captain in Europe. He made what he called "an obscene paycheck". When taxes came around, he would say: look at what they are taking from me, I must be making a ton!
  
  And that’s still only employee money. Very very high paid employee money, but ultimately still labor.
  You wouldn’t believe what you can pull down if you live off other people’s labor.
  
  And most likely he was paying more then than someone earning the same amount does today. We're not even close to scrapping our way back out of society being profoundly imbalanced towards the wealthy.

I was curious about the budgeting implications because enacting a increase to revenue doesn't necessarily mean increased spending would be covered. For any one to lazy to go off site, but also interested:
"$1 billion of the state's record $56.2 billion fiscal budget for 2024 came from the state's new 4% tax on millionaires."
"State lawmakers agreed to put $523 million of revenue from the new tax toward education and put $477 million aside for transportation."
Didn't find the cost there but on one of their sources:
"A portion of that money will go toward the $172 million needed to provide free school meals, the State House News Service reported."
- So out of a billion extra dollars, they didn't even spend 20% on the kids (it's too early for me to do the calculation out of the total budget, but it'd be pitiful).
  Which is great, but using them as a headline all things considered seems manipulative and like they're burying the lead.
  Good for the kids, don't get me wrong, but somewhere along the way a lot more of that money has been spent on other things, and most likely is lining the pockets of the already rich and powerful.
  So yeah, it's a great example of what a tiny hike in taxing the rich can do, but it not only doesn't come close to being enough, it also feels like another scam where good publicity hides a whole manner of sins going on behind the scenes.
  
  I mean all we know so far is that half of the new tax is going to education (and 172mil of that has already gone towards an excellent cause) and half is going to transportation. Of course skimming off the top is incredibly common, but I think it’s far too early to call the amount misspent.
  
  Sorry if my quoting gave off the wrong impression. I believe it meant that of the total 1 billion dollars 523 million will be spent on education. Of the 523 million to be spent on education 172 million will be used to pay for lunches. The remaining 351 million I would assume is being used for other educational expenses like new equipment or for salaries.
  Perhaps there is miss management of the funds but I don't think that it fair to conclude the 351 million has been misappropriated just based on this information.
  
  If they could line the pockets of the MBTA, that would be great thanks.
  
  why spend more on something than you need to? plenty of others besides kids who could use the services the additional money will pay for.

but muh freedumb
- First they came for the millionaires, and I did not speak out - because it's only 4 fucking percent and they're still not going to lose any sleep over their bills or if they'll ever retire.

This is fantastic news!

The SCOTUS will overturn this within 2 years.
- I don't think they can. States are allowed to tax their citizens and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
  
  Why are you so confident that they'll still care about jurisdiction 2 years from now? The SCOTUS does not respect or obey the law or the constitution.
  We've been watching them ignore more and more of the rules and precedents that the court has always held to. They're becoming more and more confident in their ability to do whatever the fuck they want, because, as it turns out, in the real world, the SCOTUS is accountable to no one except maybe the mob violence that we are going to see when things continue to not improve.

Will simply drive more rich people out of the state.
- They always say that and they never leave
  A lot of bluster and blubbering about what would happen if so and so law passed. Never works. They're still making plenty and once they're done whining they stay put
- Revenue from the new income tax is earmarked for public school meals.
  As the kids get free food now, some rich people must be left in the state. Maybe the ones with an actual heart?
  Looking at this from a community perspective, rich people that don't contribute to the community is kind of worthless anyway.

Have to love when people say anything is "free"
- Good point! These kids should starve if their parents don't work hard enough. Those millions and billionaires worked hard for their money!
  
  You mean to tell me that people who work in the US dont get enough money to buy food? Lol, you have not been outisde of the US have you?

They don't need more tax they just need to stop squandering it. My town has turned into idiots first sim city playthrough.
- You should run for office

The food still looks pretty garbage compare to Japan!