On Wednesday, May 4^th, oral arguments took place before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Anderson v. Attorney General, a lawsuit demanding accurate language be used for the income tax surcharge ballot question.

The plaintiffs, including NFIB Massachusetts state director Christopher Carlozzi and other NFIB small business owners, are demanding the Attorney General reflect in the summary to voters, that revenue from the so-called millionaire tax is not necessarily in addition to existing revenue, and may simply replace current education and transportation funds. In short, there is no guarantee a graduated income tax will mean additional money for education and transportation.

In 2018, while arguing before the Supreme Judicial Court on the removal of the income tax surcharge ballot question, the Attorney General’s office admitted that the scenario outlined above may in fact prove true. They conceded that money generated from the new tax would not mean more money for education or transportation and could simply serve as revenue replacement. Plaintiffs in the current suit feel the description of the question is disingenuous and needs to be corrected so that Massachusetts voters have an accurate sense of what this constitutional amendment will mean for taxpayers in the Commonwealth.

To get a better understanding of how many NFIB members the income tax surcharge will impact, please take a moment to complete this brief survey.