There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week.

Tax reduction packages still lingering in committee

It’s been almost three months since the House and Senate created a conference committee to hammer out a compromise version of different tax relief packages approved by each branch. The Senate’s package would cost the state about $590 million annually, while the House’s would cost close to $1.1 billion. There is no immediate solution in sight at the moment.

This week, Beacon Hill Roll Call reviews how local senators’ voted on several roll calls on tax reductions.

$590 million tax reduction package (S 2397)

The Senate, 39-0, approved a package that provides $590 million in tax relief. Key provisions of the Senate package include raising the earned income tax credit from 30% of the federal credit to 40% of the federal credit; raising the cap on the rental deduction from $3,000 to $4,000; increasing from $1 million to $2 million the value of a person’s estate that is exempt from the state’s estate/death tax that a person is required to pay following their death before distribution to any beneficiary; increasing from $1,200 to $2,400 the maximum senior circuit breaker credit; increasing the statewide cap for the dairy tax credit from $6 million to $8 million; and doubling the credit for lead paint abatement to $3,000 for full abatement and $1,000 for partial abatement.

The package also provides that student loan payment assistance offered by employers will not be treated as a taxable salary and gives cities and towns the option to adopt a local property tax exemption for real estate that is rented to a person below a certain area-dependent income level.

A “Yes” vote is for the $590 million tax reduction package.

Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes

Sen. Paul Mark — Yes

File taxes jointly (S 2387)

The Senate, 33-5, approved an amendment that would require Massachusetts couples who file income tax returns jointly at the federal level do the same at the state level.

Supporters said this amendment will close a loophole that allows some married couples to file individually — an action that could be used to minimize or avoid the person’s state tax obligations under the newly approved 4% surtax, which is in addition to the current flat 5% one, on taxpayers’ earnings of more than $1 million annually.

Opponents said if filers are forced to file jointly at the state level, the 4% surtax will apply to many more filers, which is not what voters approved in the November 2022 election imposing the 4% surtax.

A “Yes” vote is for the amendment requiring joint filing.

Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes

Sen. Paul Mark — Yes

Reduce short-term capital gains tax (S 2397)

The Senate, 5-32, rejected an amendment that would reduce the short-term capital gains tax from 12% to 5%.

Amendment supporters said there are 26 states that currently tax short-term capital gains at a rate of 5% or lower, including all of our surrounding states. They noted that both the House and the governor favor the reduction. They asked why the capital gains tax or any tax imposed should be charged at a higher rate than earned income.

Amendment opponents said the state cannot afford the $117 million loss in revenue that this tax cut would cost this year. They argued the cut would do nothing to help the costs of housing and living.

A “No” vote is against the reduction to 5%.

Sen. Joanne Comerford — No

Sen. Paul Mark — No

Increase estate/death tax exemption (S 2397)

The Senate, 5-33, rejected an amendment that would increase from $1 million to $5 million the amount of money that is exempt from the value of a person’s estate from the state’s estate/death tax that a person is required to pay after their death before distribution to any beneficiary. The increase to $5 million would be implemented over 10 years.

Most Republicans are against any such tax and coined the name “death tax” to imply that the government taxes you even after you die. Most Democrats support the tax and call it an “estate tax” to imply that this tax is only paid by the wealthy.

Amendment supporters said Massachusetts is one of only 12 states that have an estate/death tax and that the Bay State’s is the most aggressive of the 12. They said that in light of the high value of houses, with the average home price more than $500,000, the $1 million threshold of this “unfair and regressive” tax is too low and noted the federal tax exempts the first $12 million. They noted that Massachusetts is losing many residents, who move to Florida and other states where this tax does not exist.

Amendment opponents said the proposed bill already raises the exemption from $1 million to $2 million and noted that will cost $185 million. They said a hike to $5 million is excessive and unaffordable and will cost hundreds of millions of dollars more. They noted that lowering the estate tax is not the only way to help seniors and their families, and noted there are many other initiatives that help seniors.

A “No” vote is against increasing the exemption to $5 million.

Sen. Joanne Comerford — No

Sen. Paul Mark — No

Tax revenue from millionaire’s tax (S 3)

The Senate, 5-34, rejected an amendment that would remove a section in the budget that exempts tax revenue generated from the recently voter-approved millionaire’s tax from counting toward the allowable state tax revenue limitations, under Chapter 62F, which provides that whenever revenue collections in a fiscal year exceed an annual cap tied to wage and salary growth, the excess is returned to taxpayers.

Last year, $3 billion in refunds were returned to taxpayers when the law was triggered for just the second time since its passage in 1986. The revenue from the millionaire’s tax is deposited into the new Education and Transportation Stabilization Fund.

Amendment supporters said the section should be repealed because it goes against the will of the voters by excluding the new millionaire’s tax revenue from the total calculation for rebates back to the taxpayers and reducing the amount of tax relief resulting from Section 62F.

Opponents of the amendment argued this revenue is earmarked for education and transportation, and must be protected and treated differently than other tax revenue.

(Please note what a “Yes” and “No” vote mean. The amendment was on striking the section that exempts tax revenue generated from the recently voter-approved millionaire’s tax from counting toward the allowable state tax revenue limitations. Therefore, a “Yes” vote is for the amendment that favors tax revenue generated from the millionaire’s tax counting toward the allowable state tax revenue limitations. A “No” vote is against the amendment and supports exempting the revenue from the allowable state tax revenue limitations.)

Sen. Joanne Comerford — No

Sen. Paul Mark — No

Send 90% of capital gains tax revenue above $1 billion to the Rainy Day Fund (S 3)

The Senate, 3-36, rejected an amendment that would maintain the 90/5/5 law under which 90% of the capital gains tax collections exceeding $1 billion goes to the Rainy Day Fund, 5% to the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund and 5% to the State Pension Liability Fund. The amendment would replace a pending 60/20/20 proposal that would send, in fiscal year 2024 only, 60% of the $1 billion excess to the Rainy Day Fund while sending 20% to the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund and 20% to the State Pension Liability Fund.

Amendment supporters said it is essential to provide 90% to the Rainy Day Fund, which helps bail out the state during slow economic times when tax revenues shrink.

Amendment opponents said the Rainy Day Fund is flush with $7 billion, and argued these retiree and pension funds are underfunded and need some additional money for just one year.

A “No” vote is for the 60/20/20 formula.

Sen. Joanne Comerford — No

Sen. Paul Mark — No

Also up on Beacon HillLogo contest

The Executive Office of Veterans Services has announced a contest for residents to design a new logo for that office, which in March was elevated to be part of the governor’s cabinet rather than just a state agency. The announcement notes that over the past six months, the office has undergone a significant transformation in the departments and programs under its umbrella, including overseeing the state’s veteran’s homes in Holyoke and Chelsea.

“We are at a pivotal juncture where our logo needs to mirror the diversity of today’s veterans, whose service spans eras from World War II to Afghanistan,” said Jon Santiago, a former Boston state representative who is now secretary of veterans affairs. “The new … logo should embody transparency, accountability and our mission to honorably serve those who served us.”

The contest invites participation from residents ages 18 and older. All designers are encouraged to channel their creativity into a logo that encapsulates the camaraderie, resilience and sacrifices of veterans, both past and present. The deadline to submit designs is Oct. 4. For details on how to enter, go to mass.gov/eovs-logo-contest.

Judiciary Committee hearing

The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on several bills. This hearing was the one that began on July 18, but was disrupted by an electrical fire and had to be rescheduled for last week. Bills before the committee include:

Body piercing and tattoos (H 1386): Would impose a $500 fine on anyone who sells or gives a body piercing or tattooing kit to an unlicensed practitioner or a minor.

“Studies show that home piercing or tattooing leads to an increased risk of communicable diseases such as hepatitis, HIV and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) infection,” said sponsor Rep. Bruce Ayers, D-Quincy. “This legislation would install further protections to ensure that only licensed, trained professionals are providing these services.”

Expunge harassment prevention orders (H 1620): Would require harassment prevention orders to be expunged from a defendant’s record if and when the order is vacated on a motion made by the plaintiff.

“I sponsored this bill because under the current law the process of having a defendant’s record expunged when the harassment prevention order is vacated is nearly impossible and can have negative consequences for those undergoing background checks when applying for various jobs,” said sponsor Rep. David Linsky, D-Natick.

Minors and protective orders (H 1605): Would allow minors, ages 13 to 17 years old, to appear in court, without a parent, guardian or attorney when filing for a protective order. Under current law, these minors must be accompanied by one of the above.

Supporters say that these requirements impede the child’s ability to obtain immediate relief from abuse, dating violence and trafficking. They note the bill will provide increased access to the court and open a pathway to resources, including the Department of Children and Families and other advocate services, that can keep a child safe.

“I have filed this legislation for many years. It was originally meant to go hand in hand with my legislation to ban child marriage, which passed in 2022,” said sponsor Rep. Kay Khan, D-Newton. “According to the Department of Children and Families, Massachusetts has one of the highest rates of child abuse and neglect in the country. This problem has grave consequences both immediately and for years to come, as research has found long-lasting physical and mental health issues as a result of abuse during childhood. I’m very glad the Legislature acted to ban child marriage during the last session, and now I think it’s time to allow minors to file protective orders as well.”

Donate food (H 1594, S 920 and S 1016): These three bills would provide civil liability protections to individuals, restaurants and organizations that make direct food donations to persons in need. The donor would also receive a tax credit of up to $5,000.

Supporters say food insecurity levels across the state remain high and note that roughly 900,000 tons of food still end up in Massachusetts landfills every year.

“Currently, donations must be routed through nonprofits to receive liability protections, an onerous requirement that causes a large quantity of perishable food to go to waste,” said co-sponsor Sen. Ed Kennedy, D-Lowell. “For example, employees closing a pizza restaurant might refrain from giving a surplus pie to a homeless individual due to fear of liability. This legislation extends liability protections to cover direct donations of food to persons in need, ensuring that far more people can receive donations of unspoiled, perishable food.

“Research shows that anywhere from 30% to 40% of the food supply is wasted in the United States at every stage of food production and distribution,” said co-sponsors Sen. Jo Comerford, D-Northampton, and Rep. Hannah Kane, R-Shrewsbury. “Farmers, for example, often have crop yields [that] exceed the amount grocery stores or farmer’s markets will purchase, leaving fresh food to be thrown out or tilled under rather than sold and eaten.

“At the same time,” the pair continued, “the number of food-insecure families continues to grow. A 2022 study done by the Greater Boston Food Bank found that 32% of Massachusetts residents lack food security. Reducing barriers to donation at the intersection of food waste and food insecurity directly targets both problems, allowing food to go to those who need it. Farmers have expressed that they would like to donate extra food and would do so if their labor and storage costs are reduced, and many local food pantries, squeezed for resources, welcome the opportunity to fill their shelves and better serve their consumers.”