General Boston Discussion

In this imaginary free market were these buildings not taxed at a rate selected by the city? Was the tax rate not chosen at such a level that it allowed for municipal solvency while not disincentivizing businesses from buying, building, and selling structures? And if demand collapses and the city faces a revenue crisis wouldn’t it make sense for the city to adjust the tax particulars? There’s too much vacant office space and not enough housing. This seems like a reasonable policy proposal passed by our elected representatives.
 
What bold changes occurred during the Walsh era? Nothing against him but he was mayor during a building boom, so buildings got built... ok. Wu is pursuing comprehensive, permanent change in the city's zoning code to allow greater density by right in the places that desperately need it. And, she's pushing it through despite significant NIMBY opposition (see PLAN: Charlestown).

What she's doing is far more difficult and transformational in the long-term than anything Walsh ever attempted. Yes, it takes more than 2 years to see the results, but Wu's housing and zoning policy is the most pro-development agenda Boston has seen in a long time. ArchBoston of all places should be able to understand that!
I think this is interesting but I'm also confused by the optics they are showing. Community-lead planning leads to the zoning we have from the 1980s--zoning that prevents development. We know that community is almost always against change and growth. So how does community-lead rezoning become pro development?

Re-zoning is desperately needed because so little is actually as-of-right in Boston. So anything that moves us closer to existing stock being as-of-right seems like a good thing. But, and most people probably don't remember it, about five or so years ago the BPDA rezoned South Boston to make more projects as of right. This was all with community support until they realized that it wasn't just the individual residents who would have an easier time with their homes but also all those pesky developers. So the change was walked back.
 
The millionaire's tax fallout has been swift.

"Amid dismal revenue forecast, Healey administration plans to freeze state hiring"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/02/metro/state-employee-hiring-healey/#bgmp-comments

Here's some important quotes from the article.
"State tax revenues have been sliding since last year, with collections now running below projections for eight straight months. Even after the Healey administration downgraded the state’s tax forecast at the start of the calendar year, revenue collections through February were still $275 million below even those lowered projections."

"Then in January, Healey, citing lower-than-expected tax revenue collections, slashed $375 million in spending, cutting hundreds of millions from programs that provide outreach for seniors, behavioral health supports, homeless shelters, and other services."

"At the same time, her budget office also lowered the amount of tax revenue it expected to collect this fiscal year by $1 billion. Revenues at the time were running $769 million, or about 4 percent, behind the state’s original projections midway through the current fiscal year."

"After years of sometimes record-breaking budget surpluses, tax revenues began tailing off in 2023. The state’s take plummeted last April before it ended the fiscal year, having collected roughly $600 million less than it expected.

The vast majority of that shortfall, roughly $593 million, involved lower-than-expected collections of capital gains taxes, a volatile revenue source, officials said at the time."


**********Guess who pays most of the capital gains taxes? Oh that's right the millionaires.**********


Now combine that with this article: "How many migrants have arrived in Massachusetts? It’s hard to know for sure, but they keep coming."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/01/metro/how-many-migrants-in-massachusetts/

It only took the Progressive scourge about a year but it looks like the state is totally screwed. The surplus is disappearing, the rich people are moving out, commercial value fell by more than any other global city on earth, and we're replacing the "makers" with a permanent dependent underclass of "takers" that is siphoning off much needed funding from American taxpayers. I'm in my 40's and I have never felt more hopeless for the future of this city, state, and country than I do today.
 
The vast majority of that shortfall, roughly $593 million, involved lower-than-expected collections of capital gains taxes, a volatile revenue source, officials said at the time."


**********Guess who pays most of the capital gains taxes? Oh that's right the millionaires.**********
Can you cite something that says a significant number of $1MM+/yr earners have left the state?

If you can, then yeah, it's a pretty damning case for the Fair Share Amendment!

But if you can't, then sorry... this is just standard angry conservative speculation. This isn't the first time MA has had a budget shortfall, and there all sorts of reasons that capital gains tax revenue could be down, such as the fed's rate hikes throughout 2023.
 
Can you cite something that says a significant number of $1MM+/yr earners have left the state?

Right now the best evidence is the "unexpected" loss of the capital gains taxes. That's where the richest people make most of their money, so clearly there is major tax avoidance going on, most likely by shifting home addresses out of state. Other evidence includes the massive loss on commercial property, which has been the biggest loss of any global city in the world, showing that we aren't as desirable a place to invest in anymore (rich people are typically the investors) and the inability to sell new condo units in what should be desirable locations such as Winthrop Square.

You say it's "angry conservative speculation" but at the end of the day the incentives created are for rich people to move their money out of state, and for migrants to overwhelm us for the "best freebies in the nation." It was speculation when I said a year ago that this was going to happen. Now I'm pointing to the actual hard numbers, reported by the ultra liberal Boston Globe no less, and they're ugly. Sooner or later the data will come out about the number of people who left. I would say it's "hopeful liberal speculation" that these policies aren't the reason for the mess we're in, especially when so many of us predicted exactly what is happening now. What do you think, it's all just a timing coincidence, the vast majority of rich people actually stayed, and we're magically going to right the ship?
 
(Farting trombone sound)


https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/03/metro/hiring-freeze-healey-taxes/

This passage below was also conveniently left out of the original link, who could say why?!

And a spending bill moving through the Legislature would allow the governor to dip into the roughly $850 million left in a state escrow account that contains the remnants of last year’s multibillion-dollar surplus.

Let’s hold with the “our country is literally doomed” rhetoric until maybe a quarter or two?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBM
Right now the best evidence is the "unexpected" loss of the capital gains taxes. That's where the richest people make most of their money, so clearly there is major tax avoidance going on, most likely by shifting home addresses out of state.
The millionaire's tax was not mindlessly whipped up by a bunch of power-drunk communist revolutionaries--believe it or not, progressives do care _a lot_ about long-term tax revenue. The tax was studied, and while that study did anticipate tax avoidance, it did not anticipate the avoidance would come in the form of all the millionaires leaving:
  • Some high-income residents may relocate to other states, but the number of movers is likely to be small.
  • Tax avoidance could be widespread, cutting substantially into the amount of revenue raised by the levy.
Now, the study could be wrong. Multimillionaires could be leaving. But that's something we'd be able to clearly observe with data, right? You're asserting that it's the cause, so burden of proof is on you to back that claim up. If you can show that a significant portion of MA's multimillionaires left the state last year, I'll eat my words.
Now I'm pointing to the actual hard numbers, reported by the ultra liberal Boston Globe no less, and they're ugly.
Yeah, they're ugly. But "the numbers are bad" is not the same as "the numbers are bad, and we can tell exactly what caused them." If we're ignoring proof, I could easily whip up a claim that Baker's disinvestment in public transit infrastructure has soured the desire of wealthy professionals to live and work in Boston. To be clear, I'm not claiming that, and I don't have proof of it anyway.... but I'm saying it to illustrate that you spin any news story in any direction you want if you don't care about proof.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBM
The millionaire's tax was not mindlessly whipped up by a bunch of power-drunk communist revolutionaries--believe it or not, progressives do care _a lot_ about long-term tax revenue. The tax was studied, and while that study did anticipate tax avoidance, it did not anticipate the avoidance would come in the form of all the millionaires leaving:

Now, the study could be wrong. Multimillionaires could be leaving. But that's something we'd be able to clearly observe with data, right? You're asserting that it's the cause, so burden of proof is on you to back that claim up. If you can show that a significant portion of MA's multimillionaires left the state last year, I'll eat my words.

Yeah, they're ugly. But "the numbers are bad" is not the same as "the numbers are bad, and we can tell exactly what caused them." If we're ignoring proof, I could easily whip up a claim that Baker's disinvestment in public transit infrastructure has soured the desire of wealthy professionals to live and work in Boston. To be clear, I'm not claiming that, and I don't have proof of it anyway.... but I'm saying it to illustrate that you spin any news story in any direction you want if you don't care about proof.

I absolutely believe that Progressives do "care" and that their intent was as you say it is. However, where they focus strictly on intent, I focus on actual results, and Progressive results tend to be abysmal. The law was passed in late 2022, and one of the quotes above is literally:
"After years of sometimes record-breaking budget surpluses, tax revenues began tailing off in 2023. The state’s take plummeted last April before it ended the fiscal year, having collected roughly $600 million less than it expected. The vast majority of that shortfall, roughly $593 million, involved lower-than-expected collections of capital gains taxes, a volatile revenue source, officials said at the time."

The timing is very specific, much more so than people suddenly getting "fed up" simultaneously with transportation. If there was a specific action on transportation then I would be more likely to agree to that as a cause, but the specific action was the passing of the millionaire's tax. It is true that correlation is not causation, but it seems pretty convenient that one happened right before the other.

I'm unable to locate exact numbers of people who left (yet, eventually it will be out there), but this article gives a further glimpse into the immediacy of the state's decline.

"“Massachusetts imposed some serious changes to its tax code, which is obviously having a significant impact in terms of taxpayer revenue leaving the state,” Laurie White, president of the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, said. “It’s really showing that it’s hurting their economy.”

And Massachusetts’ loss could be Rhode Island’s gain.

The Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC) in a Feb. 29 brief touted Rhode Island’s favorable tax standing — surpassing Massachusetts for the first time in a decade, according to 2024 rankings of business friendliness by the Tax Foundation. Rhode Island made strides to improve its business tax climate, wiping away the pesky tangible tax for most small businesses, for example. Meanwhile, Massachusetts’ ranking fell by 12 spots after approving a state wealth tax. "

After the millionaire's tax was passed, Massachusetts dropped from 34th in the "Business Tax Climate Index" to 46th. Once again, correlation is not causation, but there is a lot of evidence that this is doing the damage to our state's budget that many of us anticipated it would.

1712199951472.png


So basically we no longer have an attractive business climate, we're incentivizing rich people to leave, and we have the most generous benefits in the country to pay to a never-ending stream of outsiders (costing at least $1 billion a year out of our shrinking tax revenue, and climbing), while cutting funding to Massachusetts residents in need. Then for the businesses that are still here, in what's now the 46th best state from a business tax climate perspective, we have a mayor who wants to increase their tax rates and accelerate the death spiral.

All the evidence so far points back to a handful of disastrous policies, with the Millionaire's tax the most critical piece in the declining revenues. I'll find the numbers eventually for numbers who left, but for now there is already plenty of evidence to logically connect the dots that we are driving wealth and future value creation out of the state.
 

Last week, the second round of USDOT's Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) implementation grants were announced. The city of Boston was awarded $14.4million in funding for "Implementing Boston's New Traffic Signal Operations Design Policy".

From the project description: "The City of Boston, Massachusetts, requests funding to make systemic safety improvements to traffic signals at 50 locations across the City. Upgrades will adhere to the City’s new Signal Operations Design Policy, which places greater emphasis on pedestrian safety by giving more time to crossing pedestrians and reducing high-risk turns. The project will focus on upgrading locations in underserved communities and on improving conditions for all roadway users along the City’s High-Crash Network. Currently, outdated equipment limits the City’s ability to update many of these highest-priority locations. The project will include equipment and programmed upgrades such as new pedestrian signals; modified signal phasing including protected/exclusive phases and leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs); No Turn on Red signage; bicycle signals; stop bar and advanced detection for vehicles and bicycles; physical reconfigurations for ADA compliance, such as moving push buttons; and upgraded fiberoptic cabling."

In addition, Chelsea was awarded $280,000 to develop a comprehensive safety action plan, and Everett was awarded $90,720 to update their existing safety action plan and "conduct a demonstration activity installing sidewalk extensions using flex-posts."
Anyone think 'smarter' streetlights, and even AI, might help traffic? These changes seem pretty modest. I wonder which city has the most advanced traffic signals.
 
I don’t think there’s any doubts that better streetlights can improve traffic and safety. Boston is actually a leader in deploying adaptive signals that can adjust phasing to demand from what New England Traffic Solutions (a company that makes and manages them) had to say when I was at a trade show in CT.
 
If rich people were leaving the state, I’d expect more homes to be on the market in the region’s nicer suburbs?
 
Any one who is not in a rush to buy or sell real estate is in a holding pattern right now while rates are at decades long historic highs -- and while the fed has said wait, because they'll likely start dropping toward the end of the year.
This also means people are holding, rather than moving, investment properties. ....which could relate, at least in part, to the drop in capital gains revenues. This is not because rich people necessarily depend on (or can't afford) loans; it's because rich people like making money, and if they wait, they can sell for higher. This is also why 115 Winthrop is slow to sell units; one major contingent of buyers is well-off Massachusetts boomers ready to move out of their suburban houses-- those folks are just waiting this out before they make a move (wouldn't you?).
 
Last edited:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/03/metro/hiring-freeze-healey-taxes/

This passage below was also conveniently left out of the original link, who could say why?!

And a spending bill moving through the Legislature would allow the governor to dip into the roughly $850 million left in a state escrow account that contains the remnants of last year’s multibillion-dollar surplus.

Let’s hold with the “our country is literally doomed” rhetoric until maybe a quarter or two?

Thank you for providing that second link, as I like when people do the research for me. The second link shows that in the fiscal year ending in June 2022 we had a $5 billion surplus on our tax collections. The millionaire's tax was voted into existence in November 2022. So basically what you're illustrating is that we had a big surplus, voted in this terrible policy, and then the annual surplus went away to the extent that we have to reach into our prior years' surplus to stay solvent. That's probably the most damning piece of evidence to date and I appreciate you going back to put the pieces together.

(Farting trombone sound)

Seconded.
 
Other evidence includes the massive loss on commercial property, which has been the biggest loss of any global city in the world,

What on earth are you talking about here? Please, please furnish a reliable, well-researched study by one of the giant nationwide brokerage houses--a Colliers, CBRE, JLL, what-have-you--that actually backs up this assertion.

For starters, losses are realized until a property is sold. Very very little significant commercial property has been sold since March 2020. So what realized losses might you actually be referring to?!

Also remember that commercial includes: hotel, office, retail, restaurant, warehouse. So you're asserting that the combination of declines in all of those categories in Boston has been worse than, oh, I don't know, say, San Francisco, where the current office vacancy rate of 36% is TWICE Downtown Boston's current estimated office vacancy rate of 18%?
 
What on earth are you talking about here? Please, please furnish a reliable, well-researched study by one of the giant nationwide brokerage houses--a Colliers, CBRE, JLL, what-have-you--that actually backs up this assertion.

For starters, losses are realized until a property is sold. Very very little significant commercial property has been sold since March 2020. So what realized losses might you actually be referring to?!

Also remember that commercial includes: hotel, office, retail, restaurant, warehouse. So you're asserting that the combination of declines in all of those categories in Boston has been worse than, oh, I don't know, say, San Francisco, where the current office vacancy rate of 36% is TWICE Downtown Boston's current estimated office vacancy rate of 18%?

Here it is: https://www.bisnow.com/boston/news/...-saw-largest-drop-globally-report-says-123038
"MSCI: Boston CBD Sees Largest Drop In Commercial Property Prices Of Any Global City"
 
Thank you for providing that second link, as I like when people do the research for me. The second link shows that in the fiscal year ending in June 2022 we had a $5 billion surplus on our tax collections. The millionaire's tax was voted into existence in November 2022. So basically what you're illustrating is that we had a big surplus, voted in this terrible policy, and then the annual surplus went away to the extent that we have to reach into our prior years' surplus to stay solvent. That's probably the most damning piece of evidence to date and I appreciate you going back to put the pieces together.



Seconded.


A huge part of our past surplus was largesse derived from Covid policies. Let us also not forget that Healey just pushed through a tax CUT totaling almost $1B (see my earlier link and below). Not saying we're in a good place, but the surprising receipts for March (and let's see for April), remaining surplus to draw from, and the consequences of a tax cut are all contributors. The sky isn't falling.

 
A huge part of our past surplus was largesse derived from Covid policies. Let us also not forget that Healey just pushed through a tax CUT totaling almost $1B (see my earlier link and below). Not saying we're in a good place, but the surprising receipts for March (and let's see for April), remaining surplus to draw from, and the consequences of a tax cut are all contributors. The sky isn't falling.


I went through that link and there's not too much in there that's incentivizing rich people to stay. The rise in the estate tax will mostly help the middle class when handing down properties, considering many "average" houses are close to $1 million themselves at this point. That tax 100% needed to change and was by far the worst in the country. I guess the short term capital gains tax would be something, but you don't usually get rich that way. Rich people would typically fall into the long term capital gains categories.

Let's revisit this when the end-of-year numbers come out. Based on your other link they should be released to the general public by around August. See you then.
 
I personally don't think the "will rich people flee" is the operative question. It's more about whether or not Mass leadership has blown a hole in the budget due to fiscal mismanagement and bad policy. Tax cuts necessarily reduce tax revenue, especially in the short term, so it's not surprising that immediately after such cuts revenues dip (compounded by all the other things discussed above). I wanted to simply point out a major variable that wasn't discussed previously, which is a billion dollars in reduced taxes for average Bay Staters. This seems good! You started your first post by saying you were never more hopeless about this state and country than you are now. It seems a modest reduction in tax receipts is a bit much to elicit such a response.

Look forward to checking back in mid-year.
 

Back
Top