An extra 4 cents on the dollar is not too much to ask from a windfall
Paul Berkeley’s story is similar to ours (“Vote no. It will rob us of our nest egg,” Opinion, Oct. 25). We bought our Cambridge three-family in 1984, and our equity in the house is the foundation of our nest egg. We’ve also invested a lot in improvements, and we’re also not multimillionaires. But here’s the thing: The value of our home has increased tenfold (not an exaggeration) since we bought it, due in no small part to the benefits of living in this community. We’re willing to pay our fair share. If Question 1 passes and we end up over the million-dollar threshold when we sell, we can afford an additional 4 cents on the dollar. It’s the right thing to do, and it won’t “rob us of our nest egg.”
Putting real numbers on this instead of the misleading “80 percent” increase that Berkeley bemoans — since the proposed 4 percent surtax does represent four-fifths of the current 5 percent flat income tax rate — the additional tax on, say, the first half-million above the threshold would be $20,000. That’s a lot, but it’s a small percentage of that windfall of $1.5 million, and it ought to be manageable.
Richard Freierman
Cambridge
Leave it to the Globe to present a balanced (ha!) view. In the Oct. 25 edition, the paper published three letters in favor of Question 1 and only one letter in opposition (“Business community has picked a fight against ‘millionaires tax’ ”); a long op-ed in favor of the ballot question by US Senator Elizabeth Warren and US Representative Ayanna Pressley in prime viewing position (“A yes vote will expand opportunities for everyone”); and a shorter op-ed from an opponent of the question at the bottom of the page (“Vote no. It will rob us of our nest egg.”).
No one has been able to explain why the high earners aren’t paying their fair share of taxes. In Massachusetts, you pay 5 percent on income and 12 percent on capital gains. Anyone who is succeeding in minimizing their tax hit will still be able to do that if Question 1 passes. Meanwhile, small-business owners will be hurt when they sell to fund their retirement.
Warren and Pressley make claims, not promises. I say fix the problems with this ballot question before it can be foisted on us.
John Hamilton
Beverly
Greater Boston economy has been a gift — why not give back?
While I’m voting yes on Question 1, I appreciated Larry Edelman’s thoughtful, balanced commentary on the issue (“Balking at flawed tax doesn’t make you a callous capitalist,” Business, Oct. 27). He raises fair questions about potential downsides and rightly asserts that Question 1 will not be a panacea for education and transportation in Massachusetts.
That said, it’s important to push back on the narrative around “one-time millionaires” from home sales being somehow victimized by Question 1.
Someone who purchased a home that gained over $1 million in value, largely due to economic conditions in Greater Boston, has benefited from very fortunate timing. A small surtax on profit over that threshold seems like a reasonable contribution back to the state whose booming economy — and dysfunctional, incumbent-homeowner-friendly housing policies — helped cause the spike in home values.
Younger residents experiencing today’s housing prices may never see this rate of return. Those looking to buy a home at today’s prices would surely trade places with the “one-time millionaires” facing one year of slightly higher taxes, in exchange for having been able both to purchase a home at a reasonable price and then to see their nest egg grow at an extraordinary rate.
Joe Gravellese
Boston