October 28, 2026
MASSACHUSETTS VOTERS will face nine different ballot questions next week—a number we haven’t seen in over 30 years. Considering the sheer volume coupled with the varied and complicated issues these questions seek to address, voters have their work cut out for them.
This is especially true for Question 5. Proposed by an alliance that includes corporate lobbyists and some of the state’s wealthiest residents, this ballot scheme would alter an arcane and rarely triggered element in the tax code dubbed “62F.”
Question 5 would modify a tax cap law that was enacted 40 years, also through a ballot question, which calls for refunds to taxpayers whenever state revenue exceeds the previous year’s cap by more than the statewide growth in wages and salaries.
Under the complex changes to this law that proponents want voters to adopt through Question 5, this tax cap would be exceeded far more often than is the case under the current law, which has only triggered refunds twice in 40 years. Passing Question 5 would cause repeated and deep cuts to the services communities and residents rely on. Under their plan, billions of dollars currently used to support our public schools, pay for local police and fire department equipment, keep people healthy through community health centers, make safety repairs to our roads and bridges, and so much more would be declared surplus and lost.
In exchange, this money would be given out as rebates to residents every time there’s a surplus. When services are cut by $1 billion, residents would receive a roughly $250 rebate, which comes out to about one small iced Dunks a week. That’s tempting, but the reality is that it is not enough to make a significant impact on a majority of households while stripping the systems and programs they rely on of critical resources.
According to the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University, this ballot question would require spending cuts averaging $2 billion annually. It would cause tremendous uncertainty in the economy, with experts predicting the necessary spending cuts to fund the question would vary wildly from year to year. Often these cuts would be triggered when state budget writers are already well into the year, creating volatility and making it next to impossible for the state to plan ahead or make long-term investments.
Under this flawed tax code gimmick, the deepest cuts would likely be triggered by damaging recessions. During the times when state spending to support residents is most critical, the money to do so would be depleted. A rebate of a few hundred dollars cannot make up the difference when job training programs are closed and the projects that create jobs across the state are paused.
Question 5 supporters point to growing state revenue as a cause for the current affordability crisis families are facing. The truth is that state revenue has grown slower than the economy for most of the years this tax code has been in effect. They ignore the fact that the only significant growth we’ve seen in state revenue is because residents passed the Fair Share Amendment in 2022. The “millionaire’s tax,” as it is most often called, has generated $10 billion by adding a four percent tax on yearly personal income above $1 million dollars.
Thanks to the revenue generated, every child is now provided a free breakfast and lunch at school, residents have access to free bus service through the state’s 15 regional transit authorities that serve 262 cities and towns, $424 million has made no-cost community college available to all residents, $397 million in scholarships have supported low-and-middle-income students at our public universities, nearly $16 million has helped to expand access to early college and career technical education, and every city and town in the state has received critical funding to repair and repave local roads and bridges.
Our schools remain the best in the nation and our investments in public transit are bringing people back to downtown and easing the commute of working residents. Helping families and communities when they need it most.
Question 5 is the definition of a corporate-funded ballot question. They want you to think it’s a grassroots campaign of workers, taxpayers, and those most impacted by the current economy when, in reality, it’s the exact same group of funders that poured millions into trying to defeat the Fair Share Amendment.
Their sleight of hand is a cynical attempt to deceive families struggling to make ends meet by voting against their own interests. With Massachusetts communities at the point where they cannot continue to support the very basic public services residents depend on, this question would decimate the funding municipalities rely on from the state to keep them afloat. It makes no economic sense.
To be clear, the state’s wealthiest residents behind this proposal don’t stand to see a windfall. They’d get the same amount back like everyone else—meaning they have very little to gain, while the rest of us have much to lose.
Peter Enrich is emeritus professor at Northeastern University School of Law and served as general counsel within the Executive Office for Administration and Finance under Governors Dukakis and Weld. Jessica Tang is the president of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts, which represents over 26,000 educators and staff working in public schools, universities, libraries, and health offices across the state.
Courtesy of Commonwealth Beacon
