DALTON, Mass. — Thirty-four voters made the decision Monday night for the town to endorse the Fair Share Amendment, a statewide November ballot initiative that would add a surtax of 4 percent on earned income above $1 million. 

 

The article, which passed 34-13, came at near the end of a 3 1/2 hour town meeting that attracted fewer than 100 voters. The amendment is projected to bring in $2 billion annually to fund education and transportation needs. 

 

Dalton became the latest community to support the amendment, which was recommended by the Select Board. Both Pittsfield and North Adams City Councils and School Committees have voted to endorse it and it's expected to appear on a number of town meeting warrants, including Williamstown. The entire Berkshire delegation has also come out in support. 

 

Residents Henry and Cheryl Rose, who have been volunteering with the Berkshire Fair Share Committee and RaiseUp Massachusetts, advocated for the town to formally back the amendment to the state constitution.

 

"The Fair Share amendment adds an additional 4 percent. So an additional four cents on the dollar on everything earned on your individual, not business, individual income, over $1 million," said Cheryl Rose. "So the first million will be at 5 percent. And above that will be an additional four cents on $1."

 

Someone earning $1 million in income would be expected to pay $50,000 at the 5 percent income tax rate; on their second million, they would pay up to $90,000, leaving them with $1,910,000. Red Sox shortstop Xander Bogaerts would be expected to pay $1.76 million if his $20 million base salary was entirely taxable. 

 

The million-dollar level would change based on cost of living.

 

Rose argued that there is not enough money to keep up with the educational and road maintenance expenses in the state.

 

"Part of this amendment also says that these additional additional funds will be dedicated to additional funds for public education and public transportation," Rose said. 

 

Currently, everyone is being taxed at 5 percent no matter their income but Rose argued that the one percent at that the top find ways to pay less than 5 percent by redefining their tax status and putting money somewhere that it will not be taxed. This amendment is a potential solution and would make taxing fair, she said. 

 

"You might think that a 5 percent for everybody seems fair, why should we penalize the people at the top? But in reality, people at the top have many opportunities to pay less than actually 5 percent, or the lower tax rate, I'll say, than the people at the bottom, because there are many opportunities to think of ways to redefine your tax status and put your money somewhere that isn't getting taxed," Rose said. "Whereas the people who are working people at the bottom, who don't have that, are paying the full freight. So that's a reason why we need this. To make the tax system more fair, as far as money for public roads and public education."

 

Rose warned that there would be a lot of propaganda paid for by the one percent in an effort to steer people away from voting yes. 

 

Henry Rose added that opponents would say that this amendment will hurt the economy and people will leave the area. He disputed this argument, saying it will actually help the economy because it will provide an educated workforce and fix the roads so that they can better distribute goods. 

 

"For those who are concerned about what it might do negatively to our economy, this will be an enhancement for our economy. Businesses need educated workers. Businesses need roads and bridges to get their goods out," Henry said. 

 

Some voters were concerned that, down the road, this tax will start to effect them with an increase of property values. They claimed that the state already collects enough money to cover education and transportation expenses but is choosing not to do so to cater to the wealthy. 

 

"This is a passing the buck by our elected officials. They have the power at the State House to levy taxes and to change tax codes," said Joseph Albano. "They seem to be refusing to do that, because if they do, then their wealthy backers will hold them accountable. So they leave it to us to do their job, which now they can turn around and say the people wanted this. And they're no longer accountable to the wealthy owners."

 

Albano argued that people with higher incomes pay their share in taxes through sales taxes from what they spend on goods. 

 

"On top of that is the influx of the $5 billion plus from the federal government because of COVID relief, there is plenty of money in the state, as more and more people are employed. And unemployment is very low in this state, more and more taxes," Albano said. "People have higher incomes spend more money, they pay more taxes already, from the items that they purchased, the places they go, the things that they do." 

 

Other residents also argued that the state is doing well financially and that rather than focusing on creating taxes, legislators should be focusing on ways to effectively spend the existing money.

 

"The state is doing pretty well financially, right now. Just had an opportunity to jump on a couple of our legislators and it's in pretty good shape for money. And finally, I think we want to be very careful as people and individuals voting to tax somebody else's money, that's their money and be taxing their money," said John McComish. "I think that's just a caution. And that's really the legislators' job is to legislate. Legislators are supposed to be the ones who set our taxes."