K-ZONE WPKZ FM105.3/AM 1280

Your Hometown Radio

listen nowLISTEN NOW
listen nowLISTEN NOW
K-Zone Studio Line 978.348.1280

taxes

New Hampshire trolls Massachusetts in lottery ad: ‘The no-good Massachusetts Tax Shark… stealing all our lottery winnings’

by

As the Powerball jackpot continues to spike well above $1 billion, Bay Staters who live near the New Hampshire border may want to consider heading over the state line for a lottery ticket.

That’s the message from the New Hampshire Lottery, which in a new ad trolls Massachusetts — warning of the prowling Bay State “Tax Shark” that devours lotto winnings.

The 30-second ad features a Massachusetts lottery winner who learns her winnings will be subject to additional state taxes.

The ad campaign airing on WMUR-TV, streaming TV and New Hampshire radio stations starts with the excited Massachusetts resident — who’s wearing a Boston shamrock hoodie — looking at a lotto ticket.

“I’m a millionaire! Thanks Mass Lottery!” she yells in a classic Boston accent.

Then she hears a knock at the door.

“Yeah? Who is it?” she asks.

“Pizza,” the unknown visitor responds, as ominous Jaws-like music starts.

“Nobody ordered a pizza,” she responds.

Then it hits her, “You’re the no-good Massachusetts Tax Shark that’s been swimming around stealing all our lottery winnings… Oh, get out of here!”

When the door opens, a massive shark chomps her.

The ad goes on to tell lottery players that in Massachusetts, the state will take an extra 9% from winners.

“Instead, live free and play in New Hampshire, where your income and lottery winnings are always free of state taxes,” the ad says.

As the Massachusetts resident continues to be chomped on by the shark, she says, “I’m going to send you back to Martha’s Vineyard.”

Wednesday’s Powerball jackpot is now up to an estimated $1.2 billion, and the one-time cash payout would be $551.7 million.

In New Hampshire, 24% of the $551.7 million, about $132.4 million, would be automatically withheld from the prize for federal taxes.  Because New Hampshire does not have an income tax, no further taxes would be withheld from the prize.

In Massachusetts, the same 24% in federal taxes would be withheld, plus the prize would be subject to the state’s 5% withholding, worth about $27.5 million on Wednesday’s prize.

And then, New Hampshire chortles, an additional 4% would be taken through the millionaire’s tax, according to the Granite State lottery.

“New Hampshire is the best place to play and WIN with millions in tax savings,” Gov. Chris Sununu said in a statement. “Unlike other states, we’ve kept that Tax Shark at bay here in the Granite State — so save yourself millions and remember to purchase and play here in the 603!”

Massachusetts’ millionaire’s tax creates a 4% surtax on incomes over $1 million.

However, a spokesperson for the Mass State Lottery said in a statement about the millionaire’s tax implications that, “The Fair Share Amendment applies to a person’s total income, not a single prize claim. The Mass Lottery does not withhold additional taxes on prizes that could subject a person to this ‘millionaire’s tax’ based on their entire tax filing.”

How Boston pieced together the Lego headquarters move

by

The Lego project snapped into place quite suddenly.

No, not the mini Millennium Falcon set your kid is playing with, or even the near-life-sized giraffe made out of blocks in Assembly Square — rather, the whirlwind of activity that led to the toy giant announcing that it will be moving its western hemisphere headquarters to Boston.

“Boston is the place to be and shows no signs of slowing down,” an upbeat Boston Economic Development Chief Segun Idowu told the Herald on Tuesday following the first announcement of the Wu administration of the city successfully luring a company to move a headquarters here by 2026. “We see this is the first of many to come.”

That said, Iduwo described a process that actually didn’t require too much coaxing at all in order to persuade the Danish company to move its Americas HQ from its 47-year home of Enfield, Connecticut, to Boston over the next few years — rather than to the other options of New York City or another Nutmeg State locale.

Here’s how the move, which Idowu said he expects to bring hundreds of new jobs, came together.

The process started with a missive from the business-focused nonprofit MassEcon: a big company’s thinking about coming to Boston. You interested?

They were. City Director of Business Development Alia Forrest and a team began meetings with MassEcon — even though the name of the company itself remained in the shadows.

“We didn’t know it was Lego until the last, like, 72 hours,” Idowu said.

He said they met with Lego for the first time Monday, and really didn’t need to give a hard sell.

“We thought we were going into a pitch meeting, and their first opening lines were essentially ‘Boston has all the things that we’re looking for, and we’re going to tell our team tomorrow that we’re coming to Boston,’” Idowu recounted on Tuesday.

The city didn’t offer any incentives. In fact, the company wasn’t looking for them, Idowu said.

What they were saying, he said, was “music to our ears.”

“They were looking to find ways to be closer to their workforce and their talent — to find a place that had accessible transportation and to find a location that was mission-aligned,” he said.

Aside from obvious outliers like Amazon, which turned its “HQ2” search into a press bonanza, pitting cities against each other, the more cloak-and-dagger routine like this is par for the course. Companies typically want to avoid press until they’ve got a destination nailed down.

MassEcon, a nonprofit that works with homegrown companies and touts the Bay State as a place for others to come, often serves in what Executive Director Peter Abair describes as a “front door” role, looking to give companies the privacy to explore the option without leaving the type of government-communications paper trail that frequently makes it into the press.

“We’re so self-critical, we sometimes don’t convey how special we are,” Abair told the Herald. “So self-critical. Like, ‘the New England Patriots won six Super Bowls. They should have won nine.’ It’s very unique.”

He — and Idowu said similarly — noted that despite the many real complaints about the MBTA, it’s one of the largest such systems in the country. We also have the various colleges, hospitals and a major international airport.

He also gave “all the credit in the world” to Mayor Michelle Wu’s team in Boston and Gov. Maura Healey’s brand-new state administration, who both jumped on this quickly.

“That’s what you need for success,” Abair said.

There’s still a lot to be worked out. Lego hasn’t chosen an actual site for the headquarters yet, though Idowu said he wants it to at least be near downtown, which the Wu administration is trying to revitalize following the pandemic and ensuing shift to hybrid work.

And it’s not like either side has signed anything, either; the company hasn’t affirmed any guarantees, and the city hasn’t given anything to them.

“Boston is ranked one of the best cities in the world to attract and retain talent,” Skip Kodak, the head of Lego Group of the Americas, said in a statement. “This, along with its world-class academic institutions, skilled workforce and great quality of life makes it an ideal location for our US head office.”

Lego declined to make anyone available for an interview on Tuesday following the announcement, but a spokesman, when asked further about the choice of Boston, said “A move to Boston made sense.

“Our priority is to move to a location which offers a large talent pool able to support our business in the future. We already had connections with Boston given our LEGO Education office is located there,” the company said, using its characteristic all-caps styling and referring to the spot in the Back Bay where somewhere in the ballpark of 100 people already work.

The move will begin to roll out in 2025 and wrap up in early 2026, according to the company.

“I look forward to supporting LEGO Group as they transition their headquarters to Boston and join our mission to become the most family-friendly city in the country,” Wu said in a statement. “This news finally has my kids impressed.”

Facing a steep property tax increase, Lunenburg residents make waves

by

LUNENBURG — Facing an “unprecedented” property tax increase, waterfront residents made waves before the Select Board on Tuesday.

A disgruntled crowd bombarded the Select Board and members of the Board of Assessors with questions about the property tax increase that could force some residents to pay 300% more compared to the previous fiscal year.

Select Board Chairman Michael-Ray Jeffreys sympathized with those in attendance and made it clear that both the Select Board and Board of Assessors would do what they could to investigate potential issues and address potential abatement requests in a timely manner.

“It’s clear that many of our neighbors and friends are terrified they now can’t afford to live in their homes, in a community that they love because their property tax evaluations are resulting in tax increases up to 300% higher than the previous fiscal year,” Jeffreys said. “An investigation will answer the bottom line question of why it is that we are here at this place in time, outline the series of events that led us to this collective moment and will provide recommendations to ensure that we avoid such a calamity in the future.”

“After speaking with the members of the Board of Assessors over this past week, I know they are genuinely committed to diligently, expeditiously and equitably addressing all abatement requests,” he said.

Multiple Select Board members described the spike as a “disaster” for residents and, as they called for an investigation into the assessment process, said such a disaster could never happen again. Vice Chairman Tom Alonzo, meanwhile, criticized the Board of Assessors for a lack of oversight of the assessment process and said he would support “any investigation” that ensured as much.

“This is a disaster for a lot of people, there’s no question about it,” Select Board Clerk Louis Franco said. “If you look at the situation, something went wrong and we need to figure out what that is.”

“If we’re just saying ‘this is what the state tells me to do’ and if we’re slaves to that, then we have a lot more to worry about than an investigation into this board,” Alonzo said. “We have managed to create not a win-win, not even a win-lose, but a lose-lose situation for everyone involved.”

“I’m going to support any investigation that gets to the bottom of this because we can never, never let this happen again,” he said.

The Select Board voted unanimously to investigate the assessment process and said that a “road map” of that investigative process would be created and shared with residents. Jeffreys said the source of funding for the investigation would be addressed at the Select Board’s next meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 24.

The Board of Assessors and Principal Assessor CJ Carroll maintained that there was no error in the assessment process and that their values were within state parameters. That said, Board of Assessors member Kevin Fish apologized for a lack of communication with residents throughout that process, which occurred back in November, and prior to the issuance of individual tax bills.

“I do think the mistake was not in the process, the calculations, but in the lack of communication,” Fish said. “I will stand and publicly apologize for that now.”

As he did at their meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 10, Jeffreys urged residents to request an abatement of their property tax assessment. He also clarified that, while residents were not necessarily “required” to make their property tax payments by the Feb. 1 deadline, state law would require the town to attempt to collect the full amount of that unpaid tax plus interest if a resident’s abatement was denied.

When questioned as to whether the Board of Assessors could push back the Feb. 1 deadline, Jeffreys said that would be something both the Select Board and Board of Assessors would “have to look into.” Board of Assessors member Christine Cosgrove Higdon said that, if possible, she and other board members would vote on it.

“If we have the right to extend the deadline, that’s exactly what we would want to do to help people,” she said.

Regardless of a potential deadline extension, Carroll said the Board of Assessors would “guarantee” that every resident that felt their home had been improperly valued would have the chance to file an abatement.

“[An abatement] is something that everyone here has the right to,” Carroll said. “And [the Board of Assessors] will ensure that everyone has a fair shake at that.”

Lunenburg Select Board to address concerns over steep property tax hikes

by

LUNENBURG — Hoping to quell the concerns of the town’s waterfront residents, the Select Board is expected to address steep increases in property tax payments during their Tuesday, Jan. 17 meeting.

Residents located near or along Lake Shirley, Whalom Lake and Hickory Hills Lake voiced their displeasure with what they believe to be a miscalculated or even targeted increase in their most recent property tax assessment. With frustrations growing, they lobbied the Select Board to take action at their most recent meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 10.

Some residents said their tax payments increased by as much as 135% compared to the previous fiscal year. Resident and Lake Shirley Improvement Corporation President Joanna Bilotta described that increase as one most residents simply could not afford.

“A lot of people in this area are elderly, retired or live paycheck-to-paycheck,” Bilotta said Monday. “They can’t afford this, none of us can, really.”

In an interview Monday, Select Board Chairman Michael-Ray Jeffreys said Tuesday’s meeting would provide an update for concerned residents and, likely, a vote to initiate an investigation. With Principal Assessor CJ Carroll also set to attend, Jeffreys said there would be time for Carroll to explain the assessment process and answer questions before inviting public comment.

“It’s clear that many residents are upset and that something needs to be explained or that something is amiss,” Jeffreys said. “We need to conduct an investigation to figure out the details of what transpired, why it transpired and what we can do from here.”

The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in the Lunenburg High School auditorium.

At the Jan. 10 meeting, many residents asserted that the increase must be the result of an error either by the Board of Assessors or in their assessment process. Select Board Vice Chairman Tom Alonzo agreed that it was “clear that there is a serious problem here” and went on to say that he would lobby for a review of the assessment process if able.

“There’s nobody in this room that’s coming before this [Select Board] or making an appeal to the Board of Assessors that they shouldn’t pay taxes or that they are surprised that their taxes increased,” Alonzo said. “This has exposed a serious problem that people shouldn’t be facing at this point, there should be triggers and mechanisms and safety valves in place to prevent it.”

“Even if every rule and regulation was followed, there’s something morally and ethically wrong with the result of the equations that got us here. If it’s within our power, I would certainly lobby for a review of the entire assessment process for this year, so we know that these values have been properly assessed,” he said.

That said, Jeffreys and Alonzo both stressed that, while the Select Board could investigate, any significant action would fall under the authority of the Board of Assessors.

On Monday, Bilotta said she and others just hoped to receive some sort of explanation at the next meeting.

“We’re hoping that this whole thing is just a mistake, a miscalculation,” Bilotta said. “But, if it’s not, we’re hoping that the Select Board, the Board of Assessors have some sort of explanation, an answer or some way to fix this.”

Maura Healey holds first meeting with Beacon Hill leadership

by

After meeting for the first time as the triumvirate that controls the levers of Beacon Hill power, the so-called Big Three on Monday downplayed questions about policy disagreements among them and said they are looking forward to working through any differences they might have.

In addition to their party affiliation, Gov. Maura Healey, Senate President Karen Spilka and House Speaker Ronald Mariano share many of the same broad priorities — but they predictably don’t completely see eye-to-eye-to-eye on the fine details that could turn those priorities into policies.

One glaring example was highlighted Sunday when WBZ-TV aired an interview that Spilka did with Jon Keller. The Senate president, who called on Wednesday for free community college (tuition and fees) for all, told Keller she did not know why Healey’s proposal is to make community college free for students over 25 without a college degree.

“I look forward to working with her on this issue to iron it out,” Spilka said. “So we both have the same values, same priorities, in this area, which is very exciting and makes it more likely that it’s doable. I look forward to hearing why it’s over 25 on her plan.”

Asked about the differing community college proposals after Monday afternoon’s roughly 90-minute meeting, Healey said she and legislative leaders “talked about a number of things: our general approach, we talked about some of the priorities that we share in terms of the work for people in this state, residents, and businesses, and the health and well-being of the state.”

“We did touch on issues of education and, you know, I expect that there’s an area — we’ve all articulated support for education and I know we’ve talked about community colleges, and we’ll we’ll find a way to work through that. And that’s all good,” she said.

To get any kind of free community college policy onto Healey’s desk for her to sign it into law will require both the House and Senate to be on board, but Mariano was non-committal Monday and borrowed one of former Gov. Charlie Baker’s favorite lines when asked where he stands on the issue.

“Well they’re two separate proposals, and so now the devil is in the details as we begin the discussion,” the Quincy Democrat said. “You know, there’s a cost involved, we have to ascertain what the costs are. There’s a whole lot of questions that haven’t been answered about it.”

At another point, when asked where he is on the free community college idea, Mariano said, “I haven’t thought about it. I just found out from the governor and the Senate president.”

Activists have been publicly clamoring for years about making college free, or at least more accessible to people, and the community college plans from Spilka and Healey are beginning to show what may be possible.

Spilka said on WBZ this weekend that she estimates her plan would cost about $50 million, but Mariano said any bills on the idea would go to the Education Committee.

“The House will have a hearing, we’ll try and assemble some information about it and go from there,” he said.

But first, the House and Senate will need to organize themselves into committees to begin holding hearings and processing legislation. Asked Monday what his timeline is for making committee and leadership assignments in the House, Mariano said, “quick.”

There’s also the issue of tax reform and relief.

Spilka and Mariano last summer agreed to a $1 billion package of tax code changes and immediate relief, but later tabled those plans after a state law triggered $3 billion in tax relief. Healey and Spilka each said last week that they are interested in resurrecting at least parts of that plan in the new session, but Mariano suggested last week that he had not “thought about any of that stuff” and said the House would have to “look at where we are economically” before making any commitments.

On Monday, the speaker said the consensus revenue hearing this month would influence his feelings on tax relief and reform.

Healey said Monday that she would be “back to you more about that” and said the idea of permanent tax relief is “certainly something that we’ve talked about.” But she also deferred to the consensus revenue hearing.

Mariano did tell reporters one thing that is likely to be on the House’s radar this session: changes to the 1980s voter law known as Chapter 62F that required the state to send nearly $3 billion back to taxpayers after collections exceeded a cap.

“I’m sure it’s going to be something that we discuss. When I have a leadership team and we have an opportunity to talk about that agenda for this session, obviously 62F is going to be something that we talk about,” Mariano said.

The governor deflected when asked if she had any plans to make or go along with changes to 62F, which upended plans at the end of formal sessions last year and led to record tax refunds.

“I think today, again, it’s day four. I am grateful to everybody who’s welcomed us into the building — who’s literally, quite literally, had to show us around — because there’s a lot new to figure out here,” Healey said. “And so, you know that’s where we are. In addition to sitting down with some of our teams, I think the work on the budget is incredibly important, obviously, and we’re looking to get after that. As well as beginning to flesh out some of the things that we’ve talked about over the course of this campaign and just really grateful to be in this position.”

Maura Healey, other constitutional officers in line for 20% raises

by

The state’s top officials are in line for substantial pay raises in the new year, with constitutional officers likely taking in 20% more than in 2022.

State lawmakers are also set to receive their fourth pay raise since 2017, this one worth more than 4%.

In a letter sent Thursday to Treasurer Deborah Goldberg, Gov. Charlie Baker said that median household income in Massachusetts has risen by 4.42% over the two years since the last adjustment to lawmaker pay. Adjustments to legislative base pay are required biennially under the state Constitution, based on changes in the median household income statewide.

A 4.42 percent increase for the 2023-2024 session would bump the base pay for elected lawmakers from $70,536 to about $73,654, a raise of $3,118 a year. Any lawmaker can choose to turn down the increase in base pay if they so choose. For many lawmakers, the base pay is supplemented by substantial stipends tied to committee and leadership posts.

In past years, especially during recent recessions, some legislators have rejected the pay increases and others have accepted the money, but pledged to donate it to charity. Most have accepted the raises.

Lawmakers got a 4.2% raise at the start of the 2017-2018 session, a raise of 5.93% at the start of the 2019-2020 session, and a 6.46% increase when the 2021-2022 session began. If median household income were to go down, legislative pay would also be slated to be cut.

The process of calculating the 4 percent bump in base pay for lawmakers is set in the state Constitution, but the origins of the 20% increase that statewide officers — governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, auditor, treasurer and secretary of state — will see in their paychecks comes from a controversial law passed in 2017 that ties officials’ salaries to changes in state wages over the past eight quarters rather than to median household income.

Though the state treasury does not make official determinations regarding other constitutional officer’s payrolls, the treasurer’s office did the math as specified in the law to calculate that the statute entitles constitutional officers to a 20.1% increase in 2023.

The required salary increases “reflect the aggregate quarterly change in salaries and wages in the commonwealth for the most recent eight quarters as determined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the United States Department of Commerce,” according to the law.

For incoming Gov.-elect Maura Healey, the raise means she will make $37,185 above Baker’s current $185,000 salary. In addition to the $222,185 salary, Healey is set to receive the governor’s standard $65,000 housing allowance for a total compensation of $287,185 in 2023.

The lieutenant governor’s pay will increase from $165,000 to $198,165 under the 2017 law..

Healey spokesperson Karissa Hand said Healey and Lt. Gov.-elect Driscoll will both “accept the salary that has been established by statute.”

Attorney General-elect Andrea Campbell and Auditor-elect Diana DiZoglio will also accept the increased salaries, press representatives said.

In response to an inquiry whether Secretary of State William Galvin would accept the raise — up from the $179,367 he made this year — Galvin spokesperson Deb O’Malley said, “The Secretary will be reviewing the numbers before making a determination. With preparations for his roles in the swearing-in and inauguration ceremonies next week, he does not expect to have a chance to do that until after next Thursday.”

Lizandra Gomes, chief of staff for Treasurer Deborah Goldberg, said Goldberg “will need to review” the available raise. Goldberg brought home $189,560 in 2022.

“As you probably recall, [the] Treasurer did not take any pay increase during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Gomes added.

The 2017 law also affects stipends that lawmakers receive for being in leadership positions or being chosen to chair a committee, separate from the changes in compensation that the governor is required to make every two years. The Senate president and speaker of the House each receive $35,000 in additional compensation for each two-year session.

House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka each made $178,473 this year in total compensation including stipends. The pay bump would bring their packages to more than $214,000 in the new year if they are re-elected to lead their chambers as expected.

A representative for the speaker said Mariano “plans to accept the salary that the Treasurer deems correct.” Spilka’s team did not respond to a request for comment.

The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a conservative-leaning advocacy group, criticized the optics of state officials accepting the pay raises to start on the same day a new voter-approved surtax goes into effect for the state’s wealthiest residents.

“In response to the narrow passage of Question 1 which will take more money from taxpayers and dump it into the legislatively doled out general fund, State House politicians feel they can afford the largest pay raise since 2017,” said MassFiscal spokesperson Paul Craney. “If that is the case, then taxpayers should be afforded broad tax cuts and tax eliminations to help keep Massachusetts economically competitive in response to the economic harm associated with Question 1.”