IMC-CAN Team Weekly Action September 10, 2026
This fall, the IMC-CAN is devoting weekly action alerts about the upcoming 9 Ballot Questions on the November Ballot.
Massachusetts already has a taxpayer refund law, but Question 5 would rewrite it to force much more frequent and much larger automatic refunds, draining billions of dollars that would otherwise support schools, health care, roads and transit, local aid, public safety, and the state’s rainy-day reserves. Tufts researchers estimate that the proposal could trigger refunds two to four times as often and return two to seven times as much money to taxpayers. Worse, because the formula would be tied to the previous year’s actual collections, it could force refunds just as Massachusetts is recovering from a recession, when the state most needs resources to rebuild services and help families and communities recover.
Question 5 would also undermine the 2022 Fair Share Amendment by counting revenue from the millionaires surtax toward the revenue cap, potentially triggering broader budget cuts and refunds even as Fair Share dollars are generating new investments in public education and transportation. The result would be especially harmful to working- and middle-class families, who depend most on strong public schools, MassHealth, public transportation, libraries, fire departments, and other public services. Wealthy taxpayers would receive the same automatic rebates while feeling far less of the impact from service cuts.
A broad progressive coalition of advocacy groups oppose Question 5. We don’t need cuts to healthcare, transportation, education, and aid to local communities. Massachusetts should invest in its future, not tie its hands with an arbitrary revenue cap.
Vote NO on Question 5.
Sources
Background
What is Question 5?
Massachusetts already has a taxpayer refund law. In 1986, voters approved Chapter 62F, which limits how much state tax revenue Massachusetts may collect, adjusted over time based on growth in wages and salaries. When revenues exceed the limit, the state must return the excess to taxpayers. In roughly 40 years, Chapter 62F has triggered refunds twice.
Question 5 would change the formula used to calculate that limit. Under current law, each year’s limit generally builds on the previous year’s limit. Question 5 would instead generally start with what the state actually collected the previous year, then adjust that amount for wage-and-salary growth. It would also count revenue from the state’s 4% surtax on incomes over $1 million in the calculation. The result: refunds could be triggered more often and in larger amounts.
Voting YES changes the Chapter 62F formula. More state revenue could be automatically returned to taxpayers—and therefore would no longer be available for public services, local aid, or state reserves.
Voting NO keeps the current Chapter 62F law. Taxpayer protections remain in place, and excess revenue would continue to be returned when the existing formula requires it.
The Massachusetts High Technology Council, a business policy advocacy organization known for its pro-business and fiscally conservative tilt, filed Question 5. The Massachusetts Opportunity Alliance (MOA), a dark-money-funded business advocacy organization, also supports it.
Why does this matter now?
When Chapter 62F is triggered, the state returns excess tax revenue to eligible taxpayers. Under current law, the amount is generally divided equally among eligible taxpayers, with a married couple filing jointly counted as two taxpayers.
State tax refunds also mean that revenue cannot be spent elsewhere. State tax revenue supports schools and public colleges; roads, bridges, and public transportation; health and human services; housing; aid to cities and towns; public safety; and reserves for future downturns and emergencies. If substantially more tax revenue is automatically refunded, future governors and legislators would have less money available to meet budget priorities. During an economic downturn, tax collections drop and then, hopefully, recover. After a bad year, however, Question 5 would base the next year’s limit on the lower previous year’s collections. When the economy rebounds, an automatic tax refund would be produced. Recovering from a bad year isn’t necessarily the same thing as having money to spare, and Question 5 does not distinguish between the two.
Think of a family whose income drops one year and recovers the next. The rebound doesn’t necessarily mean the family suddenly has “extra” money. It may need to catch up on bills, rebuild savings, or prepare for the next emergency. State finances are more complicated than a household budget, but the basic point is similar: a rebound can look like rapid growth without necessarily indicating unusually strong finances.
The Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University has studied the proposed changes and concluded that Question 5 would make Chapter 62F refunds more frequent and larger than under current law.
Tufts’ updated September 2026 report found that:
Question 5 would dramatically increase the frequency and scale of 62F refunds, triggering 2-4 times as many refunds and returning 2-7 times as much money to taxpayers. Taxpayers would receive roughly $200-$250 per year, accounting for both refund and non-refund years.
By increasing the size and frequency of 62F refunds, the ballot question reduces state revenue as much as an income tax cut of roughly 0.15-0.2 percentage points.
Chapter 62F was meant to provide refunds when tax collections are unusually strong, but Question 5 doesn’t always do that. It has an unusual feedback loop that undermines the link between revenue and refund size, and it provides little protection against refunds when tax receipts are at historically low levels.
The Massachusetts Legislature is currently working on a bill that would add new 62F refund requirements. If it passes, Question 5’s impact might be more limited.
Question 5 opponents point out that it would undercut the purpose of the 2022 Fair Share Amendment by allowing revenue generated by the “millionaire tax” to help trigger broader state revenue caps and tax refunds. Voters approved Fair Share to generate additional funding for public education and transportation, and it has already produced more than $9 billion for investments such as free school meals, tuition-free community college, road and bridge repairs, MBTA improvements, and regional transit. Although Question 5 would not directly take Fair Share dollars away from those constitutionally designated purposes, it would count those revenues when determining whether the state has exceeded the Chapter 62F cap. That could cause more frequent refunds and reductions in general state revenues—including other funding for education and transportation—effectively offsetting some of the additional investment voters intended Fair Share to provide.
Massachusetts is already facing significant fiscal pressures, including reductions in federal support for programs such as health care and food assistance. That could require the Commonwealth to use more of its own resources simply to maintain existing services. While automatic refunds put money in taxpayers’ pockets, they may hurt the state’s ability to provide essential services and programs. Progressive Mass warns that Question 5 benefits billionaires while subjecting the rest of us to underfunded public services.
Learn More
Vote NO on 5 Fact Sheet, Protect Massachusetts’ Future
Question 5: Making Automatic Tax Refunds More Frequent and Less Predictable, Center for State Policy Analysis, Tufts University, September, 2026
NO on 5 (State Revenue Limit), Progressive Mass
Stop the Billionaires’ Revenue Cap Grab!, IMC-CAN, June 24, 2026
A Hair Trigger for Automatic Tax Refunds, Center for State Policy Analysis, Tufts University, March 2026
Testimony in Opposition to the Two Anti-Tax Ballot Initiatives: Cutting the Personal Income Tax & Amending Chapter 62F, Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, March 30, 2026
62F Ballot Question Explainer, Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
62F Credits Benefit the Rich, Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, 2022
Have a good idea for the CAN? You can suggest action items! Each week, the IMC-CAN Team receives suggested actions from a wide range of activists through its CAN Team Action Submission Form.