Business community has picked a fight against ‘millionaires tax’

To compete, we need to invest in education, transportation

My fellow business leaders are right to be worried about Massachusetts losing its competitive edge, but the tax rate paid by the wealthiest CEOs and investors plays only a minor role in our competitiveness with other states (“Business leaders fear Mass. can’t compete,” Page A1, Oct. 15). Far more important is the education level of our workforce and the state of our transportation system.

Massachusetts isn’t engaged in a race to the bottom with Florida and New Hampshire over who can lower taxes and cut services the most. To compete against other states, we need to invest in building a well-educated workforce and creating a reliable transportation system to get them to work and around town. That means high-quality prekindergarten, well-funded public schools, increased access to career and vocational and technical education, and more affordable public colleges. It means faster trains that run frequently and highways that aren’t clogged with congestion.

Taken through this lens, Question 1, the 4 percent surtax on annual income over $1 million, which would raise billions of dollars to fund transportation and education for the long term, is an opportunity to increase our competitiveness, not a hindrance. ANDREINA VIERA SILVA

Lawrence The writer is cofounder and president of Arka HR Solutions.

Business leaders missing a chance to get out in front on easing inequities

Jon Chesto’s commentary “Business leaders fear Mass. can’t compete” exasperated me. With all the evidence Chesto presented that unaffordability in this state (and the inequities I believe it creates) poses the most serious barriers to competitiveness, the Massachusetts Business Roundtable and other business groups decide that they’re going to commit to fighting the millionaires surtax? These business leaders are squandering the chance to get out in front of our most serious problems. JIM KATZ Bedford

Small-firm owners’ hit is real concern

My late father-in-law owned a dry cleaner. Please explain how Question 1 will affect the small-business owner who scrimped and saved to open his own business; worked six long days a week, rarely taking a vacation; and then, due to health reasons, in his late 70s decides to sell the business. I have no problem with the higher tax being applied to people whose annual compensation is typically seven figures or higher. My question is how will people like my late father-inlaw be affected? I have heard that this scenario will apply only to a small number of people but many of them will be vulnerable, elderly adults. This is the question that troubles a lot of my friends as we think about this proposed amendment. KENNETH A. BRUSS

Lexington

Foes’ arguments don’t hold up

We’re baffled by the logic used by those opposed to Question 1, which would add an additional 4 percent tax on personal income over $1 million. According to the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University, the Fair Share Amendment will affect only about 21,000 residents; 99.4 percent of us would not pay a penny more. Further, less than 3 percent of small-business owners earn more than $1 million annually: 97 percent would not pay a penny more. Business owners want a well-educated workforce, which the Fair Share Amendment would help provide. Will millionaires and billionaires leave the state to avoid paying an additional 4 percent tax on income over $1 million? Unlikely. Two of the states with the highest tax rates on income over $1 million — New York and California — also have among the highest number of million-dollar-income households.

Public education and transportation have been underfunded for decades. Let’s seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity.

PAUL JOHANSEN Pittsfield

This letter represents the unanimous view of the Massachusetts Community College Council Board of Directors, of which the writer is a member.