News

“The only incentives about advertising are about persuading people, and you’re not going to reach for the most accurate description, you’re going to reach for the most convincing,” said Evan Horowitz

“It certainly would increase the progressive nature of 62F because there’s no question that doing this dramatically improves the distribution,” said Horowitz

But, as a recent report on Question 4 from the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University’s Tisch College notes, that argument doesn’t hold up.

The center projects that the tax would raise, “in a highly progressive way likely to advance racial and economic equity,” about $1.3 billion in 2023.

As Evan Horowitz wrote in the report, “for opponents, such formal recognition can seem inappropriate, considering that the federal government controls immigration policy and unauthorized immigrants lack the lawful authority to be in the country.”

Evan Horowitz, executive director of the Center for State Policy Analysis, breaks down the data behind Question 1 and explains what's at stake for the state.

It would add an estimated $1.3 billion in annual revenue for the state, according to a report published this year by the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University.

"Any effect on alcohol sales, consumption, and consumer convenience would likely be limited," Evan Horowitz, executive director of the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University wrote in an analysis of the ballot question.

A study by Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis estimates that the amount of revenue collected from Question 1 could be reduced by as much as 35 percent between tax avoidance strategies and millionaires moving.