Massachusetts
Chapter 62F
Passed by voters in 1986. The cap is last year’s cap times three year wage growth. Excess goes back to taxpayers as a credit. Question 5 would base the cap on last year’s real collections.
Question 5 and the state tax cap
Election 2026 · Question 5 explainer
Question 5 and the state tax cap
Listen: short summary
Election 2026 guide
Short summary read by Kerry Jane. It is not the full article.
Read the summary text
Question 5 is about the state tax cap. It would change the yearly limit on state tax collections to last year's collections times average wage growth, with refunds of the excess. A Yes vote makes that change, starting July first, twenty twenty seven. A No vote keeps the current law. Supporters say it puts more discipline on the state budget and would produce more refunds. Opponents say it could force budget cuts and push cities and towns toward property tax increases. As of October twenty sixth, the Yes side has reported about five hundred seventy seven thousand dollars, and the No side about seven hundred twenty one thousand. Read the full explainer, with every source and the data, at capeanncurrent.com slash elections. The Cape Ann Current takes no position.
Question 5 is about a limit on how much tax money the state can collect in a year. If the state collects more than the limit, it must send the extra back to taxpayers. Voters passed that limit in 1986. Question 5 would change how the limit is figured. Voters decide on Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026.
This explainer takes no position on Question 5. It reports what the law says, what each side argues, and what the public data show. Figures were checked against the cited sources on Oct. 26, 2026.
Part of a nine question series. Every statewide question on the Nov. 3 ballot has its own page.Open the Election 2026 guide
Previous: Question 4Next: Question 6
The short version
What voters are deciding, in plain words.
- The question. The official ballot language asks: “Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026?” In plain words, citizens put this law on the ballot, and the Legislature did not vote on it in time. The law would change the limit on how much tax money the state can collect in a year. Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth, 2026 Information for Voters.
- Yes. The Secretary’s summary says a Yes vote “would change the limit on state revenue collection, tying it to prior year collections plus average wage and salary growth, and provide for a rebate of revenue exceeding that limit.” In plain words, each year’s limit would start from what the state really collected the year before, plus the average growth in pay. Money over the limit would be sent back.
- No. The Secretary’s summary says a No vote “would make no change in the law relative to state revenue collection.” In plain words, the 1986 law stays as it is.
- The law today. A state law from 1986, called Chapter 62F, sets a limit, or cap, on state tax collections. Money collected above the cap goes back to taxpayers. That has happened twice, after fiscal 1987 and fiscal 2022. In fiscal 2026 the state collected 43.1 billion dollars. That was 5.2 billion dollars under the cap, according to the State Auditor.
- Where both sides agree. Supporters, opponents and the Tufts University policy center (which takes no side) all say a Yes vote would mean refunds more often. They disagree about what that would do to the state budget, to aid for towns and to household money. If voters approve it, the changes start July 1, 2027.
- What it does not do. The law changes Chapter 62F and one paragraph about the income surtax. It does not mention property taxes or Proposition 2½ (the rule that limits how fast a town can raise property taxes). The link to Cape Ann towns is state aid, which the Legislature sets each year.
What these words mean
Fiscal year (FY). The state’s budget year. It runs July 1 to June 30. Fiscal 2026 ended on June 30, 2026.
Revenue. Money the state collects, mostly from taxes.
Surtax. The 4 percent extra tax on income above 1 million dollars that voters approved in 2022. It is often called the millionaires tax or Fair Share.
Rainy Day Fund. The state’s savings account, formally the Stabilization Fund. It is projected to hold about 8.2 billion dollars after the fiscal 2027 budget.
What is on the ballot
A new state law written by citizens, not a change to the constitution.
| Type | A citizen petition for a new state law, not a change to the state constitution. The Legislature’s files call it Initiative Petition 25-17, House No. 5006. |
|---|---|
| Official title | “Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Limiting State Tax Collection Growth and Returning Surpluses to Taxpayers.” |
| Who filed it | Christopher Robert Anderson and others, according to the Legislature’s committee report. |
| What it changes | Section 1 rewrites two definitions in Chapter 62F: the cap (“Computed Maximum State Tax Revenues”) and what counts as tax revenue. Section 1 also says income surtax money counts as state tax revenue. Section 2 strikes one paragraph (subparagraph d) of Chapter 29, Section 2BBBBBB, which is part of the cap math. Section 3 says that if a court strikes one part, the rest stays. |
| Effective date | For fiscal years that begin after June 30, 2027. The ballot summary says July 1, 2027. |
| Legislature’s action | A majority of the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions (a group of lawmakers) recommended on May 4, 2026 that the Legislature take no action. The full Legislature took no vote by May 6, 2026, so the petition went on to the ballot. |
| Can lawmakers change it later? | Yes. The state constitution lets the Legislature change or repeal a law that voters approve, as the Supreme Judicial Court (the state’s highest court) noted in an April 2026 opinion on a different question. Axios Boston reported on Oct. 20, 2026 that the Legislature will likely change the law if voters approve it. WBUR reported on Sept. 30 that lawmakers were working on a competing bill (see “Where people agree”). |
| Court cases | No lawsuit against Question 5 itself was found. A companion petition to cut the income tax rate from 5 percent to 4 percent (Initiative Petition 25-18) was kept off the ballot by the Supreme Judicial Court on June 18, 2026, in Finfer v. Attorney General (SJC-13885). The court found the Attorney General's summary significantly misleading (sources 19 and 20). So Question 5 will not appear next to that tax cut question on Nov. 3. |
In short: Question 5 is an ordinary law. Voters can pass it, and the Legislature keeps the power to change it afterward.
How the cap works, today and under Question 5
What the formula is now, and what Question 5 would change.
Today. The first cap was set at what the state collected in fiscal 1986. Each year the cap grows by the average growth in Massachusetts wages and salaries over the last three years. In other words, the cap is last year’s cap times that growth factor. The State Auditor checks the numbers every September. If the state collected more than the cap, the extra goes back to taxpayers.
A key detail. Today’s cap starts from last year’s cap, not from what the state really collected. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (MTF, a research group that opposes Question 5) says that over 40 years, tax cuts and slower revenue growth let collections fall further below the cap, and that is why refunds have been rare. Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis (which takes no side) says the same.
Under Question 5. Each year the cap would start from what the state really collected the year before, times the same wage growth factor. A gap between the cap and real collections could not build up. MTF says a refund would follow in any year when collections grow faster than wages over the last three years. The 4 percent surtax on income above 1 million dollars, which the cap leaves out today, would be counted.
A worked example from Tufts University
| Fiscal 2021 | Under today’s law | Under the Question 5 formula |
|---|---|---|
| The cap | 36.8 billion dollars (the 2020 cap of 35.5 billion, grown by wages) | 31.2 billion dollars (what was really collected in 2020, 30.2 billion, grown by wages) |
| Collected | 34.6 billion dollars | 34.6 billion dollars |
| Result | Under the cap. No refund. | Over the cap. More than 3 billion dollars in refunds, nearly 10 percent of tax revenue. |
Key point: in Tufts University’s example, the same year of real tax collections gives no refund under today’s law and a refund of more than 3 billion dollars under the Question 5 formula. Source: Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis, March 2026.
The 2022 refund
In fiscal 2022 tax collections jumped about 20 percent, MTF reports. The State Auditor found the state collected 41.8 billion dollars, against a cap of 38.9 billion. The extra was 2,941,499,731 dollars. Refunds went out in November 2022. Each filer got about 13 percent of their 2021 state income tax, according to MTF. In 2023 lawmakers changed the rules so that future refunds would be the same amount for every filer.
How we got here
From a 1986 ballot to a 2026 ballot.
Voters approve 1986 Question 3, 54.4 percent to 45.6 percent of Yes and No votes. It lowered an income tax surtax (an extra tax on top of the regular tax) and created the revenue cap, now Chapter 62F. Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth election results.
The State Auditor finds fiscal 1987 collections were over the cap by 29,221,675 dollars. The credit was a line on state income tax returns.
Collections stay under the cap every year, the State Auditor reports.
The State Auditor finds fiscal 2022 collections were 2,941,499,731 dollars over the cap. Refunds go out in November.
Voters approve the 4 percent surtax on income above 1 million dollars, 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent of Yes and No votes.
Lawmakers keep surtax money out of the cap calculation (fiscal 2024 budget) and make future refunds equal for all filers (tax relief law, October 2023), according to MTF.
Initiative Petition 25-17 is filed. Pioneer Institute announces it joins a business coalition backing it.
The Legislature’s Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions holds its hearing. During March, MTF, MassBudget and Tufts University each publish an analysis.
A majority of the committee recommends the Legislature take no action.
The Supreme Judicial Court rules that the companion income tax cut petition cannot appear on the ballot because its summary was misleading. Question 5 stays.
Governor Maura Healey signs the fiscal 2027 state budget, 63.4 billion dollars, with no vetoes.
State Senator Jason Lewis files an amendment to repeal Chapter 62F, with 19 cosponsors (lawmakers who signed on). House Speaker Ron Mariano says he would “love to be able to” repeal the law, but says doing it before the vote is a problem.
The State Auditor reports fiscal 2026 collections of 43.1 billion dollars, 5.2 billion dollars under the cap. No refunds.
Election Day.
If voters approve Question 5, the new rules would apply to fiscal years starting after June 30, 2027.
Cap and refunds
Related tax and budget events
Question 5 process
The Senate action on the Lewis amendment (July 22 entry) was reported as pending that week. See the Common Ground section for the competing bill’s status as last reported.
What a Yes vote and a No vote would bring
Concrete effects, with the source of each claim. Some effects are estimates, and they are labeled.
If Yes wins
- The rule. Each year’s cap would be last year’s real net tax collections times the three year average wage growth. The surtax would count. The effective date is July 1, 2027. (Ballot summary.)
- More refunds. Tufts University’s March 2026 report estimates 10 to 11 refunds over 20 years, against 2 to 4 under today’s law. A later Tufts figure cited by WBUR is 8 to 9 refunds. MTF models 3 or 4 refunds every ten years, averaging 701 dollars per filer. These are estimates.
- Money to households. Tufts, as reported by WBUR, estimates refunds of “a few hundred dollars in the early years and roughly $500 to $600 by the 2040s,” or about 200 to 250 dollars a year averaged over all years.
- State finances. The Healey administration’s budget office says the changes would mean less money for the state budget, including local aid, and smaller deposits into the Rainy Day Fund. The Yes statement in the voter booklet says the law “will not cut state spending for important services like education, transportation, or healthcare.” MTF says the budget calendar means the cap would not directly set spending, but its model shows smaller Rainy Day Fund deposits.
- Uncertain. Whether the Legislature changes the law after the vote, how budget writers would react, and how often refunds would really come. Tufts says refunds could come “when the economy isn’t particularly strong.”
If No wins
- The rule. Chapter 62F stays as it is. The cap is last year’s cap times wage growth, and surtax money stays outside it. (Ballot summary.)
- Few refunds. Refunds have come twice in 40 years. Tufts estimates 2 to 4 refunds over the next 20 years under current rules. Supporters of Question 5 say the link between revenue and refunds is already broken, a point Tufts calls one of supporters’ strongest arguments.
- Room under the cap. In fiscal 2026 the state collected 5.2 billion dollars less than the cap allowed, the State Auditor reports. Under current rules, collections would have to catch up with a cap that also grows each year before a refund is due.
- State finances. Tufts says a No vote would keep current law and leave decisions about tax cuts to legislators instead of automatic triggers. Opponents of Question 5 argue that keeping current law protects the Rainy Day Fund and the state’s ability to recover from recessions. Supporters argue that a No vote leaves a cap that rarely triggers a refund.
- Uncertain. The Legislature could still change or repeal 62F on its own. Senator Lewis and Speaker Mariano have talked about that, and Boston.com reported that the Senate passed a narrower limit. The status of that bill is not clear.
What stays the same either way
Property tax rules, including Proposition 2½, do not change. The 4 percent surtax is not repealed. The Auditor keeps checking the cap each September. The Legislature keeps writing the state budget and local aid each year.
The arguments, in their own words
From the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s 2026 Information for Voters booklet. The state does not endorse either argument or certify its accuracy.
Official argument for
- Submitted by Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts. The statement says a Yes vote sets reasonable limits on state revenue growth and makes sure taxpayers get refunds when the state collects too much.
- The statement says the measure creates stronger fiscal guardrails (limits on state budgets) and guards against tax increases.
- It says the law “will not cut state spending for important services like education, transportation, or healthcare.”
Official argument against
- Submitted by Colette Berard, a history teacher in Andover Public Schools, for Protect Massachusetts’ Future. The statement urges a No vote to protect public schools, health care and public safety.
- The statement says the measure could force repeated budget cuts, push cities and towns toward property tax increases or layoffs, and shrink the Rainy Day Fund in recessions.
- It says counting surtax money would give high earners frequent rebates, and that the measure could threaten the state’s bond rating (the grade lenders give the state, which affects its borrowing costs).
The best case each side makes in public
Supporters say
- Discipline. Pioneer Institute says the change would put “greater discipline” on Beacon Hill (the State House). It points to a state budget that has more than doubled since 2010 while weekly wages rose about half as much.
- More refunds. Backers say that if the new formula had been in place for 40 years, there would have been 24 refunds instead of two.
- A broken link. Tufts writes that supporters’ strongest argument is that “the link between revenues and refunds is already broken.”
- Affordability. Backers say residents face high housing and grocery costs and that government growth should match what taxpayers can afford.
Perspective: Pioneer Institute also gave 50,000 dollars to the Yes campaign, according to the Boston Globe.
Opponents say
- Recession recovery. MTF says that after the 2009 downturn, the new formula would have limited fiscal 2011 revenue growth to 0.4 percent, when real growth was 10.6 percent.
- Rainy Day Fund. MTF models that the Rainy Day Fund would have been more than 4 billion dollars lower between fiscal 2016 and fiscal 2025.
- Unpredictable cuts. MassBudget says the result “will be often unpredictable budget cuts and the abandonment of planned public investments.”
- Bond rating. MassBudget says the cap, like Proposition 2½ for towns, has no exception for debt payments, which could raise borrowing costs.
Perspective: MassBudget’s board includes a top official at a union that opposes the question, according to WBUR. MTF opposes the question but is not a campaign committee.
Who is campaigning, and the money
Money received, OCPF, as of Oct. 26, 2026
Yes side
$577,158
No side$720,822
Key point: OCPF shows the Yes committee has received 577,158 dollars and the four No committees together 720,822 dollars, as of Oct. 26, 2026.
In kind support, OCPF, as of Oct. 26, 2026
Yes side
$1,960,207
No side$150,836
Key point: OCPF lists about 1.96 million dollars in in kind support (goods or services given instead of money) for the Yes committee and about 151 thousand dollars across the No committees. In kind is shown apart from the money received, and it is not added to it.
Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) ballot question committee reports, 2025 and 2026 combined, pulled Oct. 26, 2026 (source 18). The Yes committee spent 551,239 dollars and had 20,919 dollars cash on hand. The No committees are Protect Massachusetts' Future (669,000 dollars), Raise Up Massachusetts 2026 (45,892), Democratic Socialists Against Austerity (5,880) and Democratic Socialists Against Reactionary Rollbacks (50). Earlier Boston Globe reports (Sept. 24, 2026) put Yes cash near 550,000 dollars and No at 669,000 dollars; OCPF figures are newer.
Yes campaign
- Committee: Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts (OCPF, as of Oct. 26, 2026: 577,158 dollars received, 1,960,207 dollars in kind).
- Top donors of 50,000 dollars each, per the Boston Globe: the Massachusetts High Technology Council, the Pioneer Institute, the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts.
- WBUR describes the backers as business groups.
No campaign
- Committee: Protect Massachusetts’ Future (OCPF, as of Oct. 26, 2026: 669,000 dollars received, 124,397 dollars in kind). Three smaller No committees brought the No side to 720,822 dollars.
- Top funders, per WBUR: SEIU Massachusetts State Council, 1199 SEIU, SEIU Local 50 and the Massachusetts Teachers Association.
- Progressive Massachusetts lists the question under “NO on 5” and names the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition of faith, labor and community groups.
Who the analysts are
| Group | What it is | Position on Question 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis | University policy center | No position |
| Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation | Research group on state finances | Opposes |
| Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center (MassBudget) | Think tank | Opposes |
| Pioneer Institute | Think tank | Supports |
| Executive Office for Administration and Finance | Governor Healey’s budget office | Wrote the official fiscal statement in the voter booklet |
Key point: the groups that studied the question do not agree. Tufts takes no side. MTF and MassBudget oppose Question 5. Pioneer Institute supports it.
The numbers
State tax collections, the cap, the room under it, and what analysts estimate.
Cap and collections, fiscal 2022 to 2026 (billions of dollars)
Allowed by the capNet state tax revenue collected (Chapter 62F measure)
Key point: collections were below the cap in each of fiscal 2023 to 2026, by 4.2 to 5.2 billion dollars. Fiscal 2022 was the one year over the cap. In fiscal 2026 the cap was 48.3 billion dollars and collections were 43.1 billion dollars.
Source: Office of the State Auditor, Chapter 62F determinations for fiscal 2023 to 2026 (published Sept. 2023 to Sept. 15, 2026). Collections are “net state tax revenues” as Chapter 62F defines them, which exclude the surtax (estimated by the Department of Revenue at 3.38 billion dollars in fiscal 2026) and federal money. Fiscal 2022 shows collections before the refund. Bars start at zero.
The cap and collections over 40 years
Tax collected
up 432%
Cap allowedup 498%
Key point: from fiscal 1987 to fiscal 2026, net state tax revenue grew about 432 percent, from 8.1 billion to 43.1 billion dollars, while the cap grew about 498 percent, from 8.07 billion to 48.27 billion dollars.
Source: State Auditor, fiscal 2026 Chapter 62F determination, Sept. 15, 2026. Both figures are in current dollars, not adjusted for inflation.
Room under the cap, fiscal 2016 to 2026 (millions of dollars)
Today’s law: cap minus collections, by year
Over the cap (refund triggered)Room under the cap
FY2016
3,675 million under
FY2017
5,051 million under
FY2018
4,353 million under
FY2019
3,775 million under
FY2020
5,351 million under
FY2021
2,134 million under
FY2022
2,941 million over
FY2023
4,237 million under
FY2024
4,674 million under
FY2025
4,702 million under
FY2026
5,153 million under
Question 5 formula, as modeled by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (no surtax)
Over the cap (refund triggered)Room under the cap
FY2016
701 million under
FY2017
1,174 million under
FY2018
931 million over
FY2019
160 million under
FY2020
431 million under
FY2021
3,409 million over
FY2022
1,788 million over
FY2023
5,529 million under
FY2024
1,786 million over
FY2025
1,575 million under
Key point: under today’s law the state was over the cap once in 11 years, in fiscal 2022. Under the Question 5 formula, MTF models the state would have been over the cap in four of the 10 years from fiscal 2016 to 2025.
Sources: MTF bulletin, March 30, 2026 (fiscal 2016 to 2025, both columns); State Auditor, Sept. 15, 2026 (fiscal 2026, today’s law). The Question 5 model is MTF’s, uses collections without the surtax, and counts refunds as reducing the next year’s collections. It is a model of the past, not a forecast. Fiscal 2022 on the current law bar is the real 2,941 million dollars. Bars are scaled to 6,000 million.
What each analyst estimates for refunds
| Source and perspective | If Question 5 passes | Today’s law |
|---|---|---|
| Tufts CSPA, March 2026 (no position) | 10 to 11 refunds in 20 years. 5 to 15 times as much money returned. In revenue terms, about the same as a 0.4 point cut in the income tax rate. Looking back, 22 refunds in 39 years, over 30 billion dollars in all. | 2 to 4 refunds in 20 years |
| Tufts CSPA, as cited by WBUR and Axios (no position) | 8 to 9 refunds in 20 years. 2 to 4 times as many refunds and 2 to 7 times as much money. About 200 to 250 dollars a year averaged. Axios reports the state would bring in 1.1 to 1.3 billion dollars less each year. | Fewer refunds |
| MTF (opposes) | 3 or 4 refunds every 10 years. Average refund 701 dollars per filer. Looking back 10 years, 4 refunds worth 7.9 billion dollars. | 1 refund in the last 10 years |
| Question 5 supporters | 24 refunds over the last 40 years if the formula had been in place | 2 refunds |
| MassBudget (opposes), via WBUR | If refunds had come more often over the last 40 years, the state would have had 13 billion dollars less | Not stated |
Key point: the estimates differ because each uses different years and methods, but all of them show more frequent refunds under Question 5. Tufts changed its figures between its March report and later summaries.
Sources listed in the footer: Tufts CSPA (March 2026) and Tisch College voter guide; WBUR, Sept. 30, 2026; Axios Boston, Oct. 20, 2026; MTF, March 30 and Oct. 20, 2026; Pioneer Institute; WBUR on MassBudget. We did not find a published reason for the change in Tufts figures.
Rainy Day Fund deposits versus modeled refunds (millions of dollars)
| Year | Refund under Question 5 formula, millions of dollars (MTF model) | Actual Rainy Day Fund deposit, millions of dollars |
|---|---|---|
| FY2018 | 931 | 700 |
| FY2021 | 3,409 | 1,125 |
| FY2022 | 1,788 | 2,312 |
| FY2024 | 3,942 (with surtax) | 488 |
Key point: in MTF’s model, the refund would have been larger than the year’s actual Rainy Day Fund deposit in three of the four years. The state made 4.6 billion dollars in deposits in those four years, and MTF modeled 10.1 billion dollars in refunds.
Source: MTF bulletin, March 30, 2026. MTF opposes Question 5; supporters say the law will not cut services (see the arguments above). A modeled result, not a prediction. The Rainy Day Fund balance is projected at about 8.2 billion dollars after the fiscal 2027 budget (WBUR, July 1, 2026).
Polls on Question 5
YesNoUnsure
Key point: two October polls disagree. UMass Amherst and WCVB found 58 percent Yes and 20 percent No. Suffolk University and the Boston Globe found 40 percent Yes and 38 percent No.
Sources: UMass Amherst Poll, Oct. 2026 report and WBUR, Oct. 19, 2026 (UMass Amherst/WCVB; 13 percent undecided plus 8 percent who did not understand the question, shown together as unsure); WBUR, Oct. 20, 2026 (Suffolk/Globe; 20 percent undecided). Polls are snapshots, differ in who they sample and how the question is worded, and carry margins of error.
State budget and aid, fiscal 2027
| Item | Amount | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Total state budget | 63.4 billion dollars | Massachusetts Municipal Association, July 9, 2026 |
| Chapter 70 school aid | 7.66 billion dollars | Massachusetts Municipal Association |
| Unrestricted General Government Aid | 1.363 billion dollars (up 40 million) | Massachusetts Municipal Association; WBUR, July 1, 2026 |
| Property tax levy, all towns (fiscal 2026) | 24 billion dollars (343 communities) | Division of Local Services |
Key point: Chapter 70 and general government aid together are about 9 billion dollars of a 63.4 billion dollar state budget, and towns raised about 24 billion dollars in property taxes.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association is the statewide association of cities and towns. Its totals are from its budget coverage.
How other states handle it
A few documented examples. This is not a survey of all fifty states.
Oregon
The “kicker”
Oregon pays refunds when General Fund revenue comes in more than 2 percent above the forecast made at the end of the last regular session, according to the Oregon Legislative Revenue Office. It began as a law passed by the Legislature in 1979 and approved by voters in 1980, and voters put it in the constitution in 2000. The Legislature can suspend it in an emergency with a two thirds vote in each chamber. The office’s summary, which runs through 2001, counts kickers paid in seven of eleven two year budget periods.
Colorado
The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR)
Colorado’s constitution caps how much revenue state government can keep, and the excess is returned to taxpayers, according to the Colorado Department of Revenue. Refunds have changed from year to year. CBS Colorado reported in Sept. 2025 that, based on a state forecast, refunds for tax year 2025 would range from 20 to 62 dollars for single filers, and forecast no refund for tax year 2026. We did not find the exact formula in the sources we opened.
The main difference: Oregon’s rule compares revenue to a forecast. Massachusetts compares it to a cap built from wage growth. Question 5 keeps the wage growth idea but changes the starting point.
Where people agree, and what nobody knows yet
Refunds would be more frequent
Supporters, opponents, MTF and Tufts all say a Yes vote would mean refunds more often. WBUR reports that both proponents and opponents agree on this.
Refunds have been rare
Everyone cites the same history: refunds after fiscal 1987 and fiscal 2022 only, as the State Auditor confirms.
The surtax matters little to refunds
Tufts says counting the surtax would have a “negligible effect” on refunds. MTF says it would have a “relatively minor impact.”
A timing issue in the formula
Tufts says a refund counts against the next year’s collections, which can set up refunds every other year. Tufts credits MTF with finding this. Tufts suggests the Legislature could fix it. MTF says refunds would rarely come in back to back years.
Some lawmakers want to change 62F
Speaker Mariano said he would “love to be able to” repeal it, but that doing so before the vote is a problem. Senator Lewis, with 19 cosponsors, filed an amendment to repeal it. Jim Stergios, executive director of Pioneer Institute, which backs Question 5, criticized that effort.
Open questions nobody can answer yet
- How many refunds there would really be. Estimates range from 8 to 11 in 20 years (Tufts) to 3 or 4 every 10 years (MTF).
- Whether the Legislature changes or repeals the law after the vote. WBUR reported on Sept. 30 that lawmakers were working on a bill to keep 62F but limit refunds. Boston.com reported the Senate passed a proposal that would require tax revenue to reach at least 7.5 percent of statewide personal income before a refund. We did not find a later status.
- What it would do to local aid. The Healey budget office says it would reduce money for local aid. We found no estimate by town or by dollar amount.
- How the next recession would play out. Both sides use models of past years, and no model can know the future.
- Whether budget writers would spend less in anticipation of refunds. MTF says the timing makes that unclear.
What it means on Cape Ann
State tax, local tax, and the aid that moves between them.
State tax versus local tax. The state collects income, sales, corporate and other taxes. Question 5 is about those. Towns collect property tax and set their own rate within Proposition 2½. Question 5 does not change that. The link is state aid. The Legislature sends money to towns each year through the state budget. The Division of Local Services lists each town’s amounts on a “Cherry Sheet.”
What these words mean
Chapter 70. State aid for public schools.
Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA). State aid a town can spend on anything.
Cherry Sheet. The state’s yearly list of the aid it will send each town and the charges it will take.
Where each town’s money came from, fiscal 2025
Property tax levyState aidLocal receiptsEnterprise funds (water, sewer)Community Preservation ActAll other
| Town | Property tax levy, dollars (share) | State aid, dollars (share) | Total revenue, dollars | Average single family tax bill, dollars |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gloucester | 105,742,264 (62.3 percent) | 17,322,524 (10.2 percent) | 169,787,024 | 9,224 |
| Rockport | 29,245,332 (58.3 percent) | 3,677,321 (7.3 percent) | 50,164,090 | 8,389 |
| Essex | 17,364,582 (70.0 percent) | 345,740 (1.4 percent) | 24,803,490 | 11,352 |
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | 33,148,379 (77.2 percent) | 309,029 (0.7 percent) | 42,930,176 | 15,649 |
Key point: state aid was 10.2 percent of Gloucester’s budget, 7.3 percent of Rockport’s, 1.4 percent of Essex’s and 0.7 percent of Manchester-by-the-Sea’s in fiscal 2025.
Source: Division of Local Services, Community Snapshot, data current as of Oct. 26, 2026 (fiscal 2025 revenues and tax rate data, in dollars). The state average single family tax bill on the same report is 7,730 dollars. Essex and Manchester-by-the-Sea send their students to a regional district, so most of their school aid goes to the district, not to the town.
State aid on the final fiscal 2027 Cherry Sheets (dollars)
Gloucester
$12.6M$5.1M
Rockport$1.8M
Essex
Manchester-by-the-Sea
Chapter 70 (school aid paid to the town)Unrestricted General Government Aid
| Town or district | Chapter 70, dollars | UGGA, dollars | UGGA change from fiscal 2026 | Total estimated receipts, dollars | Change from fiscal 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gloucester | 12,634,061 | 5,145,300 | 173,455 (3.5 percent) | 18,643,242 | 683,096 (3.8 percent) |
| Rockport | 1,809,026 | 580,439 | 35,717 (6.6 percent) | 3,683,902 | 25,455 (0.7 percent) |
| Essex | None directly (see note) | 323,850 | 19,060 (6.3 percent) | 396,771 | 21,836 (5.8 percent) |
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | None directly (see note) | 303,296 | 26,455 (9.6 percent) | 350,112 | 25,340 (7.8 percent) |
| Manchester Essex Regional School District | 3,684,266 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 5,188,871 | Not compared |
Key point: for fiscal 2027, Gloucester is due 12.6 million dollars in Chapter 70 and 5.1 million dollars in general government aid. Rockport is due 1.8 million and 0.58 million. Essex is due 0.32 million and Manchester-by-the-Sea 0.30 million in general government aid.
Source: Division of Local Services, Municipal and Regional School Cherry Sheet Estimates, Final fiscal 2027, data current as of July 9, 2026. Total estimated receipts include other lines, such as veterans benefits and library aid. Cherry Sheets also list state charges that towns pay, which are not shown. Essex and Manchester-by-the-Sea have no Chapter 70 line because their students attend the Manchester Essex Regional School District, whose Chapter 70 aid is 3,684,266 dollars in fiscal 2027 (up 169,600 dollars, or 4.8 percent, from fiscal 2026).
Gloucester state aid over five years
Key point: Gloucester’s Chapter 70 plus general government aid grew from 14.3 million dollars in fiscal 2023 to 17.8 million dollars in fiscal 2027.
Source: Division of Local Services Cherry Sheet Estimates, final, fiscal 2023 to 2027. Bars start at zero.
Would Question 5 change these numbers? Not for fiscal 2027. These Cherry Sheets are final, and the new rules would apply only to years starting after June 30, 2027. For later years, the Healey budget office says the changes would reduce money available for the state budget, including local aid for schools and municipal budgets. Supporters say the measure will not cut services. We did not find an estimate for any Cape Ann town. The Legislature, not the cap law, decides each town’s aid.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association, the statewide association of cities and towns, has not taken a position on Question 5 that we could find.
How Cape Ann towns voted on the two related questions
| Town | 1986 Question 3 (revenue cap and surtax repeal): Yes votes and No votes | Yes share | 2022 Question 1 (4 percent surtax): Yes votes and No votes | Yes share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essex | 513 Yes, 512 No | 50.0 percent | 797 Yes, 991 No | 44.6 percent |
| Gloucester | 3,255 Yes, 3,693 No | 46.8 percent | 7,037 Yes, 5,974 No | 54.1 percent |
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | 855 Yes, 1,165 No | 42.3 percent | 1,488 Yes, 1,321 No | 53.0 percent |
| Rockport | 1,264 Yes, 1,460 No | 46.4 percent | 2,271 Yes, 1,822 No | 55.5 percent |
| Statewide | 863,130 Yes, 724,925 No | 54.4 percent | 1,267,132 Yes, 1,158,225 No | 52.2 percent |
Key point: in 1986 the state passed the revenue cap 54.4 percent to 45.6 percent, while Gloucester, Rockport and Manchester-by-the-Sea voted No and Essex voted Yes by one vote. In 2022, three of the four towns voted Yes on the surtax.
Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth, electionstats.state.ma.us, 1986 Question 3 and 2022 Question 1. Yes share is Yes divided by Yes plus No; blank ballots are left out. The 1986 question combined the cap with a repeal of an income tax surtax, so it is not the same as a vote on Question 5.
See the whole ballot
Candidate answers and the other eight questions are in the Current’s Election 2026 guide.
Previous: Question 4Next: Question 6