Question 5: State Revenue Limit & Rebate

Massachusetts · Law Proposed by Initiative Petition · on the November 3, 2026 ballot. The ballot wording and the arguments for and against from the state’s official voter guide, in the state’s own words, each read the same way for rhetorical techniques. We don’t recommend a vote.

On the ballot

no rhetorical technique found

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?

This proposed law would change the limit on how much revenue the state can collect in a given year. The proposal would limit state revenue in a given year to the net amount of state revenue from the year before, increased by a rate equal to the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the most recent three years. If revenue collected by the state in a given year exceeds the limit, the excess amount would be refunded to taxpayers the following year. The proposed law would include all revenue from the surtax on incomes over $1 million when calculating the revenue limit and when determining whether state revenue exceeds the limit.

The provisions of the proposed law would all be effective as of July 1, 2027.

The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

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.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to state revenue collection.

From sec.state.ma.us. Checked 2026-10-20. Confirm with your official ballot (sample-ballot lookup).

Argument for

By Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts

Appeal to FearGlittering Generalities

A YES vote sets reasonable limits on the growth of state government revenue and ensures that taxpayers receive refunds when the Commonwealth collects more money than it needs.

This proposal modernizes the state's existing laws to create stronger fiscal guardrails, promote accountability, guard against future tax increases, and ensure government growth reflects what taxpayers can afford. It will not cut state spending for important services like education, transportation, or healthcare.

Massachusetts families are struggling with the rising cost of housing, groceries, and childcare. When government collects excess revenue, taxpayers deserve to get that money back instead of seeing it absorbed into a state budget that is growing faster than inflation.

With Massachusetts continuing to lose residents to lower-cost states, this ballot question puts taxpayers first. A YES vote means you keep more of your hard-earned money, and makes Massachusetts a more affordable place to live, work, and raise a family.

Appeal to Fear · “Massachusetts continuing to lose residents to lower-cost states” — Invokes the threat of residents leaving the state to push support for the ballot question.

Glittering Generalities · “puts taxpayers first”, “hard-earned money”, “a more affordable place to live, work, and raise a family” — Uses a vague, positive slogan with no specifics about how the measure helps.

From sec.state.ma.us, the official voter guide.

Argument against

By Colette Berard, History Teacher, Andover Public Schools, Protect Massachusetts' Future

no rhetorical technique found

Vote NO on 5 to protect public schools, healthcare, and public safety.

Question 5 would put a strict limit on state revenue and investment, requiring repeated budget cuts. Healthcare costs would rise, and cities and towns would have to raise property taxes or lay off teachers and firefighters.

Question 5 would reduce the state's 'Rainy Day' fund, forcing massive budget cuts to schools, healthcare, affordable housing, and public safety during recessions, when spending to create jobs and support residents is needed most.

Question 5 would include revenue from the 'millionaires' tax' — which funds schools and transportation — in the complex, unpredictable algorithm that sets the revenue limit. Millionaires would get frequent tax rebates, while the rest of us pay the price.

Question 5 would even threaten Massachusetts' bond rating, raising the cost of repairing bridges and schools.

The multi-millionaires funding Question 5 don't need public services themselves.

From sec.state.ma.us, the official voter guide.

Who’s behind it

Party positions: Massachusetts Democratic Party: No position published · Massachusetts Republican Party: Yes

Committees registered to support or oppose Question 5, and what they reported to Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) - ocpf.us / api.ocpf.us. Checked 2026-10-21.

Before comparing the sides: each committee’s figures come from its own latest report, so they can cover different dates. Some committees work on more than one measure or other campaigns, and their totals include all of it. A side with no registered committee can still have supporters. How much a side raised says nothing about whether the measure is a good idea.