Massachusetts Question 5: Change the state revenue limit and rebate rules
What it does. Question 5 would change the limit on how much revenue the state can collect in a given year. The limit would be the net amount of state revenue from the year before, increased by the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the most recent three years. If the state collects more than the limit, the excess would be refunded to taxpayers the following year. All revenue from the surtax on incomes over $1 million would count toward the limit. The changes would take effect July 1, 2027. [1]
Official ballot question. State Revenue Limit & Rebate. 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? [1]
If you vote yes
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. [1]
If you vote no
A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to state revenue collection. [1]
What it would cost
The state’s fiscal statement, written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, says the proposed law “would put stricter limits on allowable annual revenue growth available for budgeting” and would “reduce the amount of money available to support the state budget, which includes local aid for schools and municipal budgets.” It also says the proposal would reduce the amounts available to build the state’s Stabilization (rainy day) Fund and, depending on future conditions, could change how often required refunds to taxpayers occur. [1]
Both sides
Strongest case for
The official argument in favor was written by Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts. It says 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.” [1]
It argues the 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,” and says it “will not cut state spending for important services like education, transportation, or healthcare.” [1]
It adds that “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.” [1]
Strongest case against
The official argument against was written by Colette Berard, an Andover Public Schools history teacher, for Protect Massachusetts’ Future. It says Question 5 “would put a strict limit on state revenue and investment, requiring repeated budget cuts,” and that cities and towns “would have to raise property taxes or lay off teachers and firefighters.” [1]
It argues the measure “would reduce the state’s” rainy day fund, “forcing massive budget cuts to schools, healthcare, affordable housing, and public safety during recessions,” and would “even threaten Massachusetts’ bond rating, raising the cost of repairing bridges and schools.” [1]
It also says millionaires “would get frequent tax rebates, while the rest of us pay the price.” [1]
What neither side is saying
Context that bears on what this measure does or who it affects but that the arguments above do not address. These are sourced facts, not arguments for or against the measure.
- How the limit works now. Ballotpedia reports that the current limit equals the prior year’s limit plus the average growth of wages and salaries over the past three years, and that the surtax on incomes over $1 million is not generally used to calculate it. Question 5 would instead base the limit on revenue actually collected the year before and include the surtax. [2]
- How often the limit has been exceeded. Ballotpedia reports that between 1986 and 2025 the state tax revenue limit was exceeded twice, resulting in refunds to taxpayers. [2]
Editorial context, not the opinion of We Elect. Each point is a fact we found in a source we opened and read; where sources disagree or data are missing, we say so. How we choose these.
Follow the money
Contributions reported by committees registered to support or oppose Question 5. Major donors are those who gave $100,000 or more; where fewer than three did, up to five of the largest listed donors giving $5,000 or more are shown.
Supporting (Yes)
Total raised $2,532,365
Committee
- Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts $2,532,365
Major donors
| Massachusetts Opportunity Alliance | $1,900,000 |
| Massachusetts High Technology Council | $105,704 |
| ABP Trust | $100,000 |
| Raymond State | $100,000 |
Donors shown gave 87% of this side’s total.
Opposing (No)
Total raised $948,807
Committees
- Protect Massachusetts Future $798,546
- Labor Leaders for Revenue Responsibility $75,000
- Raise Up Massachusetts 2026 $66,130
- Democratic Socialists Against Reactionary Rollbacks $5,705
- Democratic Socialists Against Austerity $3,426
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Massachusetts Question 3, Massachusetts Question 8, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| SEIU Mass State Council | $322,920 |
| Massachusetts Teachers Association | $176,594 |
| 1199 SEIU MA PAC | $162,102 |
Reported contributions through Oct. 20, 2026, as compiled by Ballotpedia from state filings; the source lists each side’s top donors, not every donor. Figures are reported contributions and may be updated as new reports are filed. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Official filings: Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF).
Sources
- 2026 Information for Voters: Question 5 (summary, what a yes or no vote does, fiscal statement, 150-word arguments, legislative report) — Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth (Official state voter guide, 2026)
- Massachusetts Question 5, Change State Tax Revenue Limit Initiative (2026) — Ballotpedia (Reference (quotes supporters and opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Last reviewed 2026-10-28. How we write both sides.
We Elect is a Brunner Creative site. Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Each side is written to be the strongest case its supporters would recognize, and every claim is tied to a source we opened and read.