In the spirt of Sen. Cindy Friedman’s common-sense call to find a compromise on rent control in Massachusetts before it’s too late (“I am just so frustrated by the extremes”), I have my own compromise idea on another state issue: Why not lower the millionaire’s tax before it’s too late? Prompted by Kara Miller’s excellent Globe piece about how the millionaire’s tax and other tax provisions are indirectly harming the state’s economy, the core idea would be to set the millionaire’s tax – now an added 4 percent surtax on income exceeding $1 million — at a lower rate that brings in roughly the same amount of tax revenue it was originally projected to raise. 

Recall that voters were told in 2022 that the surtax would raise about $1 billion to $1.3 billion per year. But at last count, it annually raised $3 billion. So why not cut the rate from the current 4 percent to, say, 2 percent, raising approximately $1.5 billon? That’s still higher than the original revenue projections, but at least it’s closer to original projections.

But a compromise ain’t going to happen for several reasons. Beacon Hill lawmakers are already getting hooked on the multibillion-dollar annual windfall. And public unions, which pushed for passage of the millionaire’s tax, will scream “betrayal” if lawmakers did try to lower the rate, even if it’s lowered to a level that achieves roughly the same revenue result (and better) as originally envisioned. But it’s nice to dream, isn’t it?

As for Friedman’s call for a compromise on rent-control before it’s too late, there’s the precedent of lawmakers hammering out a compromise plan before controversial ballot questions headed to voters in 2018. But polls show that the current rent-control referendum passing this fall, so there’s little incentive for supporters to compromise. And landlords and developers loathe the idea of any type of rent control. So we’re probably stuck with an extreme outcome, as Friedman might put it.