Massachusetts' Wealth Tax Encouraged NBA's Grant Williams To Sign With Dallas
Grant Williams breaks down the math: "$54 million in Dallas is really like $58 million in Boston."

By approving a new wealth tax last year, Massachusetts voters might have dented the Boston Celtics' chances of chasing down a National Basketball Association (NBA) championship.
Grant Williams, a talented power forward drafted by the Celtics in the first round just four years ago, declined to re-sign with Boston this summer. Instead, he'll be playing next season in Dallas, where his new contract won't be subject to Massachusetts' so-called "millionaire's tax."
Williams told The Athletic that his decision to sign a $54 million deal with Dallas over a $48 million offer from Boston was "a little strategic" and that the gap between the two offers was larger than it might seem.
"In Boston, it's…$48 million with the millionaire's tax, so $54 million in Dallas is really like $58 million in Boston," Williams said.
In Texas, which has no state income tax, Williams can keep more of his earnings, though it is worth noting that professional athletes unfortunately owe taxes in states where they play road games. His new state's tax situation gives Williams a nice incentive to move, considering Massachusetts would have taken 9 percent of those earnings—thanks to its 5 percent flat income tax and newly created 4 percent tax on income in excess of $1 million.
Voters narrowly approved the millionaire's tax in a referendum last year. As Reason reported at the time, teachers unions there spent large sums on the campaign to create the new tax, which will mean more money for the state to distribute to public schools.
But Williams' decision to leave Boston for Dallas is a perfect illustration of the warnings issued by opponents of the new tax.
A 2021 report from the Beacon Hill Institute, a free market nonprofit, estimated that the millionaire's tax could cost Massachusetts more than 9,000 jobs and reduce the state's overall gross output and real disposable income—a result of wealthier residents shifting assets and investments to other states. A 2022 study by Massachusetts-based Tufts University warned that "some high-income residents may relocate to other states" and that "tax avoidance could be widespread."
That's likely to worsen Massaschusetts' population drain, which was already underway before the new tax was imposed. The state has been losing about 25,000 people per year on average for the past quarter-century, but Census Bureau data shows that trend has accelerated over the past year, according to WWLP, a television station in Springfield, Massachusetts.
A 2018 Cato Institute study found that people tend to migrate to states with relatively lower taxes. And that was before the pandemic-induced increase in remote work. You don't have to be a professional athlete to make the choice Williams made—but it's a choice that might hurt Boston's other teams too: The Boston Globe reported in December that the millionaire's tax was complicating the Red Sox's pitch to prospective free agents too.
"Grant Williams just gave us a concrete example of how our state's new tax code is making it more difficult to compete in Massachusetts," Paul D. Craney, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance told the Boston Herald. "There are small business owners and retirees doing the math out and coming to similar conclusions."
For anyone choosing to pull up stakes and move out of state, taxes are only one part of the overall equation. Williams, for example, said he was also attracted to signing with Dallas by the potential for more playing time.
Still, it's undeniable that Massachusetts' decision to hike taxes on the wealthy played a significant role in Williams' decision to take his talents elsewhere. He might be the most high-profile example, but he's surely not the only Bay Stater weighing a similar set of choices.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Massholes are gonna masshole.
Taxachusetts gonna tax
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
It's only right that they should. After all, doesn't all money belong to the government? And as it passes through your hands, they're nice enough to let you keep some of it. They could take it all!
There goes the neighborhood
teachers unions there spent large sums on the campaign to create the new tax, which will mean more money for the state to distribute to public schools.
Given the non-existent link between per-capita spending and better educational outcomes, I wonder what the union’s real motivation was?
The resulting academic success in such cities as Baltimore attest to the amount spent on each student. (sarc alert)
The same for N.Y. City, Oregon, Detroit, Chicago, etc,etc, etc. Come to think of it the problem only occurs in democrat strongholds.
Have to keep the public education industrial complex fat and happy. Otherwise the teachers union will be very unhappy. They may even go out on strike.
It's for the good of the little chilluns.
There are a lot of bad public schools in Republican rural America and some of the best high schools in the world are in New York City.
The tax increase is supposed to go to funding schools. The Unions believe that funding is theirs.
>>which will mean more money for the state to distribute to public schools.
anybody reading this believe the money goes to the schools?
by "public schools" they mean "teacher's union bosses and associated politicians"
shitlibs will never stop believing in magic public budget fairies
Then perhaps there should be no more shitlibs.
Mass once had a ballot initiative that allowed residents to vote on having two income tax rates: a lower rate and maintain the same higher rate, as an option. It barely passed. When it came tax return time, only a fraction of those voting against the initiative opted to pay the higher rate.
This is why there will always be more of a bridge between Republicans and Libertarians vs. Democrats and Libertarians.
Through cubpidity, principles, or shear political gamesmanship, we might be able to convince the former to cut spending but you are never going to convince the Tony’s of the world that that money belongs to the person who earned or created it OR that spending should even be slowed down.
And make no mistake, their rainbow shitting unicorn dreams will cost more than all of the wealth of the citizenry combined. And now that they’ve absorbed a sizable chuck of the neocons, they won’t even be good on reducing that portion of the budget.
Yup.
The R's aint perfect, but there are many more common goals with them than the extremely authoritarian socialists the democrats are.
Democrat dogma says that all government spending is an "investment" in the economy. Take that to its logical conclusion and the government takes everything and spends it. That obviously won't work.
Meanwhile Republican dogma says that all tax cuts stimulate the economy. Take that to its logical conclusion and 0% tax rates would optimize government revenue. That obviously won't work either.
The result is one team raises spending while the other lowers taxes, and then people can't figure out why the government is rolling in debt.
As far as the shaky alliance between Republicans and libertarians goes, Republicans backed out when they renounced economic liberty and went back to the pre-Enlightenment populist economics of protectionism and mercantilism.
“Meanwhile Republican dogma says that all tax cuts stimulate the economy. Take that to its logical conclusion and 0% tax rates would optimize government revenue. That obviously won’t work either.”
A couple of thoughts:
- if you cut the rate down to 0, that doesn’t leave any room to stimulate the economy when you “need” to, so I think the logical conclusion of their preferred policy would have to be at least a few percent, not 0. But that’s just me being a little pedantic.
- it does seem like the economy does better when they tweak the marginal rates. I know it’s better for me personally at least.
- as a libertarian, of course I believe income taxes should be 0. Not to stimulate the economy or anything, but because taxing someone for the audacity of putting food on their families table and then being good at it, is inherently immoral.
As far as tax rates go, the Laffer Curve is interesting.
I agree on income tax but for a different reason. You get less of what you tax, so taxing productive activity means less wealth production. As long as we need government we will have taxes, and I would rather tax consumption than production. That even includes tariffs, but they’d have to be flat, predictable and uniform. No trade wars or protectionism.
Tariffs are the worst form of corporate welfare. From 1865 to the 1980s the Democrats were opposed to such largesse. From 1854 to 1950 it was the single most consistent Republican policy. Eisenhower turned Republicans around which have the US a broad free trade consensus for the first time in history. By the 1980s, though, a lot of Democrats had jumped ship although no Democratic presidential nominee did. Trump returned the GOP back to the policies of Herbert Hoover, returning them to being the party of Corporate Welfare Queens.
Ok, hank.
taxing someone for the audacity of putting food on their families table and then being good at it, is inherently immoral.
^This^
To paraphrase from Office Space:
The government's gonna make a lot of money, right? And it's not theirs?
Well, it becomes theirs.
How is that not stealing?
The + IRS = theirs
No taxes would mean that police would need to be defunded. The Nutty Far Left would love that.
More seriously the income tax was literally a replacement for high tariffs. Tariffs are the most corrupt form of taxation.
You are a Fvckin idiot who can’t get anything right.
The Laffer curve is a parabola that shows a optimal rate for revenue., absent that, it is better to be on the left hand side of the parabola and maximize freedom at a lower rate than on the right side of the parabola and get the same revenue at a higher rate
Also, in typical sarc fashion, thru sheer projection you totally blew it in not stating Democrat dogma – that raising tax rates always raises revenue. So, just like a 0% rate, a 100% rate produces $0 revenue. Democrats pretend they can tax “luxuries” and it won’t impact consumer decisions (like they hope to do with Sin Taxes), and instead it winds up costing millions as people who build and service yachts and private planes get laid off
You are correct in that Democrats assume that taxes do not change behavior, however last I checked it was “Read my lips” Bush the Republican who destroyed the domestic yacht industry with his luxury tax. It also cost him a second term by going against "Tax cuts are always good" Republican dogma.
You’re lying again you big dummy, that was Clinton.
Or are you just wasted again?
Probably. He’s also a weak little pussy that won’t back up his violent threats.
It turns out you were right.
Sorry about that.
Hey pussy, you gonna throw down, or beg my forgiveness for your bullshit threats?
Next time get the facts straight before you, in a flurry of projection, accuse me of projection.
God, you’re retarded.
You’re done pussy. Crawl back into your garbage can.
The only domain the links Democrats and Libertarians is libertine hedonism. Maybe that's why Reason focuses on this.
Living in california and seeing the MA 5% flat tax I'm floored. I know MA is considered a poster child for shitlib lunacy but the shitlibs here are so much worse. Just amazing
And if you're a nonresident who works in the state, they still take income tax out of the paycheck.
That is true for most places. The only total exception is Washington DC which doesn’t tax nonresidents. NBA stars may be in for a big loss when the Bullets move to Virginia, which does.
Oh and both DC and VA have low property taxes. Not that NBA stars need to worry about them.
As long as states are run by liberal/progressives, taxes will continue to be more and more exorbitant. More taxes mean more welfare give away programs to bribe potential voters, much the same way pedo Joe wants to bail out college student loans.
Kudos to Mr. Williams for deciding to sign on in Texas and get to keep more of his paycheck.
This is economic freedom.
Im amazed that every NFL Free Agent doesn’t flock to the Titans – eight home games with no state tax, guaranteed road games at Houston and Jacksonville with 0% state tax, 7/24 years in Miami, 7/24 in Vegas, 1/4 in Tampa, and 1/8 in Seattle with 0% tax.
That’s on average 11/17 games untaxed at the state level.
it's undeniable that Massachusetts' decision to hike taxes on the wealthy played a significant role in Williams' decision to take his talents elsewhere.
No question. But that MA tax is an INCOME tax on the high INCOME. It is not a wealth tax and it is not a tax on the wealthy.
Grant Williams is a perfect example of who the tax hits hard. A guy who was born upper-middle class but basically not wealthy himself. Who has earned an income of $8 million over the last four years and is now probably worth $3-5 million. It is that high marginal INCOME tax that increases the barriers to him getting wealthier.
Abigail Johnson is worth maybe $23 billion or so. She pays property tax but that is not what is being talked about here - and I doubt there is a property tax on her share ownership of Fidelity. This income tax on millionaires doesn't impact her at all unless she herself chooses to incur it. And while I'm sure she does pay that tax, her tax accountants can quite easily offset multiples of whatever she chooses to pay in income tax with tax losses on paper.
Income taxes are targeted at the broad middle class. Meaning those who have to work for a living and/or work to acquire wealth. High marginal income tax rates merely raise the barriers for the middle class becoming wealthy. Which is a real problem for the middle class who want to become wealthy. But they do not TOUCH the wealthy unless the wealthy choose to be touched.
Stop confusing income with wealth. At best it is sloppy. More likely (indeed 100% certain) it is deliberately deceptive and is intended to jump into the same pool of ignorance and class warfare that Pocahontas is in.
Thank you.
And Dwayne Wade leaving Florida was due to their fascist policies. What of it?
WADE to go Dwayne! The DeSatanator breeds a Fuhrer of furor. So WHAT, of it, ?? BERI BERI man. Wade should Wade into MASS EXodusChusetts for TAXING taxes? Bleh, Bluh, Blah...
Yes the fascist one we know
Raspy DeSatan tells us so!!!
Did the spastic asshole get banned and have to take a new handle?
Could be a Tulpa parody. Let’s see how this plays out.
Tell us about Stormy Daniels.
Dwayne Wade left Miami for his hometown in Chicago in 2016, and returned in 2018 . And now owns part of the Utah Jazz.
What Fascism are you talking about , fvcktard?
Charlie Crist?
But did Williams factor in the difference in reparations in Massachusetts vs. Texas?
It’s the rich progs who have destroyed Mass and likely voted for this tax not thinking it will affect them. Let’s see how long they stick around. I wouldn’t wish them on any other states though, except maybe NY, NJ, and California.
Sadly, they don’t pick those places to move to. I wonder why….
New York City was the fastest growing city in the US during the 2010s.
Yeah? And then what happened?
You see! This is why we need uniform taxes everywhere!
Slow down, Slick. What kind of uniforms are you talking about?
Black. With armbands that have a slick insignia. And jackboots. Gotta have the jackboots.
Band uniforms!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm5Uvwlpb0g
louis brandeis called to say he disagrees
... or should I have said - to dissent
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
GFY
There's a reason they call it the Bay State. They bring taxpayers to bay.
I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Read more
If the Celtics don't win a championship next year, I doubt they'll blame it on the lack of a backup forward.
Massachusetts has it's income tax but it has lower sales and property taxes than Texas. NBA stars don't need to worry about sales and property taxes. The rest of us do.
Democrats love class warfare. And race warfare, and warfare warfare. Also, nuclear warfare.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>>Click the link————>>> GOOGLE WORK
New homeless guy moving in...
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com
SQRLSY or Sarc?