More millionaires live in Newton than any city in the commonwealth except for Boston, the Boston Business Journal Reports.
According to the most recent federal data on Bay State residents’ income, Newton was home to 1329 million dollar filers in 2016 an increase of 53 or 4.3 percent.
On the other hand, a few cities and towns saw a sizable dip in million-dollar earners. Cambridge and Brookline, two of the state’s wealthiest communities, both experienced declines of at least 5 percent in 2016. Of the 25 municipalities on the Business Journal’s list, Sudbury experienced the biggest year-over-year drop, with an 11 percent decline.
…Unsurprisingly, Boston was once again home to the most million-dollar earners, though its year-over-year increase was only 1.3 percent. On an absolute basis, Newton and Needham added more million-dollar filers than Boston that year.
The BBJ report does not specify how many of Newton’s 1329 millionaires live in Village No. 14.
This is something Newton should be proud of. The city is safe, clean, good schools, nice homes .. it is attracting people who can choose to live anywhere and they choose to invest their $$ into our city…
“Millionaires” and “million-dollar earners” are two completely different things. Many many Newtonites are “millionaires” simply by virtue of the net home value, yet most of them are not “million-dollar earners” (at least on an annual basis).
It would be helpful if there was some clarification and/or correction on this.
The study refers to those with annual incomes of $1 million or more.
So it would seem that when Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren is talking about “fighting millionaires and billionaires” she’s talking about Democrat Newtonites, yes?
Remember the good old days when rich Republican corporate titans were pilloried by movies like Wall Street – “greed is good”, and Alex Keaton the little Republican on Family Ties was the black sheep in his family?
These days the corporate titans are Democrats like Jeff Bezos – the richest
man in the world, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook(another Democrat), the Google crew, Slave wage payer and iPhone producer Apple, and the rest of Silicon Valley(all Democrats)
Heck, Wall Street gave nearly all of its money to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the last 3 elections, so I would say that the Democrat party is now firmly the party of the rich. Even Jerry Rubin
gave up the resistance act when he realized how much there was to be made on Wall Street
If Newton wishes to reduce the number of millionaire residents, they can simply enforce a “city tax” for residents earning over 1Million
problem solved… lets cut off our nose to spite our face!
I wish there were more opportunities for generous and civic-minded people in Newton to give generously for civic causes.
In an era of growing income inequality and reduced tax burden on the wealthy, this is the time to provide easy, meaningful ways for “people who can” to give back.
Other communities do this much better than Newton does. And giving builds pride: pride in our city and pride in our neighbors.
It won’t solve everything. But together, we can do so much more.
Mike,
Its hard to give generously when residents are squeezed themselves
New comers likely require 2 incomes to afford a home and gladly sacrifice so their kids have a safe and good education
Old timers are being squeezed with property taxes and overrides.
Only the millionaires have excess money but we have vilified them and some want them to stay away from Newton
Bugek,
Working together to make our home a better place is a pretty good antidote to vilification.
Income and net worth inequality means that there are both haves and have nots. Some can give, some can’t, and remarkably many without the means to give still give through money or other commitment. And we are all neighbors, sharing schools and parks and recreational facilities and other places of civic engagement.
And we all have pride. For instance, I’m not so proud of Gath pool. Or of my kid’s school playing field. Or of the inside of parts of City Hall. And if someone asked me to band together with my neighbors across Newton to help fix up any of those things, I’d pitch in.
Not because I have to, but because we are stewards of the civic institutions that serve everyone, haves or have nots alike, and I’d like to make the biggest difference I could. Our time here is limited. Kids grow up. People pass or move away. Businesses close. We can wait for someone to do something for us, or we can work together to make things happen. Through our time, our ideas, and sometimes through our money.
Sometimes we have to dream big and ask big to make great things become reality. If we don’t ask, they won’t happen.
Mike,
These are great goals but the reality for busy working folks who like in expensive towns have a different reality…
I think the best bang for the buck would be to attract large corporations to newton and nudge them and their employees in more charitable giving…
Btw, whats wrong with Gath pool? For the fee they charge, i think its up to expectations..
@Mike Halle–It is a nice sentiment you express. The problem is that Newton homeowners and businesses already pay very high property taxes that are supposed to maintain the city pool and playing fields. If the one of the Commonwealth’s richest citied can’t find a way to maintain its own City Hall, why should any private donor pay for it? By donating to directly to the City we only reinforce its fiscal profligacy, which is already out of hand. Charities like Partners in Health and Pine Street Inn–who serve truly needy people–are much more deserving of our donations.
For recreational swimming, Gath pool makes it difficult for families with kids of different ages. To get from the main pool to the toddler pool, families have to go outside to the main sidewalk and back in. A parent can’t easily watch two kids in the two pools. The direct access to the toddler pool isn’t stroller or wheelchair accessible.
And that’s overlooking family-friendly features such as a zero entry pool. The DCR’s Connors pool in Waltham has these features, and it’s free for everyone. And we aren’t talking about anything cool and new like aquatic climbing walls that are appearing at newer public pools.
People who use the Gath pool for competitive swimming could speak to its adequacy for that task.
The point of building great civic facilities is that we can take the “for the price they charge” out of the sentence. Those fees, at most, should pay for upkeep. The ongoing costs of a new facility can be the same or less than an older one.
Finally, great public spaces bring us together. That has value. Less-than-great public spaces are used by those who have no other choice, perpetuating the line between have and have not.
Mike,
Imagine, with home prices and unemployment in Newton at records… and we still can’t afford these things
Wait for the underfunded pension liabilities come home to roost.. its going to be real fun.. more overrides will literally kick the older folks who made Newton what it is today out of their homes…
We are going to need ‘those’ millionaires and large corporations pretty badly..
@Paul Green. With all due respect, I think the plutocratic Democratic Party you are describing is more the product of the period before the 2016 election than it is to what transpired beginning with Bernie Sanders campaign through this last batch of elections in 2018.
During this most recent election, a very large majority of the funding for Democratic candidates came from small and medium sized donations. Act Blue along raised between 2 and 3 billion dollars from donors like myself and other sources of small and medium sized donors also raised prodigious amounts of campaign cash. The preliminary figures indicate that between 6 and 8 million individuals contributed small donations to Democratic candidates. The Republican establishment and the 5 Republican appointed justices who paved the way for unlimited financing by corporations and big donors in the Citizens United case never in their wildest imagination thought the Democrats would be able to pull something like this off. And the number of donors is also more significant than the amount raised. Once people start contributing to campaigns, they get hooked on the process and keep giving. And they are also more likely to get actively involved in the campaigns themselves.
Whatever Bernie Sanders decides to do in the coming months may pale against his surprising ability to raise millions of dollars through small donations. This will be a lasting legacy. Money was never the major problem in Bernie’s campaign. It was dealing with the impossible task of putting together viable statewide organizations to compete with the formidable organizations that the Clinton campaign had spent years building. Bernie won just about all of the caucus states where dedicated bands of activists could dominate with tactical campaigns. They just couldn’t put together the deep strategic campaigns needed to win the big primary states.
Finally, most of the new Democratic Representatives really do not owe that much if anything to the big corporate and celebrity donors that have dominated so much of the past. They really can think more about the public interest.
Michael Singer, targeted, project-based, and voluntary donations are perhaps the most accountable and efficient methods to accomplish a civic goal.
My hypothesis is that people can help both their neighbors and the “truly needy”. Building local community is a noble goal, and we all approach it in different ways. A culture of giving floats all boats. And that’s the beauty of voluntary contributions. Bugek might think the Gath pool is fine, but I’m willing to commit to improving it, and I’ll put effort into finding others to help.
At some point I lose patience with saying “it shouldn’t be this way”. I am willing to do my part to dream, ask why not, and make it happen. I feel I owe it to my kids and my neighbor’s kids. And I don’t think I’m alone.
@Bugek, I agree with you that conditions are likely to worsen. I am merely saying that few donors will sympathize with a city government that promised more to employees than it could afford and overspent on an extravagant high school while other vital buildings were falling apart.
Micheal,
Oh man, that high school…. 🙂
I would be very curious if test scores/graduation rates actually improved since the new building? Would be ironic if the school has started to decline academically…
@Mike Halle – Loved your post and call for more civic engagement.
There is already lots of great stuff that happens in the city only because of generous private donors, both businesses and individuals. Likewise there’s lots of good stuff that happens because of volunteers donating their time.
For both financial contributors and volunteers its a relatively small number that step up over and over again to help. I do think that harnessing just a small amount of new citizen energy and financial support can make big differences … and also lovely small differences. Playground rebuilding, all the festivals and events sponsored throughout the year by Newton Pride, technology and programming for the schools from the Newton Schools Foundation are all example of the city working with private donors to improve the city.
Aside from that there are countless projects and organizations that contribute to life in Newton only with the help of citizen donations of time and money. I’m involved with three ongoing much loved events/projects that only continue due to donations of time and money from citizens and businesses – The Feast of the Falls, the Tour de Newton and the Newton Nomadic Theater.
“if we don’t ask it wont happen” – My next door neighbor dreamed up the idea of having a bocce court in the neighborhood. He stayed at it, talked to everyone in the neighborhood about it, talked to the city about it and just kept pushing. A few weeks ago a crew of neighbors spent a Saturday hammering and hauling and spreading and building. A local group (Upper Falls CDC) paid for the materials. The city DPW helped out with blocking off parking and donating materials. Now we have a great new feature in Upper Falls that will have years of use and bring neighborhood people together for a bit of fun.
@Bugek – sure, recruiting large employers and their employees to donate generously to the city would be great but what really makes things work is everybody getting involved in whatever way they can. There’s not a single citizen in the city who can’t contribute a bit of time and/or money to something big or small. Let’s not abdicate on what we can do and pass the responsibility to some future “large corporations” that may or may not appear.
Frankly, from what I’ve seen, it’s not generally the “large corporations” that tend to be active partners in city affairs and events. It’s virtually always our own locally owned and operated businesses big and small that make things happen. Just in the last week I went to Newton Inspires, an event that was underwritten by local businesses led by Village Bank (as always). The event started with samples of all kinds of free food donated by maybe 10 different locally owned food businesses. This past Friday, our theater held an event once again at Gregorian Rugs. Gregorian Rugs amazing generosity in donating their premises to us for almost 50 nights over 5 years has been the lifeblood of our theater.
@Michael Singer – Pitting one kind of charitable giving against another is a dead end street. There is always “something more deserving of our donation” no matter what you give to. My experience is that the people and organizations who tend to be generous with their time and/or money, give it to a range of causes -some more local, some more global.
@ Jerry Reilly–I am not pitting charities against one another. I am saying that the City of Newton is not a charity. Our democracy gives the City power of taxation, and in return, the City is responsible for maintaining its facilities.
Michael Singer, you’re correct that Newton isn’t a charity. Non-profit mechanisms would need to be established, possibly per-project. That has a side effect of producing more oversight and keeping funds targeted.
Do you have an issue with people donating to the Newton Library Fund? Or donors who helped makes parts of the library possible (or better)?
There *are* people in Newton who are “truly needy” by most anyone’s standards. There are also many more families who are working as hard as they can to stay above water. Or made their own contributions in the past and are living out their older years here.
What’s wrong with neighbors with means helping out their community by strengthening civic institutions?
For a not-insignificantly-sized slice of Newton’s residents, time is a far more precious quantity than money. To see the work that Jerry and countless other volunteers do to make Newton a special place, giving money is about the easiest thing for people who have it to make special times and places possible.
@ Mike Halle–You are right, I should have made my point more clearly. Just like you, we give time and money to public institutions. The library deserves our support. But I think your suggestion that we donate to renovate City Hall is problematic.
@Michael Singer – But I think your suggestion that we donate to renovate City Hall is problematic.. If what you are saying is I Michael would never give to that fund, then fair enough.
If an individual donor or company felt strongly enough that they wanted to contribute directly to help spruce up City Hall why would that be problematic. How is that any different then someone contributing to the Library or the Newton Schools Foundation?
Replacing or supplementing public taxation and spending with voluntary donations from a well-to-do benefactor class that can pick and choose the projects it supports, and expect recognition in return, goes against everything a progressive society stands for.
Jerry and Mike–Absolutely! Please, donate as much money to the City as you can! Happy Thanksgiving!
Michael Singer, one of the reasons I mentioned City Hall is that fixing it up using tax money might otherwise be challenging. It seems like government spending money on itself, which is politically risky. Newton isn’t the only place where this happens.
So, the restrooms are old and horrid (I believe I heard there might be fixes for this problem in the works). The chairs in the meeting rooms are old and ripped. The cafeteria (another meeting room) is run down. Carpeted areas are worn. There are many more problems.
As a citizen, I find these issues disappointing and uncomfortable for those who uses the spaces. I also see how fixing them could be a potential lightning rod for political criticism.
I agree, though, that City Hall might be difficult to address philanthropically without risking conflict of interest, and that taxes should pay for the huge bulk our civic investment.
Michael wrote:
> Replacing or supplementing public taxation and spending with voluntary donations from a well-to-do benefactor class that can pick and choose the projects it supports, and expect recognition in return, goes against everything a progressive society stands for.
Steel baron Andrew Carnegie donated funds to build 2509 Carnegie libraries across the world between 1883 and 1929. In 1919, nearly half of the libraries in the United States were Carnegie libraries. Small towns across America received $10,000 to establish libraries that immediately became one of their most important institutions. Many stand to this day. (facts from Wikipedia).
I understand your point. We should be able to get together and build impressive institutions as a “progressive society”. But why is the limit of people’s contribution to that cause limited to what they are taxed? What we decide people must pay?
It’s not –
Whoops, what a mess. Could somebody please close the 2nd blockquote tag? HTML tags are dangerous in the hands of laymen like me.
Which, by the way, is the reason it’s important to make your donations “unrestricted” or, if you want to be at all specific, as wide open as possible. For example, the donation I just made to a California group specified “disaster relief” but didn’t say which of the wild fires it should go to nor what type of relief (food, shelter, equipment) – they need the flexibility.
It’s also the reason why, in addition to it’s magnitude, Bloomberg’s recent gift to Johns Hopkins was notable – most large donations go to edifices that can be named after the donor for all passers-by to admire (or, in the case of Harvard’s recent ones, to rename the schools).