2025 Massachusetts state employee payroll master list: ‘Your Tax Dollars at Work’ 6%

By Joe Dwinell0% Isabelle Friedman0%

1/7/2026, 8:51:51 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Primacy Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Negativity Bias, with Sunk Cost Effect as the most egregious example at 11.9% saturation with 20 hits. Analysis detected 93 faulty-reasoning hits from 168 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.4% and a BS Rank of 6% (18,908 of 20,061 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.30% of the article peer group.

The Herald is back for the 19th year of the “Your Tax Dollars at Work” payroll and database rolling report. 
Check back here for all our data-driven reporting. 
And, here’s what we reported first (below). 
Both UMass and State Police databases are posted separately. 
To search this database, click the magnifying glass icon (at right) and enter names and more. 
Use the scroll bar at the bottom to move the data over to the right to sort by highest to lowest. 
Send any tips or questions to joed@bostonherald.com. 
* Top 1,000 Massachusetts public payroll earners 
* Boston’s city payroll for 2025 
* $6.6B pension payroll for 2025 
* Top Massachusetts state employee earners in 2025 
* UMass complete 2025 payroll 
* Massachusetts State Police 2025 payroll 
* Gov. 
Maura Healey’s 2025 office payroll 
* Massachusetts governor races to reclaim buyout from fired aide in cocaine case 
* Last year's “Your Tax Dollars at Work” main page 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
7.7%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
7.1%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
11.9%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
7.7%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
11.9%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
4.8%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
4.2%

168 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.