The rollback stands to save the average family between $200 and $300 per year, so about $4.50 a week. The property tax for the average family has gone up $910 in the last six years. So the rollback will be great for helping those families pay off a quarter of their property taxes. Bear in mind also that property taxes hit the elderly and people on fixed incomes hardest. These are the people most likely to need public assistance if the cost of living keeps rising, putting a further toll on state and local budgets. Still Going the Wrong Direction. Not too many Results to be had.
And Patricks plan may be the only way that taxes get cut at all. Again, rolling back the income tax is simply going to short us on necessary budget items. The money will have to come from somewhere, meaning it is likely to get shifted to – wait for it – local property taxes.
So we have two options:
Cut 2 Taxes: Fund cities and towns -> get schools, roads, and safety we need -> cut property taxes and fees -> lower the cost of living -> attract jobs and residents -> boost the economy -> rollback income tax(?) OR
Cut 1 Tax: Make immediate or gradual cuts to the income tax -> drain the treasury and Rainy Day Fund to pay for them -> further deplete local aid -> raise property taxes and local fees
So yes, Mr. Reilly, Patrick really is for it all. For helping cities and towns. For relieving the pressure on property taxes and local fees. For lowering the cost of living. For attracting jobs and people to Massachusetts.
Not merely for a politically expedient rollback.
The first election I ever voted in was when Jim Gilmore ran on the No Car Tax platform and became Governor of Virginia in 97. He drove us, no pun intended, straight into economic oblivion, and only managed to shift around the car tax burden it is now paid through 30% municipal taxes, with the remaining 70% subsidized by state taxes. Dont believe the hype, and when the general rolls around, dont let Healey and her gimmickry kick us around on taxes.