In what I believe is the most comprehensive policy statement issued to date by any Lieutenant Governor candidate, Tim Murray has released a proposed “Municipal Bill of Rights” that would significantly recast the relationship between the state and the municipal governments. The focus, not surprisingly, is on the problem that, right now, municipalities must rely very heavily on the regressive property tax to pay for the numerous important and expensive services, such as police, fire, and education, that are funded largely at the local level.
Murray’s proposal contains eight “tenets,” as follows:
Good stuff, and much food for thought. Of course, the big question in any proposal like this is how to pay for the increased state-level spending that will be required, for example, to boost state funding of K-12 education from 38% to 50%. Murray is less than specific on that point, offering only that he would “clos[e] corporate tax loopholes” and generally grow the economy. Nonetheless, a lot of Murray’s proposals are well worth debating. I look forward to seeing similarly extensive proposals on this and other topics from the other candidates.
but he should go beyond it. Give us a concrete plan to find something better than the property tax and he’d have a very good chance of getting my vote.
Everyone campaigns on the generic promise of “securing local aid,” but this is the most comprehensive set of ideas I’ve seen put forth.
<
p>
There still remains a very real question about where the money is supposed to come from, and I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that campaign proposal to come through. I haven’t yet decided who I’ll support for LG, but Murray impressed me with this.
What makes property tax regressive?
<
p>
In many communities, the first $x isn’t counted. If you rent, you aren’t paying property tax*. If you’re rich, you almost certainly live in a more valuable home. Furthermore, while it is neither easy nor cheap, over the long run people can always move.
<
p>
So, how is it that property tax is regressive?
<
p> * directy. Of course, it shows up in your rent, although economic theory would suggest that in the short term it’s effectively a sunk cost and rents can’t change because of it; however, in the long term higher property taxes could drive up demand for apartments while the supply shrinks as landlords discover present value is higher if they simply condo-ize the units.
the exemption is true in some and possibly many communities but it certainly is not true of all including my community. How is it regressive? My next door neighbor is 74, he bought his home in 1967 for 11 k, it is now worth 218 K(for tax purposes) , his taxes are over $2500/ year, or over 200 a month. His tax payments now are greater than his mortgage payments were. He lives off of SS and aa very meager pension.
<
p>
How is it regressive? I have the opportunity to make additional money if I don’t get an adaquate raise He doesn’t.
<
p>
I can look for a higher paying job. He can’t.
<
p>
I can take out some of my equity of my home because I have the meaqns to repay it. He can’t.
<
p>
What he can do is volunteer for the town and rfeceive a small credit towards his tax bill, I am sure if he could he would. Instead he lives a very basic live denying himself even small pleasures so he can pay his tax bill.
and say that seniors have too much housing for their needs.
<
p>
Property taxes are the most regressive. Ask Jim Jeffords about why he finally left the Repug Party.
<
p> He could see in that surplus(remember that surplus we had for about 5 minutes before the Repugs gave it away in tax breaks to millionaires?) a chance to FINALLY fully fund education mandates – especially special education mandates, which really put a huge burden on citiies and towns.
<
p>
Sometimes I try to imagine living in that world:fully funded mandates meaning less burden on cities and towns,seniors enjoying their golden years in homes they’ve lived in their whole lives, children getting as good an education as we can give them without making horrible choices between funding other services such as police and fire and libraries and DPW’s.
<
p> But then I’m confronted with what we have instead:rising property taxes forcing seniors from their homes, choices that pit generations against one another, choices that pit government agencies against one another – a fractured society.
<
p>
We can do better.
<
p>
Start with progressive taxation.
and say that seniors have too much housing for their needs.
<
p>
Property taxes are the most regressive. Ask Jim Jeffords about why he finally left the Repug Party.
<
p> He could see in that surplus(remember that surplus we had for about 5 minutes before the Repugs gave it away in tax breaks to millionaires?) a chance to FINALLY fully fund education mandates – especially special education mandates, which really put a huge burden on citiies and towns.
<
p>
Sometimes I try to imagine living in that world:fully funded mandates meaning less burden on cities and towns,seniors enjoying their golden years in homes they’ve lived in their whole lives, children getting as good an education as we can give them without making horrible choices between funding other services such as police and fire and libraries and DPW’s.
<
p> But then I’m confronted with what we have instead:rising property taxes forcing seniors from their homes, choices that pit generations against one another, choices that pit government agencies against one another – a fractured society.
<
p>
We can do better.
<
p>
Start with progressive taxation.
Property taxes are a tax on wealth, not income.
<
p>
So, if you want to argue that regressive applies to income, then sure… they can be regressive in aggreagte.
<
p>
But, consider my uncle Joe. He won the lottery a few years ago. You know, the lottery, not a scratch off. He’s “rich”.* Let’s say he decides tomorrow to retire and he and his wife live on a fixed income. He’s paying property tax but has no income — oh no! Regressive.
<
p>
Only wait. He’s got a piece of wealth (his home) worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and he has hundreds of thousands in the bank. So you’re suggesting “woe is he”?
<
p>
The poorest people don’t pay property tax. In many communities (those with a rebate on the first $x in value), the next poorest, ie those who own small homes, pay very little in property taxes.
<
p>
I don’t think it’s regressive. I think it taxes the middle class the hardest. But that doesn’t make it regressive. The poor pay virtually no property tax. This is decidedly different than sales tax, lotteries, or the like where the poorest are paying a higher portion of their income (and wealth) toward those services than the rich. In the case of property taxes, the poor pay $0. The rich pay $texas. I think the complaint is that the middle class is paying $ohio instead of $delaware.
<
p>
But is that truely an issue of regressiveness? I remain unconvinced.
<
p> * Did he win $1M? $2M? $5M? I have no idea. I’ve never asked. In any case, he ain’t poor because of it.
I’ve never heard of such a thing.
<
p>
Your uncle Joe is a terrible example because he’s lucky.
<
p>
A better example would be your hypothetical uncle Larry, who retired from his job and his living on a modest pension and social security.
<
p>
His property taxes are going up on his modest three bedroom cape. What should he do? Sell it? Sure, his house is “wealth,” but (forgive me for being sentimental) it’s also “home.”
or more accurately, inequitable, because it taxes people based on something that’s largely out of their control, namely the value of their property.
<
p>
An income tax, however imperfectly, taxes people based on something that is, to an extent, within their control. I make, X dollars and pay a percentage of that in taxes. If I make less, I pay less, if I make more, I pay more.
<
p>
OTOH, I really can’t control the value of my house. In fact, a large factor in determining the value of my home is what other people do with their homes.
<
p>
To use myself as an example, over the past several years, my income has been inconsistent, shall we say. The value of my house has risen, meaning that I’ve had to spend more of my income on taxes.
The relationship between the minicipalities and the state is disfunctional. This is a good start. I wish he had mentioned more non-tax issues, like procurement reform, more flexilibity in structuring health benefits, and more freedom to operate municipal government without micromanagement from the state house.
<
p>
This shows the advantage of a candidate who has actually worked in government.
The cities and towns issues do not regislter with most voters. Just the local officials and the school moms who buy into this.
<
p>
Besides what makes the cities and towns different from everyone else re: budgets and dates and how much. Budget doesn’t work that way.
<
p>
Question.Why do cities and towns have to send fire engines for medical emergencies. I think the cities and towns can do a better job of managing their finances and negotiating the contracts.
<
p>
I agree about the school funding not being 50%, but most of the other stuff is just crying well not realizing the other state budget needs.
<
p>
The cities and towns deserve the same attention others with state budget needs get.
as a matter of fact, I think Murray has deftly cast the local aid issue around property taxes, which have been the motivator for many a revolt (Props 13 and 2 1/2, in particular.)
<
p>
I’m glad Murray has come out in front on this issue. If anyone would know how to deal with it and why it’s important to the state as a whole, it’s the mayor of the state’s second largest city.
<
p>
The GOPpers have done a damn fine job of “cutting taxes” while reaming localities. Localities, which have a stronger say in this state than in many other states, are bound by their constitutional inability to levy certain taxes (income and sales, for example) and often rely heavily on one revenue stream (notoriously, the property tax.)
<
p>
When the GOPpers slash local aid, the cities can do one of two things – raise the property tax or cut jobs. B/c there is a 2 1/2 percent tax rate increase cap, more and more cities are cutting jobs. If there were more aid, the cities could hold the line on property taxes and still provide vital services.
<
p>
So while the GOPpers send us an additional $30 back in the mail, we lose our first responders – fire and police. Why, b/c cities can’t raise property taxes and they can’t levy other taxes… as anyone who owns a business will tell you, the only thing left to do is cut costs.
<
p>
One thing we must improve on is communicating that there are no free lunches — if you want paved roads, drinkable water and fire and police protection, you have to pay in a minimal share. Send that $30 back, unless you’re certain you can pay for your own personal services.
<
p>
If a statewide candidate can come out and actively push this issue (and effectively communicate it) then I say amen. It will win him many more voters than just school moms.
My point is that there is much waste in city and town government.
one can always find examples of waste in any sector, Enron anyone?
<
p>
in most communities, the overwhelming portion of the budget goes to police, fire, public works and education, add in health care and retirement and the rest of the budget is a sliver.
<
p>
cities and towns have had an array of broken promises from the state — 40% of growth revenues (post prop 2 1/2), uncapped lottery revenues, etc. even when they ask for the power to raise their own revenues, the powers that be say no, that’s why it’s important that people like Tim Murray (whom I am supporting and largely for the reason) are running and talking about these important issues.
<
p>
let’s at least discuss them seriously and go beyond the glib statements.
Right Howard.large amount of money to police, fire, education. My simplistic observation that there is no need to send fire engines and firefighters for medical emergencies is an example of the serious waste.
<
p>
How about the schhols the cities and towns build? Yes the state re-imburse much of it, but walk through one of these new schools with an experienced general contractor of commercial property and you will see all the waste and extravagances which weren’t needed. Materials and what forth. High end stuff when not required.
<
p>
Do you really think the state will let the cities and towns go bankrupt. Thank God cities and Towns need cannot raise property taxes carte blanche or implement and create new revenue schemes without legislative approval.
<
p>
Public Safety has waste in it up and down. Now with the terroism overkill they have more money diverted to it for more waste.
<
p>
Most suburbs haver too many police and fire than needed.
There are no where near as many fires today as there were 30 years ago. Because of many reasons. Yet we have more fireman. So we keep them busy. We send them to to medical calls with the fire engine and other forms of false hustle to justify these overly generous contracts. Take a look at the sick time in the contracts.
<
p>
Grow up cities and towns. I would rather see more money go to the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, DSS, many other places that are just as and if not more important then ya little self-centered cry baby wantss.
Depending on the city or town many firemen/women are volunteers, as are some EMS workers . . aka. we don’t payyy them. I have had plenty of HS & college friends who have volunteered. Yes, cities & towns also cover other expenses (gas/insurance/maintenance), and there may not be as many fires since we no longer read by candle light. But, it is important to remember that EMS, fire & police are all first aid trained and titled “first responders.” If there is a situation, and a fire truck happens to be closest to the incident then they will be called to help those people.
<
p>
Simple enough?
<
p>
I am pretty content with our tax dollars going towards maintaining (or increasing, depending on need) the number of first responders on the streets. I don’t consider it a waste. Besides more first responders means more jobs. Isn’t that what Silbert and her supporters are all about? I know that that is something Tim Murray seems to care about.
Once again you believe all the little things that happen with your college friends and now in your little Mayberry applies to the universe.
<
p>
Name a town within Rt 495 that has a volunteer Fire Dept.
After nearly 6 years on a town finance committee, I can tell you there’s very little waste in a municipal budget.
Besides the cost of fuel, what additional costs are associated with sending fire engines to medical emergencies. In my community we are paying the personall weather they are wacthing tv, playing basketball, fighting fires or responding to a medical emergency.
<
p>
Does the insurance on the vehicle go up?
<
p>
Is there that much additional wear and tear on the tires?
<
p>
Does it depreciate faster being out on the road instead of being in a garage?
<
p>
What about the school dads do you think they buy into this?
<
p> What about city and town employees, do you think they might buy into this? What about the unions?
In my community we are paying the personall weather they are wacthing tv, playing basketball, fighting fires or responding to a medical emergency.
<
p>
Not every community is like this. When there is an emergency — real or percieved — some guys have to come out who had time off, or stay on a shift longer than they might have. Result: overtime. So, how much does the cost for compensation go up? I have no idea. But, it’s more than $0.
<
p>
Does the insurance on the vehicle go up?
<
p>
I’d think so. After all, you’re putting more miles on the vehicle. Isn’t that pretty standard — more miles/yr results in higher premiums?
<
p>
Is there that much additional wear and tear on the tires?
<
p>
Not just tires. Oil changes, filters, tires, brakes, transmission, etc. Wear and tear. I’m sure there are numbers on the vehicular cost of operating a fire truck in emergency settings per mile (not counting wages, just cost for the vehicle). I’d bet it’s over $1 per mile.
<
p>
Does it depreciate faster being out on the road instead of being in a garage?
<
p>
If you were choosing between two 1994 Toyota Camrys that were both in working condition and in good physical shape, and one had 50,000 miles and the other had 240,000 miles, which do you think would sell for more money?
Im not suggesting every community is like mine, in matter of fact the reason I brought it up is because of Ernie III’s statement of “cities and towns” not some. So while you and Ernie’s statements may be true for some it is certainly not representative of all the communities.
<
p>
You may think the insurance will go up but I believe you are mistaken. In my business I have 3 vehicles on the road that put on mucho miles. I pay a flat fee per year,my personal vehicle I pay a fee as long as I keep under 15 k per year so unless municpalities have some other type of insurance, or those fire vehicles are packing on the miles I doubt it.
<
p>
$1.00 per mile seems a bit arbitrary. You have to change the oil every so many miles or months, so if you dont put those 3000 miles on in 3 months you have to change the oil anyway. How many miles do you really think get put on these vehicles?
<
p>
The last one is funny!!!!!! Do you really think the fire vehilce puts on almost 4 times as many miles? What do they have for options???? Seriously, that extra 190 k miles is ALOT of trips, id be more concerned at whats going on in the comminuty than the xtra miles.
<
p>
Last question, what would you put as a value of the life they may save by having fire personal present?
I wasn’t arguing against sending the trucks out when there’s an auto accident, I was just taking a shot at answering your questions.
<
p>
The insurance has to go up. If nothing else, more miles results in more accidents involving the trucks — bringing in higher premiums. If you only have a 3 car fleet this may not show up so easily, but for a larger fleet the law of averages catches up.
<
p>
More use of a vehicle results in more wear and tear, and that costs more. Do you really think that’s not the case?
<
p>
As for the numbers used in the last (funny) one, my point wasn’t that fire trucks get used an additional 190k miles. It was a hypothetical example — unless you thought that Toyota Camrys were used to fight fires, this should have been pretty obvious. The point was to emphasize that for two otherwise seemingly equivalent vehicles, the one with more miles on it is worth less, and since they cost the same to purchase new, that means the one with more miles has depreciated more. That was what you were asking about, and that’s what I pointed out.
<
p>
There’s no question that driving the trucks more brings on more cost, and not just diesel fuel. Whether or not those added costs are worth the benefits of helping to save lives is an entirely different question.
does the insurance have to go up? Not conjecture hard facts, please.
<
p>
Yes there is additional wear and tear, it is minimal at best, unless there is some underlying problem.
<
p>
Yeah thats what I think, toyota camrys are used to fight fires or as emergemcy response vehicles. You made a silly argument ands that’s not what I was asking.
Ask yourself this, how many miles is it from one end of your town/city. How many times do they respond in a year? In my community the lomgest distance from one end of town to the other is 5.36 miles. The longest distance (except for the turnpike which we bill the insurance companies) to travel from a fire station is 3.81 miles, round trip 7.62. Imagiune for a moment we had 1000 trips per year ( about 3 a day) that is 7620 additional miles per year. So using your $1 per mile figure that is a whole $7620. With a budget in excess of 36 million, is that wasteful?
<
p>
Yes it is an entirely different question, will you answer it?
Insurance companies don’t insure your car based on frequency of use, though don’t for fire trucks.
<
p>
Depending on the town, I doubt adding medical duty adds much to wear and tear.
<
p>
Depreciation isn’t a factor. Fire trucks are very expensive. Towns pretty much run them into the ground, then use them for parts. There’s no resale value.
<
p>
A brief story:
<
p>
Last year a family member had a severe accident at my home. The ambulance is stationed about 8 miles from my house. The closest fire station is about a mile. I’m glad the firemen got here first.
Nice ideas, but they treat the symptoms of a poor economy, instead of solving the problem itself. Bottom line, we donât have the money to do the things Tim proposes. The best ideas in the world donât mean squat if you canât afford them. It is very difficult to be a local official these days. Itâs just as hard to be a state legislator or a statewide officer. While Iâm glad we have folks who care about the issues Tim outlines, as he clearly does, he fails to address the real problem: our state has a cash flow problem.
<
p>
We all support solid democratic issues. The fact is we canât pay for it without severely cutting other areas, like local aid. If we want significant local aid, itâs got to come from somewhere. Thus, it seems to me that, as Andrea Silbert has said, it all starts with increasing our revenue. Tim’s proposal doesn’t address this most essential part of the equation.
<
p>
⢠The Right to Fair Taxation: Limit Property Taxes by Increasing Local Aid.” Murray calls for restoring local aid to fiscal year 2002 levels and for “establishing a fixed parameter of state revenues directed to local aid,” including possibly mandating that 40% of new state tax revenues go to the municipalities.
<
p>
Based on this idea, 25% of the stateâs budget goes to health care. 40% goes to local aid. The same Mass Taxpayers Foundation report said that Governor Romneyâs 2007 budget focuses on local aid, which makes future affordability a problem That leaves higher education, transportation, debt service etc in a very tenuous position. So, you can buy Murrayâs local aid push (itâs all he knows as a local official), but enjoy those potholes on the highways.
<
p>
⢠“The Right to Expect Fulfillment of Stateâs Obligation to Education: Full Funding for All State Education Mandates.” Murray notes that at present the state funds 38% of K-12 education, well below the 50% promised in the landmark 1993 education reform act. He urges increased funding, and also questions recent changes to the School Building Authority, which had the effect of pulling the rug out from under communities that had projects in the pipeline based on a previous formula.
<
p>
Same point as above â itâs got to come from somewhere. Every 4 years, candidates begin to say âmore funding, more funding, more funding,â but donât exactly say âwe need to cut here to give more to insert what needs more funding here.â School building construction and maintenance policies need serious refurbishment, but fixing a flawed formula is the priority.
<
p>
⢠“The Right of Cities and Towns To Be Heard: Establish Municipal Cabinet in the Administration.” Murray proposes a “municipal cabinet” consisting of representatives of cities and towns across the state, to be chaired by the Lt. Gov.
<
p>
Hope all those legislators supporting Tim are pleased he doesn’t think the representation they provide to their municipalities is getting it done. Maybe Tim can propose a constitutional amendment doing away the legislature and weâll just have local officials meet to decide what they need. Apparently, the House and Senate donât get it done so LG Tim needs to bigfoot them and have his very own group of mayor buddies running the show.
<
p>
⢠“The Right of Cities and Towns to Stable and Adequate Local Aid: Stop the Local Aid Rollercoaster.” Murray calls for the creation of a dedicated “rainy day fund” for municipalities, funded by state tax surpluses earned in good years, to be tapped in lean years to avoid major drop-offs in local aid when state revenues are weak.
<
p>
This is a mini-version of Tom Finneranâs statewide rainy day fund. It makes very good fiscal sense, but I want to know if these funds will come at the cost of the state rainy day fund. What are the rules for tapping these local rainy day funds â what determines a âlean year?â What if, during a lean year, we have a medicaid funding shortfall that will impact vulnerable people across the state but thereâs not enough money in the state rainy day fund b/c it got diverted to a bunch of local rainy day funds?
<
p>
⢠“The Right of Cities and Towns to Receive Timely and Accurate Local Aid and Budget Projections.” This proposal would give cities and towns earlier access to revenue estimates developed at the state level during the budgeting process so that they can better plan for the upcoming fiscal year.
<
p>
Tim is spot on with this one.
<
p>
⢠“The Right to State Cooperation in Solving Municipal Health Coverage and Pension Cost Burdens.” Murray proposes allowing municipalities to set up investment funds (like the pension funds) dedicated to municipal retiree health benefits.
<
p>
I think it makes fiscal sense, but there should be a careful study on the management of public funds. This is difficult stuff. Speaks to my recurring point â budgeting is tough when there just isnât enough money.
<
p>
⢠“The Right of Cities and Towns to Employ Additional Local Revenue Source Options Beyond Current Dependence On The Property Tax.” Here, Murray calls for expanding the revenue options available to cities and towns, including local option meals taxes, hotel taxes, parking taxes, etc. Deval Patrick has made a similar proposal.
<
p>
All of these options â hotel taxes, parking taxes, meals taxes are regressive. So, they will impact folks who can least afford it first. Seems to be counterintuitive to complain about the “regressive property tax,” as Tim does in the next bullet, but fail to call the other taxes he proposes the regressive taxes that they are.
<
p>
⢠“The Right of All Massachusetts Citizens to Demand an Alternative to the Regressive Property Tax.” Murray calls for a task force of business, government, and academic experts to answer “the big question: is there a better way to support local services than the property tax?”
<
p>
There must be. But â this shouldâve been the first point of the plan. Too bad the final bullet is the one that starts to think about the core problem is that our economy doesnât provide the $$$ to cover all that needs to be covered.
<
p>
Until Tim proposes revenue generating ideas, it seems to me that Silbert is the only one not making hollow promises and actually talking about ideas that will help fund the things we need to do in this state.
that cities and towns should not expect or insist on additional local aid because our economy sucks?
<
p>
A big part of the problem has to do with Bush’s tax cuts. It really doesnt matter whose ideas are what until the tax cuts for the rich are reversed we are in trouble.
<
p>
The economy and fixing the economy are more than jobs, jobs and jobs. I am sure you know what happens when one puts all their eggs in one basket.
<
p>
While I may be off on this, it appears Andrea and her supporters are proposing a typical governor candidate would be proposing, I am glad Murray is doing something fresh and new and apparently not being considered by the other candidates.
<
p>
DISCLOSURE
<
p>
I am supporting Reilly, Murray, Galvin,Cahill, Denucci Coakley, McGovern, Augustus, and Joe Early Jr.
You have some well thought out points, but you fall short in the end when you state that Silbert “is the only one not making hollow promises.” First of all, I have yet to see any comprehensive plan from her that actually explains how it is that we will be getting the money to create more jobs in this state. Jobs don’t just fall out of the sky, money needs to be dedicated to creating these jobs. All I hear from Silbert is jobs, jobs, jobs . . .How & Where are these jobs being created? There are alot of unanswered questions.
<
p>
Murray is not putting out “hollow promises.” This Bill of Rights that Murray has introduced seems to be a plan of action – a set of ideas that if acted upon could benefit our local communities greatly. These are not “hollow” ideas they are backed up by the fact that we need to allow cities & towns to use other taxes to increase their own revenues. Cities & Towns provide the basic public services that most people associate with government in general.
<
p>
Murray seems to be tapping into the well known fact (among young people at least) that it doesn’t matter if you can even find a job in this state, because you can’t afford to live here any way. Property taxes play a huge role in why MA has continually lost population. Young people can’t afford to purchase homes & seniors can’t afford to keep homes. Someone commented that the Property tax is not regressive because poorer people rent not own their homes. Lets think rationally here, If I own a triple decker and rent out the apartments, I am going to adjust the cost of rent to the amount I need to payout yearly in taxes. Therefore, high property taxes are reflected in rent prices. We all suffer under the increasing rates of property taxes, whether we rent or own a home.
You’re right that Andrea does talk jobs, but you’re wrong in that she has not said how. The very first time I saw her speak last year she discussed public/private partnershops with key industries such as health care for creating jobs. She cited education and training as a key – For the record, education and training was what the Center for Women and Enterprise used so well to help folks start and grow businesses. She talked about restoring the state agencies that coordinate and cultivate training and business development. Finally, she talked about housing and jobs as two sides of the same coin. She knows we have to address housing costs, which I believe includes property taxes, specifically discussing low cost mortgage programs.
I have heard Silbert speak and she does indeed talk specifics – more so than her website indicates. She does seem to have the substance behind her as Murray does, which should serve her well as this thing moves forward.
<
p>
Interesting fact about Tim’s proposal: a Google News search turns up no media outlet picking up the story. Proof that these kinds of substantive endeavors don’t necessarily mean anything in a down-ballot race.
So she wants to create jobs education programs . . .that will obviously cost money . .you talk about how she will put out programs to help create more jobs, and the re-development of state agencies, BUT I see NO Mention of how she intends to pay for it? . . . .COST anyone??
Hotel taxes don’t seem like they would be regressive, since higher-income people are probably slightly more likely to stay in hotels than lower-income people. On the other hand, they are consumption taxes, and certainly sales taxes are regressive (presumably, if there was a consumption tax on something that only rich people buy, it would not be a consumption tax).
<
p>
What about the idea of imposing a local income tax? This has been talked about in some suburbs, but never (to my knowledge) implemented. Allowing cities and towns to implement local income taxes would not solve the broader economic problems but it would at least make the individual towns’ tax structure more progressive and help both older residents like the ones described above and middle-class families with their kids in the schools. This option might only work, though, in larger cities or towns that have a substantial wealthy population. I think it could be something worth investigating, though.
<
p>
And, for the record, I’m a Patrick delegate and former Goldberg intern.
If my town adopted one, I’d move out–if I could find someone to buy my house.
Why do you think you’d suffer if the property tax was replaced by a local income tax?
Wouldn’t generate that much revenue.
<
p>
Besides, not all communities have hotels.
we once paid 8% on meals, then that was reduced to 5%, same as sales tax. most states, particularly in New England, are higher. a one percent increase on a $10 meal is ten cents. regressive?
seems to me that this has generated some policy discussion, which might lead to an actual Democratic position that might contrast nicely with the criminologists who have “been there” for cities and towns, by “meeting” with local officials.
It’s astonishing, isn’t it – serious policy discussion during a campaign! Kudos to Tim Murray for bringing it to the LG race.