The Globe reports today that Wellesley just approved a Prop. 2-1/2 override that bumped everyone’s property tax bill up by a median amount of $292 a year. That money goes to the schools. The town also rejected additional tax hikes that would have prevented two library branches from closing, and would have kept a town recycling center open on Sundays.
The votes were 59-41 for the schools, and 48-52 and 46-54 against the libraries and the recycling center, respectively. Turnout was an impressively high 62% of the town’s registered voters.
Interestingly, the median amount by which Wellesley voters just hiked their own property tax bills is more than the amount (about $200) the “average family” will receive if the income tax is rolled back to 5%. These numbers aren’t really apples to apples, since Wellesley is hardly typical of the whole state, but the point is still valid: cutting the income tax (thereby reducing revenues available for local aid to cities and towns to fund things like schools, and thereby increasing the need for additional property tax overrides) may be the de facto equivalent of giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
Sounds like a talking point to me!
I agree with you generally, David, but once you consider the median income for Wellesley ($113,686), a .3% rollback will save them roughly $341. The median Wellsely household would end up saving $50 a year, even with the override.
But the main point here is that cutting state income tax receipts will simply transfer the burden more on the local communities to come up with the money. A .3% rollback will actually have even more of an impact on the local aid for towns like Wellesley, since foundation-aid communities like Lowell, Fall River, etc. will still recieive similar amounts of local aid while everyone else drops (because of less money in the total available pool).
<
p>
Couple this with the fact that the property tax harms the middle class more than the income tax (because as property value goes up, middle class income is relatively stable…yet the tax bills go up), then one can see the problems with rolling back the income tax.
How many other Prop 2 1/2 overrides have they had to go through since the last rollback? How many since Romney cut local funding? I’m willing to bet there’s been at least 2.
<
p>
Where I’m from, Swampscott, has seen two or three recent Prop 2 1/2 increases. I’m pretty sure the last one sent my mother’s property tax up almost a thousand dollars. The increase the before that was more than three hundred dollars. My Mom’s annual income is half the median Wellesley income.
<
p>
Property taxes are killing families. They’re unprogressive and a real danger to a great many people in this state, from young families trying to move into the best towns for their kid’s sake, to senior citizens on fixed incomes who have lived in the same house for 40 years.
is that there won’t have to any more overrides. But what I’m saying is that, look, a typical override adds a couple hundred bucks to the average family’s property tax bill. If we cut the income tax, odds are good that we’ll have to have even more overrides – maybe one that we wouldn’t have needed had property taxes not been cut. So I’m suggesting that your typical Wellesley family gets hit with $292 from yesterday’s override, saves $341 from the income tax rollback, but then as a result of the rollback Wellesley has to do yet another override that maybe they wouldn’t have had to do but for a reduction in local aid, meaning that the family is hit yet again for, say, another $100. If that’s how it plays out, our average family is actually worse off with the income tax rollback than they were before.
Bailey compares the cost of managed health care for state employees vs. the skyrocketing health care costs of Municipal employees. In summary the local unions are crippling the cities and towns services for their own entitlements. Gosh ,if State Employees can be managed effectively and indirectly keep state taxes under control why can’t the Municipalities do the same.? Overrides are a symptom of poor management.
And I refer you to David Eisenthal, from last year:
<
p>
Hello… the 2 1/2 overrrides that most towns are forced to vote for or against are a direct result of the inability of towns to determine what pool of funds they might receive during the next fiscal year. There is no way to predict, in the budgeting process, whether certain funds available from the state from last year are going to be available for the planning stage in the coming year. I guess, with Mitt in control, the safe assumption would be that funds will decrease.
<
p>
Because of this, it is fiscally irresponsible for any candidate to assert that a rollback of the state income tax will result in savings for anyone. Any dollar removed from the state’s tax revenues will result in a decrease in funding for town/city funding. Each and every town has gone through the painful process of restructuring (not always a bad idea) and reallocation of resources. The problem is that most towns and cities have gone through the process and cannot afford to lose one more cent of funding without dramatically cutting their services to schools, public safety or basic maintenance of the town.
before I am convinced . You need to reference the rules ” cities and towns operate under” “rules established by the state.” Do you know what rules he is talking about ? That makes a big difference in the debate and ,if true , it should be an issue that the candidates should look at before they talk about any type of tax .Also ,Bailey should get his facts straight before taking such an aggresive stance because his story is misleading.
State law requires cities and towns to offer health insurance and sets miniumum premium contributions that cities and towns must make. Court decisions make it clear that any change in insurance programs must be collectively bargained before the change is made. State law mandates that if there is no agreement on a change, then the prior arrangment continues indefinitely until there is a mutual agreement on a change. Operating under these rules, cities and towns find it very difficult to make changes, and the changes that are made are very modest, indeed.
<
p>
None of these rules apply to the state. The Group Insurance Commission, which is not deemed an employer, decides what kind of insurance plans will be offered. The legislature sets the contribution percentages as part of the budget. Neither are subject to collective bargaining.
<
p>
The selectmen in my town brought forward a proposal to file a home rule petition in the legislature that, if passed, would have put health insurance under the direct control of Town Meeting, similar to the way the state deals with health insurance. Our state senator came out against it, saying it was unfair to unions. At least we know which side our senator is on.