When did badly imitating existing state law become innovative? And when did taking a tax cut away from working families become a mark of fiscal sobriety?
If you read the daily papers and watch the TV ads, you might believe that Chris Gabrieli has invented a thoughtful way to gradually cut the income tax as state revenues grow. In truth, his tax plan is a lot worse than current state law, because it will end the implementation of a tax cut that benefits working families. If his plan becomes law next year, working families will lose their tax cut in order to give an immediate cut to upper income families.
Gabrieli’s gimmick, which uses one hundred percent of the growth in state revenues, would end a phased-in growth in the personal exemption enacted by the legislature in 2002. So working families will not get their tax cut but the rate reduction, most of which goes to households higher up the income ladder, will move forward.
Deval Patrick briefly mentioned the flaw in the Gabrieli plan when he talked about “Chapter 186” at the end of the Ch. 4 debate on September 13, but only legislators like me, or hard-core tax wonks, would catch the reference. It was good to hear that at least one of the three candidates actually understands that Gabrieli’s plan is bad for working families (full disclosure: I support Deval in this race).
A little history is needed here. The legislature in 2002 delayed the implementation of two tax cuts. The first cut was an expansion of the personal exemption championed by former Senate President Tom Birmingham in 1998. It was one of the most progressive ways possible to cut the income tax, giving equal sized cuts to working families and millionaires. The second cut was the rate reduction that passed by ballot initiative later the same year. Rate reductions give greater benefits to wealthier households.
When the economic meltdown occurred in 2001-2002, the legislature froze implementation of both cuts. It created trigger mechanisms based on the growth in state revenue for the two, first increasing the personal exemption and then gradually reducing the income tax rate. Massachusetts taxpayers have received the benefits of an increase in the personal exemption for each of the past two years and if revenues keep coming in at the current rate, we will get another increase next year and the year after as state revenues grow.
Once the exemption reaches the maximum level voted by the legislature, future growth in state revenues will trigger income tax rate reductions until the rate is 5%.
Gabrieli wants us to believe he is the Goldilocks in this election: “Reilly’s tax cut is too big; Deval’s is too smal; mine is just right.” It seems instead he is Pinocchio. Deval supports the current law that phases in the income tax cut. Gabrieli, trying to be clever, would repeal one of the best pieces of legislative tax policy in the past decade.
Is it possible that Gabrieli does not know what the state law already is? Or is it just a gimmick to mislead the voters of Massachusetts?
You know, this a great example of how BMG is essential reading for a Mass citizen. In four years of reading the papers, I never gathered that the lege put our tax system in this mode with rising exemptions to be followed by lowering rates.
One of the problems with tonight’s one minute debate format, is that it gave a tremendous advantage to content-free slogans that sound good. Deval made the point that Gabrieli’s ideas sound good in theory, but there were some very practical reasons why they didn’t work.
<
p>
The debate was great entertainment, but wouldn’t it be nice if the debate had this kind of depth. Wouldn’t it be great to be able to see if the candidates really understood the tax law, or school finance, or the transportation problems in the Pioneer Valley?
<
p>
Fortunately, we have thoughtful people in state government who have a command of the policy implications behind the candidates’ sound bites. Keep on blogging, Jim!
Since Deval Patrick is against cutting the income tax, does this mean he wants to repeal the built-in give back to which Rep. Marzilli alludes?
<
p>
And why didn’t our esteemed state Treasurer talk of this section of the law, or is Tim Cahill too busy chasing campaign contributions from alcohol beverage venders whom he regulates through the ABCC (like Deval Patrick consultant Doug Rubin’s dad at Ruby Wines)to be concerned about little things like tax law?
I’m not quite sure how Gabrieli has formed his positions (other than reading Deval’s web site–full disclosure: I, too, support Deval Patrick). I do know how Deval works: he immerses himself in the subject and studies all sides of the issue. He knows about c.186 because he’s read the statute (and likely tracked down the little legislative history that is generated by the Legislature on any statute–no bitterness from this lawyer). He did his homework.
<
p>
Diane Patrick has described her husband as the most curious person she has ever met. He asks questions, read articles and reports, and draws on his diverse experience in order to arrive at a position on an issue. That kind of work pays off. It also takes time; more time than somebody who apparently decided to run for governor on a whim (a luxury which can be afforded by someone with vast wealth and the willingness to REPEATEDLY run for office). Deval has put a lot of thought in to his campaign. He takes his positions seriously (although, that does not mean he is blindly wedded to them if he learns of new information justifying a change in that position). Deval has worked hard to get where he is right now, in front. You can’t buy that.
<
p>
Gabrieli probably had never heard of c.186 before Deval mentioned it. I bet he’s having some paid staff member run that info down for him right now.
If you like Patrick more than Gabrieli, fine — but Gabrieli has done a lot for this state and to say that he’s “running for Governor on a whim” is the height of ridiculousness.
<
p>
And while I think all candidates have done their homework, I invite you to read (for example) the interviews of the three candidates in the most recent Boston Business Journal issue. Patrick didn’t even know for how many weeks MA residents can collect insurance benefits, and when he guessed, he was off by several weeks.
<
p>
I could say that Patrick probably has some paid staff member running that info down for him right now, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt since that was one incident (though rather embarrasing, IMO, given the importance of the UI issue). Perhaps you should give Gabrieli the benefit of the doubt as well, even if you disagree with him.
Hi Mr. Marzilli,
I’m not sure it’s a gimmick…seems like you just have a policy difference. Gabs prioritizes “cutting the 5.3%” and you prioritize “growing the exemption.” His gives more to the middle class, yours give more to the working poor. I lean towards your way, but I don’t see Gabs as Pinocchio.
Anyway, if you’ll indulge, I have a question on another matter. There’s been some scattered chatter on BMG on the issue of underfunded pension liability of cities and towns. You a finance guy, I believe – can you speak to the degree of this happening in MA?
…or if not etiquette, at least standard operating procedure … is that when the elected official does write a post, she or he (I am learning to be politically correct heh heh 🙂 will let the discussion ride, and not get into the comments except in rare circumstances.
<
p>
Not to say you shouldn’t ask, or that Rep Marzili won’t answer … I just thought I’d mention the precedent.
<
p>
(imho it is also a mild infraction of blog-etiquette, even with normal folks, to attempt to switch the topic of conversation from that of the original post, although it is permissible if the post has been out there awhile)
At BMG, the only rules we have are our Rules of the Road, to the best of my knowledge. (See About box at left.) I think questions should be encouraged in general, and especially for elected officials. If Rep. Marzili has time, and knows the answer, I imagine he will offer it. If the questions are interesting, people will answer them even if they are off-topic I suppose.
But seriously … this is simply the precedent that I’ve seen done on other blogs. I am not trying to pass it off as a Law or a sanctioned policy of BMG, it’s just the way things tend to happen (and the original question looked slightly wrong to me, like standing on a runway shouting at someone on a plane that had just taken off.)
Shut the elected official off while wackos, misfits, roust-a-bouts, and miscreants take his diary and run all ovet the place with it? What’s that all about Will?
Let the man speak, answer questions, and defend his postion.
<
p>
Where not here to read you Will, but to get a little education and background being offered by the Rep.
If anyone wants to challenge him on his assertions or positions go- ahead.
<
p>
Oh wait. We can’t do that. Because after I knock him he may come back with facts that back up his argument and destroy mine. We can’t have that now, can we?
I take back the tone towards you Will. Damn. I thought you were all for it. My excitement upon seeing this easy target resulted in a panting haste that stole good judgement from the high of knowing I had fish on the reel.
Sheeeeit.
Ya know the fishin’ around this waterin’ hole has been getting pretty dismal lately.
<
p>
I may have to use the ‘n word’ to boil some people up.
NIXON
Someone spelled “loose” and really meant it.
At least he was better president than W.
<
p>
Unless, of course, you were thinking about the Red Sox outfielder.
you mean trot?
I believe the first time I heard about how Chapter 186 works, was at the State budget forum earlier this year organized by Pat Jehlen – at which Jim Marzilli was one of the speakers. I just wanted to put in a plug for Jehlen’s annual budget forum. I learned a lot there. It’s always free and open to the public, so try to go next year!
I had never heard of Chapter 186 so thanks informative if not slight slanted (at least it was self admitted) post.
<
p>
It seems Deval opposes this legislation, given that during the debate he the stated that the tax rollback doesnt lend it self to a formula and his is opposed to rolling back taxes right now. So it seems to me that your Pinocchio analogy is a bit off base.
<
p>
BTW- This does sound like a great piece of legislation. Why has nobody but insiders heard of this before? Who does the legislatures PR? Oh yea, that would be the Herald and Globe.
I too was at the Jehlen budget forum and had the pleasure to hear Rep Marzilli speak. Put simply, he was terrific.
We need more legislators like Marzilli and Jehlen.
<
p>
For those of you with districts represented by the deadwood of the Great and General Court, don’t just sit there and blog. RUN!!!
<
p>
(Of course, at this point, you need to wait until 2008. That gives you time to develop some grass roots in the district.)
Excellent and interesting material.
Rep Marzilli, this is a great,easy-to-follow explaination of Gabrielli’s gimmick. I’ve been wondering since he announced his plan whether it was all that different than the law you folks passed. I hope you will submit this to the Globe, Herald, etc so that it can reach a broader selection of readers.
That’s an interesting Trojan Horse of Legislation.
<
p>
Looks like the benefit (2005 v. 2006) to the working class family AND millionaire alike is $29.15, irrespective of a new Govenor’s action. (i.e. 5.3% multiplied by the change in exemption of $550).
<
p>
So, Representative Marzilli, you say:
<
p>
<
p>
In other words, under a Candidate Reilly or Gabrieli immediate tax cut, the rate will drop from 5.3% to 5.0% BUT the exemption WON’T rise.
<
p>
Uder a Candidate Reilly or Gabrieli plan, the people WON’T receive their additional $29.50, or thereabouts, in 2007 (hmm…maybe 2008), but will receive the benefit of a rate decrease of .3%.
<
p>
Bottom line: if the ‘working family’ in 2008, has taxable income of an amount in excess of $9830 then the family will receive a larger tax cut under the Gabrieli plan as contrasted against existing Chapter 186.
<
p>
Let me repeat that: Those “rich folks” making a stratospheric $9830 dollars per year receive a larger tax decrease under the Reilly or Gabrieli plan than the working families making $9830 per year, or less would have received under existing law.
<
p>
There. My analysis was quick and perhaps a bit too quick. Respectfully, Representative Marzilli, have I mistated anything?
<
p>
I’ll restate again what I’ve typed many times before: The tax cut is a side show. The real issue is entitlements: insurance and pension and post-retiree benefit, and no Democratic candidate is talking about it.
<
p>
Even in last night’s debate the question of “is the 15% contribution by state employees to health insurance too low?” Mr. Gabrielli answered it with “just right.” Mr. Patrick and Mr. Reilly totally dodged it and Mr. Keller dozed off on the switch.
“post retiree” should have read “post employee” or maybe “retiree” or maybe “post retirement”.
<
p>
“post retiree” equals dead I think.
Isn’t DP’s plan to cut property taxes “regressive?”
<
p>
I mean, wouldn’t that only help homeowners, so the 90k income family which owns a home gets a direct cut, but the 40k income family of renters gets whatever rent reduction that the owners pass along to them?
What is a reasonable definition of regressive, and how does it apply to DP’s proposed prop tax reduction?
<
p>
Or, since a Gov obviously doesn’t directly control prop tax, is there really no such thing as DP’s prop tax reduction proposal?
The best case senario is that local aid starts getting ramped up and “reduces the need” for more prop 2 1/2 overrides in those communities passing them.
<
p>
Even with a substantial increase in local aid, most cities and towns would go up the 2 1/2% allowed by law (plus whatever new growth from new construction is).
<
p>
Bottom line: It’s a real stretch to claim he (Deval) has any direct effect on property taxes. Even indirect is tenuous as the local mayors and city councils or town meeting control the local pursestrings.
As much as I’d like to spin an argument that cutting property tax by raising income tax is regressive, in good conscience, I can’t.
<
p>
I’m pretty sure that property taxes are progressive, and argued that point, to no success, in this very boring thread. The common definition of regressive tax is a tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of low-income people than the income of high-income people.
<
p>
So, property tax is pretty progressive: rich folks pay more than poor ones.
<
p>
I’m on board with RM’s opinion that the towns are going to raise taxes regardless of what the Govenor does.
ie, what if your choice was to send $100 million of state aid to cities and towns, so that they could cut property taxes by $100 million, or cut $100 million of state income tax?
<
p>
isn’t that what DP is suggesting?
<
p>
is that regressive?
Well, first assume the Govenor can somehow compel property tax reduction. Big if, but let’s go with it.
<
p>
First, the house (government) takes a cut. Take 100% from income tax and return something less as reduction in property tax reduction.
<
p>
Next, is it regressive? Maybe, but renter complicate this analysis. About 65% of the Mass population is living in owned residences. So, you’re taking a flat tax from 100% of the income tax paying population and returning it to property owners. There’s a decent hypothesis that you’ve got a regressive situation: take equally from everyone and return to the rich homeowners. I see the point. Interesting thought.
State aid is distributed using a somewhat progressive formula based on property value. In my opinion, it should be more progressive, based on demographics. But taking $100m from the income tax and sending it through the state aid formula will result in the money being distributed progressively, more going to cities and towns with lower property value (and therefore less ability to raise local income).
There are two reasons a property tax shouldn’t be called progressive.
<
p>
1) In this state, Proposition 2.5 has encouraged “sorting”, or economic segregation. A town doesn’t have fewer expenses with poorer residents in more modest homes. In fact, a town has greater expenses with more modest homes. That’s why so many towns block low or moderate-income housing. So that means that more expenses are spread across less value. That only jacks up the rate, the amount paid is still relatively static.
<
p>
If there was no such thing as “state aid” that was somewhat progressive, the taxes would be incredibly regressive because the expenses would still exist.
<
p>
Even with this aid there does not appear to be a correlation between income and property taxes. I did a comparison of 1999 median family income to 1999 average single family property tax.
<
p>
For example, Westford residents (median income of $98,272) paid 3.7% of their income in property taxes, while New Bedford residents (median income of $27,569) paid 5.325%. There are examples the other way too — North Adams paid 4.21%, Lincoln paid 9%. But for the most part, when I sort the data by median income, no obvious pattern appears in the “percentage paid” column.
<
p>
2) In order for the property tax to be truly progressive, it would be directly related to income. It isn’t. It is related to the value of your house. That means in order to stay progressive, people have to move.
<
p>
I know that Kerry Healey thinks that older people are overhoused, and in a purely technical sense, they are. But that ignores the emotional and social side of things. People simply don’t want to be forced to move because their income goes down, or worse yet, because their neighborhood is gaining cache and their taxes are skyrocketing.
<
p>
That also means that the tax can be avoided by simply living in a cheaper house. That means that if someone with a $1m income wants to, they can live in a neighborhood of people with $100k incomes. They would pay the same tax based on their house, not on their income.
<
p>
While I think that it is a good thing to have mixing of economic classes, I think that any tax that the rich can avoid doesn’t fall into the category of “progressive”.
I’m not going to be drawn into a regressive v. progressive argument, except to say that I’ve a personal and somewhat researched opinion that, over time, property tax is progressive: rich people pay more than less rich.
<
p>
That said, YMMV.
I don’t think any of the candidates proposals sound 100% reasonable. Patrick wants to lower property taxes. That’s great unless you rent. I do agree with the point that 200 dollars is a drop in the bucket for most families, like Bush giving us our money back to try and curry favor with voters.
<
p>
For me, it amounts to oversight. If there is a way to reduce costs by spending less, then it might help taxpayers in the end to have more efficient infrastructure. Mind you, this doesn’t mean privatization. If one thing the Federal Government has shown us, if business gets involved, the costs are sure to go way up, despite the same old song that it will increase efficiency.
Renters pay property taxes through their rents. When property taxes go up, landlord raise rents. It’s that simple. That’s why Prop 2 1/2 had a rental tax deduction to it.
Costs don’t necessarily increase price; demand (or lack of supply) increases price.
<
p>
Rent inflation in Boston,has only been 12% from 1998 to 2003, an annual increase well under the residential real estate tax increase of 30-40% in the same period.
<
p>
Low rent inflation is principally because of vertical mobility: landlords haven’t been able to raise prices because when rent gets too expensive, people move out and buy. Home ownership in Massachusetts is approaching 65%.
I own a two family and my property taxes have gone up. I have not raised my rents.
<
p>
Why not?
<
p>
1. Supply and demand as Gary stated.
2. I have good tenants.
<
p>
Rents are set based on market demand.
<
p>
lolorb your ratings are meaningless. Do you disagree with Gary’s assertion?
but my rating is a result of his argument that is most specific to Boston and inside the beltway. There’s a whole state out there. The statistics for raised rents do not accurately reflect property tax raises that are killing people with rent increases in Springfield, Pittsfield, Worcester, etc. You rate your way, I’ll rate mine.
That’s all I was asking for! Now I understand your point.
<
p>
And I will continue to rate my way by rating how you rate your way – or something like that.
There’s a economists’ debate waging out there. CPI inflation is low, yet you and I feel that costs are up. Why?
<
p>
It’s because RENT, not House Price is used in the inflator.
RENT inflation has been very, very low.
<
p>
It’s been low in Boston and in Massachusetts and throughout the US, relative to home prices. I’ve pointed you to the 5 year rent inflator for Boston. You think Boston is uniquely low? You’re wrong.
<
p>
I’ll concede that recently (2Q, 2006), rent inflation has reappeared, but since mid 90s to 2005, it’s simply not the case.
So why are rents still so zany compared with most of the country?
Boston rent’s aren’t expensive. At least, they aren’t too expensive.
<
p>
Capital markets are efficient–places ‘compete’ for your money. That is, if you landed here from another planet with some skills and some money, and tried to figure out where to live to make the most of your life, you might find Boston quaint. Maybe you’d find Charleston, West Virginia very scenic also.
<
p>
Then you’d notice that the job in Boston that pays $100K only pays $68K in W. Virginia. Schools aren’t quite as nice, nor are services as generous. More importantly, there are fewer business opportunities in West Virginia, and the business opportunities that do exist in WV yield a lower ROI. Politics are a little funky in Boston, but that’s only a slight annoyance. 😉
<
p>
Now, I don’t know if any of what I just said is spot on, but I do know that the standard of living comparisons between those 2 cities combined with the beginning premise that ‘capital markets are efficient’ tell me that for whatever reason(s) people prefer Boston to Charleston, WV and are willing to pay for that difference.
<
p>
Rent is what it is because tenants are willing to pay it. If it was too expensive, they wouldn’t.
<
p>
I’m almost positive I’d hate Decatur, Illinois. Look how cheap it is Alternatively, San Diego is a pretty happenin’ place.
it’s a BMG maxim that you do not get into an argument about economic statistics with gary.
<
p>
that’s just crazy, son.
You are forgetting about profit. I doubt there are many landlords out their who are not covering their costs, which include real estate taxes. So renters do pay real estate taxes as part of their rent. The market forces affect how much profit landlords can make over and above their costs. Also, the amount of property tax has an effect on the decision by renters whether to buy or rent (the vertical mobility referred to by Gary), so indirectly the level of real estate taxes could have an effect on the demand for rental units.
<
p>
there are some properties that don’t even pay property taxes
The point of the exemption is that it gives relief directly to the lowest income individuals first, and then starts working up – the higher the exemption, the more people get meaningful relief from it, always starting with the lowest wage earners and working up. So this year, to use Gary’s numbers, we use a $550 exemption, and people with incomes up to $9830/yr end up with the equivalent of a 5.0% rate or even lower. Next year, say we have a little more cash in the tills, so we up the exemption and now the equivalent 5.0% or less rate extends up to $17K/yr earners. All the while, the people above that are still paying 5.3%, which saves a lot of revenue that would have been lost if everyone had just paid 5.0%.
Need I explain?
But both meanings are true. Just like labor and management see “wages” from opposite viewpoints.
<
p>
The point is, the exemption makes sense from the limited viewpoint of trying to provide tax relief to the lowest-income individuals (and not otherwise shrink the budget). You probably already knew that, but you didn’t mention it in your post, so I thought I’d toss it in.
I can’t make heads or tails of your analysis. (So I guess it was too quick!) I’d like to understand what you’re saying, since it does seem to me that Marzilli’s point is a really important. Basically, he says this: under current law, as state revenues increase, we increase personal exemptions (which tends to favor low-income people) to a specific ceiling. Once we hit that ceiling, if state revenues are still positive, we start lowering the tax rate according to a set formula until it hits 5.0%.
<
p>
Isn’t that an accurate statement of what ch 186 does? And if so, hasn’t Gabs been caught with his pants down?
You think in words; I think in numbers. That’s the only difference. You’ve summarized it more elequently than I but you haven’t quantified the actual effect.
<
p>
By applying numbers to the analysis, the tax skirmish is much-ado ’bout nothing. It’s the sideshow and they skirt the real financial issue which is entitlements.
<
p>
My implicit objection with Representative Mazilli’s post is 1) the loaded language he used which is, (“working families” “upper income” “scheme”) and 2) his post doesn’t address the very small differences with which we are dealing.
<
p>
The exemption eventually caps out under Chapter 186 at $8800 (it’s currently at $7700, and increased by $550 in 2006 for each joint filer.
<
p>
The increase in 2007 might be the same, might be less, might be zero; it’s hard to imagine the increase being larger than $550.
<
p>
1: So, assume a couple earns taxable income of $9830 in 2007. (or 2008. I’m not sure when a rollback would be effective):
<
p>
Mr. Gabrieli’s plan: That couple saves $29.49
Chapter 186: That couple saves $29.49. So, no difference whatsoever for that couple earning $9830. $9830 is the breakpoint; those earning more save more with a rollback; those earning less save less.
<
p>
2: So, assume a couple earns taxable income of, say, $5000 in 2007:
<
p>
Mr. Gabrieli’s plan: That couple saves $15.00 (.3% x 5000)
Chapter 186: That couple saves $29.49. So, the ‘poor’ couple saves $15 less for the year under Mr. Gabrieli’s plan than under 186.
<
p>
3: 2: Now, assume a couple earns taxable income of, say, $40000 in 2007: (IMHO, $40K is working families. YMMV)
<
p>
Mr. Gabrieli’s plan: That couple saves $120.00
Chapter 186: That couple saves $29.49
<
p>
My summary:
<
p>
Yes, Chapter 186 is more progressive than an immediate rollback and higher earners receive more than the lower earners (cry me a river).
<
p>
The middle class and lower middle class also receive more under Mr. Gabrielli’s plan.
<
p>
ONLY those joint filers making less than $9830 receive more under Chapter 186, and the largest possible benefit to those couple would be to the ones earning an amount precisely equal to the exemption, say, $8250. Under Chapter 186, that couple would pay nothing. Under Mr. Gabrieli’s plan that couple would pay $27.50 for the year.
<
p>
Caveat: I haven’t built in rent deduction, EIC, circuit breaker, SS deduction, dependents, etc…I guess I’m assuming these factors are neutral to the comparison. I’ll mull that one over…
<
p>
So, was Mr. Gabrieli caught with his pants down? Probably. But, he’s aware of it now and it’s easy for him to spin the issue.
<
p>
The diff between Chapter 186 and Mr. Gabrielli’s plan is inconsequential.
isnt the increase (550) only triggered by an increase revenues of (i think) 2.5 % so if there is no increase in revenues no increase in exemption?
You’re assuming throughout that the benefit under Gabrieli’s plan to each family in ’07 (or ’08) is 0.3% of their income. But that’s not true, unless we see a truly astronomical increase in state revenues. What you’re describing, basically, is what would happen under Tom Reilly’s or Kerry Healey’s immediate rollback plan.
<
p>
Even Gabs doesn’t think we’ll get to 5.0 before 2010. There’s actually no way of predicting how quickly the tax rate will fall under his plan, because it depends entirely on revenues.
<
p>
Am I wrong?
historical data is what to use for projections. Gabrieli and his team have done this
<
p> yeah he thinks it will be at 5.0 befor 2010 it’s here
<
p>
If the state’s economy grows at the average rate, then we could cut taxes in 2008 to 5.2 percent in 2009 to 5.1 percent and in 2010 to 5.0 percent, while also pumping $1 billion into new programs and local aid, and reserving $800 million for the rainy day fund
I’ve collapsed the analysis into 1 or 2 years. Chapter 186 is a phase in also and it goes beyond 2008.
<
p>
So, yeah. I think you’re right.
<
p>
With the phase-in triggered by revenue measures, it makes Mr. Gabrieli’s plan, in the short run, even closer to the existing Chapter 186.
<
p>
That still wouldn’t change the outcome that Mr. Gabrieli’s plan is more beneficial, sooner, to those making more than $10K — more benefical to middle class. Mr. Gabrieli’s plan is less progressive than 186, but the difference to low income couples is terribly small.
<
p>
To do the analysis exactly right would take some serious work! And, since you guys only offer minimum wage (to which I’m morally opposed), 🙂 I’ll pass.
our position lines up precisely with yours on this: we will pay you $0 an hour for your analysis. 😉
I don’t believe Gary’s point was to dispute Marzilli’s view with respect to the law, but to point out that Marzilli’s characterization of Gabrieli’s plan as favoring “wealthier” individuals seems contrived given that the “wealthier” individuals (as Gary pointed out) are ones making more than 10k per year.
<
p>
I don’t think this “catches Gabrieli’s with his pants down”. His plan is different. But it does seem to me that given Patrick’s position, he does not favor 186.
Chris also said we need to help municipalities get their benefit costs under control.