There’s been a lot of analysis sofar, and a lot of heat generated so far. But what is the debate over taxes really all about? Is it really about finding $243 million dollars in waste and giving that money back to the taxpayers?
A Boston Globe poll published Aug. 27 found that 57 percent of likely Democratic voters surveyed supported the rollback to 5 percent. The figure among Republicans is undoubtedly higher.
Is this debate really about respecting the will of the voters, or the whim of potential voters?
The next governor will face a huge challenge in making our healthcare system work. Do we really want to starve the state of funds to do that? Local aid is critical to the health of our commonwealth, do we really want to starve our state of the funds to help out?
What are our goals? What’s it really all about?
For most candidates it is easy to be for the rollback, it makes for a nice three second sound bit. “My opponent is against lowering taxes.” Deval Patrick has stood by his guns on the rollback issue but this will end up costing him in the long run. The Globe numbers you cite must scare the daylights out of Patrick and his brain trust. I think the rollback will hurt our government more than it will help the taxpayers, but this is a dangerous position to take if you want to get elected.
<
p>
By the way, isn’t the charitable tax deduction a good thing? Doesn’t it encourage charitable donations? I can see the commercial now. The parking lot is deserted. Weeds are sprouting from numerous cracks in the pavement. Litter is blowing in the wind. Slowly pan to the decrepit building with boarded up windows and peeling paint. The sign over the chained door reads, Home for Little Wanderers. “My opponent is even against a tax deduction for charitable contributions!”
Personally, I voted against the tax roll back but the simple fact is that the majority of voters voted for the roll back. Patrick’s position of ignoring the will of the voters could prove disasterous for Democrats if he was the nominee. Patrick’s comment that “I think the rollback will hurt our government more than it will help the taxpayers” smacks of a millionaire’s arrogance, is frankly somewhat out of touch and one of the reasons that democrats have lost the corner office to republicans for the last 16 years. As was pointed out in today’s Boston Globe, a Globe poll published Aug. 27 found that 57 percent of likely Democratic voters surveyed supported the rollback to 5 percent. The figure among Republicans is undoubtedly higher. Gabrieli’s approach is responsible while it also takes into account the will of the voters. “Christopher F. Gabrieli wants to cut the state income tax gradually by diverting a portion of state tax revenue when the economy is growing. Democrat Deval L. Patrick opposes an income tax rollback….
<
p>
The Globe consulted leading budget specialists to comment on the Democratic tax plans and Gabrieli’s tax plan was viewed most favorably. “Widmer gave Gabrieli’s proposed tax rollback a better review (than Reilly’s plan). Gabrieli calls for a gradual rollback of the tax rate if tax revenues increase substantially — more than the rate of inflation. Under his plan, Gabrieli would apply 40 percent of the revenue above inflation to a tax cut.”
<
p>
It's a very sensible concept," said Widmer, who is not backing any candidate .It provides a hedge against a recession so that if tax revenues did not rise at the rate of inflation, there would be no tax cut.”<
p>
Gabrieli’s tax plan is only one of the reasons that Gabrieli will be the strongest democrat to face kerry Healey in November.
<
p>
Are you putting words in Deval Patrick’s mouth? I never heard or saw him say that – if he did, please cite a source.
<
p>
Patrick’s position is that the rollback will hurt taxpayers. Partly through cuts to local aid forcing more property tax increases.
I wonder where this quote comes from? I hope greencape comes up with a source so we can get some context.
That’s a verbatim report from the Globe, written by Andrea Estes.
I can’t find that statement or portions of that statement in an exact phrase search, and today’s Estes column quotes Patrick as saying this:
<
p>
<
p>
If you can help point to a date or something, that would help.
I’m glad Deval Patrick isn’t my mayor. I think Reilly talking about cuting waste is better then Patrick’s raising taxes. Just think of the waste in the Governors office alone. Just in cars to go to the big dig for photo’s.
it’s the blue words in my post that say Boston Globe. If you click on them, it takes you right to the article in which these comments and assessments were made. I can’t believe so many experienced bloggers are confused or is it really your candidate’s position that has you so dismayed and confused. Additionally, so as to avoid any such confusion, I put the entire statement in quotation marks.
in question. The following:
<
p>
<
p>
does not appear in the article you linked to in today’s Globe.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/09/03/tax_cut_campaign_proposals_under_fire/
<
p>
It is the last paragraph of the seventh sentence. If you cannot see it, then you should probably update your browser.
<
p>
This is not a direct quote from Patrick, but rather a summation of his position. You may or may not think it inaccurate, but it’s spot on in my opinion.
I’m thinking that must by seventh paragraph, last sentence, which reads–as I’ve already posted here–
<
p>
<
p>
The “summation” you mention here from the Globe article bears absolutely no resemblance to this description of Patrick’s position:
<
p>
<
p>
The point is moot now, anyway, as this statement was actually written by a poster here, Herakles, and has nothing to do with the Globe article that is linked.
<
p>
which was actually just something Herkales said, not the candidate. I think that’s where the confusion on Cos’s part lies.
Regardless if it’s a direct quote, it’s an accurate statement of Mr. Patrick’s tax policy, no?
As far as the quote, I think greencape misread the original post and misatributed it to Deval.
<
p>
And as far as Deval’s tax policy, it’s that all the rhetorical action of cutting income tax is just shifting the burden to local communities, and not actually doing anything to improve the value of the deal. You have to stabilize and invest before you can start giving away money, reinvest the profits instead of just giving it all back as dividends.
<
p>
So the tax policy is: stop the fiscal shell game, reinvest to grow the economy, then talk about rolling back income taxes.
You are exactly right. The words are those of Hericles, not Deval Patrick.
You wrote,
Patrick’s comment that “I think the rollback will hurt our government more than it will help the taxpayers” smacks of a millionaire’s arrogance
… and if Patrick had actually said that, then perhaps it would. But as far as I can tell, you were putting words in his mouth.
<
p>
Patrick’s actual position is that we need to afford the Government we demand, and if we roll back the income tax, we’ll end up doing it with more property taxes, which is a worse burden because it’s not progressive. Property taxes can force people out of their homes. Income taxes, by definition, are taxes people can afford to pay. So replacing income tax revenue with property tax revenue hurts taxpayers.
<
p>
Patrick’s position is the truth. Taxpayers demand enough government that we can’t afford it on a 5.0% income tax or even a 5.3% income tax, and property taxes are making up the difference. No matter how much Reilly talks about cutting waste (Patrick talks about it too), the fact is that if we roll back the income tax, we’ll pay for it.
<
p>
You may disagree with my assessment, or Patrick’s. But that’s no reason to put words in his mouth to make him sound bad, and explain it away by claiming the meaning is the same – it’s not.
First of all, the only person putting words in Patrick’s mouth was a Globe staffwriter I believe. As I’ve said before (repeatedly), Deval has said very little on the rollback, and what he has said doesn’t give me much hope.
<
p>
And secondly, we’re playing real 3-card monte with the idea of “truth”. As much as I like direct democracy, the greatest problem with it is that referendum results can lead to government being demanded to do contradictory things. Califronia is the best example of this, where tax rates are set by voters almost below what is needed to fund the services they also demand.
<
p>
The voters where crystal clear on the income tax rate — they voted for 5.0%, would do so again, and nearly voted to kill the entire income tax 4 years ago. Now, you’re welcome to claim that “taxpayers demand enough government that we can’t afford it on a 5.0% income tax” but that is much, much harder to prove. Voters have approved at best some broad outlines of government policy, but I’m sure you could find plenty of savings in programs that were never mentioned in referendum.
<
p>
In so far as voters have spoken with a clear voice on this issue — and I cede that they haven’t — they have expressed a desire to cut taxes. Deval is welcome to stand against the voters’ will, but it comes at a cost in this state.
Now, you’re welcome to claim that “taxpayers demand enough government that we can’t afford it on a 5.0% income tax” but that is much, much harder to prove.
<
p>
It’s not harder to prove, it’s plain reality. Look at what we’re paying for, look at the budget.
<
p>
You may be referring to the disconnect in voters’ thinking. In general, they want services, but don’t want to pay taxes. If you offer, as a candidate, to cut taxes, voters like it. If you try to cut services, they hate it. If you offer services, they like it. If you try to raise taxes, they don’t.
<
p>
However, over time, we reach an equilibrium. And it’s absolutely obvious that the level of government voters demand, is more than we can afford on 5.3% income tax – from the simple fact that we’ve never been able to afford it on just that. We have high property taxes all over the state making up the difference. If voters weren’t so committed to the level of government we need those taxes to pay for, those taxes would be gone by now, because voters sure don’t want to pay the taxes.
<
p>
And so the simple fact is, if we roll back the income tax, the result will be more pressure on property taxes, and if we raise the income tax, the result will be less pressure on property taxes. That’s not what’s on most voters’ minds, but it’s what actually happens. Ergo, when you offer to “cut taxes” in the form of an income tax rollback, it may sound good, but what it really means is shifting the pain onto property taxes, which will hurt the taxpayers. We need a candidate who will say that rolling back the income tax will hurt taxpayers. Candidates who just say “I’ll cut your taxes” and support the rollback, are selling a painful mirage.
<
p>
You can argue about whether that mirage is convincing as a campaign message, but that’s another matter. That’s pure politics, not policy.
So if the misquote above had said instead, “I think the rollback will hurt our taxpayers more than it will help the taxpayers,” it would have been a more accurate reflection of reality and also of Deval Patrick’s position?
greencape, Your fabricated quote from Patrick is a very pathetic LIE. Mr. Patrick said no such thing.