Kerry Healeys insistence of rolling back the income tax is starting to make sense to me. According to Boston Business Journal her husband, Seans take home pay in 2005 was about 18 million dollars.
Sean Healey’s 2005 take-home pay of $18.2 million in salary, bonuses and other financial perks made him the second highest paid executive at publicly traded Massachusetts companies that year, according to BBJ research.
In 2002, when she and Mitt took over his pay was a mere 1.9 million dollars. So the tax roll back today would save the Healeys about $54,000 a year , which just happens to be our states median income
Rolling back the tax rate to 5.0 would save the average wage earner about $162.00. What can you buy with $54,000
Please share widely!
$54,000 would probably pay for a few of them, were they given the chance to bid the job.
they were busy on the Healey Mansion.
If so, then certainly she supports the Union label; Patrick just tells you that you should. Walk the walk…
Deval or Grace should pound on this one at the next debate!
Wonder how much a Patrick property tax cut would save on Mr. Patrick’s mansion in Richmond?
I don’t know Richmond real estate but it’s probably less than 10x the typical home value in this state, especially since the land value is prob dirt cheap, it’s all structure.
<
p>
So it would save him less than 10x (prob less than 5x) what your retired fixed income homeowner would save.
<
p>
Mr. Healey on the other hand would save about 54,000/120 =~~ 300x or so more than the typical wageearner under his plan.
<
p>
Property tax is evil. Income tax is at least fair.
that taxes for last year were a little less than 5 grand. Say he cuts them in half hes savin 2500, Where exactly is the Kealy Mansion that is being built?
I’d be surprised if he was paying more than triple the avg prop tax bill in that town. He’s only paying about 3.5x what I am and I live in a tiny 600 sq ft condo in a building of 18 units with flood damage.
the 1.3 million dollar home has a property tax bill of over 25K so Gary………..
Sounds like he already gave himself a tax cut.
million dollar home is the one in Beverly owned my the Healeys
If the property tax is targeted towards middle- and lower-income folks, then Patrick and other wealthy persons wouldn’t save much more if any than most residents.
<
p>
Personal income tax cuts, however, cannot be targeted because of the flat rate. That makes it inevitable that wealthy people make out much better relative to everyone else with an income tax cut, as opposed to a targeted property tax cut.
<
p>
The median house price in Massachusetts is $360,000. It’s middle to lower income folks who can afford to own? Dream on.
<
p>
A promise to cut property tax is a promise to cut taxes for the wealthy.
Of massachusetts. Who are on average more wealthy than the middle class of many other states but have higher costs of living, as evidenced by your housing price.
<
p>
Is everyone you know who owns property wealthy?
<
p>
Someone making 10x the money you do will most likely own a house between 2-4x the value of yours. That’s why the property tax ends up being regressive in real life, although it’s theoretically fair on paper.
Whether progressive or regressive, there’s much diagreement. I’m a ‘progressive’ believer myself (over time higher value property owned correlates strongly to lifetime earnings), but I acknowledge the economists’ debate.
<
p>
Not sure what wealthy is. It’s a fuzzy term. I don’t disagree that a property tax cut would benefit the middle. I do disagree that it would benefit the lower income.
<
p>
No candidate in this race has articulated a plan by which the Govenor can cause the towns to reduce property tax.
In my original reply, I was talking about a potential plan to target property tax cuts based upon total valuation of the property, so (say) properties would receive a cut for all valuation under $500K (or whatever number is best). So my original point was that while you CAN do targeted cuts like this for the property tax, you can’t with the flat-rate state income tax. THIS is why a property tax cut can be structured in a way that primarily helps middle and (some) lower income residents, rather than mainly the rich, as an across-the-board income tax cut does.
<
p>
And I’m not sure about your argument that higher value property correlates strongly to lifetime earnings. While it is true that in the aggregate wealthier people have more (and bigger) properties, the main issue is that the property tax’s year-to-year variance for individuals is based upon an valuation increase in a far less liquid asset than income. For many in the middle-class, their property taxes increase even as their wages stagnate or fall relative to inflation. In has no relation to liquid wealth.
<
p>
That’s where the regressive nature of the tax plays in, and why it would be better for the middle class to focus on this tax rather than the income tax.
every one bought their house at 360k, like my neighbor that is 76 years old thats lived in the same house for over 40 years and spends more on taxes per month than he did on his mortgage. BTW more local aid = less property taxes you know that