In any case, this is a neat parlor trick to pull the next time you have a Righty over for dinner. Our guest was stopped cold, and remained docile for the rest of the evening.
…would love to blame the increased tax burden on Mr. Romney, it has a lot more to do with the increase in property values affecting property tax assessments than it does Mitt’s having ignored his executive duty here at home. But it is nice to be reminded that “Taxachusetts” is more myth than reality.
The overall SIZE of state government has shrunk, due in no small part to the bond cap instituted by Weld to redeem our credit rating with Moody’s et al when we were headed to junk bond status (I fully expect Deval to either raise or totally eliminate the voluntary cap – probably quietly – in the name of ‘more local aid’ and increasing SBA and Ch. 90 through bonding). Also, Prop 2 1/2 was passed, which depressed property taxes for many years, until debt exclusions and increased spending through override allowed them to creep up in the last six or so years.
<
p>
Now, our STATE obligation is smaller – because of partial compliance with the 2000 income tax rollback, which was NOTHING to do with the legislature! – but our overall obligation has not significantly decreased. We’re just asked to take the money out of different pockets.
<
p>
As far as Dukakis having lower taxes – well, DUH! He didn’t ASK for the 20% increase in the state tax rate until 1989 at the end of his term! Of COURSE it kicked in in his successor’s term! Weld’s tax rate would have been astronomical without his many cuts to state employee positions (which I ALSO expect Deval to reverse, because we’ve been ‘understaffed’ for so long…)
No matter how you slice it, I continue to find it amazing that Mass. maintains such a high level of service on with a comparatively low tax rate. We have what is almost certainly (based on test scores) the best public lower-education system in the country. We have very expensive but very good healthcare – even for the poor. Our streets are safe.
<
p>
And so forth.
<
p>
Folks across the US make fun of Massachusetts, as if it were some sort of Marxist money-pit hellhole. But in reality, it’s prosperous, educated, humane – and even cost-effective. By all reasonable measures, we seem to be an example to follow – not one to mock.
<
p>
Of course we have our problems – like a legislature that refuses to follow simple law, and a Governor who is cheerleading this behavior. But we’ll get through this.
<
p>
Excelsior!
brittain333says
We “benefit” in a certain sense from the dearth of children and abundance of young people in their 20s and 30s who place little demands for services beyond washing the vomit off of the sidewalk on Saturday nights. Education is a big expense and we’ve outsourced it to Texas and North Carolina along with our young families.
<
p>
States that vote heavily Republican but have large Mormon populations with large families (Utah and Idaho) have much higher taxes than we do. Funny, huh.
…always figured it applied to tolls, fees, maybe taxes on business or something but income tax is awfully easy to figure out: its 5something percent. Same as every other state with an income tax. Local tax is local tax, only tangentially relevant imo.
<
p>
I continue to find it amazing that Mass. maintains such a high level of service on with a comparatively low tax rate. We have what is almost certainly (based on test scores) the best public lower-education system in the country. We have very expensive but very good healthcare – even for the poor. Our streets are safe.
<
p>
Is that what you were saying during the recent election? Or was all this in crisis and it was time for a change?
Is significantly less than most other states with income taxes
trickle-upsays
began during Dukakis 3.
steverinosays
Next you’ll be pointing out that the stock market has consistently done better under Democratic presidents, and that federal spending and deficits rise under Republican rule.
p>
(Plug warning – those links lead to my personal website)
steverinosays
because I like the site.
<
p>
You should link to the many, many reports of superior Democratic stock market performance. They are quite amusing as the Wall Street Republicans try to explain away the, um, elephant in the room.
nopoliticiansays
This is a myth. Increasing property values do not increase the tax levy. Property values are just a mechanism to determine the percentage of the levy that each property pays. Towns are limited to 2.5% of the prior year’s levy, exempting overrides and new construction.
<
p>
This myth gets perpetuated because it’s so plausible; on a micro level, if your property increases in value more than everyone else, you will pay more in taxes. But the others will pay less.
<
p>
There was an article in the Globe last week bemoaning the increase in property taxes, and it implied the same thing, “taxes are up because values are up”. They mentioned something like an 8.5% increase in Lynn. I did some digging as to why taxes increased in Lynn, and it turns out there were several factors.
<
p>
First, there were a number less commercial and industrial properties on the tax rolls. The same money divided by fewer properties means higher taxes for everyone.
<
p>
Second, several of the non-residential categories (industrial and personal property) and apparently the multi-unit residential did not appreciate as much as single-family residential properties. That means that taxes were shifted away from those categories onto single-family residential.
<
p>
Third, some new residential properties added to the tax rolls, they were valued at more than the average residential property, and this bumped up the value of the “average house” value without the rest of the houses actually increasing as much. No one lives in “the average house”, so as the average got bumped, it made the increase in taxes seem higher than it was.
tanmansays
First of all It is interesting to watch some Republicans disguised as Democrats congregate on this forum.
A slick exterior, Touting the so called ideals of a Democrat, all the while pushing the Republican Agenda.
<
p>
This topic on taxes I think was important because it will become a background issue for the next 4 years. Romney had cut many programs and made sure the existing money would be difficult to re-allocate under a new administration. The Republicans are counting on the fear that taxes generate for those in higher office namely, raise taxes kiss your job good-bye. This is an agenda that has taken down many a good Democrat over the years.
If the Democrats don’t raise taxes then the opposition will say there has been zero progress in the admiistration and run on a change to win platform.
<
p>
It is a fact that the statistical tax rate in Mass. has decreased over the last 30 years compared to the growth rate of other states. This does not preclude the fact that society is continually changing, whose structure must be maintained and grown. How do we propose that government allow us the advantages of our advancements without a healthy tax based to operate from.
<
p>
We must remember that taxes represent an Investment in our society. Taxes Are Important. Taxes keep our roads healthy, bring clean water to our door steps, subsidize care for the elderly and sick, provide a base for our security and on and on. Taxes help to pay for Fire departments, Police, Teachers, Early childcare providers. The issue of tax or it’s burden cannot be widdled into a general “taxes are good” or “taxes are bad” category. Taxes are Necessary! Each one of us has an opportunity to participate in such a democracy. The costs that we must share are a small price we must all pay for our economic and social freedoms and conveniences.
<
p>
It seems that those who complain the most about the foundations that help keep this society free are the one’s who can afford to be apart of an alternative. And remember it was the the Social Class who received the largest tax breaks under GWBush not the average tax payer. If taxes must be raised then I say let’s hold our government accountable for the spending. But do not get in the way of the taxes. Taxes represent growth, change, and a thriving local economy. If you buy into the Taxes are bad arguement you are supporting the republican agenda. Give our leaders a break let them get the job of government done. Somebody has to.
<
p>
For Updated News and State Legislature Info
Check Out your local union or state association webpage or log on to http://massaflcio.or…
And DINOs and RINOs, Greens and anyone else who cares to be constructive and engage in useful debate. As to the substance of your post, it seems to me that taxes are not good in themselves, beyond perhaps some very minimal level to act as a practical reminder that we are all in this together, only in what they deliver. The issue is value for money, and I think that is the basic point of Manny’s argument.
tanmansays
The issue is value for money, and I think that is the basic point of Manny’s argument.
<
p>
–I Agree.
<
p>
And DINOs and RINOs
<
p>
–Understood.
<
p>
As to the substance of your post, it seems to me that taxes are not good in themselves
<
p>
–This statement makes no sense. Of course taxes are not bad. Under a healthy democracy sufficient attention should be given to our politicans and the political structure. Those who control our money and the ways that our money is spent need to be scrutinized, rationalized and observed. Lest we waste our personal time, our ability to produce raw contributions to our society by talking about issues that A) We can not change and B) Make little sense to change when the system needs replacement.
garysays
Taxachusetts earned its reputation and it’ll take a long time to rid itself of the name irrepective of all the stats to the contrary.
<
p>
If you look at the total dollars per capita paid, Massachusetts is still in the top 10. This statistic isn’t particularly meaningful, but does explain why Mass has a high level of services–it receives a large tax collection.
<
p>
While I taxes as a function of income are meaningful for state comparibility, I think the more meaningful stat would be per capita by state adjusted by some cost of living index. Then, apply the taxes paid against the cost of living adjusted number per capita income number.
<
p>
Then, you’d have a comparable stat showing the tax burden as a percent of disposible income as opposed to the less meaningful ‘per capita’ income.
<
p>
I’m sure someone’s done that, I just don’t remember seeing it.
The first, which places us at #34, ranks our INCOME tax agaisnt our median income – usually excluding water district fees, fire district fees, excise taxes, meals taxes, etc., with the claim thaty they very too much from town to town to make a valid comparision (for instance, Barnstable has 4 fire depts. and 5 water depts, all which charge different rates – while neighboring Yarmouth has both water and fire service on the property tax bill!).
<
p>
The second, which places us in the top #10, takes ONLY the dollar amount of our taxes – and IGNORES our higher income.
<
p>
We need a systhisis of analysis – our total tax burden on a median basis against our median income – I bet it puts us at about #15. (Gut only, no statistical analysis).
<
p>
Side note – for YEARS, when the price of an ‘average’ home was reported by SHNS, I would berate Michael Norton, telling him that a single multi-million dollar McMansion screwed up the average – why didn’t he report MEDIAN prices? He said that figure wasn’t available. NOW that we have a hosuing crisis, I notice the MEDIAN price is typically reported. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE – on taxes, too!
garysays
We need a systhisis of analysis – our total tax burden on a median basis against our median income – I bet it puts us at about #15. (Gut only, no statistical analysis).
<
p>
That’s probably right for the type of analysis. But, my point is to take it one step farther with a cost of living index.
<
p>
i.e. The guy in Alabama making $100,000, paying out 11% in taxes is keeping a lot more in his pocket than the guy in Massachusetts making $100,000 and paying out 11% in taxes.
nopoliticiansays
You’re absolutely right, but you’re leaving out information so you can prove a flawed point.
<
p>
It is a hell of a lot less likely for you to make $100k in Alabama than in Massachusetts. In fact, in 2000, just 7.6% of the population made $100k or more. In Massachusetts, that number was 17.7%. So you are 2.3 times as likely to earn over $100k here.
<
p>
If you’re going to do an analysis, you can’t conveniently leave out facts to prove your point.
garysays
Hence the “i.e.”
<
p>
I simply saying that a cost of living indexed comparison makes more sense. Is that contentious? I didn’t intend for it to be.
<
p>
Regardless, here ya go.
<
p>
i.e. The guy in Alabama making $30,000, paying out 11% in taxes is keeping a lot more in his pocket than the guy in Massachusetts making $30,000 and paying out 11% in taxes.
nopoliticiansays
Your premise is flawed. You can’t compare two people with equal incomes because your premise is that the same person in Massachusetts making $30k would be making $30k in Alabama. Your argument is invalid because of this flawed premise.
<
p>
How about this: Median income in 2000 in Massachusetts was $50,502. Median income in 2000 in Alabama was $34,135.
<
p>
According to cityrating.com, if you make $50,502 in Boston you need to make $33,334 in Birmingham.
<
p>
So someone making $50,502 in Massachusetts, paying 11% in taxes, is doing about the same as the guy in Alabama who is making $34,135, paying 11%.
<
p>
Now how are those schools in Birmingham…?
garysays
I have no idea how the schools fare in Birmingham?
<
p>
But to the salient point, my analysis isn’t flawed because I haven’t done one. Set up your strawman and knock him down. It isn’t me.
<
p>
I’ve never done, seen, endorsed, criticized, linked to such an analysis that considers median income, median tax rate and cost of living. Do one or find one at your leisure. I’d kinda like to see it.
<
p>
But if, the following statement, that I’ve said several ways is flawed somehow let me know:
<
p>
If one guy makes say $162,500 in Massachusetts, he will have less cash in his pocket, because of the higher cost of living in Massachusetts, than that the guy in Alabama who makes $162,500. Compare FOR EXAMPLE, Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama to say, Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts.
steverinosays
of Massachusetts compared to other states?
<
p>
It sounds like some people are so committed to the urban legend of Taxachusetts they’re willing to mix apples, oranges and llamas, if need be, to make their false point.
<
p>
Sure, it’s more expensive to live here than Alabama. But taxes aren’t the reason why. And the government doesn’t owe you a guaranteed amount of after-tax discretionary income.
garysays
1: There exists a stat of “tax per capita”. It’s not terribly informative, because it ignores the income that the average or medium person earns;
<
p>
2: There exists a stat of “tax as a percent of per capita income”. That’s a more meaningful stat because it recognizes that even though a person pays more actual dollars in taxes, it’s less, as a percent, of his total income.
<
p>
3: I’m suggesting, what IMHO, a more meaningful statistic analysis, that I’ve not seen, that considers total tax paid as a percent of cost of living adjusted income so as to compare (i) tax paid, (ii) as a percent of (ii) a cost-of-living adjusted per capita.
<
p>
Got it?
<
p>
No apples, no oranges, no llamas, no false points, no comment that it is or isn’t more expensive to live here than Alabama, and no conclusion that the gov does or doesn’t owe me after tax discrtionary income. Those points, you’ve imagined or maliciously invented.
nopoliticiansays
Yes, if you normalize incomes and costs of living across states, then this would be a better thing to report. But you can’t say “If you make $100k in Massachusetts you’re worse off than if you make $100k in Alabama”, because the odds of you making $100k in Alabama are about 50% that of you making it in Massachusetts. You almost have to do it on a profession-by-profession basis for it to have any meaning to people.
<
p>
But any such comparisons can still be misleading because of the odds of finding work. How many biotechnical career opportunities are there in Alabama? What good does it make to someone who is in that field to point out to them that the taxes there are lower if the prospects of finding work are close to zero?
<
p>
I did some checking on Alabama taxes. Do you know their state sales tax is 4%, their county sales tax is 2%, and Birmingham’s sales tax is another 2%? And their state income tax, although graduated, has a top rate of 5% that kicks in after $3,000.
<
p>
Maybe a sales tax adjustment is the way to lower property taxes in Massachusetts, by adding a percent or two to the sales tax and devote it to the town it is collected in. It’s not like people are going to flock to CT to avoid a 6% tax because their tax is already 6%.
It simply costs more to live in Massachusetts, for myriad reasons. Going on and on about it – picking new random numbers (that prove nothing) is kind of silly.
<
p>
A person who makes $162,500 is doing very well in Boston. He or she is exorbanantly wealthy in Alabama, there’d be nothing “Mc” about the Mansion they could buy in Alabama.
brittain333says
Because there are plenty of people trying to make it on $30,000 in Boston and Alabama, also $20,000, and they can make a go of it in the South while they can’t do it up here. It’s all well and good to talk about who has more money in his pocket at the end of the day, but the difference in cost of living is going to keep driving people away when not everyone can take advantage of our high income jobs.
p>
Coincidently, using the cost-of-living from [citirating.com citirating.com], the two salaries are nearly identical. i.e. 44K in Boston buys the same as $29K in Birmingham.
<
p>
Apply the per capita tax rate from tax foundation (this step is probably wrong, as we should pro’bly use some median tax rate) you get after tax of:
<
p>
Alabama: 26,661
Mass: 39,727
<
p>
So, the gap is somewhat narrowed by the relative tax rates.
This tends to confirm that income corresponds to cost of living. Which, in turn, tends to support the Tax Foundation’s emphasis of tax burden as a % of income – which, in turn, tends to support Mass. as being not a particularly high-tax state.
For years, Federal salaries are a base; then a Location Multiplier is added. For instance, let’s say you are a $35,000 file clerk for the GSA. If you are posted to Honolulu, you get 1.87 of the base salary, and if you are posted to Topeka, you get .78. They keep this database updated pretty well, as it is their own people who are affected.
<
p>
For YEARS, I have argued that the POVERTY RATE should be amended with the location multiplier; right now, it’s $12,000 +/-, which goes a lot further in Birmingham than Brewster! My Senator just looks puzzle dwhen I’ve broached this. I do not understand why every social service agency in MA isn’t lobbying for this.
geo999says
PP,
Our senator looks puzzled on his best days! 😉
garysays
<
blockquote>Our senator looks puzzled pickled on his best days! 😉
And would push for it strongly. Poverty rates should be region-specific. At the very least, they should be state specific. But, I could make the same argument in Massachusetts – $12,000 will get you a lot further in Western Mass than it would in Greater Boston.
trickle-upsays
Mass. bashers have invested time and money in building the Taxachusetts brand. It sells and works for them whether it is true or not.
<
p>
This is like the demonstrably false meme that Democrats are big spenders and Republicans are fiscally conservative. Yeah, right.
<
p>
Either your guest is unusual or else he suffered a temporary and entirely reversible attack of reality.
The question is how best to deal with people who have had this meme inserted into their brains by Fox News etal. Just writing them off is not constructive in the long term, sadly.
He grew up in a Midwest stronghold of Righty values, and he’s trying to adapt to his new home state. Takes a while.
<
p>
One thing that has been helpful is that, thanks to the Bush administration, almost everyone now realizes that the Right is filled with outright (but charming) liars. I find that good people on the Right are now generally more open to recognizing that the stuff they’re being fed by Rush, Bush, and the rest of that crowd is complete and utter crap.
I find that good people on the Right are now generally more open to recognizing that the stuff they’re being fed by Rush, Bush, and the rest of that crowd is complete and utter crap.
<
p>
…as if the “good people” on the right are a notable oddity, yet still hampered by the inability to develop informed opinions based on a variety of sources, biased and unbiased….
<
p>
Nice.
<
p>
You really think you partake of higher quality feed?
p>
Could you perhaps back up this kind of nonsense rather than merely recite it? I’m sure one can say stuff like that on Red State without attribution, but here, it seems to me, it is just tactless, unconvincing, and dumb not worthy of your intelligence.
bbsays
They have taxes on clothing purchases (7.5% in North Carolina) and large taxes on food purchases. Additionally, everything you do you have to pay a fee for. So in some places yeah, taxes are lower but if you want to eat or buy some clothing or have a house (real estate taxes are through the roof) you are going to pay BIG bucks.
tom-msays
A few years back, I bounced around through seven states when my employer kept transferring me and it boggled my mind how much other states were charging in sales taxes, fees, taxes on food and clothes, local income taxes…stuff I’d taken for granted here.
<
p>
I have found that people who perpetuate the Taxachusetts myth generally fall into one of two categories:
1. They’ve never lived here.
2. They’ve never lived anywhere else.
…would love to blame the increased tax burden on Mr. Romney, it has a lot more to do with the increase in property values affecting property tax assessments than it does Mitt’s having ignored his executive duty here at home. But it is nice to be reminded that “Taxachusetts” is more myth than reality.
The overall SIZE of state government has shrunk, due in no small part to the bond cap instituted by Weld to redeem our credit rating with Moody’s et al when we were headed to junk bond status (I fully expect Deval to either raise or totally eliminate the voluntary cap – probably quietly – in the name of ‘more local aid’ and increasing SBA and Ch. 90 through bonding). Also, Prop 2 1/2 was passed, which depressed property taxes for many years, until debt exclusions and increased spending through override allowed them to creep up in the last six or so years.
<
p>
Now, our STATE obligation is smaller – because of partial compliance with the 2000 income tax rollback, which was NOTHING to do with the legislature! – but our overall obligation has not significantly decreased. We’re just asked to take the money out of different pockets.
<
p>
As far as Dukakis having lower taxes – well, DUH! He didn’t ASK for the 20% increase in the state tax rate until 1989 at the end of his term! Of COURSE it kicked in in his successor’s term! Weld’s tax rate would have been astronomical without his many cuts to state employee positions (which I ALSO expect Deval to reverse, because we’ve been ‘understaffed’ for so long…)
No matter how you slice it, I continue to find it amazing that Mass. maintains such a high level of service on with a comparatively low tax rate. We have what is almost certainly (based on test scores) the best public lower-education system in the country. We have very expensive but very good healthcare – even for the poor. Our streets are safe.
<
p>
And so forth.
<
p>
Folks across the US make fun of Massachusetts, as if it were some sort of Marxist money-pit hellhole. But in reality, it’s prosperous, educated, humane – and even cost-effective. By all reasonable measures, we seem to be an example to follow – not one to mock.
<
p>
Of course we have our problems – like a legislature that refuses to follow simple law, and a Governor who is cheerleading this behavior. But we’ll get through this.
<
p>
Excelsior!
We “benefit” in a certain sense from the dearth of children and abundance of young people in their 20s and 30s who place little demands for services beyond washing the vomit off of the sidewalk on Saturday nights. Education is a big expense and we’ve outsourced it to Texas and North Carolina along with our young families.
<
p>
States that vote heavily Republican but have large Mormon populations with large families (Utah and Idaho) have much higher taxes than we do. Funny, huh.
…always figured it applied to tolls, fees, maybe taxes on business or something but income tax is awfully easy to figure out: its 5something percent. Same as every other state with an income tax. Local tax is local tax, only tangentially relevant imo.
<
p>
<
p>
Is that what you were saying during the recent election? Or was all this in crisis and it was time for a change?
<
p>
Just checkin…
e.g., Romney And Massachusetts Teachers – Mitt Needs A Math Lesson
Is significantly less than most other states with income taxes
began during Dukakis 3.
Next you’ll be pointing out that the stock market has consistently done better under Democratic presidents, and that federal spending and deficits rise under Republican rule.
<
p>
Facts are so unfair.
Do you mean info like:
Democratic vs. Republican Presidents: Economic Prosperity
and
Democratic vs. Republican Presidents: Federal Debt
<
p>
(Plug warning – those links lead to my personal website)
because I like the site.
<
p>
You should link to the many, many reports of superior Democratic stock market performance. They are quite amusing as the Wall Street Republicans try to explain away the, um, elephant in the room.
This is a myth. Increasing property values do not increase the tax levy. Property values are just a mechanism to determine the percentage of the levy that each property pays. Towns are limited to 2.5% of the prior year’s levy, exempting overrides and new construction.
<
p>
This myth gets perpetuated because it’s so plausible; on a micro level, if your property increases in value more than everyone else, you will pay more in taxes. But the others will pay less.
<
p>
There was an article in the Globe last week bemoaning the increase in property taxes, and it implied the same thing, “taxes are up because values are up”. They mentioned something like an 8.5% increase in Lynn. I did some digging as to why taxes increased in Lynn, and it turns out there were several factors.
<
p>
First, there were a number less commercial and industrial properties on the tax rolls. The same money divided by fewer properties means higher taxes for everyone.
<
p>
Second, several of the non-residential categories (industrial and personal property) and apparently the multi-unit residential did not appreciate as much as single-family residential properties. That means that taxes were shifted away from those categories onto single-family residential.
<
p>
Third, some new residential properties added to the tax rolls, they were valued at more than the average residential property, and this bumped up the value of the “average house” value without the rest of the houses actually increasing as much. No one lives in “the average house”, so as the average got bumped, it made the increase in taxes seem higher than it was.
First of all It is interesting to watch some Republicans disguised as Democrats congregate on this forum.
A slick exterior, Touting the so called ideals of a Democrat, all the while pushing the Republican Agenda.
<
p>
This topic on taxes I think was important because it will become a background issue for the next 4 years. Romney had cut many programs and made sure the existing money would be difficult to re-allocate under a new administration. The Republicans are counting on the fear that taxes generate for those in higher office namely, raise taxes kiss your job good-bye. This is an agenda that has taken down many a good Democrat over the years.
If the Democrats don’t raise taxes then the opposition will say there has been zero progress in the admiistration and run on a change to win platform.
<
p>
It is a fact that the statistical tax rate in Mass. has decreased over the last 30 years compared to the growth rate of other states. This does not preclude the fact that society is continually changing, whose structure must be maintained and grown. How do we propose that government allow us the advantages of our advancements without a healthy tax based to operate from.
<
p>
We must remember that taxes represent an Investment in our society. Taxes Are Important. Taxes keep our roads healthy, bring clean water to our door steps, subsidize care for the elderly and sick, provide a base for our security and on and on. Taxes help to pay for Fire departments, Police, Teachers, Early childcare providers. The issue of tax or it’s burden cannot be widdled into a general “taxes are good” or “taxes are bad” category. Taxes are Necessary! Each one of us has an opportunity to participate in such a democracy. The costs that we must share are a small price we must all pay for our economic and social freedoms and conveniences.
<
p>
It seems that those who complain the most about the foundations that help keep this society free are the one’s who can afford to be apart of an alternative. And remember it was the the Social Class who received the largest tax breaks under GWBush not the average tax payer. If taxes must be raised then I say let’s hold our government accountable for the spending. But do not get in the way of the taxes. Taxes represent growth, change, and a thriving local economy. If you buy into the Taxes are bad arguement you are supporting the republican agenda. Give our leaders a break let them get the job of government done. Somebody has to.
<
p>
For Updated News and State Legislature Info
Check Out your local union or state association webpage or log on to http://massaflcio.or…
And DINOs and RINOs, Greens and anyone else who cares to be constructive and engage in useful debate. As to the substance of your post, it seems to me that taxes are not good in themselves, beyond perhaps some very minimal level to act as a practical reminder that we are all in this together, only in what they deliver. The issue is value for money, and I think that is the basic point of Manny’s argument.
The issue is value for money, and I think that is the basic point of Manny’s argument.
<
p>
–I Agree.
<
p>
And DINOs and RINOs
<
p>
–Understood.
<
p>
As to the substance of your post, it seems to me that taxes are not good in themselves
<
p>
–This statement makes no sense. Of course taxes are not bad. Under a healthy democracy sufficient attention should be given to our politicans and the political structure. Those who control our money and the ways that our money is spent need to be scrutinized, rationalized and observed. Lest we waste our personal time, our ability to produce raw contributions to our society by talking about issues that A) We can not change and B) Make little sense to change when the system needs replacement.
Taxachusetts earned its reputation and it’ll take a long time to rid itself of the name irrepective of all the stats to the contrary.
<
p>
If you look at the total dollars per capita paid, Massachusetts is still in the top 10. This statistic isn’t particularly meaningful, but does explain why Mass has a high level of services–it receives a large tax collection.
<
p>
While I taxes as a function of income are meaningful for state comparibility, I think the more meaningful stat would be per capita by state adjusted by some cost of living index. Then, apply the taxes paid against the cost of living adjusted number per capita income number.
<
p>
Then, you’d have a comparable stat showing the tax burden as a percent of disposible income as opposed to the less meaningful ‘per capita’ income.
<
p>
I’m sure someone’s done that, I just don’t remember seeing it.
<
p>
The first, which places us at #34, ranks our INCOME tax agaisnt our median income – usually excluding water district fees, fire district fees, excise taxes, meals taxes, etc., with the claim thaty they very too much from town to town to make a valid comparision (for instance, Barnstable has 4 fire depts. and 5 water depts, all which charge different rates – while neighboring Yarmouth has both water and fire service on the property tax bill!).
<
p>
The second, which places us in the top #10, takes ONLY the dollar amount of our taxes – and IGNORES our higher income.
<
p>
We need a systhisis of analysis – our total tax burden on a median basis against our median income – I bet it puts us at about #15. (Gut only, no statistical analysis).
<
p>
Side note – for YEARS, when the price of an ‘average’ home was reported by SHNS, I would berate Michael Norton, telling him that a single multi-million dollar McMansion screwed up the average – why didn’t he report MEDIAN prices? He said that figure wasn’t available. NOW that we have a hosuing crisis, I notice the MEDIAN price is typically reported. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE – on taxes, too!
<
p>
That’s probably right for the type of analysis. But, my point is to take it one step farther with a cost of living index.
<
p>
i.e. The guy in Alabama making $100,000, paying out 11% in taxes is keeping a lot more in his pocket than the guy in Massachusetts making $100,000 and paying out 11% in taxes.
You’re absolutely right, but you’re leaving out information so you can prove a flawed point.
<
p>
It is a hell of a lot less likely for you to make $100k in Alabama than in Massachusetts. In fact, in 2000, just 7.6% of the population made $100k or more. In Massachusetts, that number was 17.7%. So you are 2.3 times as likely to earn over $100k here.
<
p>
If you’re going to do an analysis, you can’t conveniently leave out facts to prove your point.
Hence the “i.e.”
<
p>
I simply saying that a cost of living indexed comparison makes more sense. Is that contentious? I didn’t intend for it to be.
<
p>
Regardless, here ya go.
<
p>
i.e. The guy in Alabama making $30,000, paying out 11% in taxes is keeping a lot more in his pocket than the guy in Massachusetts making $30,000 and paying out 11% in taxes.
Your premise is flawed. You can’t compare two people with equal incomes because your premise is that the same person in Massachusetts making $30k would be making $30k in Alabama. Your argument is invalid because of this flawed premise.
<
p>
How about this: Median income in 2000 in Massachusetts was $50,502. Median income in 2000 in Alabama was $34,135.
<
p>
According to cityrating.com, if you make $50,502 in Boston you need to make $33,334 in Birmingham.
<
p>
So someone making $50,502 in Massachusetts, paying 11% in taxes, is doing about the same as the guy in Alabama who is making $34,135, paying 11%.
<
p>
Now how are those schools in Birmingham…?
I have no idea how the schools fare in Birmingham?
<
p>
But to the salient point, my analysis isn’t flawed because I haven’t done one. Set up your strawman and knock him down. It isn’t me.
<
p>
I’ve never done, seen, endorsed, criticized, linked to such an analysis that considers median income, median tax rate and cost of living. Do one or find one at your leisure. I’d kinda like to see it.
<
p>
But if, the following statement, that I’ve said several ways is flawed somehow let me know:
<
p>
If one guy makes say $162,500 in Massachusetts, he will have less cash in his pocket, because of the higher cost of living in Massachusetts, than that the guy in Alabama who makes $162,500. Compare FOR EXAMPLE, Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama to say, Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts.
of Massachusetts compared to other states?
<
p>
It sounds like some people are so committed to the urban legend of Taxachusetts they’re willing to mix apples, oranges and llamas, if need be, to make their false point.
<
p>
Sure, it’s more expensive to live here than Alabama. But taxes aren’t the reason why. And the government doesn’t owe you a guaranteed amount of after-tax discretionary income.
1: There exists a stat of “tax per capita”. It’s not terribly informative, because it ignores the income that the average or medium person earns;
<
p>
2: There exists a stat of “tax as a percent of per capita income”. That’s a more meaningful stat because it recognizes that even though a person pays more actual dollars in taxes, it’s less, as a percent, of his total income.
<
p>
3: I’m suggesting, what IMHO, a more meaningful statistic analysis, that I’ve not seen, that considers total tax paid as a percent of cost of living adjusted income so as to compare (i) tax paid, (ii) as a percent of (ii) a cost-of-living adjusted per capita.
<
p>
Got it?
<
p>
No apples, no oranges, no llamas, no false points, no comment that it is or isn’t more expensive to live here than Alabama, and no conclusion that the gov does or doesn’t owe me after tax discrtionary income. Those points, you’ve imagined or maliciously invented.
Yes, if you normalize incomes and costs of living across states, then this would be a better thing to report. But you can’t say “If you make $100k in Massachusetts you’re worse off than if you make $100k in Alabama”, because the odds of you making $100k in Alabama are about 50% that of you making it in Massachusetts. You almost have to do it on a profession-by-profession basis for it to have any meaning to people.
<
p>
But any such comparisons can still be misleading because of the odds of finding work. How many biotechnical career opportunities are there in Alabama? What good does it make to someone who is in that field to point out to them that the taxes there are lower if the prospects of finding work are close to zero?
<
p>
I did some checking on Alabama taxes. Do you know their state sales tax is 4%, their county sales tax is 2%, and Birmingham’s sales tax is another 2%? And their state income tax, although graduated, has a top rate of 5% that kicks in after $3,000.
<
p>
Maybe a sales tax adjustment is the way to lower property taxes in Massachusetts, by adding a percent or two to the sales tax and devote it to the town it is collected in. It’s not like people are going to flock to CT to avoid a 6% tax because their tax is already 6%.
It simply costs more to live in Massachusetts, for myriad reasons. Going on and on about it – picking new random numbers (that prove nothing) is kind of silly.
<
p>
A person who makes $162,500 is doing very well in Boston. He or she is exorbanantly wealthy in Alabama, there’d be nothing “Mc” about the Mansion they could buy in Alabama.
Because there are plenty of people trying to make it on $30,000 in Boston and Alabama, also $20,000, and they can make a go of it in the South while they can’t do it up here. It’s all well and good to talk about who has more money in his pocket at the end of the day, but the difference in cost of living is going to keep driving people away when not everyone can take advantage of our high income jobs.
i.e. (id est) means “that is”
Add latin to the list of things to do someday
That seems like a good way to go – I took a quick look and couldn’t find cost-of-living by state. Can you suggest a site?
<
p>
However, it is likely that cost of living correlates with income, so the Tax foundation’s numbers (by %) are likely to remain correct.
A data point or two:
<
p>
2005, per capita:
Alabama: 29,136
Mass: 44,289
<
p>
Coincidently, using the cost-of-living from [citirating.com citirating.com], the two salaries are nearly identical. i.e. 44K in Boston buys the same as $29K in Birmingham.
<
p>
Apply the per capita tax rate from tax foundation (this step is probably wrong, as we should pro’bly use some median tax rate) you get after tax of:
<
p>
Alabama: 26,661
Mass: 39,727
<
p>
So, the gap is somewhat narrowed by the relative tax rates.
<
p>
What do you think?
This tends to confirm that income corresponds to cost of living. Which, in turn, tends to support the Tax Foundation’s emphasis of tax burden as a % of income – which, in turn, tends to support Mass. as being not a particularly high-tax state.
<
p>
Thanks!
Let’s just agree that truth varies.
For years, Federal salaries are a base; then a Location Multiplier is added. For instance, let’s say you are a $35,000 file clerk for the GSA. If you are posted to Honolulu, you get 1.87 of the base salary, and if you are posted to Topeka, you get .78. They keep this database updated pretty well, as it is their own people who are affected.
<
p>
For YEARS, I have argued that the POVERTY RATE should be amended with the location multiplier; right now, it’s $12,000 +/-, which goes a lot further in Birmingham than Brewster! My Senator just looks puzzle dwhen I’ve broached this. I do not understand why every social service agency in MA isn’t lobbying for this.
PP,
Our senator looks puzzled on his best days! 😉
<
blockquote>Our senator looks
puzzledpickled on his best days! 😉And would push for it strongly. Poverty rates should be region-specific. At the very least, they should be state specific. But, I could make the same argument in Massachusetts – $12,000 will get you a lot further in Western Mass than it would in Greater Boston.
Mass. bashers have invested time and money in building the Taxachusetts brand. It sells and works for them whether it is true or not.
<
p>
This is like the demonstrably false meme that Democrats are big spenders and Republicans are fiscally conservative. Yeah, right.
<
p>
Either your guest is unusual or else he suffered a temporary and entirely reversible attack of reality.
The question is how best to deal with people who have had this meme inserted into their brains by Fox News etal. Just writing them off is not constructive in the long term, sadly.
He grew up in a Midwest stronghold of Righty values, and he’s trying to adapt to his new home state. Takes a while.
<
p>
One thing that has been helpful is that, thanks to the Bush administration, almost everyone now realizes that the Right is filled with outright (but charming) liars. I find that good people on the Right are now generally more open to recognizing that the stuff they’re being fed by Rush, Bush, and the rest of that crowd is complete and utter crap.
<
p>
…as if the “good people” on the right are a notable oddity, yet still hampered by the inability to develop informed opinions based on a variety of sources, biased and unbiased….
<
p>
Nice.
<
p>
You really think you partake of higher quality feed?
News to me.
…but you have to admit, its right there for the inferrin’
<
p>
I could say a similar thing about some good lefties waking up to the lies of Michael Moore and moveon.org and you’d infer the same thing.
In any case, your inferences are not correct.
he wasn’t talking about all people on the right.
<
p>
Some are still on the pap.
“the lies of Michael Moore and moveon.org”
<
p>
Could you perhaps back up this kind of nonsense rather than merely recite it? I’m sure one can say stuff like that on Red State without attribution, but here, it seems to me, it is just tactless, unconvincing, and dumb not worthy of your intelligence.
They have taxes on clothing purchases (7.5% in North Carolina) and large taxes on food purchases. Additionally, everything you do you have to pay a fee for. So in some places yeah, taxes are lower but if you want to eat or buy some clothing or have a house (real estate taxes are through the roof) you are going to pay BIG bucks.
A few years back, I bounced around through seven states when my employer kept transferring me and it boggled my mind how much other states were charging in sales taxes, fees, taxes on food and clothes, local income taxes…stuff I’d taken for granted here.
<
p>
I have found that people who perpetuate the Taxachusetts myth generally fall into one of two categories:
1. They’ve never lived here.
2. They’ve never lived anywhere else.