When Mitt Romney proposed something that ultimately would result in businesses paying higher taxes, it was described as “closing corporate loopholes” by his fellow conservatives. The Springfield Republican describes the same act as “imposing new taxes on the telecommunications industry” — when the reality is that the telecommunications industry has a antiquated exemption granted to it in 1915 exempting property taxes for their poles and wires, an exemption not granted to electric or cable companies. These companies even made paper corporate transfers to Bermuda in 2005, resulting in about a $180 per household tax increase in Boston alone because those companies now avoid paying their taxes.
Will the public side with companies that incorporated in Bermuda, sticking homeowners with $180 a year more in property taxes? Does the public think that a loophole provided in 1915 to encourage the growth of the then-nascent telephone industry is still appropriate today? I doubt it.
Patrick is also proposing giving cities and towns the ability to add to the meals and hotel taxes. The message that the anti-tax crowd will scream is “Deval Patrick is raising taxes”. The message we need to scream back is “Deval Patrick is giving your town the ability to power to get its revenue from something other than your property taxes”.
Patrick’s vision will not go through if the masses buy into the “your taxes are being raised” frame. We have been conditioned to knee-jerk against any tax increase, even ones that don’t affect us materially. An extra $1 on a $50 meal isn’t going to stop people from dining out, but the collective revenue that a city can attain from such an option could put more cops on the streets safeguarding you when you’re dining out. That is the investment that we must highlight.
We can’t sit back on this one. Special interests will be whipping up anti-tax sentiment, we must get the message out.
…but giving towns the power to levy new taxes upon themselves isn’t exactly what the towns had in mind for property tax relief.
<
p>
Speaking of antiquated tax burdens – why does the state get local meals taxes anyway? They don’t pay for health inspectors, licenses, etc. Why not let towns retain 1% of the existing 5% as a new local aid boost?
If all the costs of keeping restaurants clean and sanitary are paid for by cities and towns then cities and towns should keep 100% of the meals taxes and, it is my information, do keep- in most other states.
<
p>
Similarly, universities and colleges should keep the tuition their students pay.
<
p>
Indigent fees charged to litigants who cannot afford counsel should go to the line item that pays for court appointed counsel.
<
p>
Why does this money vanish into the general fund when it is – or should be – a user fee that helps pay for a service?
…I am enough of a realist to know that the Lege isn’t going to just relinquish that meals tax money without a struggle. That’s why I asked for 1%.
<
p>
Notice how DiMasi is cool to even giving towns enough autonomy to raise their OWN taxes without playing ‘Please, Mother, May I’ up on Bacon Hill? (I’m trying to be good and not say Boston…)
<
p>
One of the most difficult bills I ever worked on was getting a change in a town from 3 cemetary commissioners to 5. Took 4 years.
<
p>
That is a sad story, and it is relevant to ‘what is wrong’ no question.
You don’t seem to believe that the local people are capable of decision making, do you? Do you honestly believe that if your town was given more revenue in the way of meals tax revenue, that it would either start building gold-plated fountains at city hall or would start giving city employees cash bonuses?
<
p>
Do you dispute the figures (1) (2) (3) (Excel spreadsheets courtesy of the state) that show that when there are state aid cuts and freezes, that less property tax revenue is “left on the table” (in the form of a town not taxing up to its levy limit), and that when more state aid becomes available, that local taxes aren’t hit on as much?
<
p>
Do you disagree that if cities and towns were allowed to diversify their revenue streams, raising revenue by their strengths rather than to one single standard, that there would be less need for subsidization?
It’s the Legislature that doesn’t.
It went from “I want to help the towns to lower property taxes” to “imperial governor tells towns to go raise your own taxes.. and pay me tribute” all in less than 2 months.
Want information on this? Go to: http://www.massbudge…
<
p>
NO NEW TAXES – REPEAL THE RECKLESS AND HARMFUL TAX CUTS !!!
I read the article, they assert there were cuts – but where? Question 4 to repeal the temporary income tax hike wasn’t on the ballot until 2000. What are these reckless cuts referred to?
My source for the tax cuts from the 1990s amounting to 3.7 billion a year [curent value of those cuts] was Noah Berger, of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. The same number is used here http://www.massbudge… I did see Noah Berger do a power point where these were all listed. I don’t have that information on this computer [laptop]. I hope this helps. I will try and find a good list of what I remember Noah Berger demonstrating as to the extent, nature and impact of these cuts and the structural deficit created by them.
There was one year – 1998, 1999? – when every Mass. resident received a one-time tax refund because we had collected too much money! The Rainy Day fund (which Finneran invented rather than cut taxes back to the promised 5% earlier in the 1990’s) and the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund were at full funding. There was literally no place for the extra money to go, so the state quietly increased the personal exemption that one year rather than announce it had taken in too much. They also INCREASED the ceiling on both the Rainy Day and UI funds to cope with future overages.
<
p>
This is why I am sceptical of stories of MASSACHUSETTS tax cuts in the 1990’s. Federal – OK, but nothing to do with the Mass. tax rate. Again, I read the link and the story, and while he asserts they were made, he does not enumerate them anywhere, like saying, We aboilished excise tax, or something.
http://www.massbudge…
<
p>
Just go look.
<
p>
That is separate from the fact that no one can sneeze without permission in local government. Home rule petitions to do anything, the only state with a separate line item for each, court, etc.
<
p>
I wonder what all that micro-management COSTS??
where to get the report http://www.urban.org…
And I remember most of these decisions. Most of them are excellent.
<
p>
Just a few of em…
<
p>
3 Estate tax reform.. stopped the excessive flow of elderly to states like Florida (who have no estate tax at all)
<
p>
6 Head of Household.. helped only single parents
<
p>
8 Lowered taxes on only the poor
<
p>
9 Finally ended the “day trader” scourge that was harming the working poor (encouraged long term investing rather than short-term profit taking)
<
p>
12 Tuition deduction that only applies to the poor
<
p>
23 Allow school teacher retirement plans to be tax deferred like everyone else’s
<
p>
31 Circuit breaker tax credit for poor elderly
<
p>
37 Increase in rental deduction makes it cheaper for workers to live in Massachusetts
<
p>
41 Charitable deduction for poor was helping out local charities and allowed regular working people to get a deduction for charitable contributions.
<
p>
44 Is a lie on the part of the presenter, because 2003 never got its final tax rollback (but, on the other hand, has kept the legislature at bay for another 4 years).
<
p>
Looks like a lot of good liberal causes here.
…taxes have been on the table for Patrick since day one. It was part of his campaign platform so nothing happened all of a sudden and moreover I don’t recall reading or hearing any indication that the local option taxes will end the effort to ease the burden on towns. I see it as a first step not a final effort.
<
p>
trip.. fall.
To allow towns to take the pressure off the property tax as the only source of revenue?
<
p>
And also, he’s not “telling” towns to do anything-he’s giving them the power to do something.
It won’t be long until its
“You won’t get that additional local aid unless you first raise your local taxes to show you’re doing your fair share.”
<
p>
Sort of like the “local option” drinking age and alcohol-level that the federal govt allow us to set. Oh, but if we don’t meet their levels we lose transportation funds.
<
p>
Same thing with seat belts, right?
<
p>
If they want to open it up for local towns to set these kinds of taxes.. thats fine. Don’t collect it for us and then give it back. Don’t take a cut… tying it to some other non-related program. Make it constitutionally illegal for the state to base any redistribution of state aid funds to the towns based on how much they sacrifice for themselves.
Perhaps we could call it a tax “surge.”
I got to interview City Manager Bernie Lynch today on WUML, and he framed it thus: we in MA have one of the most restrictive local-tax structures in the country…Prop 2 1/2 makes it such that local municipalities cannot have the flexibility to take it on the chin every time the legislature or the governor (previous ones anyway) cut the Local Aid funding.
<
p>
The local tax levy for meals amounts to what – up to 2 cents on the dollar – but could really help local governments in freefall. And it is just that. An option. No one is forcing a local government to levy the tax.
Local municipalities absolutely can have the flexibility to “take it on the chin”.
<
p>
They just have to ask their citizens first.
<
p>
That’s how Prop 2-1/2 was designed.
<
p>
Its just that all those greedy, selfish taxpayers (trying to pay their rents and heat bills) keep taking the opportunity to say “NO”.
<
p>
And then, of course, demanding that the state cough up more in local aid. If people want the services (and they do), the money has to come from somewhere.
Proposition 2.5 may work in a small, homogenous community with a strong identity (usually centered around education), but it fails miserably in large, diverse communities. Why? Because a problem is often not the problem of 50% of the population. Crime up? “Not in my neighborhood, I won’t vote for it”. Schools need upgrading? “My kids left the system years ago”. Streets need paving? “Unless it’s my street, I won’t vote for it”.
In a post on my blog a few weeks ago, I talked about the overarching frames people wanted for health care. These were identified by nationally respected polling/analysis firms with focus groups of “regular” Americans. I believe the same is true for taxes.
<
p>
· People want rules, not regulations.
<
p>
· People want guarantees not requirements
<
p>
So in extending the discussion to taxes, I would suggest that the frame is that government’s role is to enforce the rules so they are fair – government is looking out for us. NOT imposing but protecting. Shorthand, government as cop.
<
p>
Applied to the consolidated reporting proposal identified in the Globe article (2/16) I would suggest that Deval frame the issue not as taxing but as fair counting. He could say something like this “I believe that 10 dollars is 10 dollars, whether you do business in only in Massachusetts or if you do business across the nation. As Governor I want people in Massachusetts to make money, to innovative, to profit. But it is also my responsibility to make sure that if you make money in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, whether you are a person or a corporation – that any revenue be counted equally here. We can no longer let some businesses hide their money in other states or nations. 10 dollars is 10 dollars, we all learned that in 1st grade.