Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Patrick proposes plan to create property tax “circuit breaker” and close corporate tax loopholes

February 22, 2007 By David

[UPDATE: The Gov’s weekly podcast is about this topic]

The basic plan:

Governor Patrick announced today that he will create a Homeowner Circuit Breaker that will apply to homeowners of all ages. Under the plan, which would take effect January 1, 2008, an estimated 100,000 families and individuals across the Commonwealth would qualify for a state tax credit of up to $870 per year. This credit represents a nearly 25 percent offset to the average state-wide property tax bill of $3,800.

Individuals earning up to $46,000 who are not head of household, heads of household earning up to $58,000 and married couples filing jointly earning up to $70,000 would qualify. The assessed value of a homeowner’s principal residence could not exceed $684,000. The credit will cover the amount by which a household’s property tax payment, including water and sewer charges, exceeds 10 percent of their income.

In other words, the Governor has found a way for the state to provide property tax relief — and pretty significant property tax relief, at that.  So those of you who, seven weeks in, were all set to decide that Deval Patrick made a whole slew of promises that he knew he couldn’t keep: we’re waiting for your apology.

Oh, and how will he pay for this?  Read on:

To fund the Homeowner Circuit Breaker, Governor Patrick will file legislation next week to close a number of corporate tax loopholes that allow some companies to exploit the tax code and receive unintentional and unfair benefits. 

“There are cracks in the system which allow companies to avoid paying their fair share,” Governor Patrick said. “By closing these unintended loopholes, we can help relieve the burden on homeowners and small businesses and assure that all Massachusetts businesses are treated fairly and equitably.”

You can read up on the details here.

And it doesn’t stop there.

The Governor also announced that next week he will call for an examination of the Commonwealth’s antiquated tax structure. Included in the study group will be members of the business community together with leaders in labor, government and other community stakeholders in order to create a business climate that strengthens our global competitiveness.

Now that could be interesting.

We await tomorrow’s front-page, above-the-fold headline in the Globe describing Patrick’s property tax relief/corporate loophole closing plan.  — UPDATE (2/23): and there it is, written by our good friend Lisa Wangsness, no less.  Thank goodness the Globe can still take a break from drapes, Cadillacs, and Tom Brady’s unborn child to cover something that could actually affect the people of Massachusetts!

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User Tagged With: ma, patrick, property-tax

Comments

  1. massbudget says

    February 22, 2007 at 3:34 pm

    BOSTON – The issues of tax fairness and corporate tax avoidance have received increased attention in recent days. To help inform this policy debate, the nonpartisan Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center (MBPC) today released two Facts at a Glance fact sheets: Business Taxes in Massachusetts: How Our State Compares to the Nation and Combined Reporting: What It Is and How It Works.

    <

    p>
    The first examines recent studies on corporate taxes, the findings of which indicate that the overall level of business taxation is significantly lower in Massachusetts than in most states; in fact, these studies indicate that by four different measures, Massachusetts ranked among the eight states with the lowest business taxes.

    <

    p>
    The second looks at Combined Reporting, a method of corporate taxation that is currently used in seventeen states to reduce corporate tax avoidance.

    <

    p>
    The Facts at a Glance fact sheets are available on MBPC’s website, http://www.massbudget.org, or you can view them (in PDF format) by clicking here for Business Taxes in Massachusetts: How Our State Compares to the Nation and here for Combined Reporting: What It Is and How It Works.

    <

    p>
    The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center (MBPC) provides independent research and analysis of state budget and tax policies, as well as economic issues, that affect low- and moderate-income people in Massachusetts.

    <

    p>
    Noah Berger
    Executive Director
    E-Mail: nberger@massbudget.org
    Phone: (617) 426-1228 x102

    <

    p>
    Mathew Helman
    Communications Director
    E-Mail: mhelman@massbudget.org
    Phone: (617) 426-1228 x109

  2. dkennedy says

    February 22, 2007 at 3:50 pm

    David —

    <

    p>
    Why would you think the Globe wouldn’t play this on page one above the fold tomorrow? This is the paper’s bread and butter.

    <

    p>
    That said, Patrick’s plan may very well violate the state constitution, as it amounts to a graduated tax. I know that a graduated income tax is unconstitutional; I’m not sure why a graduated property tax would be any different.

    • david says

      February 22, 2007 at 4:07 pm

      link

      • dkennedy says

        February 22, 2007 at 4:19 pm

        Sorry, David. Under Tom Birmingham’s leadership, the Legislature was also able to introduce some progressivity into the state income tax by the creative use of exemptions, even though a grad tax is unconstitutional. The question is, how far can you go? What is reasonable? Are property-tax exemptions for low- and moderate-income people being used as a backdoor way to create an unconstitutional graduated income tax? All those questions will have to be addressed.

        • david says

          February 22, 2007 at 5:23 pm

          from saying, as you did upthread, that the plan “may very well violate the state constitution,” that it “amounts to a graduated tax,” and that you’re not sure why a “graduated property tax” wouldn’t be unconstitutional.

          <

          p>
          To answer the rather different question you’ve now posed: given the widespread existence of exemptions and credits against the income tax, the constitutionality of which doesn’t seem to be in doubt, it strikes me as highly unlikely that this new credit would be so far beyond what already exists that it would violate Art. 44.  It doesn’t strike me as coming anywhere near the elaborate plan of scaled exemptions that TEAM (I think) tried to put in place and that the SJC struck down.  But the SJC has surprised me before, and it no doubt will do so again.

      • jkw says

        February 22, 2007 at 4:20 pm

        That’s interesting. We can have progressive tax rates according to that, just not on income derived from property.

        <

        p>

        Full power and authority are hereby given and granted to the general court to impose and levy a tax on income in the manner hereinafter provided. Such tax may be at different rates upon income derived from different classes of property, but shall be levied at a uniform rate throughout the commonwealth upon incomes derived from the same class of property. The general court may tax income not derived from property at a lower rate than income derived from property, and may grant reasonable exemptions and abatements. Any class of property the income from which is taxed under the provisions of this article may be exempted from the imposition and levying of proportional and reasonable assessments, rates and taxes as at present authorized by the constitution. This article shall not be construed to limit the power of the general court to impose and levy reasonable duties and excises.

        <

        p>
        So taxes on non-property derived income (earned income) can be taxed at non-uniform rates, as long as all the rates are lower than the tax rates on income derived from property. Has this actually been tried in court?

        • dkennedy says

          February 22, 2007 at 4:38 pm

          And since we can’t have a graduated income tax, that’s why it’s dangerous to try to interpret the state constitution on your own. Let’s not forget that the voters have rejected a constitutional amendment that would create a grad tax on several occasions, most recently in (I think) 1994.

          • jkw says

            February 22, 2007 at 5:17 pm

            Where does it say we can’t? The constitutional amendment that granted the government the power to tax income clearly treats taxes not derived from property differently from taxes derived from property. It says that tax rates must be uniform on income from the same class of property, then it says income not derived from property may also be taxed at a lower rate. It never says anything about whether income not derived from property has to be taxed at a uniform rate. So where does that idea come from?

            <

            p>
            Has the general court ever tried to create a graduated income tax and been told by the courts that they can’t? Or are people just passing the restriction of uniformity of tax rates for each class of property onto tax rates on income not derived from property? The article clearly mentions taxing income not derived from property, and the only restriction it places on such taxes is that they must be at a lower rate than taxes on income derived from property. So where is there a restriction that restricts graduated tax rates on income not derived from property?

            • gary says

              February 22, 2007 at 5:36 pm

              Unlike the “uniformity” provision of U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 1, which has been construed to mean geographical uniformity, the meaning of “uniformity” in Mass. Const. amend. art. 44 is broader. The words of art. 44 exact also geographical uniformity, but permit variation from intrinsic uniformity as to rates only with respect to reasonable classifications of property as to sources of income to the extent that income not derived from property may be taxed at a lower rate than income derived from property, and to the extent also that reasonable exemptions may be made. Thus permissible differences in rates of taxation on incomes are mentioned. Except in these particulars, the tax must be “at a uniform rate throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” After nearly 90 years of experience with art. 44, there can be no doubt that the tax on income must be calculated by applying a single, flat rate percentage to a particular class of income.

              Peterson v. Comm’r of Revenue, 441 Mass. 420 

              <

              p>
              Next, and this is important:

              <

              p>

              We have held that the word “property” appearing in art. 44 includes “the right to make contracts for labor and for personal service.” Raymer v. Tax Comm’r, 239 Mass. 410, 413 (1921).

              <

              p> 

          • gary says

            February 22, 2007 at 5:26 pm

            The existing Circuit Breaker, as best I can tell, hasn’t been tested in court to see if its violative of Article 44. 

            <

            p>
            Odd that it wasn’t tested by some tax group.  They just don’t make tax guys like they used to.

            <

            p>
            But, the existing Circuit Breaker constitutionality probably rests on a 1930 opinion where, the Justices found that a small, fixed income tax exemption to individuals whose net annual income did not exceed $10K didn’t violate art. 44: the fixed exemption was “not so large as to bear on their face indications of want of equality between the inhabitants.” 270 Mass 593 at 601.

            <

            p>
            The existing Circuit Breaker is only eligible to folks over 65, with a high value home and a relatively low income. 

            <

            p>
            Reasonably, I can see how the current statute doesn’t violate article 44, particularly in light of 270 Mass 593 which went on to say: The purpose of the exemption was “to relieve from taxation those whose income is no more than sufficient to support the recipient and his immediate family, and keep within fair bounds the burden upon those whose ability to pay because of inadequate income is low.” 

            <

            p>
            So it looks like the Governor tweaked the existing statutes at the edges to raise the qualifying income levels a bit and eliminate the age requirement.

            <

            p>
            I would have believed that with 270 Mass 593 as precedence the proposal would pass constitutional muster, BUT,

            <

            p>
            In 1986 the Legislature tried to pass a fading exemption Bill — i.e. low income taxpayers get a personal exemption and some other stuff but don’t get a personal exemption if you’re a high income guy.

            <

            p>
            The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Inc. v. Secretary of Admin., 398 Mass. 40  (that was when the MTF actually wanted to lower, not raise taxes), with the tireless efforts of a young up and coming conservative lawyer, brought a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking that the graduated system of personal exemptions that were designed to fade as income rose was in fact unconstitutional.

            <

            p>
            The defense argued mightily that 270 Mass 593 and its reasoning should prevail.

            <

            p>
            The answer from SJC: suck it libs nope, the statute was unconstitutional.

            <

            p>
            So, now to the instant proposal. Freak yes it’s unconstitutional! Come on. A guy who earns $46,000 with a $500,000 house gets a credit and a guy who earns $60,000 with a $500,000 doesn’t?!  That’s porportional?

            <

            p>
            If the SJC was able to ignore the reasoning of 270 Mass 593 in the 1986 case, which involved the loss of minor deductions as one’s income increase, it should, with a cogent argument or two reach the same conclusion with respect to this new Circuit Breaker plan.

            <

            p>
            IMHO

            <

            p>

            • david says

              February 22, 2007 at 5:33 pm

              more complicated and more extensive than just “minor deductions”?  As I recall the case (if it’s the same one I’m thinking of), the scheme enacted by the lege was the real equivalent of different tax rates for different incomes, so the SJC saw it as an attempted end-run around Art 44.  If you have the case handy and would be up for posting some further details, it’d be much appreciated!

              • gary says

                February 22, 2007 at 5:44 pm

                more complicated and more extensive than just “minor deductions”?

                <

                p>
                You spin it your way; I’ll spin it mine.

                <

                p>
                The Mass law was a copy of the Federal, or at least the Legislators were thinking similarly to Congress: faze out the exemptions so that only the wealtier paid a truly flat tax.  Caution, spin free quote follows:

                <

                p>

                Chapter 593, § 6(2) (1985), provides that in the case of a husband and wife filing a joint return, (A)(i) a personal exemption of $ 8,000, if the person’s Massachusetts adjusted gross income is less than or equal to $ 10,000, (ii) a personal exemption of $ 8,000 minus $ 20 for each $ 100 by which the person’s Massachusetts adjusted gross income exceeds $ 10,000, if the person’s Massachusetts adjusted gross income exceeds $ 10,000 but is less than or equal to $ 18,000, (iii) a personal exemption of $ 6,400 minus $ 17 for each $ 200 by which the person’s Massachusetts adjusted gross income exceeds $ 18,000, if the person’s Massachusetts gross income exceeds $ 18,000, (iv) notwithstanding the provisions of clause (iii), no husband and wife filing a joint return shall receive a personal exemption of less than $ 1,200, (B) an additional exemption of $ 2,200 for each spouse who was totally blind at the close of his taxable year, and (C) an additional exemption of $ 700 for each spouse who had attained the age of 65 before the close of his taxable year.

                <

                p>
                There were similar sections 6(3) that had similar language to deal with single and married filing separate, but these statute were the basis for the Opinion.

                <

                p>
                To me then, it was minor (i.e. it wasn’t the money it was the principal of the thing).  You be the judge.

            • dweir says

              February 22, 2007 at 6:12 pm

              I’m trying to figure out the profile of someone who would qualify for this benefit.

              <

              p>
              You are within income limits but your tax bill needs to exceed  10% of your income.  So, let’s say you make $30,000.  Except for communities in the western part of the state, I don’t know what kind of a home you could own on that salary.  But, let’s say that you do own a home.  Chances are your tax bill will not exceed 10% of your income (from Boston.com, less than half the communities in MA have an average tax bill over $3,000). 

              <

              p>
              I don’t think it would benefit many recent home buyers.  It might help those who “upsized”, using the profits of a sale of a smaller home to purchase a home that otherwise they couldn’t afford. 

              <

              p>
              I question whether anyone who owns a home worth $400K (let alone $684) needs a tax break.  If they live in a home that is valued so much, but still qualify under the income restrictions, it seems they would have a good deal of equity in the house.  So, the proposal is saying that we should provide a tax break to people who will someday realize a big profit from the sale of their home? 

              <

              p>
              Are there other examples of tax incentives for investments?  I understand that a home is more than an investment, but is it good policy to reward people for emotional decisions that leave them cash poor/house rich?

              <

              p>
              Anyway, 100K estimated recipients — if it’s anything like the participation in our town, only a very small percentage of eligible persons will apply.  I say back to the drawing board, Governor.

              • stomv says

                February 22, 2007 at 6:52 pm

                That’s who benefits.  Seniors on a fixed or reduced income who still live in the house they raised their family in — and live in the eastern half of the state where home prices are high enough to trigger the circuit breaker.

                <

                p>
                So, who wins?  Their kids.  They end up with a bigger inheritance.  Who loses?  Growing families who would normally find more larger homes on the market, and hence lower prices.  What’s better for the towns?  Probably the seniors, since they don’t strain the schools.  What’s better for the state?  Probably the growing families, since they are paying more in income taxes.

                <

                p>
                What’s the right thing to do?  With taxes, who the heck knows.

                • gary says

                  February 23, 2007 at 10:11 am

                  They’ve already got the credit, and have had it for years.

                • stomv says

                  February 23, 2007 at 11:40 am

                  For two reasons:

                  <

                  p>
                  1.  For pointing out that I was clearly wrong.  Good call.

                  <

                  p>
                  2.  For pointing out where the dollar values and requirements came from.  The proposal appears to essentially removes the age requirement from the senior circuit breaker tax credit.  Now, you don’t have to be 65, but the other requirements ($684,000 home, $46k/$58k/$70k income restriction) do apply.

                  <

                  p>
                  Can anyone tell if this is true — that is, the entirety of the DP proposal is to remove the age 65 requirement from the current legislation?

                • anthony says

                  February 23, 2007 at 1:38 pm

                  …you do not need a 684,000.00 home.  You need to have a house of any  value that is not greater than 684,000.00.  Very different effect.

                • nopolitician says

                  February 23, 2007 at 3:19 pm

                  Seniors who rent can treat 25% of their rent as “property taxes”. That does not seem to be the case here.

              • gary says

                February 22, 2007 at 7:41 pm

                Tax guys.

                <

                p>
                “Said proposal sounds very complicated.  Let me ruminate on the statute change for several billable hours….”

                • anthony says

                  February 23, 2007 at 1:43 pm

                  …but that is ridiculous.  Any tax guy who charges a one time 75.00 fee can do this.  I would be surprised as well if it wasn’t included in all the standard software packages that people use to do their own taxes.  Moreover, I used to volunteer to assist lower income people with their taxes.  Anyone who would likely qualify for this credit could likely also get free help to do their taxes.

                • gary says

                  February 23, 2007 at 2:19 pm

                • anthony says

                  February 23, 2007 at 11:15 pm

        • peter-porcupine says

          February 22, 2007 at 4:54 pm

          ..i.e., residential, light industry, commercial, heavy industry, etc.

          <

          p>
          We have a flat income tax for earned income (wages) in the cosntitution.  I’m not sure rental and leasing income are earned income in that sense.

          <

          p>
          David?

    • trickle-up says

      February 22, 2007 at 4:14 pm

      State law permits communities to have their own “circuit-breaker” exemptions, and many do. The first, what is it, 4k of income is exempt on the state income tax, constitutional restriction notwithstanding. All of which introduces some elements of progressivity into our tax system.

      <

      p>
      I’m not saying that your observation is necessarily wrong, but if it is right, then the existing circuit=-breaker programs and personal exemptions are wrong too.

  3. noho-missives says

    February 22, 2007 at 4:54 pm

    Housing prices and salaries are a good deal lower in Western Mass than in Boston.  The ratio is what matters.

  4. ryepower12 says

    February 22, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    he’s not coming up with some bold, new ideas.

    • gary says

      February 23, 2007 at 8:53 am

      Tax cuts for a family making $70K and owning a $684,000 home.

      <

      p>
      Tax cuts for the rich?  What’s bold about the plan is its ‘supply side’ initiative.

      • ryepower12 says

        February 23, 2007 at 10:38 am

        A family of 4 earning 70k is rich. A family of 4 earning about $65k in Massachusetts is equivilent to one making about 45k in North Carolina. Prices are out of whack and property taxes are cutting very, very deep.

  5. colormepurple says

    February 22, 2007 at 11:51 pm

    Sorry, I don’t think this is all that impressive.  This plan helps 100,000 people?  Big deal; everyone needs property tax relief.  Despite the slight tumble in the housing market, we still have some of the most cost prohibitive housing in the country.  Home value doesn’t translate into cash in the checking account, and to be fair – a family making only 70K a year can’t buy a decent house around here. 

    <

    p>
    Rather than this shopworn “progresive” model…why not allow the municipal governments to save on health insurance costs by entering the state program?  How about reforming the exise tax?  How about some “outside the box” thinking of tax options at the local level? 

    • shawn-a says

      February 23, 2007 at 6:58 am

      The people at this level usually just use the simple tax form (or the telefile system).
      They don’t usually use long form.. which usually requires hiring some tax preparer who takes a good chunk of what they would save.

    • alexwill says

      February 23, 2007 at 9:16 am

      1) This plan will help people: some friends of mine were almost bought a house a couple weeks ago. They make more than my wife and I, but probably not that much more (as in both cases the public school teacher is the primary earner), so less than $70k a year, and have less loan and credit card debt, so they could just about afford the offer they made, but they weren’t able to raise much more after they discovered how how the property taxes were. For low income starting off families, the extra burden of property tax on top of figuring out how to get a mortgage and pay of that is just another barrier to getting into home ownership. This part of the plan will help those starting out.

      <

      p>
      2) Allowing municipal governments to enter into state is part of the overall plan, and a great move.

      <

      p>
      3) local tax options instead of sole reliance on the property tax is part of it too, and excellent move IMO

      • colormepurple says

        February 23, 2007 at 9:53 am

        All public school teacher salaries are not created equal.  The average salary in my town is not $35K a year – it’s $42K…so a couple of public school teachers will be making $84K, and will not b allowed to take part in the bounty that is Mr. Patrick’s proposal.  This goes for other public servants as well….I am married to one of those as well.  We’re “too rich” for a tax break, but too poor to do more than take yet another loan to pay for my daughter’s college education. 

        <

        p>
        I think this is just bandaid policy; it doesn’t do a thing to get at the roots of rising property tax.  This is a quick, feel good policy so he can check it off his list of campaign promises.  What I would like to see is a comprehensive policy that addresses not only the triggers to increased property tax, but also the byzantine method of distributing local aid. 

        • ryepower12 says

          February 23, 2007 at 10:45 am

          Along with closing tax loopholes, allowing towns to have a small meals tax and adding some property tax relief for families who need it most – Deval Patrick is planning some important hearings to tackle the systemic problems that exist. It seems like his philosophy is to add some bandaids now, while he moves toward bolder strategies to change how our state tax system works.

    • anthony says

      February 23, 2007 at 9:54 am

      ….not everyone needs property tax relief.  I am quite comfortable with what I pay and what I get in return for having paid it.  I fully support a state govt. that provides affordability to the most people possible, but I think people go a bit overboard overstating how bad it is for everyone.  Not everyone is struggling so every initiative does not need to be a panacea for every person. 

      <

      p>
      Secondly, it seems pretty clear that this initiative is aimed at giving property tax relief to the elderly, living on a fixed income.  They are the ones making 70,000.00 and living in 600,000.00 homes.  They deserve relief, and nothing about this initiative forecloses on helping others in need with the next initiative.

      <

      p>
      Lastly, Patrick rolled out a tax proposal for local municipalities last week.  As far as your other proposals go, they are still possible but Patrick seems to be taking a one off approach on tax reform which I think is the best approach.  No one is going to get behind a one time seismic shift in taxation; it would be too frightening for almost everyone.

      <

      p>

      • gary says

        February 23, 2007 at 9:59 am

        This isn’t relief for the elderly and I’ve been scratching my head to figure out who it affects.

        <

        p>
        It’s not for the elderly.  They’ve already got the relief.

        <

        p>
        So, if not them, then who?  Not the young folks, because which young folks starting out, would buy a $684K home, or would be able to buy a $684K home on $70K per year? 

        • nopolitician says

          February 23, 2007 at 10:19 am

          Well, for one, it’s for people whose property values have skyrocketed after they bought their house. Let’s say you paid $200k for your house ten years ago, but values in your neighborhood have gone through the roof, maybe your house is now worth $650k, resulting in both a shift in taxes from other neighborhoods and a shift from other classes.

          <

          p>
          It also helps people who have had their incomes reduced, perhaps because their job was sent overseas.

          <

          p>
          It helps people who choose to have a spouse stay home with the kids, thereby reducing their income.

          <

          p>
          It helps people who inherit houses that are more than they could normally afford.

          <

          p>
          It certainly doesn’t help everyone, and it also probably helps people who shouldn’t get help, but no plan can do everything perfectly.

        • anthony says

          February 23, 2007 at 10:20 am

          …I must confess I misread the proposal.  It is not for people who own 684,000.00 homes, it is for anyone who owns a home worth less than that amount, so there are in fact a lot of people it could help.  A lower income family where one spouse has been unemployed or unable to work for a significant portion of the year springs to mind as a good example.  There are also I am sure a lot of low to moderate income people out there who have owned their homes for quite some time whose incomes have not risen in line with their tax burden.  It won’t help me, and perhaps not you, but it will help some.

          • ronco says

            February 23, 2007 at 10:30 am

            (RKO) explaining that Deville’s tax plan was actually “authored” by Romney and Deville is merely “using it”. This is hilarious!!!

            • anthony says

              February 23, 2007 at 10:34 am

              …hillarious?  It is a good idea no matter who authored it. 

              • ronco says

                February 23, 2007 at 10:47 am

                are the “Deville fans” cheering wildly about their “hero’s” new plan and it isn’t even his. ILMAO!

                • anthony says

                  February 23, 2007 at 10:51 am

                  …about HIS new plan.  I wasn’t aware of this fact until today, but this plan is clearly modeled off of the already existing circuit breaker for the elderly.  If Romney came up with that, good for him.  If he was the first one to think “Maybe this can help more people” also good for him.  Patrick is the first one to propose its actual use, so good for him.  No one is giving Patrick credit for re-inventing the wheel.  This plan is not that novel.

      • colormepurple says

        February 23, 2007 at 10:21 pm

        Anthony, just because you’re not hungry doesn’t mean that no one else is.  I am have to disagree with you; the exhorbitant cost of housing is hurting us on two levels.  It’s a barrier to new homeowners and it’s a burden on middle class – you know, the ones that are too wealthy for a tax break but can’t afford private school and can barely scrape it together to send their kids to college .  The pace of municipal residential tax is nearly unparalleled.  A report by the MMA made that very clear; we are nearly at the level of municipal tax when the voters enacted Prop 2 1/2. I believe another tax revolt will be imminent if something isn’t done soon.

        <

        p>
        Another fact is, Anthony, that the 100,000 that this policy will help represents maybe 5% of residential homeowners.  When Mr. Patrick was running – he promised property tax relief to everyone – not just 5%. Do you HONESTLY think that Massachusetts taxpayers would have voted for Mr. Patrick if he issued his caveat – property tax relief for 5%? 

        <

        p>
        This is the canyon that we Democrats tend to fall in.  We get so high minded that we forget our promises, our connections to our communities and where we came from. 

        • anthony says

          February 23, 2007 at 11:10 pm

          ….that no one else was hungry!  I said that not everyone was over burdened.  It’s true.  There are actually some people who can afford to live in Massachusetts.  That is a good thing.  Despite popular contention you don’t have to be wealthy to live here.  Sometimes people go a bit overboad in casting MA as a welfare state and that is no better that pretending like the free market will fix everything.  The answer is somewhere in the middle, not at the extemes!

          <

          p>
          Also, not every proposal needs to help every person.  Mr. Patrick can only do so much at one time.  It takes time to revamp a state’s tax structure.  One step at a time.  He’s been in office for six weeks.  Did you actually expect that the Commonwealth’s problems would be solved in less time than it takes to grow a Chia herb garden?  Nothing has been forgotten.  In fact, I think it is a good sign that one of the first proposal’s out of the gate benefits the hardest hit.

          • colormepurple says

            February 24, 2007 at 9:12 am

            from the campaign promise.  I think this proposal as part of a comprehensive package that would have addressed the macro view of property tax policy instead of this bandaid would have been well received.  If it takes more than six weeks – then he should have taken the time that he needed.  As a middle-aged, life long Democrat who has studied policy – this doesn’t bode well for real relief.  I am old enough to remember the Massachusetts Miracle that wasn’t. 

            • anthony says

              February 24, 2007 at 9:57 am

              at all and I seriously question the expectation of immediacy that people in our culture have developed.  Patrick hasn’t solved all the state’s problems in six weeks so lets all talk about the sky falling and make Dukakis comparisons. Fickle is a fickle does I suppose.

              • colormepurple says

                February 24, 2007 at 12:40 pm

                With all due respect, Anthony – a thoughtful and reasoned response via a comprehensive package on municipal tax reform and policy, whether it takes six weeks or six months  is infinitely preferable to waiving a bandaid, which is the point that I am trying to make. 

                <

                p>
                Mr. Patrick issued no caveats during the campaign (tax relief for only the most needy) and therefore, you have to expect people to ask, “what about the rest of us.”  And before I get accused again of expecting instant gratification, I would have thought that given the two years spent on the campaign trail…that someone would have collected and digested the data on what campaign promises were truly fiscally actionable before they were issued. There should have been no surprises after the inauguration, Anthony.  That’s what responsible and transparent executives do, and that’s what voters expect from the CEO of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

                <

                p>
                I’m not alone thinking that the “circuit breaker” wasn’t very impressive.  In terms of the history of the Commonwealth – we’ve seen circuit breakers before and they do not usually live up to the hype.  To wit: special education circuit breakers.  Circuit breakers usually stay on the books, stagnating while real reform goes on the sidelines, allowing the legislature the luxury of thinking “well, at least we’re doing something,” instead of tackling a very thorny problem.  And getting state government to get its collective head around transforming its patchwork quilt of bandaid policies (which are usually reengineered or retranslated to suit the agenda of those in the conference committee)* into something resembling solid, data-driven and equitable reform is akin to turning the QEII. 

                <

                p>
                It is….what it is. 

                <

                p>
                *school building program, 1948 – 2000, and lottery distribution policy, 1972 – present. 

                <

                p>

                • anthony says

                  February 24, 2007 at 10:40 pm

                  …I repeat, six weeks.  If Patrick’s supporters are not willing to give him at least six months to try and get some substantive things accomplished we are in serious trouble.  If I am defensive, it is for the governor’s benefit.  If I am defending him to his supporters (i.e. you) in such short order, well….. 

    • ryepower12 says

      February 23, 2007 at 10:41 am

      100,000 families is probably more on the lines of 300,000 people… which is a hefty chunk of Massachusetts.

      <

      p>
      Furthermore, it’s only ONE of his solutions. He’s also proposing to allow cities and towns the option of having a meals tax, which will help a lot of other cities and towns avoid future hikes. For every Westwood or Swampscott that may only have a few restaurants, there are Peabodies and Sauguses with a bunch.

      <

      p>
      When you add up multiple proposals, suddenly one that’s ‘only’ helping 100,000 families isn’t so bad.

      • colormepurple says

        February 23, 2007 at 10:38 pm

        The Globe was pretty clear; it’s 100,000 homeowners which translates to roughly 5% of homeowners.  Funny, I don’t recall Mr. Patrick saying that he would provide tax relief to only 5% of the voters.

        <

        p>
        Additionally – if you’re going to argue, you really should be more data driven.  A quick trot out to the DOR website reveals that 85% of the states taxable property is residential or open space.  Of the remaining 15%- how much do you really think are restaurants?

        <

        p>
        Now….let’s look at Peabody and Saugus.  The percentage of Peabody’s residential taxable property is 79.5% and Saugus has 82%.  How much of that paucity is actually restaurants and how tax relief do you really think is going to come from that?

        <

        p>
        Take a memo Ryan; just because a community has a few restaurants along Route 1 doesn’t translate into big tax dollars.  The only community that may reap some tangible benefit from the meal tax proposal is Boston. 

  6. dweir says

    February 23, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    Let’s assume the closure of tax loopholes generates the $300 million that’s been cited.

    <

    p>
    Let’s assume that the estimate of 300K citizens (~5% of the state’s population) benefitting from this proposal is accurate.

    <

    p>
    Is this the best use of the money?

    <

    p>
    I don’t think so.

    <

    p>
    It’s going to directly benefit only a small percentage of the people, and of that small percentage at least some (those over 65) are already eligible for an existing benefit.

    <

    p>
    Aren’t there other proposals that would:

    <

    p>
    1) benefit more people
    2) provide some benefit to business
    3) lead to increased growth rather than be a simple entitlement

    <

    p>
    Just some off the top of my head:

    <

    p>
    – Increase incentives for communities to implement smart growth initiatives
    – Invest in public transportation
    – Increase capacity at public universities (preferably expanding online degree programs)
    – Improve telecommunications infrastructure to make Western MA more viable for business
    – Fully fund all out-of-district special education students

    <

    p>
    I’m sure there are others.

    <

    p>

  7. gary says

    February 23, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    Closing that nasty little “Combined reporting” loophole is supposed to add $136 million. 

    <

    p>
    16 states have combined reporting.  I just don’t see how combined reporting is legitimately classed as a “loophole”.  Seems to me to be a policy choice worth not rushing into.  Combined reporting is a real 2 way street.

    <

    p>
    Since the early 1980s at least a couple of the states have abandoned the method:  Florida and Oregon.

    <

    p>
    Consider this example: XYZ Corp is going great guns in Massachusetts and is paying state income tax on its Mass profits.  Consider that XYZ Corp. has a subsidiary located in another state.  Under the current system, if the fortunes of the subsidiary turn down, the profitable Massachusetts XYZ Corp still pays tax on its profits turned in Massachusetts. 

    <

    p>
    However, with combined reporting XYZ Corp. might owe no tax, adding XYZ Corp’s profits to its subsidiary losses en route to calculating taxable income.

    <

    p>
    NY and MD and WV and probably more states presently looking into combined reporting. Now, also Mass.  The same thing happened back in 1983. (The “unitary wars”)  I think maybe even Massachusetts was unitary in 1983, no? 

    <

    p>
    Back in the 80s, a batch of states adopted combined reporting. Then, some state economies boomed.

    <

    p>
    Tax collectors in the hot economies suddenly realized that they were no better off, because even though the local multi-state companies were locally booming, because of the offsetting losses in other states, combined profits were flat or even down.

    <

    p>
    States like Oregon and Florida quickly bailed and the experiment really hasn’t been tried since–only one state has adopted combined reporting in the past 20 years.

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on A valedictoryI joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on A valedictoryThat’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

Twitter feed is not available at the moment.

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2025 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.