Crossposted at The Eisenthal Report
In a story in this morning’s edition, The Boston Globe released more polling numbers on Massachusetts voter attitudes as we approach the 100th day of the Patrick Administration. In that poll, 56 percent of those surveyed supported closing the corporate tax loopholes. According to the Globe, “the poll’s findings “could provide some political cover to get behind Patrick’s ideas.”
Some have already downplayed the numbers. Andrew E. Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, was quoted as saying “you would expect that (support) to be in 60 to 70 percent range.” (Smith also noted that support for closing the loopholes split along party lines – 69 percent of Democrats support closing the loopholes compared with 29 percent of Republicans.)
I believe that Smith is simply wrong on this point. Closing corporate tax loopholes has been an issue that has received a disproportionate focus from those who favor the interests of larger businesses; those who might favor it have not been as focused on it. Those larger businesses have also been able to mobilize more resources in opposition to the proposals. It is rather unsurprising, given these facts, that there is not overwhelming support for closing the corporate tax loopholes.
The fact that 69 percent of Democrats favor the proposal should give Speaker Sal DiMasi some pause as he decides how much of his political capital he decides to put into opposing the Governor’s proposals.
I can’t find a direct question about the tax “loopholes” or “increases” or $300 million in new revneues or however you want to frame it. Do you have a link to the actual question?
<
p>
The 56 percent number seems something quite different: overall approval of “Patrick’s leadership on the state budget.”
<
p>
Thanks!
doesn’t seem to be online for some reason, so this is transcribed from a graphic on the Globe’s front page.
<
p>
that question doesn’t show up under the “full results” list. So where do those numbers actually come from?
what’s on the Globe’s front page (print version — not online). I assume they are accurately reprinting a question from their own poll. If they’re not, take it up with them. I cannot explain the discrepancy between the question on the front page and the question’s absence from the alleged full results. Call ’em up and tell us what you learn.
seems pretty clear to me, GGW.
What GGW asked is where do those numbers come from? If you click on the link for the “full survey” and read the questions actually asked, there is no question about the corporate loopholes. So where does that come from?
above.
In case some of our readers missed it, I wanted to mention again that we have an opportunity to vote on closing loopholes on devalpatrick.com: the issue needs more votes!
<
p>
I think we, at the grassroots/netroots level can really turn around the false perception that has been created by the mega-businesses that the Governor’s proposal is anti-business. In fact, it’s very pro-business and pro-jobs for reasons already mentioned.
…I quite frankly give a tinkers’ damn what they do unless they close the tax loopholes for the two largest welfare queens in the state–universities and churches.
<
p>
Otherwise, just go away.
<
p>
Wonder what the polling data is on a rollback of the individual rate to 5.0%. Bet it’s high too.
I think you might be wrong, or at least you shouldn’t be so confident. That was passed back when the econ was booming and revenues looked like surplusses. Since then, the downturn has created budget cuts across the state, and if you ask today, on the ballot, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t pass.
<
p>
I even vaguely remember something about some poll backing that up or at least showing waning support for that…does anyone else remember one?
From Oct. 1, 2006’s Globe.
<
p>
<
p>
It is worthwhile, I suppose, to note that taxes are a major issue and it isn’t just because we’re near tax time.
First of all, 19% is not a lot. It is, in fact, substantially less than half. Just saying…
<
p>
Secondly, the 2006 poll question the globe reports on says:
<
p>
“There has also been considerable discussion about rolling back the state income tax rate from 5 point 3 percent to 5 percent. Supporters of a rollback say it should be cut back immediately because voters voted in 2000 to reduce the tax rate to 5 percent while opponents say an income tax rate cut could lead to higher property taxes. What about you ? do you support or a roll-back of the income tax to 5 percent?”
<
p>
That is not a question about whether voters support a rollback of the state income tax. That question would have been worded:
<
p>
“Do you favor reducing the state income tax from 5.3 percent to 5.0 percent.”
<
p>
Notice the difference?
This is an important point. I think that people answered the way they did out of selfishness — raise someone’s taxes, just not mine — not out of some philosophical ideology that wants to close loopholes and make it more fair for smaller business players who aren’t savvy enough to take advantage of them.
<
p>
I like that the range of options at least included “lower services”, because that option is rarely discussed whenever tax cuts are mentioned. This is not by accident — clearly, as this shows, when people are given the choice, they sometimes opt for higher taxes, and rational choice is not what the anti-tax crowd wants. It wants smaller government, and it doesn’t care how it gets there.
<
p>
I’m sure that when pushed, the people advocating for the income tax rollbacks will advocate for decreasing “welfare services”, the ever-so-popular whipping boy of the conservative movement.
How about, just plain old can’t take advantage of it…we’re too small.
<
p>
I can tell you this though: the instant we have universal health care, I will reconsider my view that I will remain forever a one-person shop and perhaps think about hiring people. (Providing my business keeps on growing, anyway.)