Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Suburban Legislators Support Closing Corporate Tax Loopholes

By

An FYI on the Suburban Legislators Coalition’s efforts to support closing corporate tax loopholes.

As of Wednesday, the Suburban Coalition is in further discussion on corporate tax loopholes, the Municipal Partnership Act, and the telecom bill.  We are reaching out to House members to get a sense of support of these important ways to raise revenues for towns and cities.

Once again, I appreciate any and all efforts to support these efforts.  – Jamie

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. I’m interested to know more about your campaign and your ideas. The Tax Loopholes only help solve the problem; they aren’t the solution. How do we fix all this mess? Do you have any better ideas on that?

    <

    p>
    If elected, what would you want to do and what could you do at a national level to help address these problems here at home?

    <

    p>
    Hopefully one of your campaign aides can get in contact with me because I have a lot of questions and decisions to make – in terms of my involvement in this race as both a citizen and blogger – and would love to learn more about what you’re about.

    • Please advise as to how to make contact.  Thanks!  I am also interested in knowing if my legislator is a member.

      • is the best way. you can click on my “view profile” button and send me an email that way, or one of the other areas with emails there.

        • I think AmberPaw was looking for info on the Suburban Legislators Coalition.  Though I could be wrong.

          <

          p>
          Anyway, there’s an article about the coalition here.  Some basics:

          <

          p>

          “There are growing pressures [on communities],” Eldridge said this week. Recognizing this, he and his colleague Rep. Alice Peisch, D-Wellesley, joined together to form the Suburban Legislator Coalition. The group comprises over 40 legislators “from all over,” Eldridge said, including the Merrimack Valley, North Shore and central Massachusetts. The legislators meet every two weeks.

          “It’s a venue for legislators of suburban districts to unite behind a common agenda,” he explained. The group will focus on increasing chapter 70 funding, commuter rail improvements, environmental enforcement and supporting more state funding for affordable housing, while reforming chapter 40B.

          <

          p>
          No contact info, sadly, but my guess is that if you contact Rep. Eldrige at his campaign or State House office, you can get the details.

          • Thanks David.  I remember “the Rushing 17” and the ultimate results of that development [though it took time] when Finneran was speaker, so am planning to “follow” the evolution of the “Suburban Legislator’s Caucus”.

          • With all due respect to Mr. Eldrige, he has posted three times in this thread and I still have no idea who is involved with the Suburban Coalition.

            <

            p>
            I live in the suburbs, I might want to learn more about and root for this coalition. I might push my representatives to get involved. But he may already be, for all I know.

            <

            p>
            This is the second time recently that an elected official or candidate has posted something here to boost their standing under the guise of “providing information.” And when a question was asked and left unanswered (granted some didn’t like the tone of one question) the questioner was asked to look somewhere else for the answer.

            <

            p>
            Is it too much to ask that when an elected official or candidate COMES HERE to post something, they respond to questions? The back and forth and discussion is supposed to be the part of this thing where people are able to learn more and maybe come to common understandings.

            <

            p>
            Why must we contact his office or campaign and talk to a staff person answering the phone who may or may not know anything about the Suburban Coalition when the man himself has come to BMG, posted to push his cause and then posted twice more within the thead? I’m not saying he has to answere EVERY question, but this is a pretty basic one, no?

            • Thank you for your comments. 

              <

              p>
              For the record, I have always made an effort to answer questions in response to my posts, and last night I responded to two of the questions that were raised by bloggers.  I’d be the first to admit that I won’t get to every question, but I will certainly try.

              <

              p>
              To answer your questions about the Suburban Legislators Coalition, it is important to point out that most coalitions or caucuses in the Legislature are not firmly-defined bodies, but rather somewhat informal groups that are focused on creating progress on particuliar issues. 

              <

              p>
              For example, there is the Special Education Caucus, Older Citizens Caucus, State Parks Caucus, the Municipal Caucus, etc. 

              <

              p>
              All legislators can’t be part of every caucus, so please don’t think that just because your Representative or Senator is not a member of a caucus, that they’re not working or are supportive of that issue.  We all rely collectively on each other to learn about all of the issues that we are asked to work on.

              <

              p>
              As of today, below is the list that I have of House members (the Suburban Legislators Coalition is a House of Representatives caucus only) who are part of the Suburban Legislators Coalition. 

              <

              p>
              Rep. Peisch, Rep. Festa, and I are still working on getting more legislators to sign onto the letter that I posted yesterday, so I will wait until later this week before posting all of the names.

              <

              p>
              Today Rep. Peisch, Rep. Festa, and I testified at the Joint Committee on Revenue public hearing in support of Governor Patrick’s Municipal Partnership Act, which includes the local options taxes and the telecom tax exemption. 

              <

              p>
              My sense from both the public hearing and my conversations with colleagues is that there is strong support for passing the telecom tax bill in order to raise revenue, but many legislators are either undecided or hesitant to support legislation enabling local options taxes for cities and towns.  This fact certainly caused some legislators to decline signing onto this letter, even though they supported some of the proposals in the letter.

              <

              p>
              Clearly, more advocacy by both legislators and the general public has to be done in order to pass this bill, and close corporate tax loopholes. 

              <

              p>
              Thanks again for your interest and efforts. – Jamie

              <

              p>
              Suburban Legislators Coalition
              1. Alicea
              2. Atkins
              3. Atsalis
              4. Brownsberger
              5. Conroy
              6. D’Amico
              7. Eldridge
              8. Falzone
              9. Festa
              10. Gobi
              11. Grant
              12. Harkins
              13. Kaufman
              14. Khan
              15. Kulik
              16. L’Italien
              17. Linsky
              18. Marzilli
              19. McCarthy
              20. Murphy, Charles
              21. Patrick
              22. Peake
              23. Peisch
              24. Richardson
              25. Sannicandro
              26. Scibak
              27. Spiliotis
              28. Story
              29. Timilty
              30. Turner

              <

              p>

              • Thank you for your response.

                <

                p>
                I know a caucus can be an ever evolving group. But where you mention having significant support, it seems logical to be able to point to names or at least a number of members to bolster your claim of having support.

                <

                p>
                It seems having a list of supporters and–by their exclusion–the chickens and opposition would help readers become advocates for this issue, rather than just educated about your efforts.

    • Thanks for your comments.

      <

      p>
      I agree that closing corporate tax loopholes isn’t the entire solution to the state’s fiscal crisis, although it will certainly help. 

      <

      p>
      There are two huge structural problems we must address a progressives:

      <

      p>
      I wish that Massachusetts had a progressive income tax, to create a fairer tax burden on the most affluent residents, while reducing taxes on working families. 

      <

      p>
      Additionally, the federal government’s actions over the past twenty-five years is the chief culprit hear.  Washington, D.C. has systematically walked away from the states, and our town and cities, leaving a trail of high property and payroll taxes and slashed services.  We need to repeal the Bush tax cuts and end the war in Iraq, and take that money and reinvest it in our schools, infrastructure, and stimulating the economy, which will then raise more revenue for states.

      <

      p>
      I hope this begins to answer your question.  As for the campaign, you can reach me at jamie@jamieforcongress.com or 508-274-0055.

      • Federal aid to schools soared in the Bush Administration.

        <

        p>
        Q: Tax cuts and war in Iraq is, alas, not money we have — both of Bush’s defining acts fueled our ginormous federal deficit. 

        <

        p>
        There is no money to “take and reinvest.” 

        <

        p>
        If we repeal the tax cuts and end the war, that’ll lower — but not eliminarte — our annual federal deficit. 

        <

        p>
        If we “reinvest it in our schools and infrastructure,” then we’ll increase our deficit. 

        <

        p>
        Which would you favor? 

        <

        p>
        If indeed we had more federal tax revenue, would you prioritize cutting the deficit?  Or keep the deficit and increase spending on social programs and infrastructure?

        <

        p>
        Thank you for posting on BMG. 

        • Odd choice of word given that the federal government contributes less than 9 percent of all primary and secondary education money – which makes up less than 3% of the federal gov’s whole budget.

          <

          p>
          Seems to me that if you reversed the bush tax cuts and ended the war, you could probably put a whole heck of a lot of money toward education and still reduce the deficit quite a bit.

          <

          p>
          But then, what exactly was the fact that you were “actually” refuting?  Eldridge, if I’m reading him right, was simply saying that he’d rather spend more money on education than on the Bush tax cuts or the war. 

          <

          p>
          Can’t say I disagree with that…

          • Additionally, the federal government’s actions over the past twenty-five years is the chief culprit hear.  Washington, D.C. has systematically walked away from the states, and our town and cities, leaving a trail of high property and payroll taxes and slashed services.

             

            <

            p>
            I was saying that at least in one area, K-12 education, DC has not systematically walked away from the states, but systematically walked towards the states. 

      • I wish that Massachusetts had a progressive income tax, to create a fairer tax burden on the most affluent residents, while reducing taxes on working families.

        <

        p>
        Is that idle wishing, or, are you indicating some change to the constitution to allow progressive taxation in the state?

        <

        p>

        We need to repeal the Bush tax cuts and end the war in Iraq, and take that money and reinvest it in our schools, infrastructure, and stimulating the economy, which will then raise more revenue for states.

        <

        p>
        If the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are allowed to expire, the the US will see the largest in taxes in history.  Just to be clear, are you advocating that the Bush tax cuts, particularly the 15% dividend/capital gains tax be allowed to expire?

        <

        p>

        • is a crap comment.

          <

          p>
          If I, as US dictator, cut taxes to $0 tomorrow and then restored them to their prior level the day after, I would have created the largest tax in history… but I merely returned them to where they were.

          <

          p>
          More to the point, “allowing the tax cuts to expire” isn’t raising taxes.  The taxes for 2013 or whenever were never lowered, so when the rate goes back to it’s initial trajectory, it isn’t raised either.

          <

          p>
          Bush’s tax cuts were temporary tax reduction.  That’s their bill.  It’s not anyone’s fault but theirs that the rate goes back to where it was — it’s their bill.

          • And by bill, I don’t mean legislation.  I mean…

            <

            p>
            It’s the big political con that the press doesn’t yet see coming.  It’ll be the biggest tax increase since WWII if Congress does nothing to stop it. 

            <

            p>

            More to the point, “allowing the tax cuts to expire” isn’t raising taxes.

            <

            p>
            You can write that with a straight face?  Tell that to the taxpayers who’ve been paying 15% on dividends for 10 years and suddenly have to pay 30%.

            <

            p>
            Stormy: Yes your taxes are higher, but they didn’t increase.  They’re actually the same, but higher.

            • Know how we have those sales tax holidays once a year or so, maybe around August/September?  Is it the largest sales tax increase in recent history the next day?

              <

              p>
              I don’t call it that.

              <

              p>
              P.S.  No “r” in stomv.  No “y” either for that matter.

          • If I, as US dictator

            <

            p>
            What else would you do? 

            <

            p>
            Specifically about Sox catcher situation?

            • than to go through the hoops of explaining how it could happen otherwise and then have people say ‘it couldn’t happen because…’

              <

              p>
              As for the Sox… he’s 1 for 1 with a walk, RBI, and R as of this instant, so maybe things will get better.

      • …when he created the Dept. of Education to supercede state and local authority (a HUGE mistake) it seems odd that you date your complaint of loss of funding with the beginning of Federal invlovement.  Also, your timeline coincides with the loss of bipartisan Congressional representation in Mass.  Is a single party delegation a part of the problem as well?

        • Prior to 1980, the Department of Education did exist, but it wasn’t a cabinet level position. Instead, it was a department within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

          <

          p>
          Federal involvement in education goes back for decades, and the current department does not supercede state and local authority. If states want to receive federal dollars, they participate in federal programs. But there is no mandate that states participate (along the lines of reducing speed limits).

          <

          p>
          That said, overall education spending from all levels in government, but especially federal has spiked in recent years. The increase began with the Clinton administration, and has continued (perhaps even accelerated) under the Bush administration.

  3. In the letter it is stated that a “majority of our members” support the closing of loopholes and the passing of local option taxes – are you referring to the members of the suburban coalition or are you referring to all the members of the House of Reps?

    <

    p>
    The letter also stated that 80 or so communities saw a “decrease” in Chap. 70 school funding, however I read that every community saw an increase this year over last year…Am I incorrect?

    <

    p> 

    • I am referring to the majority of the members of the Suburban Legislators Coalition, not all the members of the House of Representatives. 

      <

      p>
      You are correct that all Massachusetts communities received an increase in Chapter 70 aid this year, compared to last year.  However, 81 communities did receive less in the House budget than Governor Patrick’s budget, although the Chapter 70 formula he applied was not perfect.  That’s why I voted last Wednesday to hold all communities harmless, in terms of the difference in education aid between the House and Governor’s budget.

      <

      p>
      The bottom line is that very few Massachusetts communities received adequate education aid, when you really think about what our school need to properly educate our children, and how rising property taxes are driving people out of this state.  We need to do better, and closing corporate tax loopholes is one of the ways that we get there.

      • We’ve seen federal K-12 spending surge over the past five years. Is this a trend that you would continue?

        <

        p>
        As for local education budgets, what is a reasonable year-to-year increase for communities? Given that over 80% of school budgets is devoted to salaries, when districts decide to give raises that exceed revenue growth, the result is a structural deficit. In my own tonw, I have seen contracts that provide for 5% annual increases in salaries. In fact, we just voted a contract with raises as much as 9.25% annually. Does this coallition believe that the state is obligated to help districts fund these types of increases? If not, what controls are in place to ensure local goverment complies with spending guidelines?

      • …my understanding is that NO city or town receives as much local aid funding or education funding in 2006, nor will they receive in 2007 as much as was received by that same city and town in 2001?

        • Here’s
          the DOR history.

          <

          p>
          The data is in EXCEL, town by town.  The first one, Abington, $8.6 million in state aid in 2001. $10.0 in 2007….and there’s plenty others.  Heck, the total state aid was $4.26 billion in 2001 and it’s $4.55 billion in 2007.

          • There has been story after story in the press, that local aid and education levels haven’t recovered.  For example, see:

            <

            p>
            http://www.mma.org/i…

            <

            p>
            And

            <

            p>
            At least as of 2006, state aid to education had not gotten back up to the 2002 levels:

            <

            p>
            http://www.stand.org…

            <

            p>
            Maybe we are comparing “appels to oranges”.  It IS true that each year since 2003 has seen an increaase over the prior year, but my understanding, as these articles show, is that as of 2006, the 2002 levels had not been regained.

  4. …Given the fact that the legislature isn’t going to close the tax loopholes of two of the major businesses in the state–universities and “establishments of worship”–any time soon, these entreaties are just nibbling around the edges.

    <

    p>
    Tilt at your windmills, Mr. Eldridge, as you wish.  Just to let you know, your tilting will not mean much unless and until you attack the cash cows mentioned in the previous paragraph.  You won’t, so, I largely ignore your entreaties.

    <

    p>
    Just to let you know, our property in Wellesley is taxed at on the order of US$6500 per year.  Our property here in Germany, which is worth twice that in the US, is taxed at on the order of US$300 per year.  That is not a typo, and I did not miss a digit.

    • Germany has a pretty different tax code.  I’m not sure of the specifics but I bet you’re paying twice the income tax you would in the US.  Someone’s paying more taxes there than in the US, at least.

      <

      p>
      And churches, universities?  I don’t think you understand just how much money moves through business.  Closing the top 2 loopholes nets 200 million.  (the incorporate-in-delaware thing and the file-differently-for-state-and-federal thing)  How’re you gonna squeeze that out of the diocese which is closing down branches half the time?  Out of Harvard at the expense of research? (even at 40k/pop, it still takes a lot of tuitions to add up to 200 mill)

      <

      p>

    • though possibly not all, make payments in lieu of taxes to the municipalities in which they are located.  Probably not what they’d have to pay in actual property taxes, but they do pay something.

      <

      p>
      Houses of worship … dunno.

      <

      p>
      At what rate is your income taxed in Germany?

      • …to extend the property tax exemption for schools and churces only to sanctuaries, rectories, parsonages, campuses and dormitories.  It would have required property tax to be paid by these institutions on commercial buildings that they own/operate for investment purposes, as these are commercial entities that have an unfair leg up over ordinary real estate owners.

        <

        p>
        Shot down quickly by Taxation when Casey ruled, but I still think it is a fair compromise, and would go a long way towards solving the Boston/Cambridge allegation that they need more local aid due to the concentration of these entities there.

        <

        p>
        PS – I am acquainted with the Vellucci family in Cambridge, and you should have heard Al Vellucci, Mayor for years, on the subject of how Harvard chronically tried to cheat the city.  PILOT ain’t what it’s cracked up to be.

        • PILOT isn’t the same as actual property tax.  And I have no doubt that Harvard isn’t exactly fun to negotiate with.  I just don’t want people to be under the impression that universities pay nothing.

          • …”Payments in lieu of taxes” is horse manure.  Bullshit pure and simple.

            <

            p>
            Let’s understand something.  If the educational institutions were primarily benefiting the towns’ residents, I might not have much of a problem with their property tax exemption.  But they don’t.  Wellesley College’s most famous graduate, sHillary Clinton, was from Illinois.  I would almost be willing to wager that more than a few of the students at Wellesley College have been, not from Wellesley MA, probably not even from MA, and probably not even from the USofA.

            <

            p>
            I’m sure that Wellesley College pays something in liew of taxes.  I’m also sure that it isn’t very much.  There was a suggestion that, in lieu of taxes, Wellesley College would extend scholarships to a few Wellesley residents per year.  Big deal.  Pay their taxes, and let the Wellesley residents compete for slots at the finishing school.

            <

            p>
            Let’s understand something else.  Wellesley MA is also home to Babson College.  I don’t have the slightest idea how many of Babson’s students are even from the USofA, but, if the accents of the people of the gym I go to, which is adjacent to the Babson campus, is any indication, not a lot.

            <

            p>
            Listen up and listen well.  “Payments in lieu of taxes” is a fraud.  Let them pay their taxes, and then charge the costs back to their students through their tuition.  Most of the beneficiaries of the tax exemption aren’t even MA residents, much less town residents.  Why should MA cities and towns eschew the property tax on their property, when the cities and towns don’t eschew it on mine?

            • Charitable property tax exemption is a popular loophole.  Verizon property tax examption isn’t and closing it sells better.  This tax increase isn’t about fairness; it’s about cash.

              • …both could be done at the same time.  They are not mutually exclusive.

                <

                p>
                But I would suggest to you that taxing the property of colleges, universities and “establishments of religion,” would yield far more cash than taxing a few telephone poles.

                <

                p>
                Both can be done.  So don’t deride one in favor of the other.

                • But can you imagine the outcry if someone proposed taxing charity owned property.  You’d have every clergy, activist, treehugger, girl and boy scout….marching on Boston common.

                  <

                  p>
                  There’s no politician alive or dead who’d even suggest it.

                  <

                  p>
                  It’s much easier to demonize big bad Verizon with its evil loopholes.

                • a few years ago Sen Wilkerson (i think) introduced a bill that would have required non-profit religious institutions to open their books in that same manner all other non-profits are required to do.  you know, equal treatment.  sunshine and fresh air.  ahhh!  NOT.  the screams were so deafening, my ears are still ringing.  i bring this up as an example of how steep of a hill you are suggesting we climb, raj.  most religious orgs seem to feel an entitlement to hide their (bad?) numbers and dodge taxes.  and they have lots and lots of members in an effective communication network.  uphill climb.

                • …continue to extend the exemption to actual campus and chapel – but NOT to investment property, which can charge market rates and garner huge profit because of not paying taxes.

                  <

                  p>
                  Just a conservative’s dream.

                • does not necessitate taxing their retail property.  please don’t try to equate the two.  i’m talking sunshine laws.  you’re talking tax laws.  both are worthwhile conversations, but they are completely separate issues and one does not affect the other.

                • But, what you describe probably qualifies as a true “loophole”. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Imagine this. I could establish a legitimate charity, say Gary Inc. Gary Inc. would own real property and do real charitable things: save whales, or orphans or something. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Then, using the charitable funds, Gary Inc. would buy, say, a restaurant or bookstore, or whatever, and operate it for profit.

                  <

                  p>
                  Of course, it would pay me, the pious and upstanding manager a pile of cash to run the organization, and the Gary Inc. would pay Federal income tax on the restaurant profits (if any).

                  <

                  p>
                  And I guess, under the charitable exception statutes, the restaurant would pay no property tax. Cool.

                • People donate their cars and boats — you’ve heard the ads — and take a full write-off. 

                  <

                  p>
                  “Gary Inc” is “Helping Hands”, a for profit entity, takes almost all of the money for themselves.  Very nice pay for those who run it. 

                  <

                  p>
                  A pittance goes to the charities. 

            • Massachusetts slashed funding for public higher education – worse then almost anywhere and pays less for this critical functionm, per capital, I am told then states like North Carolina – and I note that it is North Carolina where jobs are expanding dramatically.

              • The budget for higher education increased and the fees increased.  Here’s my source.  Where’s yours?  Show me where “Massachusetts slashed funding for public higher education.”

                • First, the slam is not appreciated.  While you may disagree with my statements, I do not “make things up”.  First, in 2003 Massachusetts slashed funding for higher education as part of the mega cuts.  See:

                  <

                  p>
                  http://www.mass.gov/…  “Report of the Senate Task Force on Higher Education”

                  <

                  p>
                  An on point quote:

                  <

                  p>

                  Over the past twenty years or so our public campuses have not simply failed to benefit from wise investment; they have been staggered by a succession of sudden and deep reductions in the support they
                  receive from the state. Between 2001 and 2004 the campuses lost approximately 32.6% of their state support, adjusted for inflation, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

                  <

                  p>
                  While since then, each year has seen a partial recovery, in fact, the state support for higher education [public higher education, pal] remains well below the level of 2002.  Add inflation.  See:

                  <

                  p>

                    In the area of capital spending, the lack of funding for UMass is particularly striking. Outside of maintenance payments, new capital appropriations to UMass are slim. In FY 2001, it amounted to just $23 million, FY 2002 $47 million, and FY 2003 $25 million. As a point of comparison, neighboring Connecticut is nearing completion of a $1 billion UConn 2000 capital investment program, and a $1.3 billion UConn 21st Century Capital investment program will be starting up in 2005. Almost all of this is state money. The UMass system maintains comparisons with other `peer’ systems, and finds that for UMass state support for facilities is $689 per students compared to $1,291 at peer university systems, including $1,320 at the University of California. A tried and true key to building a premier research university is having an aggressive facility construction program.

                  Despite having significant means, Massachusetts has failed to make the effort to have a leading public university system? What appears to be holding UMass back is wavering overall state support and a particularly limited state-supported capital budget to expand research-related facilities.

                    This is also from the Senate Report.

                  <

                  p>
                  And as for Massachusetts spending way less than North Carolina:

                  <

                  p>
                  http://www.masscolle…

                  <

                  p>
                  “The Case for Adequately Funding Higher Education in Massachusetts”

                  <

                  p>
                  One on point quote:

                  <

                  p>

                  Per-student spending on higher education in Massachusetts has been among the lowest in the nation. Massachusetts invests less than four percent of its state budget on higher education. In comparison, North Carolina invests more than fourteen percent.

                  <

                  p>
                  I know what I am talking about.  Before you call someone a liar, kindly do your homework.  Want more?  Just let me know.

      • At what rate is your income taxed in Germany?

        <

        p>
        Less than you might think*

        <

        p>
        And churches, universities?  I don’t think you understand just how much money moves through business.

        <

        p>
        I’m not sure what this comment refers to.  What I am referring to is not income tax.  What I am, and always have been, referring to is property tax.  I haven’t studied the taxation issue enough to figure out how a not-for-profit entity might be taxed on its income (recognize that “income tax” on a corporation is really a tax on profit, not a tax on revenue), but not-for-profit entities occupy land.  And the land that the not-for-profit entities occupy can be taxed, just like the land that our house in Wellesley is taxed.  As I understand it, most cities and towns have a base rate for “unimproved land” (i.e. no buildings–things like golf courses).  The cities and towns could tax property occupied by colleges, universities, establishments of religion, and other “not-for-profits” at at least that rate.  Actually, I’d tax them at a higher rate, for reasons that I can go into.

        <

        p>
        *Let me put it to you this way.  In Germany, we pay

        <

        p>
        (i) Property tax, as I mentioned. 

        <

        p>
        (ii) Tax on our radio and television; this is similar to the tax that is paid in Britain, that goes to the government broadcasting entities, and brings us wonderful programming, unlike NPR and PBS in the US (btw, there are a number of commercial broadcasting entities, and cable here costs on the order of US$15/month, far less than Comcast, and we get Larry King, Still Alive! over here).

        <

        p>
        (iii) Mehrwertsteuer (MWSt, the VAT tax).  That’s about a 19% tax on virtually everything we buy.  The odd thing, though, is that even with that high a sales tax, the things that we buy are not that much more expensive than similar products in Boston.  We noticed that 20 years ago when we first started coming over here (when they were on the Deutschmark instead of the Euro)), and it’s continued to be true.  And there is a MWSt on food, and the food is better here for less cost than in Boston.

        <

        p>
        The only problem here in the Munich area is the cost of housing, which is very high, but since my spouse inherited the house (it was part of an old family farm), our housing costs here are neglible.  The cost of electricity, water and sewage here in Munich is next to nothing, compared to Wellesley.

        <

        p>
        We don’t stay in Germany long enough to be taxed on our income.

        • Isn;t the church (Lutheran?) subsidized by the federal gov’t in Germany?  I know the Dutch gov’t subsidizes their church.  I raise this question only to point out that our system is very differnt from those of European countries.  So while it is great that your tax burden seems less overall in Germany, making direct comparisons on specific taxes may be deceptively simplistic.

          • Isn;t the church (Lutheran?) subsidized by the federal gov’t in Germany?

            <

            p>
            As far as I know, no.

            <

            p>
            I believe that you are confusing something.  There is in Germany a “Kirchensteuer” (church tax) that is collected by government from church members (RCC, Lutheran and some Jewish denomination) on behalf of the churches.  The amounts that are collected from the respective members are then dispensed to the respective churches.  There is no subsidization by the state of the various churches by that.  If you don’t want to be a member of one of the churches for which the Kirchensteuer is collected, you don’t have to be, and you aren’t subjected to the tax.

            <

            p>
            The Kirchensteuer is largely analogous to an enforced tithing.  But only from church members.  Nothing more, nothing less.

            <

            p>
            Actually, the state might do a bit upkeep on the museums that are the churches, but probably not much.

            <

            p>
            I have no idea what the situation is in the Netherlands.

            • thanks for the education.  that’s an interesting system.  sounds closer to the way jewish congregations are run here (so i’m told), in that you buy a sort of an annual subscription, although of course not via the gov’t.  but either way the annual tithing amount is fixed up front.  the german way could prevent some forms financial corruption within churches i’d imagine.  i wonder what prompted them to set up the system that way.  meanwhile, churches here consider financial secrecy a sacred entitlement (see my post above).  same religions, different beliefs on entitlements.  hm.

        • the food is better here for less cost than in Boston.

          <

          p>
          I’d admit that Boston ain’t New York or New Orleans or Paris when it comes to food. 

          <

          p>
          But Munich ain’t even…..Framingham! 

Archives