Both Representatives were asked a similar question in the interviews done by demredsox. Rep. Marzilli gave an answer that, well, didn’t answer the question. He noted that he previously supported closing corporate loopholes and then said how nice it was to have Deval Patrick as a governor, but he didn’t say anything about what he would do as our Senator regarding this legislation. I remember a similar answer at the Lexington forum. I would like a clear answer from Rep. Marzilli about what he plans to do in the Senate regarding these three MPA provisions.
In Rep. Murphy’s interview, demredsox writes that the Representative thinks closing the telecom loophole is a good idea but he “does not support meals and hotels taxes. It is not fair to cities and towns because some have larger revenue potential for meals and hotels.” Since this wasn’t a taped interview, I’d like Rep. Murphy to correct this if it is wrong, but I also remember a similar answer at the Lexington forum.
If this answer is accurate, I really have to disagree with the “not fair” argument. I can’t think of a single local taxation scheme, existing or contemplated, that equally benefits every city and town. It’s certainly not that way with the property tax. Burlington is the only community in the senate district with a Burlington Mall, yet we don’t deny the town the tax revenues it generates from that commercial property because it isn’t “fair” to the communities that do not have a mega-mall. I’d like Rep. Murphy to elaborate and support his position.
My own take: The state needs to provide a variety of revenue generation and cost-saving tools so that each city and town has something to implement in order to ease the residential property tax burden. Closing the telecom loophole and allowing the meals and hotel options are just a start. The next Senator should be leading the way to investigate even more options for municipalities.