Amidst the excitement of the Presidential election it is easy to overlook a political development that poses a grave threat to the future health and stability of Massachusetts. A ballot question calling for the complete repeal of the Massachusetts state income tax threatens to gut education, health care, transportation, and security in the state along with the Commonwealth’s credit rating.
A similar measure was never taken seriously by the state’s leaders and came quite close to passing in 2002. This year the measure’s backers boast that they will devote substantial money toward an advertising campaign.
This measure represents nothing less than a new form of public policy arson that poses a grave threat to the Commonwealth and to Massachusetts residents. This measure, if passed, would, reduce state revenue by some 11 billion dollars. It would jeopardize public education in communities across the state. The hardest-pressed school districts in the state, those most dependent on state aid, would be unable to operate, and public schools in all districts would face immense budget deficits that would lead to very large numbers of lay offs and soaring class size. Severe cuts in local aid would have a ripple effect, threatening the ability of towns and cities across the state to fund public safety.
The measure would also gut the state’s efforts to provide health care to many residents struggling near the poverty line by gutting Mass Health. Such cuts, all but inevitable with a 40 percent reduction in revenue, would lead to even larger revenue losses because they would kick in a reduction in funds transferred to the state via the federal Medicaid program.
As for higher education the cuts would lead to soaring fees for community colleges, public colleges, and universities, putting higher education out of reach for larger numbers of Massachusetts residents. This would in turn severely damage the state’s economic development.
No state in the United States have sever faced an equivalent fiscal shock. The Commonwealth’s bond rating would plummet and the state would be unable to meet its long-term fiscal obligations. Cuts of this magnitude would also likely prompt numerous law suits and would tie the state up in additional costly litigation.
The measure also ignores the major differences between Massachusetts and states that currently do not have a state income tax. All of those states have either much higher property taxes than Massachusetts, a much higher sales taxes, or receive large royalties for oil, coal, and other mineral exploration.
Based on their tactics in 2002 it is safe to predict that the measure’s backers will promise everything and the kitchen sink to voters, all the while ignoring this measure’s extraordinarily destructive consequences. In 2002 it is safe to say that many voters who supported the measure overlooked the fact that they were in effect voting to destroy public education, health care, public safety and transportation.
What has to change in 2008 is the attitude of the state’s leaders. In 2002 almost none took a strong position in leading opposition to the ballot initiative. This cannot happen again in 2008. One thing, of course, has changed-we have a new governor. Governor Patrick must take the lead. I am certain that this was not on his agenda, and it is a fight that he did not pick, but this measure if passed would either destroy all that he is working for or would consume all of his time and energy.
Historian
I don’t see this as arson, rather a pointer to some of the sicknesses within the Mass Bay body politic.
<
p>Many voters will vote for this as a kind of generalized protest, safe in the knowledge that the legislature won’t let anything really bad happen.
<
p>Legislators in turn will feel justified in ignoring the protest, based on its lack of specificity, its impotence, and, if taken literally, its irresponsibility.
<
p>Folks who enjoy righteous indignation will get a quick hit. Grover Norquist fanboys, and maybe a few pols, will score a few quick points. Nothing, of course, will change.
<
p>The whole thing will degrade everyone whom it touches a little, and who benefits from that?
<
p>So not arson, just a chronic illness.
Re Charley’s promotion comment: this is heading for the 2008 ballot. AP article here.
The voters will use this to get the legislatures attention. The Big Dig, Massachusetts’s propensity to be fiscally irresponsible by acts of commission as well as ommission: the great mass Pike rip-off. the endless legions of pols and pals on the public payroll. A do nothing legislature with an exhorbitant salary and perks, a new governor who has yet to even get a modicum of a clue, the massachusetts Port Authority and its bloated payroll, that fiscal laughing stock AKA the MBTA, the state police ripoff with unmarked cars with golf clubs and baby seats being used on time off, our infrastructure crumbling around our ears and Sal DiMasi and Therese Murray singing chorus’s of “What, Me worry”.
<
p>The electorate will be a tinder box by next autumn, especially when Deval the Dunce announces new revenue enhancements. That’s when the house of cards is going toget hit by a force five tornado from the electorate in the form of 55% voting to repeal the income tax.
<
p>You will have no one to blame but yourselves and a state legislature that is unicameral and does what it pleases and the electorate be damned. A good healthy shock of 220VAC and ice water should get a lot of peoples attention. You can try by legislating an emergency sales tax on everything in the commonwealth and then take an axe to the budget. Texas seems to do quite nicely without an income tax.
<
p>Together we can!
The slogan for your campaign is going to be…
<
p>”Make Massachusetts like Texas!”
<
p>Just keep repeating that one, MCRD.
MCRD appears to believe that politics are different in other states. Some of us actually came to MA from other states. Computer says no, politics aren’t different in other states.
<
p>They aren’t actually all that different in other countries, either. Example: shortly after Helmut Kohlkopf (long joke) left office as Kanzler of Germany, it was revealed that his party (the center-right CDU) had been supported by the French oil conglomerate Elf Acquitain. There is corruption all over, and we just have to learn to live with it.
You get used to loving “the bomb” as well.
<
p>Polticians are inherently corrupt—deal with it. OK!
Texas seems to do quite nicely without an income tax.
<
p>Some friends of ours here in MA needed to re-locate to TX a few years ago. They were shocked when they got their first property tax bill on the house that they had bought down there. It was four times the last bill that they had received on their house in Taxachusetts, on a house whose valuation in TX was lower.
<
p>No income tax does not mean no tax. What it means is a regressive property tax.
<
p>BTW, FL uses the taxing philosophy “don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax the guy behind the tree.” If you have ever vacationed down there, you would discover that the tax system is designed to tax hotels and restaurants, rental cars, etc., that are mostly used by tourists. The last time we were down there, the tax rates were in excess of 10%. We haven’t gone back.
… who headed up the 2000 census on NH public radio some 7 or 8 years ago. The thing I remember him pointing out is that on balance, NH taxpayers don’t pay less tax just because they don’t have an income tax. They just pay about the same amounts but through other taxes.
I actually do believe that the New Hampshirites should change their state motto to “live free–or try.” Those who live in NH but who work in MA are doubly screwed: ultra-high prop taxes in NH and MA state income taxes.
<
p>And, for an idiot MA resident who buys something in NH that needs to be delivered in MA, they’re going to be paying MA sales taxes on the device anyway.
Pick up trucks are for.
…states haven’t lobbied to require credit card distributors report purchases made out of state to the revenue authority of the state of residence (as indicated by the credit card holder’s billing address). In addition to a sales tax, there is also a corresponding “use tax.” Pickup trucks would not be able to avoid that.
hold up to constitutional challenge. It seems like a duty to me and the last time I checked we were supposed to have unfettered interstate commerce.
Would the use tax hold up to constitutional challenge.
<
p>You have the right to unfettered interstate commerce. You don’t, under the Constitution, have the right to use what you buy in interstate commerce in your state of residence. Hence, the use tax as a substitute for the sales tax.
<
p>I’ll give you an analogy. When I was a naive knave growing up in Cincinnati, there were TV ads from auto dealers in northern Kentucky hyping the fact that OH residents would not have to pay sales taxes on the cars that they bought from them. I thought, good deal, and I asked my father why we didn’t get our cars from northern KY–no sales tax. He then let me know that, we wouldn’t be paying sales tax to KY, but in order to get the car registered in OH, we would have to pay a use tax to OH.
<
p>Unfettered interstate commerce? Most certainly. Avoiding the appropriate taxes? Not a chance.
<
p>I don’t know the details, but I’m sure that there is a time window between taking possession of the article and the requirement to pay a use tax–for example, when I moved to MA, I didn’t have to pay a use tax on the car that I had owned for several years in order to get it registered in MA. But that’s a different issue.
Fortunately we are blessed with a strong Governor, Deval Patrick, who knows how to mobilize strong opposition to these know-nothings.
<
p>I am hopeful that this time people will not be fooled.
are know nothings. Boy that quick statement is a wonderful window into the mindset of liberals. You guys really do know better than everyone else don’t you!
… small government. It’s quite another to believe that causing fiscal calamity is desirable.
While having property taxes permanently pegged below inflation AKA going down in real dollars year after year..
<
p>Isn’t that enough? We’re already underfunding damn near everything with a 500 million dollar budget deficit. Wanting to eliminate the major source of income for the government is indeed a “know nothing” position unless you don’t like the idea of having police on duty and teachers in the schools.
So I won’t listen to your comments. You dismissed out of hand without further study the possibility of regionalizing services to enact savings. You are part of the problem Mr. Booth, as an elected official you won’t even listen to alternative ways of doing things. Hopefully the people of Tyngsboro read this board.
Try doing the job sometime before complaining that everything can’t be fixed overnight.
<
p>I didn’t dismiss it out of hand, I pointed out that it’s not a silver bullet and cost savings will be minimal. Sure, it should be explored, every penny counts, but I’m not sure that you understand the legal and political hurdles necessary to enact things like that. You’ve got state law, union contracts which don’t sync up across towns, municipal bylaws, etc etc etc. When the time of policy makers is finite, you have to take an effort:reward analysis into account.
<
p>I didn’t dismiss the idea completely but simply noted that attacking the health insurance problem would save somewhere between 10-100x the money and am now noting that burning down most of the state govt’s revenue system because it doesn’t run 100% perfectly at every level seems a bit extreme.
My board brought in a new Town Administrator, new Police Chief, Town Accountant and Town Treasurer. We completely overhauled the yearly budget process and as a result managed to add teachers last year while most other towns in our area were cutting. Things don’t look quite as good coming into this spring but due to our new procedures we have much better information at this point in the cycle than we did in previous years. Currently we’re looking into ways to reduce the overtime expenditures in the police department through more efficient scheduling.
<
p>All of these things outweigh the budget impact we could get from regionalizing the few services that lend themselves to it and with a far smaller amount of hassle.
<
p>And healthcare, not to mention refraining from abolishing taxes (!!) would dwarf all of these things I just mentioned.
<
p>So don’t be so quick to criticize people you don’t know. I’ve been paid precisely 100 dollars for 2.5 years of serving my community because stipends were the first thing on the cutting block.
First on the proposal itself
<
p>-wouldn’t really hurt schools since they get the bulk of their taxes from property, wouldn’t hurt inner cities schools since they get the bulk of their funding from the feds
<
p>-On Hospitals and Healthcare again Im not sure how much money comes from federal grants or from other taxes like sales, cigarette, etc.
<
p>-The higher ed portion seems somewhat accurate, though community colleges get funding from prop taxes in the area they cover, UMASS gets a lot of money from other sources as well
<
p>That said while you are exaggerating the damage there would still be significant damage, Im sure the cuts, while not of the doomsday variety would hurt a lot of people especially the vulnerable and its something the libertarians won’t tell you
<
p>Second on its passing and political capital:
<
p>-Gov Patrick is not particularly politically strong but I am sure this is one issue the politically powerful leg and he could agree on, the Gov cause hes somewhat progressive and the Leg because they like their pork and earmarks and will fight to the death
<
p>-If it does pass, and it definitely could since most voters are ignorant and will be focused on the presidential election and it’ll just look like a sweet tax cut, the leg and Gov could merely choose not to enforce it like they did with campaign finance reform and universal healthcare back in 2002.
Urban schools don’t get the bulk of their funding from the feds. The bulk of the funding comes from state aid. And for a suburban district, the 15-20% of the budget that comes from state aid is essential – because proposition 2.5 prevents the town from raising the lost state money locally.
<
p>We need to get tax policy off the ballot into the hands of elected representatives. If people don’t like the result, let them elect new representatives, not wreck havoc on public policy through this nonsense.
but please explain how they could get more than 100% of their budget from anywhere…
is perhaps the most nonsensical of the day. I have no idea what it is trying to say.
A community can get more than 100% of its ed budget from the state – sort of like a veteran can score 115% on a civil Service exam with the extra points.
<
p>A few years ago, New Bedford received over 100% and spent the surplus on new fire trucks. I cannot find a citation in Newspapers that hasn’t dropped off the system, but it happened in 1999, prompting legislation that no community should get more than 100% from then-Rep. Nancy Cafffyn – it was defeated.
<
p>This is now in 2007, according to SouthCoast Today – “For education aid, the state determines how much a city or town can afford to contribute to schools, and the state pays the rest. For a city like New Bedford, state aid amounts to 86 percent of their school budget.” So New Bedford only pays 14% of its school budget – we pay the rest.
Springfield received $310,177,763 total state receipts; School expenditures actual were $278,871,230. 111.23%
<
p>Lowell received $155,712,325; actual expenditures were $$142,345,810. 109.4%
<
p>New Bedford received $142,058,942; actual expenditures were $127,253,730. 111.6%
<
p>Contrast those urban centers with say, Truro and it’s actual school budget of $4,196,279 and its state receipts of $447,498. 10.7%
<
p>Or, small rural C. Mass town of Wales and its actual expenditures of $1,166,312 and its State receipts of $1,033,068. 88.5%
You’re adding together both Chapter 70 (school) and Lottery (general government) aid. That’s not the way it works because the cities receiving such aid have far more general government obligations than small towns not receiving much Chapter 70 aid.
<
p>Springfield received $237,358,397 in Chapter 70 money in the FY 2007 budget (I used 2007 because FY 2007 expenditures are available). Its education expenditures for FY2007 were $293,907,562. So yes, the state kicked in 81% of Springfield’s education budget. But let’s go a step further and figure out what would happen if it did not do this.
<
p>Let’s first go down the path that the state should not pay that $237m. Instead, it should come from Springfield taxpayers via the property tax. Springfield has $40m in override capacity. So $200m would have to be cut from Springfield’s budget.
<
p>A Romney-appointed Financial Control Board couldn’t come up with even $5m in cuts from Springfield’s budget — they imposed a trash fee instead. I fail to see where $200m is going to come from.
<
p>But let’s assume that Proposition 2.5 would be off the table in this case. Springfield is deriving $145m from its $7.4bn in taxable property, or a rate of $19.60 per $1000 in valuation. Adding $237m to that picture results in an overall rate of $51.63 per $1000 in valuation.
<
p>Springfield has a split rate, with businesses paying more, but using Springfield’s current CIP factor would result in an effective residential rate of $42.30 per $1000 in valuation, and an effective commercial rate of $84.15 per $1000 in valuation.
<
p>For the average homeowner living in the average $146k single-family house in Springfield, that would mean a tax bill of $6,175 (up from $2,347). My tax bill would go up to around $12,690, and my property taxes would be higher than my mortgage.
<
p>What do you think will be the result of more than doubling business taxes overnight in Springfield? My guess: businesses will leave, they will move elsewhere.
<
p>In a limited sense, I’d make out on this deal — I’d get back $15k in MA income taxes, and would pay $8k more in property taxes. But I don’t think I’d want to live in Springfield any longer, because most people would get hammered in that deal.
<
p>But think about the ramifications of taxes that are unrelated to either spending or income. If I lose my job or my wife dies, I need to sell my house immediately because I can’t pay the $12k in annual taxes. If I lose my job I won’t have to go into hock to pay my income taxes, because I’m not earning as much income. The taxes are based on what I earn, not what I possess.
<
p>So let’s go with the other possible scenario, that Springfield is spending way too much on its schools. On its face, that is laughable, because due to state and federal policies poverty has been concentrated in a few cities like Springfield (tax dollars go to convert old tenements into subsidized housing — tenements that only existed in cities).
<
p>Can anyone say, with a straight face, that a child with two parents, one stay-at-home, the other an executive somewhere, will require the same amount of educational effort as a child from a broken home, one whose single parent moves around to a different apartment once every year or so, one who doesn’t have enough to eat, one who isn’t even wearing the proper clothes to school in winter?
<
p>Can someone point to a success story in this country where a school system made up primarily of impoverished students has dramatically reduced spending on its schools and has improved the results?
<
p>Can someone explain to me how to reduce a school budget by 80% and not gut it? Or how to reduce a municipal budget by 50% and not gut it?
<
p>If something like this comes to pass, I will personally pay for a bus to transport inner-city kids for weekly “field trips” to the more wealthy suburbs. Take a couple hundred inner-city kids, put them on a bus, and drop them off in the center of Dover for the day. Let them wander around the small wealthy towns. There’s no law against that, is there?
Right?
<
p>(I haven’t checked)
The state pays for most of New Bedford’s schools, and they still suck?
<
p>How is that possible? Maybe not enough money is going in?
<
p>Or maybe sending money isnt the answer?
I once listeed to a speech by Ed Moskovich, who said the state had spent an additional $10m on the Chelsea schools over ten years, and grades and standardized tests hadn’t changed.
<
p>He wanted the state to give him a grant to investigate why that was so…
<
p>Your first bullet item has already been dealt with
<
p>On Hospitals and Healthcare again Im not sure how much money comes from federal grants or from other taxes like sales, cigarette, etc
<
p>Taxes. Where do you think that the government grant money comes from? The money tree? Research institutions may get grant money from provate industry to carry on research, but little of that gets cycled into the classrooms.
<
p>The higher ed portion seems somewhat accurate, though community colleges get funding from prop taxes in the area they cover, UMASS gets a lot of money from other sources as well
<
p>It is the fact that community colleges (like other colleges) do not pay property taxes, and, as a result, they suck off the property taxpayers’ teats. But they do not get direct payments frm the local taxpayers. Regarding UMass getting lots of money from other sources, see above, regarding grants.
According to the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Institute (a liberal thinktank, sure, but their numbers are accurate), the FY2008 state budget included:
<
p>- $1.3b in direct local aid to cities and towns
– $4.9b in K-12 education funding
– $1b in higher ed funding
– $536m for early education
(that’s 6.4b for education, for those of you keeping score at home. No harm to schools at all, really…)
– $1.9b for mental health and mental retardation services (not sure why those are listed separately)
– $9.3b for healthcare (again, clearly just spare change.)
– $538m for other public health programs (things like smoking prevention, teen pregnancy prevention)
– $800m for Social Services
– $1.5b for corrections and public safety
– $758m for the judiciary (damn activist judges)
– $1.2b for health insurance for state employees and retirees
<
p>This isn’t a complete list, but it includes many of the big-ticket items (~$24.6b out of the entire $30.9b budget).
<
p>Now, for those who want to cut the state income tax and reduce the budget by $11b, where would you take the money? Sure, I’m guessing many would get rid of DSS and scale back those silly public health programs, but that’s only $1.3b. You could get rid of all healthcare funding and that would even things out pretty quickly. Or deny all state employees and retirees healthcare.
<
p>I guess we could look at the other $6b that I didn’t list above. If it isn’t up there, it probably isn’t that important.
<
p>- $232m for elder affairs
– $662m for “other health and human services” (probably plenty of waste there… like emergency shelters.)
– $598m for Transitional assistance and workforce training. Wait, welfare handouts are a whole 1/60th of the state budget?!? Scandalous!
– $214m for environmental services
– $176m for economic development
– $127m for housing
– $1.9b for debt service payments (stupid Visa)
<
p>I suppose if we cut all social services and just stick to the basics, then we could pare down our government pretty nicely. But really, that’s not the state I want to live in.
<
p>Like I said, you tell me where we’re going to cut 1/3 of our budget and then convince me that this is the best way to do it.
Those of us who got their start in small town politics learned early that to have any power you had to pay attention. And one way you paid attention was by reading and understanding the town budget enough to play an informed role in deciding 1. what services and programs would help build and sustain your healthy community but 2. how to pay for it.
<
p>Today our state confronts the basic challenge of how to pay for the essential things we want our government do, like educating our children, ensuring safe and secure communities, and developing economic infrastructure that yields opportunity for everyone.
<
p>As we continue to grapple with structural budget deficits at the state and local level, with towns and cities across the state cutting programs and laying off workers, it’s time to ask ourselves how we can pay attention and participate in the inevitable public debate over how to build a fair and stable tax system that provides enough revenues to sustain our healthy communities.
<
p>Many folks think we might see significant tax policy changes take place in the next several years. But what form will they take? Will they provide for a fair, adequate, and stable tax system?
<
p>Question — who will shape the debate about what “fair, adequate, and stable” really means?
<
p>Answer — every one of us can if we get informed and start to pay attention to the budget and tax policy debates going at the state level.
<
p>A new network in formation called ONE Massachusetts is just beginning to build out an educational network that trains activists across the state to understand how state tax and budget policy works, how it’s formulated, and who wins and who loses under the current system. The ONE Massachusetts Interim Leadership Team will be adopting a governance structure this week and our website will launched in the first of the year. Meanwhile check our ONE Mass page .
<
p>The ONE Mass curriculum is being designed to meet the needs of different constituencies:
<
p>1) Inexperienced grassroots members – often new members of community-based organizations – who need basic training on the fundamentals of how the tax system works, sometimes in translation
<
p>2) Community activists – often regular volunteers and paid staff of community-based organizations who already participate in some statewide organizations – who could benefit from a deeper analysis of state tax and budget policy
<
p>3) Experienced statewide activists – often Boston-based advocacy staff – who are ready to engage in sophisticated debates about state tax policy but who could benefit from more nuanced conversations about questions of equity, adequacy, and stability, as well as messaging support
<
p>One Massachusetts is committed to training and supporting existing and emerging grassroots leadership in communicating forcefully and effectively about tax policy in ways that help to create a political environment in which our state can make the policy choices that will fully support healthy communities all across the Commonwealth.
<
p>If you are interested in participating in a ONE Mass training event contact Yawu Miller at yawu@realclout.org or Judy Meredith@realclout.org
It’s the ridiculous fiscal irresponsibility. It is the commonwealth and it’s subordinate entities that either simply watse the tax dollars or they steal it. I have been living in this state for many years. I had an occupation which allowed me to be a close observer and a fly on the wall regarding decision making of where the monies would be spent and who would get them. It was nothing less than an appalling disbursement up of spoils. Who got what depended on who you were, payback, reward, markers for a favor, greasing the skids and an assortment of motivation. Rarely were the decisions based on : “What’s good for the folks of MA.” I am not going to flog one organization or several. They are all guilty. Then there is the out and out theft. The taxpayers are outraged and when it comes to vote of the abolishment of the income tax. Don’t be too surprised. You know the adage of
fooling the people.” The fact that we have a new governor that campaigned on change, and he went out and began decorating and buying cars and then expressed outrage and surprise that folks were angry only lends credence to the fact that the taxpayers have a right to be bilously angry.
Yes, just like any institution, including our own families and our workplaces, some folks in our government makes stupid self serving choices and sometimes waste money. It’s frustrating to hear about it and deal with it. (Just ask me about the cost effectiveness of a wooden sail boat or talk to my partner about my JJill account.)
<
p>Anyway, it’s very important that we all work together to hold our public officials accountable and to a high standard. It’s just a little more paying attention really and staying civilly engaged. (Actually it’s more like a life sentence with no hope of parole.) But we depend on the government for so many important things, we’ve got to make sure it’s operating wisely.
<
p>Bottom line I believe it’s worth my time to work with others to make sure that our government is properly funded and honestly administered because it is essential to keeping my community whole and strong.
The Legislature has shown that it feels it can ignore the will of the people when it comes to ballot questions. They refused to cut the income tax to 5% (when mandated) never mind 0%. And don’t forget how clean elections was completely ignored.
<
p>
If this passes, the legislators don’t vote on it like a Constitutional ballot question. They would have to vote to repeal it immeidately.
<
p>It is like Clean Elections, in that there was a vote to repeal. However, if the ballot question passes – it’s law UNTIL repeal. How fast does the Lege move? I know, I know, Lightening fast when they want – but if more than 50% vote for this, it make take a little time, and there is no tax collection in the interim – no wiggle room due to timing like Clean Elections.
I’m a little foggy on this but if it becomes law can it not be modified like any other existing law? I thought that was what happened to the 5.8 to 5.0 ballot question (it was a ballot question right?).
<
p>
..the tax bills went out. I remember having to tinker with withholding between the 5 and 5.8/6/3 with diectives from the DOR.
<
p>Whereas – if an ABOLITION passes – can employers legally withhold MA state tax from checks?
According to Article 48 of the Mass. Constitution, a ballot initiative, if passed, goes into effect 30 days after passage. That would give the legislature plenty of time to call an emergency session (seeing as the regular formal sessions will be over next November) to undo the damage before it’s done.
<
p>That is, of course, unless the law itself says otherwise. Anyone have a copy of the text?
The whole thing is just Righteous Indignation Theater for everyone.
<
p>Have fun!
<
p>(Oh–and a statute can’t override the constitutional provisions by which laws are adopted and repealed by, say, specifying that it can’t be repealed.)
<
p>
That its language stipulates it can’t be amended or repealed?
The petition amendment to the constitution says it may not be amended by a subsequent petition-based amendment. It can still be amended by a legislature-initiated amendment, though.
<
p>Secondly, as far as I can tell (though I can’t be sure since I haven’t seen the text and none of the coverage specifies law or amendment), this initiative is merely a law, not a constitutional amendment. I don’t know of any precedent for mere laws to say they may not be amended.
not a constitutional amendment. And it is not possible to make laws un-amendable. So this law, if enacted by the people, would be subject to modification or repeal by the legislature, as is any other law.
…maybe if this proposal is passed, it will prompt the legislature to allow cities and towns to institute even more local options taxes. Local income taxes, local sales taxes, taxing (shudder!) educational institutions and churches. Oh, that would be fun to watch.
But I can envision a result where this law would not be all bad.
<
p>Don’t get me wrong, I still think it’s a dumb idea, but if it were passed, there’d be plenty of opportunity to fix things before the state came crashing down around our ears.
<
p>Basically, the fix would be to increase the sales tax. Probably in the neighborhood of doubling it. This broadens the number of people and lessens the amount individuals pay, purely on the fact that we have a significant tourist economy, and these tourists would be paying sales tax as well. I’d guess we earn more from tourists than we spend elsewhere as tourists, but I’m just guessing here.
<
p>Secondly, our income tax right now is relatively regressive, in that it is a straight across-the-board flat tax. Yes, there is a standard deduction, but otherwise it’s regressive.
<
p>A sales tax can be adjusted to be less regressive. (It’d still be better to have a truly progressive income tax, but that’s been thrown out the window several times in the last few decades for reasons I completely do not understand.) You can exempt necessities from the sales tax, such as food, shelter, healthcare, and, I’d argue, education.
<
p>Think on it. The standard deduction is emplaced on the principal that the lowest earners need their money more than middle-class and wealthy do. They need it to ensure their livelihoods — that they can get enough to eat and have a place to stay, etc.
<
p>Well, instead of estimating what this amount is, we can exempt these very goods so that the working poor have what they need, tax-free.
<
p>And yes, I’m aware that most of these things are already sales-tax exempt, so not a lot of work would be needed here.
<
p>Would a 10% sales tax be betten than 5% sales, 5% income? I don’t know, but it’s worth a thought should this thing pass. And I fear it will, based on the number of people who will just glance at the literature, see “$3000 dollars back in your wallet” and instinctively vote “yes”.
<
p>Am I crazy? Probably… but I do try to see the silver linings when I can.
Whether the current income tax is the best way to raise funds is a legitimate issue: years ago the campaign for a graduated state income tax failed. There’s also a case to be made for considering raising the gas tax, though that is almost certainly a political non-starter. But any such proposal is best made as part of the normal legislative process. Repeal of the state income tax would likely set off a mad scramble from the state-house to local government, and it would likely destroy the state’s credit rating, push numerous municipalities into insolvency, and generate a series of expensive court cases.
We all know who it is. Tradesman, waitresses, landscapers, construction, snow plowing, cash and carry employment. Restaurants that leave the till open. There are too many to illucidate. Then there are folks that just don’t file their taxes or pay them for that matter. Numerous members of our state legislature come immediately to mind ie Sen Wilkerson and Tom Reilly’s running mate et al. Point being, the sales tax gets everyone. Levy a tax on everything——-everyone pays. Add a luxury tax for all big ticket toys.
<
p>Nationally and within the confines of Massachusetts, there are too many people getting a free ride. I don’t want to hear “working poor”. I was working poor. I worked three jobs and my wife one. Both of my sons in law work two jobs and their wives one. That’s the way it is. This ain’t France. Restructure so that everyone contributes and stop the fraud, waste, and abuse.
<
p>This is how Sal and Terry are going to get around this. The elecorate will pass this initiative 55-45. The legislature will repeal it with an emergency preamble. DiMasi will come out with a lame excuse and essentially tell the elecortae to “shove it.” He will tell them to take it up with the rank and file. The rank and file all know that they won’t have any challengers and the electorate, by and large, will not elect a Republican, so they are safe. The legislature can do anything they please, whenever they please and they could care less what the public thinks and point their finger at another legislator and blame him. Everything will be done by voice vote. No witness no crime. No finger prints, plausible deniability and everything stays the same. It’s a beautiful thing.
The Federal government is wasting more money than anybody, they take a bigger chunk of my pay every week than the state, and they make us all accessories to murder by funding wars of aggression and campaigns of torture. When people actually need help (for which purpose I would gladly have my taxes used) they do little or nothing (see Katrina and Darfur).
Glad people challenged my thoughts and did not assume I endorsed the proposal which I don’t.
<
p>That it would force the state to cut services I do not argue. But to be fair part of me instinctively would want to support this just to force the state to cut all the waste, granted Id say waste is about 20% of the budget and cutting this tax would kill off around 60% so we’d still need a disastarous 40% cut in services, but considering its non binding at least it sends a message to the leg to finally cut down on wasteful spending, corporate welfare, and public service union jobs for hacks like tollbooth operators and drawbridge operators.
Please get your basic facts right. If this initiative passed, it would become a law. That’s why initiative petitions are called “initiative petition for a law.” The legislature could of course repeal or modify it, as they can any law, but it would have to do so through the usual legislative process — enact a bill by a vote of both houses of the legislature, and then either have the Gov sign it or have the lege override his veto.
If this passes it would be by a slim majority, maybe 51%-49%, and do you seriously think this legislature which loves its hack projects and Deval who wants to expand productive government services wouldn’t repeal it? There may be a lot of DINOS who want to cut taxes, but none that would eliminate them outright, especially since they like their hack jobs for relatives and campaign supporters. It basically is non binding when you look at that reality.