Be sure not to count the $300M or so that the Gov is trimming from Medicaid, $50M from GIC, and $40M in earmarks.
amicussays
David, great question. The “cut benefits” or “raise taxes” debate presents a false choice. Most of the state (and feds and cities/towns for that matter) entitlement program spending defines eligibility based on income claimed in W-2 forms or 1040 tax returns. The problem with that definition of eligibility is that it completely misses the underground economy, which constitutes a large portion of wealth in Massachusetts. So people who get paid under the table, or cash-only operations, or crooks technically “qualify” for taxpayer supported programs/services when many in fact have higher standards of living than many taxpayers. Yet many of these people get discounted housing, free food and clothing, and don’t have to pay for other services such as lawyers.
<
p>The IRS estimates this “tax gap” (the amount of income taxes not paid because of unreported income) at $300 million per year. The same holds true for entitlement spending. A better approach would be at add an additional layer of eligibility criteria onto the existing income criteria: lifestyle analysis. Essentially, eligibility would look at discretionary spending (cable TV, car less than 5 years old, premium cellphone service, cigarettes, etc.) to define whether a person should get freebies that are paid by taxpayers. By limiting entitlements only to people who actually need and deserve some assistance, the program costs will decline dramatically without hurting people. We need to stop using the social safety net as a trampoline which unfairly stretches the ability of taxpayers to support these programs.
<
p>It’s never been done in state government (Romney proposed 12 lifestyle eligibility criteria for people to qualify for free lawyers, but it was dismissed as “mean” and went nowhere) but would make a HUGE difference in our ability to help people truly in need. Might be worth a look. Check “tax gap” and “lifestyle analysis” on google for more info on these concepts.
leonidassays
Cutting spending during a recession is not a bright idea
garysays
States have to balance their budget, so absent a cut in spending, taxes or fees would have to increase. Fiscal stimulus, while a poor option at the Federal level, isn’t an option at all, at the state level.
should be there precisely for cyclical downturns. It makes economic sense, so the state doesn’t contribute to the recession by making cuts in a depressed economy. It makes planning sense, so the state can engage in rational long term planning rather than guessing every year how much money is available to spend, and then, if they guessed low, going on a pork barrel spending spree; or if they guessed high, making jarring and unpredictable cuts.
<
p>Particularly in a housing recession, the last thing the state ought to be doing is dumping off more costs to the property tax base. Normally, the property tax base is the predictable anchor, but in this housing-led recession, I suspect the best counter-cyclical move is for the state to help stabilize municipal budgets.
<
p>The problem with using rainy day funds is that it is too easy to dip into them, and hard to ever replenish them. But I think this year, Mass has an above average level of reserves, and a greater than average likelihood that the economy will be sub-par; so it is reasonable to plan to modestly dip into reserves. If revenues come in close to the five year average, the budget will be balalanced. If they don’t, by definition, it would be a reasonable time to dip into the reserves.
garysays
Your explanation of the rainy day fund, as a civics lesson is spot on.
<
p>But the reality is that there’s $2.3 Billion in the Stabilization Fund, and Patrick proposes using $300 million or so in f/y 2008 while meantime forecasting revenue of GROWTH at 2.9%.
<
p>My point is that if a recession is in the offing and GROWTH doesn’t occur and the anticipated tax revenues of about $20 Billion are off, even by 10%, then fetch me some popcorn, because the stabilization fund is very small and cuts or tax increases are the only solution. The angst that will unfold in Boston with be epic theatre.
<
p>BTW and as an aside, taxes as a function of Mass GSP have risen from 4.99% to 5.51 from 2002 to 2006, and based on Mr. Patrick’s budget will likely (barring wonderous 2008 growth) rise again in 2008.
running over 6%. Half of that is inflation; the rest is economic growth. We haven’t raised taxes, except in many locales where property taxes have been raised to provide level services.
<
p>Revenue growth at 2.8% is just inflation. The government price deflator is running closer to 5% – that is, the same services went up 5% last year nationally. Medical is way up. Energy costs are way up.
petrsays
Spending is going up 5%. Taxes are going up. Not great ideas in a recession.
<
p>Says who? You? Provided there is no waste/abuse, spending is always a good idea. In any economy.
<
p>
What about cutting spending, and lowering taxes?
<
p>Where you gonna cut spending? And why? Where you gonna cut taxes? And why?
<
p>Who is it that, in the greates state in the greatest country in the world, feels overtaxed? I don’t. The only person I know who gripes about taxes does so as part and parcel of his Republican persona… though he’s not doing so badly hisself.
<
p>Which corporations are feeling overtaxed? (and don’t tell me that because they can go somewhere else and be undertaxed, means they’re overtaxed here. That’s a ridiculous argument…)
<
p>Tax Derangement Syndrome is merely a symptom of the luxury that mistakes dislike for burden.
<
p>
mcrdsays
If the governor had a clue what he was doing he could make some significant savings. No new vehicles for the state DPW for at least one year. Do a little preventative maintenance at DPW so their equipment doesn’t fall apart in three years.
<
p>Get the cons out of all the jails and minimum jails and get them out and start picking up the trash and do community work. Some of it is now being done by probationers and a few jails. They could increase this by a factor of ten.
<
p>Build energy efficient public buildings and schools. Newton wants a 280 million dollar school. Not until you make the school more energy efficient by a factor of two and get rid of the indoor pool.
<
p>Demand BY LAW that every public employee be entered on the state retirement system and healthcare program.
<
p>Cut the size of the Mass State police by thirty percent. Stop the number of troopers who leave on injured leave in less than ten years because they don’t like it or whatever reason. Make the cops justify ALL OT. No more take home police cars and no unmarked cars for anyone on the state police.
<
p>Make Massport cough up some of their earnings to the state and cut the payroll of hacks and layabouts at Logan. It is beyond belief.
<
p>How many attorneys in the AG’s office. Get rid of 2/3 of them and send them out to work for the DA’s, or go into private practice. How about hiring new attorneuys per diem to prosecute?
<
p>State buildings? Energy conservation studies. No insulation, leaky windows, non efficient oil burners. Fix everything. It will pay for itself in the long run. Encourage state workers to care for their work place like it was their home.Encourage preventative maintenance on state equipment to avoid costly breakdowns and repairs.
<
p>Schools. I would tell the courts that the system is broken. Special ed kids will streamlined into general classrooms. Sink or swim. If the kid is out of control: Homeschool.
<
p>We have a sense of entitlement in this country that is nauseating. During the Great Depression many people had nothing yet they survived. Kids learned to read and write and did it well. If you were a problem, you got an ass whipping.
<
p>Time to get a reality check in this Country. Bush wants to give 150 billion to stimulate the economy. Since all of our manufacturing jobs are now overseas we will simply be sending 100 billion to China and India. How does that stimulate our economy. How about spending 150 billion on USA entrepaneurs? Rebuild our manufacturing.
centralmassdadsays
suggestions make you sound like a flaming liberal.
lanugosays
probably would not have much of an impact on the State economy – which will be largely pulled the direction of the national economy. And, at what cost in investment would the tax cut come? Spending more on state infrastructure would make some sense.
<
p>Tbink about it – if you cut someone’s State taxes a 100 bucks a year – they may spend it in Florida while on vacation or stick it in a savings account (no stimulus in either case). But, if you spend some more on our roads and bridges, you enhance productivity by making better roads to ship goods faster and create construction jobs here for local workers (many of them who need them because of the real estate and construction industry downturn). Jobs for local people means more money in the local economy.
bottomfishsays
If you cut someone’s taxes by $100 and the money goes into a savings account, that is an additional $100 available for bank loans. Perhaps the $100 will be spent in Florida but more likely it will be spent locally. The effectiveness of tax cuts in stimulating the economy is extremely well-known.
$100 bucks, and give it to someone who sticks it in the bank, and the bank loans it out, where is the stimulus?
<
p>It is probably true that the credit crunch isn’t crimping government borrowing ability as much as it is crimping commercial and mortgage lending. But if you’re really in a liquidity crisis, most conservative economists would prefer a monetary fix, and classical economics concludes the leverage (bang for the buck) is higher with consumption than with tax cuts. That is, for a given amount of government borrowing, consumption leads to more stimulus than tax cuts.
lanugosays
Maybe if every state in the nation decided to cut taxes a set amount could it have an effect. But, realistically, any single tax cut at the state level would only be a drop in the bucket compared with the overriding economic trends driving a downturn – which would be national and global.
<
p>And unlike the national government, the state can’t run a deficit on year-on-year spending – we have to balance the budget each year operationally. Any tax cut would have to be offset by spending cuts which would only serve to neutralise any benefit from the tax cut. Or we could use one-time reserve funds to cover the tax gap left behind, but then we would be unable to use reserves if the downturn lasted and we had a revenue shortfall. Then we would be forced to raises taxes and cut spending more.
<
p>I’m afraid the state has very limited options with regard to stimulating the economy with tax cuts. I would suggest more borrowing and spending on infrastructure instead.
<
p>A federal tax cut of some nature might be better – but only if targetted at everyday folks and not the wealthy.
on the wealthy, who had been paying less than their fair share under Reagan and Bush. And that tax increase didn’t block the great recovery of the mid-90s.
<
p>After 16 years of Republican Governors, we have a tax system that has given big breaks for the people who get their income from stocks–and that’s not the woman caring for your kids in daycare or the guy behind the counter at Quik-E-Mart. The wealth can afford to pay their fair share so that government keeps the bridges up, keeps the kids in school, and brings more people health coverage.
mcrdsays
If you land a better job and increase your salary by twenty percent, should the government take 15% of that because you are undeserving? You aren’t paying your fare share?
<
p>Who are the rich? By your standars I am a rich man. I drive a ten year old pick up and my home is 270 years old.
I spent a small fortune on my kids education. I didn’t get a dime. Why. Because on paper I made too much money.
<
p>I never said it was unfair. I never demanded assistance. I just got another job. Wealth produces wealth.
<
p>You think Bill Gates or Stephen Jobs got where they are by sitting around and bemoaning how unfair the system is?
The people who pump gas are pumping gas for a reason. Their intelligence, business acumen or work ethis doesn’t lend itself to anything other than pumping gas. That’s just part of life,
heartlanddemsays
Time to go to 5.5% even if we have to think harder figuring out tips.
richest man in America (he started Wal-Mart). It’s commendable that you, MCRD, don’t try impress your neighbors by driving a new BMW, but that’s no indication of whether you are rich.
<
p>If you’re in the top 2% of incomes, you’re rich.
<
p>Now, you do raise an excellent point about the cost of college educations–Harvard & other private colleges have been gouging their students for money. I’m rather disgusted with my alma mater, Rice, which used to charge low tuition but now raises its tuition by leaps and bounds for the reason that “higher tuition equals higher prestige.” I think Chuck Grassley has the right idea to remind those colleges why they’ve been exempt from taxes.
<
p>Which goes back to my point: some people have not paid their fair share. The wealthy got big tax cuts from Bush in 2001, hedge fund managers pay too low a rate, and many corporations have these absurd ways to avoid taxes by renting a mailbox in the Cayman Islands, and Harvard & its peers have definitely amassed great wealth with little tax burden. The common good requires that we have safe bridges and tunnels, good schools, good health coverage, good food inspections, etc., and civilization does not come for free. The wealthy, the hedge fund managers, the corporations all benefit from the laws our government makes to provide order and a fair marketplace. It’s time for them to chip in for the benefit of the commonwealth.
<
p>I should point out that Sam Walton lobbied the Arkansas legislature to raise income taxes and corporate taxes to better fund education. The Microsoft Chairman’s father, Bill Gates, Senior, has lobbied hard (along with Warren Buffett) to raise taxes on the wealthy. And Steven Jobs donated substantial sums to Bill Bradley and Ted Kennedy who want to raise Jobs’ taxes. These captains of capitalism definitely aren’t whiners–they realize that nothing comes for free, and you can’t have a successful nation if you starve its government of the resources to provide necessary services.
you walk around town with that superior attitude toward low-wage earners, MCRD… that’s a cause, and causes have effects. Have you been checking your fast food for loogies? Maybe you should.
<
p>Treat people bad, even people who earn less than you, and they’ll treat you bad in return.
Cutting spending in a recession sounds like a very bad idea to me. Increasing spending in a smart way is much better. You just have to have the willpower to then control spending when the economy is good, so you don’t get stuck with a bad budget at the next recession (that’s one of the coolest things about Howard Dean, is how he did that in the 90s).
<
p>Now, all other things being equal, increasing taxes in a recession is not good. But if you need to do it to increase spending, and the spending increases are smart, then it can definitely be worthwhile. Especially if you’re talking about the income tax, which even as a flat percentage is still more progressive than other taxes.
<
p>Particularly, if you can increase the income tax and spend that money in ways (such as local aid) that can decrease other more regressive taxes, it’s a big win, especially in a recession.
Be sure not to count the $300M or so that the Gov is trimming from Medicaid, $50M from GIC, and $40M in earmarks.
David, great question. The “cut benefits” or “raise taxes” debate presents a false choice. Most of the state (and feds and cities/towns for that matter) entitlement program spending defines eligibility based on income claimed in W-2 forms or 1040 tax returns. The problem with that definition of eligibility is that it completely misses the underground economy, which constitutes a large portion of wealth in Massachusetts. So people who get paid under the table, or cash-only operations, or crooks technically “qualify” for taxpayer supported programs/services when many in fact have higher standards of living than many taxpayers. Yet many of these people get discounted housing, free food and clothing, and don’t have to pay for other services such as lawyers.
<
p>The IRS estimates this “tax gap” (the amount of income taxes not paid because of unreported income) at $300 million per year. The same holds true for entitlement spending. A better approach would be at add an additional layer of eligibility criteria onto the existing income criteria: lifestyle analysis. Essentially, eligibility would look at discretionary spending (cable TV, car less than 5 years old, premium cellphone service, cigarettes, etc.) to define whether a person should get freebies that are paid by taxpayers. By limiting entitlements only to people who actually need and deserve some assistance, the program costs will decline dramatically without hurting people. We need to stop using the social safety net as a trampoline which unfairly stretches the ability of taxpayers to support these programs.
<
p>It’s never been done in state government (Romney proposed 12 lifestyle eligibility criteria for people to qualify for free lawyers, but it was dismissed as “mean” and went nowhere) but would make a HUGE difference in our ability to help people truly in need. Might be worth a look. Check “tax gap” and “lifestyle analysis” on google for more info on these concepts.
Cutting spending during a recession is not a bright idea
States have to balance their budget, so absent a cut in spending, taxes or fees would have to increase. Fiscal stimulus, while a poor option at the Federal level, isn’t an option at all, at the state level.
should be there precisely for cyclical downturns. It makes economic sense, so the state doesn’t contribute to the recession by making cuts in a depressed economy. It makes planning sense, so the state can engage in rational long term planning rather than guessing every year how much money is available to spend, and then, if they guessed low, going on a pork barrel spending spree; or if they guessed high, making jarring and unpredictable cuts.
<
p>Particularly in a housing recession, the last thing the state ought to be doing is dumping off more costs to the property tax base. Normally, the property tax base is the predictable anchor, but in this housing-led recession, I suspect the best counter-cyclical move is for the state to help stabilize municipal budgets.
<
p>The problem with using rainy day funds is that it is too easy to dip into them, and hard to ever replenish them. But I think this year, Mass has an above average level of reserves, and a greater than average likelihood that the economy will be sub-par; so it is reasonable to plan to modestly dip into reserves. If revenues come in close to the five year average, the budget will be balalanced. If they don’t, by definition, it would be a reasonable time to dip into the reserves.
Your explanation of the rainy day fund, as a civics lesson is spot on.
<
p>But the reality is that there’s $2.3 Billion in the Stabilization Fund, and Patrick proposes using $300 million or so in f/y 2008 while meantime forecasting revenue of GROWTH at 2.9%.
<
p>My point is that if a recession is in the offing and GROWTH doesn’t occur and the anticipated tax revenues of about $20 Billion are off, even by 10%, then fetch me some popcorn, because the stabilization fund is very small and cuts or tax increases are the only solution. The angst that will unfold in Boston with be epic theatre.
<
p>BTW and as an aside, taxes as a function of Mass GSP have risen from 4.99% to 5.51 from 2002 to 2006, and based on Mr. Patrick’s budget will likely (barring wonderous 2008 growth) rise again in 2008.
running over 6%. Half of that is inflation; the rest is economic growth. We haven’t raised taxes, except in many locales where property taxes have been raised to provide level services.
<
p>Revenue growth at 2.8% is just inflation. The government price deflator is running closer to 5% – that is, the same services went up 5% last year nationally. Medical is way up. Energy costs are way up.
<
p>Says who? You? Provided there is no waste/abuse, spending is always a good idea. In any economy.
<
p>
<
p>Where you gonna cut spending? And why? Where you gonna cut taxes? And why?
<
p>Who is it that, in the greates state in the greatest country in the world, feels overtaxed? I don’t. The only person I know who gripes about taxes does so as part and parcel of his Republican persona… though he’s not doing so badly hisself.
<
p>Which corporations are feeling overtaxed? (and don’t tell me that because they can go somewhere else and be undertaxed, means they’re overtaxed here. That’s a ridiculous argument…)
<
p>Tax Derangement Syndrome is merely a symptom of the luxury that mistakes dislike for burden.
<
p>
If the governor had a clue what he was doing he could make some significant savings. No new vehicles for the state DPW for at least one year. Do a little preventative maintenance at DPW so their equipment doesn’t fall apart in three years.
<
p>Get the cons out of all the jails and minimum jails and get them out and start picking up the trash and do community work. Some of it is now being done by probationers and a few jails. They could increase this by a factor of ten.
<
p>Build energy efficient public buildings and schools. Newton wants a 280 million dollar school. Not until you make the school more energy efficient by a factor of two and get rid of the indoor pool.
<
p>Demand BY LAW that every public employee be entered on the state retirement system and healthcare program.
<
p>Cut the size of the Mass State police by thirty percent. Stop the number of troopers who leave on injured leave in less than ten years because they don’t like it or whatever reason. Make the cops justify ALL OT. No more take home police cars and no unmarked cars for anyone on the state police.
<
p>Make Massport cough up some of their earnings to the state and cut the payroll of hacks and layabouts at Logan. It is beyond belief.
<
p>How many attorneys in the AG’s office. Get rid of 2/3 of them and send them out to work for the DA’s, or go into private practice. How about hiring new attorneuys per diem to prosecute?
<
p>State buildings? Energy conservation studies. No insulation, leaky windows, non efficient oil burners. Fix everything. It will pay for itself in the long run. Encourage state workers to care for their work place like it was their home.Encourage preventative maintenance on state equipment to avoid costly breakdowns and repairs.
<
p>Schools. I would tell the courts that the system is broken. Special ed kids will streamlined into general classrooms. Sink or swim. If the kid is out of control: Homeschool.
<
p>We have a sense of entitlement in this country that is nauseating. During the Great Depression many people had nothing yet they survived. Kids learned to read and write and did it well. If you were a problem, you got an ass whipping.
<
p>Time to get a reality check in this Country. Bush wants to give 150 billion to stimulate the economy. Since all of our manufacturing jobs are now overseas we will simply be sending 100 billion to China and India. How does that stimulate our economy. How about spending 150 billion on USA entrepaneurs? Rebuild our manufacturing.
suggestions make you sound like a flaming liberal.
probably would not have much of an impact on the State economy – which will be largely pulled the direction of the national economy. And, at what cost in investment would the tax cut come? Spending more on state infrastructure would make some sense.
<
p>Tbink about it – if you cut someone’s State taxes a 100 bucks a year – they may spend it in Florida while on vacation or stick it in a savings account (no stimulus in either case). But, if you spend some more on our roads and bridges, you enhance productivity by making better roads to ship goods faster and create construction jobs here for local workers (many of them who need them because of the real estate and construction industry downturn). Jobs for local people means more money in the local economy.
If you cut someone’s taxes by $100 and the money goes into a savings account, that is an additional $100 available for bank loans. Perhaps the $100 will be spent in Florida but more likely it will be spent locally. The effectiveness of tax cuts in stimulating the economy is extremely well-known.
$100 bucks, and give it to someone who sticks it in the bank, and the bank loans it out, where is the stimulus?
<
p>It is probably true that the credit crunch isn’t crimping government borrowing ability as much as it is crimping commercial and mortgage lending. But if you’re really in a liquidity crisis, most conservative economists would prefer a monetary fix, and classical economics concludes the leverage (bang for the buck) is higher with consumption than with tax cuts. That is, for a given amount of government borrowing, consumption leads to more stimulus than tax cuts.
Maybe if every state in the nation decided to cut taxes a set amount could it have an effect. But, realistically, any single tax cut at the state level would only be a drop in the bucket compared with the overriding economic trends driving a downturn – which would be national and global.
<
p>And unlike the national government, the state can’t run a deficit on year-on-year spending – we have to balance the budget each year operationally. Any tax cut would have to be offset by spending cuts which would only serve to neutralise any benefit from the tax cut. Or we could use one-time reserve funds to cover the tax gap left behind, but then we would be unable to use reserves if the downturn lasted and we had a revenue shortfall. Then we would be forced to raises taxes and cut spending more.
<
p>I’m afraid the state has very limited options with regard to stimulating the economy with tax cuts. I would suggest more borrowing and spending on infrastructure instead.
<
p>A federal tax cut of some nature might be better – but only if targetted at everyday folks and not the wealthy.
on the wealthy, who had been paying less than their fair share under Reagan and Bush. And that tax increase didn’t block the great recovery of the mid-90s.
<
p>After 16 years of Republican Governors, we have a tax system that has given big breaks for the people who get their income from stocks–and that’s not the woman caring for your kids in daycare or the guy behind the counter at Quik-E-Mart. The wealth can afford to pay their fair share so that government keeps the bridges up, keeps the kids in school, and brings more people health coverage.
If you land a better job and increase your salary by twenty percent, should the government take 15% of that because you are undeserving? You aren’t paying your fare share?
<
p>Who are the rich? By your standars I am a rich man. I drive a ten year old pick up and my home is 270 years old.
I spent a small fortune on my kids education. I didn’t get a dime. Why. Because on paper I made too much money.
<
p>I never said it was unfair. I never demanded assistance. I just got another job. Wealth produces wealth.
<
p>You think Bill Gates or Stephen Jobs got where they are by sitting around and bemoaning how unfair the system is?
The people who pump gas are pumping gas for a reason. Their intelligence, business acumen or work ethis doesn’t lend itself to anything other than pumping gas. That’s just part of life,
Time to go to 5.5% even if we have to think harder figuring out tips.
richest man in America (he started Wal-Mart). It’s commendable that you, MCRD, don’t try impress your neighbors by driving a new BMW, but that’s no indication of whether you are rich.
<
p>If you’re in the top 2% of incomes, you’re rich.
<
p>Now, you do raise an excellent point about the cost of college educations–Harvard & other private colleges have been gouging their students for money. I’m rather disgusted with my alma mater, Rice, which used to charge low tuition but now raises its tuition by leaps and bounds for the reason that “higher tuition equals higher prestige.” I think Chuck Grassley has the right idea to remind those colleges why they’ve been exempt from taxes.
<
p>Which goes back to my point: some people have not paid their fair share. The wealthy got big tax cuts from Bush in 2001, hedge fund managers pay too low a rate, and many corporations have these absurd ways to avoid taxes by renting a mailbox in the Cayman Islands, and Harvard & its peers have definitely amassed great wealth with little tax burden. The common good requires that we have safe bridges and tunnels, good schools, good health coverage, good food inspections, etc., and civilization does not come for free. The wealthy, the hedge fund managers, the corporations all benefit from the laws our government makes to provide order and a fair marketplace. It’s time for them to chip in for the benefit of the commonwealth.
<
p>I should point out that Sam Walton lobbied the Arkansas legislature to raise income taxes and corporate taxes to better fund education. The Microsoft Chairman’s father, Bill Gates, Senior, has lobbied hard (along with Warren Buffett) to raise taxes on the wealthy. And Steven Jobs donated substantial sums to Bill Bradley and Ted Kennedy who want to raise Jobs’ taxes. These captains of capitalism definitely aren’t whiners–they realize that nothing comes for free, and you can’t have a successful nation if you starve its government of the resources to provide necessary services.
you walk around town with that superior attitude toward low-wage earners, MCRD… that’s a cause, and causes have effects. Have you been checking your fast food for loogies? Maybe you should.
<
p>Treat people bad, even people who earn less than you, and they’ll treat you bad in return.
Cutting spending in a recession sounds like a very bad idea to me. Increasing spending in a smart way is much better. You just have to have the willpower to then control spending when the economy is good, so you don’t get stuck with a bad budget at the next recession (that’s one of the coolest things about Howard Dean, is how he did that in the 90s).
<
p>Now, all other things being equal, increasing taxes in a recession is not good. But if you need to do it to increase spending, and the spending increases are smart, then it can definitely be worthwhile. Especially if you’re talking about the income tax, which even as a flat percentage is still more progressive than other taxes.
<
p>Particularly, if you can increase the income tax and spend that money in ways (such as local aid) that can decrease other more regressive taxes, it’s a big win, especially in a recession.