What could change all that is if the House, having taken a principled stand against the governor, now turns around and allows the state’s financially ailing racetracks to install slot machines. Elected officials are reportedly under a lot of pressure to allow “racinos,” as they would be known.
There are two problems. First, racinos are just a bad idea, bringing with them the same social ills as casino gambling, if on a smaller scale. Second, they would require state approval of Class III gambling, thus opening the door to Native American casinos such as the one proposed for Middleborough.
Not that there’s much likelihood of a casino’s ever being built in Middleborough. Federal approval could take years, and there were so many problems with the miserable way that the selectmen’s deal with the Mashpee was approved that opponents should be able to keep it tied up for a long, long time.
But the right answer to expanded gambling is “no,” and it’s important that state officials keep that in mind. House Speaker Sal DiMasi deserves our gratitude for using his muscle for the good of the commonwealth. Now’s not the time to go all flabby.
Finally, let me venture into the treacherous “what’s my solution?” debate. It’s a phony construct, but it’s one Patrick himself keeps bringing up. I’m not going to talk specifics. I’ll only point out that the state and local tax burden in Massachusetts is ranked 28th nationally – about average. It’s neither outrageously high nor dangerously low.
Given that, a reasonable person might think that any budget shortfall we face could be solved with spending cuts, perhaps a modest tax increase and a determination to live within our means. Not very sexy, and nothing for huge new spending programs. But there you have it.
<
p>What tax rank would Mass claim if property taxes were included in the statistics?
The link I sent you to is supposed to include all state and local taxes.
Works in a little inherent conservative taxachusetts (it must be, right?!) bias.
<
p>Alaska is ranked as one of the least tax heavy places because they make all their money off of oil and send out checks to people who live there, that’s sloppy accounting. And of course, regarding federal tax levels, they do the typical conservative “count income tax brackets but not FICA” routine to make it look like rich people are paying more relative to poor people than they actually are. I saw some other stuff that bugged me when that first came out a year or so ago, too.
<
p>Bottom line is we are in the bottom third of states for income tax level and we’ve had our property tax pegged below inflation for 20-some years. I think 28th is probably overestimating our tax burden.
But I think we’re dealing with arithmetic here, not ideology. If you move to Alaska, your taxes will be lower. Doesn’t matter what the raeson is. To borrow from Stephen Colbert, maybe in this case reality has a conservative bias.
But when I looked at it originally, I seem to recall their methodology had some things that favored, for example, property-tax-heavy new hampshire over moderate property-income-sales tax Massachusetts. Don’t remember the exact reasoning though so I’ll punt for now.
<
p>There’s also the argument to be made that more developed states require a higher level of taxation to sustain a higher-level economy. I’d rather be paying 6% of 110k than 5% of 100k, and so on. Infrastructure costs money, but it makes money back to the general economy. Assuming we actually build it, that is đŸ™‚ By this argument, saying “Oh MA still has more taxes than Wyoming” and putting us in the middle of the pack is a little silly, although you’re right that the arithmetic is correct so the statistic still speaks for itself.
That massachusetts is a federal creditor state, paying more in Fed Income taxes than it receives in disbursements, while the majority of states are debtors, receiving more in disbursements than they pay. These facts aren’t included in those local taxation #s.
the Gov didn’t rule out racinos, but as I heard it, he made pretty clear that he would consider them only as a package deal with resort casino(s). Of course, the lege could back racinos and override the Gov’s veto. At that point, though, Sal owns the whole kit and kaboodle, and I doubt he wants that, especially in light of his little golf problem with the co-owner of Suffolk Downs.
If the dime-drop on DiMasi’s golf trips came from Patrick supporters, then they’ve done us a huge favor. If DiMasi were ever inclined to support racinos, it’s much more difficult for him now. Suddenly his golf trips aren’t a “problem” but evidence that he can’t be bought.
If we’re going to have gambling in Massachusetts, the Governor’s plan was the way to do it. The three casinos would have been a big incentive for the Wampanoags to opt-in and get a license or risk oversaturation of the market. They just stood to make more money as a third casino of three than the fourth casino of four. Also, the focus on big resort-style casinos guaranteed that thousands of jobs would be created (how many net-jobs would be added was another question, of course). The most racinos would do would be to keep our current racetrack jobs from evaporating.
<
p>Now, if we bring slots to the racetracks, the Wampanoags get to build their own casino with slots without entering into any revenue sharing deals and they get to be the only resort-style casino in the state.
<
p>If we legalize slots in any capacity, a tribal casino will be inevitable. There’s just too much money at stake.
DiMasi in the Holy Grail:
<
p>
<
p>Some levity folks.
I doubt it was entirely for the “good of the commonwealth.” Methinks it was expedited (a Tuesday hearing and a “debate” on the House floor just two days later) because the governor made it personal.
“a glorified bingo hall”? Isn’t that what the Seminoles have in Florida?