Well, I tried getting into the hearing yesterday, but I got there a little late and the Gardner Auditorium was stuffed to the gills. Anyway, here's
what I've been thinking …
The Governor does indeed sound resigned to the fact that it's not going to come up in the House, complaining “I believe that the people of
Massachusetts expect more from us than they are getting.” Now, maybe it's because Sal DiMasi and Dan Bosley have tomato soup for brains and didn't listen to facts. Maybe it's because they're stubborn. Maybe it's because they have intractable moral objections to casino gambling and no amount of rock-solid information could have persuaded them. (That might describe me, after all.)
Or maybe the Governor didn't do a good job getting his information straight, and didn't make a modest, credible case for his casino proposals. I doubt he ever would have gotten me to go along with his plan. But he might have peeled off folks who were a little more on the fence if he'd had some solid backup on his claims.
He continued to claim that his proposal would create “a minimum of ten thousand construction jobs”. This figure is in serious dispute, and everyone in the room had to know that. He also asked us to “Bear in mind that we are likely to have an Indian casino in Massachusetts sooner or later.” That is also dubious at best, if not an outright falsehood.
Now, Governor Patrick is correct about the urgent need for revenue that does not rob the future. We continue to have long-term structural deficits in our budget. (Here's the full MassINC report on our ongoing fiscal mess, pdf.) The licensing fees might well be gigantic. It is economic development; I believe a rather non-benign kind of economic development, but there it is. There would indeed be jobs created; the casino supporters in labor are looking out for their bottom lines, which is to be expected.
And so, without this immediate short-term jolt to the Commonwealth's revenue stream, we'll stumble along as we always do, hopefully avoiding the kinds of draconian, child-crushing cuts that, say, California always seems to resort to, and that we endured not so long ago. Maybe cigarette taxes will save our health care law. Maybe we'll weather the recession better than other places.
But to try to be constructive, here's what I'd like to see:
- Concentrate economic development on small business. Grace Ross talked consistently about this in 2006; a recent Radio Boston show's panel agreed that the region's economic health simply cannot be boiled down to pumping the glamorous stuff: biotech, IT, and alternative energy.
- As the governor says, close the other corporate tax loopholes.
- Spending control:
- Implement serious and pervasive oversight of construction projects.
- Pass strong health care cost controls; at the very least, get value for our dollars.
- Get business to pay its fair share for health care reform.
- Unify the semi-independent bodies under the executive branch.
- Institute a progressive income tax already. It is beyond foolish that we are prevented by our Constitution from having a perfectly ordinary, unexceptional and sensible income tax scheme. (And yes, it's beyond foolish that we've voted to keep it that way.)
As Jimmy Tingle correctly points out, the casinos are just another way to take money out of our pockets anyway. Why not do it fairly, cleanly, and rationally, instead of opening a Pandora's box of unintended consequences?
is the bill even going to reach the floor?
<
p>and does anyone have a list of supporters/opponents/undecideds?
from the count i’ve been told it has currently, it won’t reach the floor… but it is very close. I think it’s being delayed to make sure it won’t be close by the time this is all said and done.
<
p>There’s some lists of supporters, opponents, etc. But they’re not very comprehensive, since so many legislators are being mum on the issue. But there’s probably a fair number more opponents than supporters.
just raise the rate on income from stocks over the rate on wages.
Rates. Of course, I reckon if we crank up the rate on dividends too, we can pretty much squeeze any incentive to save right out of the system.
why your love for casinos?
What’s casinos have to do with saving rates?
this is a thread about casinos, is it not? Perhaps you should look at it as me getting you back on topic. In any event, you expressed worry that we aren’t giving people enough incentives to save. Yet, you support casinos, which turn 6% of the population (and their families) into addicts – according to the administration’s own numbers, yesterday. Obviously, you’re either not that concerned about people saving money, or you’re only concerned that the wealthy be able to do it.
to post about the hearing yesterday, but suffice it to say, we didn’t really learn much. I was disappointed the administration parroted a few lines that have been completely discredited, or were exceptionally stupid (yes, one of his secretaries said we needed to create casinos so we could create more revenue to address the services necessary for the addicts we already have… how stupid is that?).
<
p>Much more importantly – and I just posted about this on my website – is the fact that, according to my sources, the committee’s vote is exceptionally close. We have the victory right now, but a few extra calls to our state legislators will really help make sure that this isn’t a close vote at all.
Casino fatigue has certainly taken hold and I am frankly sick of the discussion. I posted awhile back about my concerns that the Adminstration and the citizenry were taking our “eyes off the ball”, or perhaps being distracted by the hype of the controversial casino bill is more accurate, from the important work of government.
<
p>Nonetheless, your suggestion about construction oversight is well taken, as well as support and incentives for small businesses. I would add regionalization of many muncipal services including procurement and contracting. CDBGs have been single town/city grants for many years, now there are proposals to combine municipal applications.
<
p>Let regionalize communications, municipal webservers, whatever, to create economies of scale. Let’s support an increase in the sales tax and provide money for education and training to bridge the skills and wage gaps issues that make a casino job attractive to those struggling financially and lack marketable skills. Aren’t we about lifting people and society up?
<
p>Incentives for medical manufacturing and green energy manufacturing to restore the former mill cities and towns with blue collar, meat and potato jobs that support families. And, develop links from high schools and community colleges for internships to have a ready workforce prepared.
<
p>Let’s get on with the business of efficient and effective government and citizen involvement.
<
p>Cheers.
Whether you support the casino proposal or not (I do) doesn’t anyone else have a problem with the fact that one man, Speaker DiMasi, can prevent the governor, a substantial number of state representatives and the entire senate from being able to discuss this issue? If he had used the same tactics to prevent discussion on a cause you support everyone would be screaming foul. I’m sorry but I believe in democratic discussion on all topics, not just one man’s decision. He also opposes local option taxes on restaurants and hotels purportedly because his friends in the North End restaurant industry don’t want it. Does this mean the whole state is supposed to suffer because one small community is opposed to an idea? Then there are the corporate loopholes which if they followed the governor’s porposal and just closed them would bring in approximately $300 million in new revenue, but DiMasi thinks the businesses he loves so much need a tax break so what the speaker giveth by agreeing to closing the loopholes, he taketh away by lowering their tax rate. The state and municipalities are going to financial hell in a hand basket and I don’t hear him offering any solutions. He seems more interested in cutting state spending and protecting business interests.
I honestly believe that the reason so many good legislators are retiring or not seeking re-election is because they are stifled and good ideas are shut down because the speaker doesn’t let get discussed and people who would support progressive, broad based taxes are shot down from the start. The job is tough enough but why stick around if you are not even going to be allowed to discuss and examine all the options.
<
p>Just venting.
<
p>
<
p>First, notice that your link references all states, many of which have lower and flatter tax rates than Massachusetts: the way state income taxes are intended to be.
<
p>Second, HELL YEAH. Let’s see Governor Patrick step up in favor of a
higher‘progressive’ tax rate. It’ll be like throwing gasoline on Carla Howell’s tax ending referendum.because I genuinely don’t understand: How do you get “flatter” than 5.3% across the board?
<
p>Furthermore, the fact that Carla Howell wouldn’t like it is neither here nor there. I don’t think any politician would do well to be afraid of goofs like her and her Dumb Idea.
5.3% tax on income other than cap gains; 12% on cap gains. It means that folks, usually more wealthy folks pay a state tax rate in excess of 5.3%.
<
p>Gas on fire. It’s not that Carla would be angry, but your “let’s raise tax pledge” would feed the fire to vote for her referendum, which recollecting got over 40% last time around. Fuel to fire to fifty one? Neat ad slogan.
* Concentrate economic development on small business. check
* Close the other corporate tax loopholes (with a reduction in corporate income taxes – my add).check
* Spending control:check
* Institute a progressive income tax already. (see below)
<
p>There is no chance of a progressive income tax happening this year or any other new taxes for that matter. Not in an election year and in all likely hood an income tax repeal on the ballot. To support that further, at Senator Jehlen’s Budget review meeting at the West Medford community center last week a member of the Governor’s staff pretty much the same thing.
<
p>That being said after government has proven they can be a better steward of taxpayer money and there is still a need, then yes I would agree it is something that could be put on the table.
<
p>One structure could be:
Let me stress again, I wouldn’t consider a progressive tax rate until we do better with the money we have and demonstrate read need (our education and infrastructure being high on the list ).
From the IRS Data Book of returns filed by Mass residents in 2004:
<
p>All returns: 192,412,755 (000s omitted)
<
p>< 50K: $39,311,323
50 to 75K: $27,049,571
75K to 100K: $23,826,845
100K to 200K: $41,984,811
Over 200K: $60,240,204
<
p>So, back of the envelope I understand, but i) ignoring the 12% cap gain rate and ii) assuming a flat tax of 5.3%, the group pays/would pay/did pay about $10.2 billion. (192.4 billion time 5.3%)
<
p>1: Under your plan that 0 to 75K group ought to pay 5.0% or $3.3 billion. It’ll actually be a bit less because of the circuit breakers, rent deduction, medical deduction and exemptions and EIC.
<
p>2: The 75K to 200K pays 5.3% or $3.5 billion.
<
p>3: And the fat cats pay what, 6 percent? 6% gets you $3.6 billion. Pick your favorite percent and remember that as you increase the rate, you also increase the motivation for those wealthy mobile people to discover ways to avoid the tax.
<
p>The grand total of 1 + 2 + 3 is $10.4 billion.
<
p>Hmmm…crap, only an additional $200 million.
<
p>That’s not even the license fee from a casino. Further, the politician that passed that tax increase just pissed off a lot of
voterswealthy people.<
p>The numbers show, what every tax policy wonk knows: tax the wealthy and not the middle class and you don’t get the bang for the buck you’re aiming for.
<
p>It’s what’s miscalculating about the Hillary tax plan right now. There’s not enough wealthy people. To get the tax you hope for, you have to redefine the wealthy as those making over $75 or thereabouts and in effect tax the middle class.
<
p>