Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

A good example of everybody working together on a fiscally responsible solution

By

So says Doug Rubin of the Governor’s office in the 3-11-08 Globe We wish that had been the headline instead of “House OK’s Big Tax Hikes.”

Actually we merged Doug’s quote with the Speaker’s.

“The members of the House have rolled up their sleeves, tackled difficult issues head-on, and provided common sense, fiscally responsible solutions to our budget challenges,”

There’s a story behind the story of who rolled up their sleeves and helped to broker the compromise. Any story tellers out there?

crossposted on ONE Massachusetts  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. While I have  anecdotes of certain new alliances and working groups, I could not watch the discussions in the chamber.  Too bad.

  2. about the last nights debate on corporate taxes says the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM)on their website

    <

    p>Money Quote:

    <

    p>

    A bright spot for business in the tax bill was the inclusion of an AIM amendment that would, among other things, limit the discretion of the Commissioner of Revenue in implementing combined reporting and allow for a federal consolidated return election.

    <

    p>The AIM amendment was adopted after a long debate among House Leadership after reading this letter from the Department of Revenue

    <

    p>Money quote in plain English not to be found by this reader, although translations are in the works. Meanwhile I am told it allows really big businesses to do to us what they do to  Illinois according to this 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal.  

    <

    p>

    More than 4,500 miles separate a small Wal-Mart Stores Inc. office in Florence, Italy, from the company’s dozens of Illinois retail outlets. But thanks to a convoluted tax arrangement, court records show, Wal-Mart’s Italian operation has helped the giant retailer cut its state tax bill in Illinois by millions of dollars a year.

    <

    p>  

  3. So that they can be pissed away for things like the Big Dig, political cronies, special interest non profits, non performing schools, pet projects, give away social service
    agencies (some of whom are simply enablers) ad nauseum.

    <

    p>I wonder what it was that prompted the American and Russian Revolutions?  

    • For example:

      <

      p>1.  Should all fees charged in order to be appointed counsel be used to fund the appointed counsel line item [they are not – these fees go into the general fund]?

      <

      p>2.  Should all probabtion fees fund the probation line item [they don’t – they go into the general fund].

      <

      p>3.  Should all filing fees fund the courts [they don’t – since 2003 20% do if the courts meet certain conditions, but 80% go into the general fund]!

      <

      p>4.  Should 100% of the gas tax collected fund repairs and maintenance of roads and bridges [it doesn’t – you guessed it – it goes into the general fund]!!

      <

      p>However, WHAT groups do you consider “special interest non profits” and using what evidence/facts/basis?

      <

      p>Don’t nonperforming schools need help, because it is the job of adults to take care of children [and of the strong, to care for the weak generally in a moral healthy society]??

      <

      p>Just asking.

  4. sounds like it has added an 80/20 rule for inclusion in the unitary group if the taxpayer has made a water’s edge election.  The CA combined reporting scheme (the most developed combined reporting scheme out there) included the water’s edge election, even after the Supreme Court upheld the absence of it against a constitutional challenge.  I’m not positive about this, but I think after the Container decision came out there were rumblings of federal legislation in the area to require combined reporting states to have a water’s edge election.  Seems like an 80/20 water’s edge election is necessary to avoid another constitutional challenge or intervening federal legislation.

    <

    p>Does anyone know if the final version used the Finnigan or Joyce method of apportioning the group’s income?

    <

    p>Does anyone have the text of the bill that was actually passed?

Archives