The parable of the frog in the cookpot comes to mind. When first popped into the water, the water was at room temperature. But that pot was on the stove! The burner was turned on, but very low. The frog comfortably floated, half asleep in the nice warm water, not noticing that his bath kept getting warmer – until the frog was poached for dinner never noticing as the waters around him got warmer and warmer.
Welfare reform has been like the frog bath, just as the tax cut frenzy has been leaving us all in the Land of Potholes and debt…
Between 1997 and 2007, as a percentage of income, the spending on lower-income families in Massachusetts declined by 1.3 billion, due to a slick but phony promise called “welfare reform”. Why do I call it a “phony promise”?
The promise was that cash grants to those in poverty would decrease, but spending on good services like first class early child care and access to education to raise the poor into the middle class would be funded by the all or at least most of money saved by welfare reform. This did NOT happen!
Rather than spending the money saved by slashing welfare rolls on education, child care, building affordable housing, or in any way building a better future – almost all of that money simply vanished into the general fund of was swallowed by unwise tax cuts. See: http://www.massbudget.org/Foll…
While a certain amount did go to increased child care, there remain waiting lists for child care needed by working class families who are eligible for that care of thousands of children in every age group. Similarly, the promised affordable housing did not get built.
To quote the study released on April 2, 2008 by the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center:
As Table 1 shows, while spending on the cash grants measured in 2007 dollars, fell from $970 million in 1995 to $290 million in 2007, a drop of $680 million, spending on child care rose from $255 million to $510 million in 2007, an increase of $255 million. The increase in appropriations for child care programs accounts for less than half of the $680 million that Massachusetts saved as demand for cash grants fell.
Where did the money go? Well, again, the beneficiaries of tax cutting have been the top 1%. Remember, in 1980 the top 1% took home 8% – and today the top 1% takes home 23% of the whole pie. We only have one “pie” to cut up and share. If 1% gets 23% that only leaves 77% for the other 99% of us.
Welcome to the New Gilded Age – brought about by the Big Lie of the tax cutters who have poisoned public debate by demonizing government.
You and I do not have millions for public relations professionals. But we had best wake up and see the truth about the tax cutter’s selfish, deliberately misleading conspiracy of misinformation – or join the frog in his stove top bath.
Cross posted at One Massachusetts on “April 14, 2008 See http://onemassachusetts.org/
Post modern feudalism will reduce us to barter. The wonderful part of that system is that it is not totally logging into the electronic surveillance grid.
<
p>When you boil the frogs, the frogs die. 40 to 70 in this state IS poverty.
extends to NY and Vermont,and New Hampshire. Just drive anyplace but the interstates and look. I know from listening and talking that many ‘middle class’ people are inches away from disaster.
We aren’t on the verge of living in the second Gilded Age, it’s already here. And, just like it did around a century ago, it’s putting us on a path to another Great Depression. We haven’t had such horrible economic times since then, but boy are we trying are hardest for a repeat. Let’s hope we’re more proactive than we were in the past, because unfortunately – given the new global market – it would be even harder to get out of a second great depression. There just isn’t and won’t be enough blue collar jobs to go around that provides the working family with decent, steady income. That part of America’s past is history, so a depression in today’s America may very well be an economy we could never really get out of, at least in my lifetime.
Brenda J. Buote’s article “Following the Money” is a great first start at examining the loss of economic diversity in our local communities. Unfortunately, it is also an example of a failure on the author’s part to examine the cause of the problem. Statistics and particularly averages generate questions, but do not answer them. The problem is not more wealthy folks, but rather it is the loss of our middle class and senior residents due to a misguided state education funding policy.
<
p>In communities like the Town of Harvard, which have small populations (about 1200 taxpayers) and small local governments, the schools represent approximately 70% of the Town’s budget. As a result, education costs drive our tax rate. Interestingly, in the 15 years since 1993, our average family tax bill rose from $3213 to $8500. At the same time our spending per child in the schools on regular education (net of special education) fell from $5930 to $5793 before inflation. Even with increased property taxes and repetitive overrides, Harvard spends less than the State average on its schools, and about what the State sets as a floor or foundation for its local schools. Most districts in the article spend more.
<
p>With family property tax bills averaging $8500 per family, it is no longer affordable for many of our seniors and those with middle class incomes to remain in Harvard. Even if we were to build more affordable housing, taxes would make the homes unaffordable compared to neighboring communities. Thus, Ms. Buote found an increase in average income over the past few years.
<
p>Why? The state funding of local schools under Chapter 70 is tied in large part to aggregate income (which like average income is distorted by the large incomes of the highest income earners in small communities). Median income would show different results). The top 5% of Harvard’s taxpayers (60 families) potentially earn together perhaps $35,000,000 or more. Without a large taxpayer base, these few high earners skew the formula. The effect is that the Town gets significantly less than the state average support per child under Chapter 70 and is expected to afford substantially more of its school costs via the property tax than other communities. For example, Harvard receives $1400 per child in state education assistance and Acton now receives $2300 per child. Because there are a small number of very wealthy families in town relative to the rest of the town population, the middle class and the less wealthy in town have no choice but to pay property taxes that far exceed neighboring communities. A recent estimate indicates that perhaps one-fifth of the Town’s seniors earn less than $35,000 per year. As a result, they may be paying 25% of their income in property taxes. This is wrong.
<
p>To put it simply, the State’s education funding formula under Chapter 70 turns the tale of Robin Hood on its head. The formula uses the rich, to take from the poor (and middle class). The State has in effect, adopted a policy of “economic cleansing” and the data in Ms. Buote’s article shows not so much that the wealthy are moving to Town — perhaps a few are — but that as a result of inequitable state aid, our middle class and our seniors are leaving town.
<
p>The solution is to end excessive reliance on the property tax to fund education. This is further demonstrated by the fact that Massachusetts is 47th in the nation in the proportion of state funding of local schools. The State needs to allow local communities and Towns to access State income tax revenue. Then, the burden will be shared more progressively in relation to ones income.
<
p>Given the State’s budget crisis, this is a challenge but it can be done. We can do this by increasing the income tax by $0.5% and hardwiring the additional $1B or $1000 per child on a per child per district basis. Those earning more will pay more, and those earning less will pay less overall and be able to stay in their homes. This would also allow all our local cities and towns to fund their schools, end divisive override debates, and also provide property tax relief. It will also end State sponsored economic cleansing of our communities. If you agree and want to preserve affordable homes and diversity, let the Governor and your legislators know. You can also make yourself heard by visiting the Chapter 70 Coalition on the My Issues page of http://www.devalpatrick.com and voting on each of the issues.
<
p>You can also read more at my Post
<
p>0.5% For the Kids – We need to make Overrides History
<
p>Please leave comments at my Post.
<
p>Bruce Leicher
but I fail to see how this refutes the concept of a new Gilded Age. No offense, but Chapter 70 funding is something different than the increasing gap between the wealthy and everyone else.
Ryan,
<
p>Sure the argument doesn’t refute the concept but the Guilded Age argument distracts folks from the real issues they can do something about. Right now we use the existence of wealth folks in a Town to justify increasing property taxes on those who are not wealthy. If we want to make it possible for every community to preserve and expand its diversity, rather than force folks to move to Towns where everyone earns the same dollars to minimize their property tax burden, then lets leave things alone. If not, then we need to do something creative to shift the cost of schools to the income tax system.
<
p>Bruce
and isn’t really about it at all… it’s not related to the topic at hand. Thus, it’s a thread derailment. I tried to politely call you out on it, I’ll be a little more obvious next time for your benefit.
<
p>You don’t have to tell me about the importance of your big issue. I’m from Swampscott, which is suffering as much as ANY town in this state because of Chapter 70. Just a year ago, we actually recieved less money per capita than Wellesley, a town that has a median family income that’s about $40,000 higher than ours. Yet, it’s not related to the post, so I didn’t bring it up.
<
p>I suggest that you keep plugging away at this issue in diaries related to the subject. When there aren’t enough of them, please, by all means… write about it! Call your legislators. Keep drumming the war beat. But let’s stay on subject in BMG, because it takes away from the entire board when people veer off it, and let’s try to be productive instead of pricking at people who actually agree with you (for heaven’s sake!!).
….. to use on the school funding issues you note (though I don’t disagree with you basic assessment as it applies generally across the Commonwealth) as you left out a few things. Historically Harvard has fought commercial development to preserve the “Rural Feel”. Such development could significantly help with local tax revenues. Also a core group of Harvard residents are players in the efforts to overturn the 40B affordable housing laws so the skewed income stats you quote need a bit more of the light of day to fully understand them. The Harvard position on the former fort Devens disposition has been characteristically a dispute between segments of the community of the we don’t want all those houses they want to build at the former Army base if we get our historic boundaries back so let Devens become its own town vs. the we want all the business tax income (that a $200 Mil investment from the MA Tax payers have helped create at Devens) hence want to get our historic borders returned to us provided no more houses get built (because they will be more market rate and affordable). Yes Seniors and Young people are being priced out and the school budgets are struggling (which is true of all the rural, no commercial development, fight 40 B affordable housing projects bedroom communities out this way) and I do agree that funding of education should be a major priority but there is much Harvard could do to straighten out its school funding problems first before justifying a bigger appropriation from the State government and needs to find the local political will to do so.
I think we are in agreement generally but I think you have lumped together facts relating to Harvard that are unrelated and that do not add up.
<
p>First, when all is said and done, a majority of the Town does not favor retaining control over Devens or limiting development on Devens. It is true that a vocal minority has used myth and emotion to assert this view through Town leaders — leaders who are no longer controlling the Board of Selectmen.
<
p>Second, the folks oppossed to 40B are mostly opposed because of the economic impact they have on the Town. If additional homes are built with average taxes below $8500, and they have 1-2 children costing $16,000 in new services, we only sink deeper into the structural deficit hole. If the funding for education could be fixed, which is the overwhelming majority of the Town’s budget, the opposition to 40B would likely dissapate.
<
p>In fact, it is the fact that we have to tax at an average family tax bill of $8500 to just fund our schools at the foundation level required by Ch70 that is driving our lask of diversity. It is hard to see how we any of our housing, including 40B housing could be affordable housing when one takes our level of property taxes into consideration.
<
p>Finally, the Trust for Public Land did a study (I pasted it after my response) about the benefits of commercial development relative to maintaining open space. The study shows that in communities with small governments and limited services or employees providing town services — like Harvard — the taxes in communities that developed open space into commercial property actually went up. Acton used to be in the same position as Harvard until 2 years ago. It had annual overrides despite 25% of its tax base being commercial. After the chapter 70 formula was adjusted 2 years ago, and their reimbursement went from $950 per child to $2300 per child, they have been able to balance their budget. Their commercial development does not solve their school funding issues. It covers the cost of a substantial police, fire and public safety infrastructure which Harvard does not have. Similarly, Lexington which has significant commercial development is struggling to fund its schools as are many other communities.
<
p>My view is that the true culprit here is not asking those who earn more, to pay more via the income tax, so that we can actually raise money for legitimate expenses without pitting the needs of kids against the needs of our seniors. Harvard at first glance may look like a bad example, but I actually think we just got to the problem sooner and that if nothing is done, we will be recognized, in hindsight as the Canary in the Coalmine.
<
p>Bruce
<
p>TPL Study follows:
<
p>Long-term Relationship Between Development and Property Tax Bills
<
p>One of the long-term concerns about the tax implications of land conservation is that it prevents rather than encourages development, and development is presumed to lower municipal property taxes by adding to the tax base.
<
p>In general it is true that land increases in value when it is developed–thereby adding taxable value to the town’s tax base. However, development usually requires more town services–thereby increasing the budget. Different types of development cost more in municipal services per dollar of tax revenue than others do. To investigate whether or not development leads to lower taxes, this study looked at the relationship between tax rates and the following indicators of development: population, employment, and business property.
<
p>Rather than taking a theoretical approach, this study documents what has actually happened to cities and towns in Massachusetts.
<
p>Population and Property Tax Bills
<
p>The most likely type of development a community will experience is residential development. In the past many people have argued that, in the long term, residential development helps to lower property taxes by increasing the tax base.
<
p>If this were true, it would follow that the Massachusetts towns with the most residents would have the lowest tax rates. Notably, this is not the case.
<
p>To examine the relationship between residential development and property tax rates, Massachusetts towns were ranked according to population and divided into five groups. The residential tax rate was then averaged for each group (Figure 1).
<
p>On average, the residential tax rate was lower in the group containing the towns with the fewest year-round residents and higher in the group containing the towns with the most year-round residents.
<
p>The most obvious explanation of Figure 1 is that, on average, residences do not pay enough in school taxes to cover the cost of educating the children in the residence. On average, according to the U. S. Census data, there were 0.45 school children per single family residence in Massachusetts in 1990. The average expenditure per pupil was $5,465 in 1996, meaning the average single family residence cost the average school district $2,459 to educate its 0.45 students for one year. The average single family residence paid $1,139 in school taxes, leaving a gap of $1,320 per year to be made up by other taxpayers, either through municipal property taxes or through state aid.7
<
p>Although more residences mean more taxes received by the municipality, they also mean more costs to the municipality.
<
p>This does not indicate that population growth necessarily means higher taxes; however, it does indicate that, on average, towns with more year-round residents have higher, rather than lower, tax rates.
<
p>Commercial Activity and Property Tax Bills
<
p>Recognizing that year-round residences are unlikely to pay their way, a second frequently asked question is: wouldn’t taxes be lower if the town had more commercial and industrial developments to pay property taxes?
<
p>It is frequently calculated that commercial and industrial developments pay more in taxes than they cost the town in services. The logical conclusion would be that towns with the most commercial and industrial tax base would have the lowest tax rates in the state. This is not the case.
<
p>Commercial and industrial developments pay both town and school taxes without directly increasing school costs. Most analyses of the fiscal impact of different types of development have found that, while year-round residences are a fiscal drain to the municipality, most non-residential developments pay more in taxes than they cost the municipality to service.8 In addition, some towns in Massachusetts classify property to reduce the residential share of taxes and shift the tax burden to commercial and industrial property.
<
p>As a result, it would seem logical that towns with the most commercial and industrial activity would have the lowest tax rates. An analysis of the relationship between commercial development and tax rates indicates that this is not the case. On the contrary, average tax rates are generally higher in towns that have more commercial activity.
<
p>One indication of commercial activity is the number of jobs. To examine the relationship between property tax rates and employment, Massachusetts towns were ranked according to employment, and divided into five groups. The residential property tax rate was averaged for the group. On average, residential property tax rates were lower in the groups with fewer jobs and higher in the groups with more jobs (Figure 2).
<
p>Another indication of commercial activity is the value of business property. To examine the relationship between property tax rates and the value of business property, Massachusetts towns were ranked according to the total value of commercial property and industrial property and divided into five groups. The residential tax rate was averaged for each group (Figure 3).
<
p>According to this analysis, tax rates are not lower in towns with the most business property. On average, tax rates were lower in the groups with less business property, and higher in the groups with more business property.
<
p>This indicates that tax rates tend to be higher–rather than
lower–in towns that have the most commercial activity. Similar studies in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont have found similar patterns: in general, average residential tax bills are higher in municipalities that have the most commercial and industrial development.9
<
p>On the surface, this finding seems to contradict both conventional wisdom and the fiscal impact studies cited previously that show that commercial and industrial developments are tax-positive. Several points should be considered in explanation:
<
p>* Commercial/industrial development and residential development go together. Municipalities that have commercial and industrial development generally have jobs. Residential growth, which costs more than it pays, accompanies jobs. Most fiscal impact analyses, when determining that a commercial development is tax-positive, do not consider these “secondary impacts.” Although there are certainly examples of towns that have a disproportionate amount of commercial development, there is a very strong correlation between the number of jobs in town and the number of residents in the same town.
<
p>* In general, communities with larger tax bases offer more services. As mentioned earlier, larger communities often provide more services. In some cases, additional services are required to deal with the additional demands of growth and there is no net benefit to residents. In other cases, an additional level of service provides new or improved benefits to residents (such as 24-hour police protection or a municipal swimming pool).
<
p>* The charts show the relationship between total amounts of commercial development and tax bills. Clearly, a town would be better off if it could have a high proportion of tax-positive development and a low proportion of tax-negative development. This could happen, for example, if land and housing values were significantly higher in one town than in neighboring towns. If a commercial development were to occur in the town with high property values, it is likely that much of the associated residential development would occur in the surrounding towns where it would be cheaper to find housing. In that case, one town would get the tax-positive commercial development and the surrounding towns would get the associated tax-negative residential development.
<
p>Although there are certainly instances of towns receiving commercial tax base while the neighboring towns assumed responsibility for supporting the work force, in the long run it is likely that towns that get commercial development will also get at least some associated residential development.
<
p>* In general, commercial and industrial developments do not appreciate as rapidly as residential property or open land. A commercial development that represented 10 percent of the tax base initially may, over time, represent only 5 percent of the tax base–due only to differences in rates of appreciation.
<
p>* Massachusetts’ state aid formulas tend to buffer the gains that might otherwise occur from a tax-positive commercial development. The formulas factor in growth in tax base and decrease state aid accordingly.
<
p>Although commercial and industrial developments generally pay more in taxes than they cost the town in services–at least directly and initially–the actual result in Massachusetts towns is that the tax rate is more likely to be higher–rather than lower–in towns that have the most commercial activity.
<
p>——————————————————————————–
<
p>7. Census data from the Public Use Micro Data Sample for all Massachusetts Public Use Micro Data Sample Areas. Tax and expenditure data from the Division of Local Services. School taxes estimated as the same proportion of the property tax bill as school expenditures are of total local expenditures.
<
p>8. See, for example, Robert W. Burchell. 1992. Fiscal Impact Analysis and the Fiscal Impact Hierarchy: A Glimpse at the Argument. Prepared for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA. See also the Cost of Government Services reports prepared by the American Farmland Trust, Herrick Mill, No. 1 Short Street, Northampton, MA 01060. See also “Fiscal Impacts of Growth: Worksheets for Analyses.” 1988. The Center for Economic Development, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
<
p>9. This is documented in: Land Conservation and Local Property Taxes; Property Taxes and Development in the Squam Lakes Area; The Effect of Land Conservation on Property Tax Bills in Six Vermont Towns; The Effects of Development and Land Conservation on Property Taxes in Connecticut Towns; and Open Land, Development, Land Conservation in Maine’s Organized Municipalities. All are available from Ad Hoc Associates, RD 1 Box 319, Salisbury, VT 05769.
<
p>——————————————————————————–
TPL New England Region report, 1999
<
p>
…. would be a good example for the points you make. But with 5 acre zoning for residential in Harvard this is what drives up property values as only upper middles class and above in income can afford to move there for the most part.
<
p>The TPL report has one flawed assumption (and I have great respect for TPL) and that is those who might get the jobs from commercial or industrial development would live in surrounding cheaper towns. But the Tax revenues would still be going to the parent town without the tax negative affect of residential development. Considering “Smart Growth planning to balance those impacts is the way to go and it is absent from the report you posted. Also one of the long standing arguments for preservation of Open Space is it raises Property values. Are they saying this is not so as I look to Groton and see the combination of School building and a remarkable level of land preservation has had on raising property values hence the residential tax burden?
<
p>As to Devens if there is a ground swell of support for 2B (I assume you know what I mean by that) then we have yet to hear of it.
<
p>My basic premise is Harvard created the situation it is in by refusing to see the impact of its own actions rather than the needs of a poorer town struggling because of an economic down turn. It weakens the argument for more State support by comparison.
Harvard does not have 5 acre zoning. For existing grandfathered sites there is a minimum lot size of 5000 sqare feet. Newer lots are 2 acres due to the need to find septic capacity and in some cases more. If there is gerrymandering going on and a lot has limited road frontage, then there is a higher minimum. In the end, the septic issues are what drives lot size.
<
p>Planned subdivisions and 40B subdivisions often have smaller acreage.
<
p>I would suggest that it is the higher tax burden due to the cost of education that drives out the demand for affordable housing in Harvard. We actually have exclusionary taxation that is driven by state tax policy. We have many seniors leaving Town because it is unaffordable and they are being replaced by families with kids. Developers will build what the market demands. No point in building lower priced housing if residents have to pay property taxes for those affordable homes that exceed 10% of their income.
<
p>I guess I am perplexed by your point. Do you support segregation of economic classes by state policy?
<
p>I would think you would support a more progressive tax system that has folks who earn more, pay more regardless of where they live. The kids would benefit, all towns would benefit, and CH70 could still remain in place to assure sharing of resources with communities that need additional assistance. Its just that if we rely on CH70 alone, we will eventually drive folks out of public schools. Speak with your friends in California. They are 10 years ahead of us and that is what they have done.
But as to the other comments
<
p>
<
p>I support helping economically disadvantaged cities and towns before more affluent ones and people should pay an equal % of their income (as in no ceiling on Social Security for example) with some consideration for the genuinely disadvantaged.
<
p>But my point stands that Harvard created the mess it’s in as opposed to external economic factors creating the problems facing the cities I referenced.
What percentage of the contribution is being used for income vs. property taxes? The state’s spreadsheet has a default of 50%, is that what is being used in the current aid formula?
<
p>I can agree that using total aggregate income doesn’t seem right, because if Bill Gates lives in your town, you’re screwed since his presence will drive the town’s requirement up, but he won’t be required to pay the increase that he caused, it will be spread among everyone.
<
p>Then again, maybe that serves as a disincentive to accumulate wealthy people in a community. We currently have a incentive to do this …
<
p>Harvard is spending 27% over its foundation budget. Most poor communities are spending at their foundation budget. Why doesn’t Harvard (and other communities) control costs down to the foundation budget level if they want to pay less in property taxes? Reducing the school budget to foundation level will trim $2.7m from the city budget, amounting to an average of nearly $1,500 in property taxes per residential parcel.
<
p>Maybe Chapter 70 needs a fresh look. The foundation budgets are not representative of reality for urban vs. suburban districts. The state claims that a “residential suburban” child will need $8,272 spent on him or her, while a “urbanized center” child will need $9,919 spent on him or her.
<
p>Think about this from a business perspective. Let’s say you were offered a choice between two contracts; being paid $8,272 to educate a suburban child (most likely from middle or upper-middle class parents) or being paid $9,919 to educate an urban child (most likely from low-income single-family household, more likely to be Limited English). Which is the better deal? Is it worth $1,647 per child more for the urban child? Does that extra amount make it a hard choice for you, meaning that the two scenarios are equally fair? Or do you say “I’m not crazy, I’ll take the suburban child, $1,647 isn’t worth the extra effort”?
I assume the average income is from the salaries and wages line item of the federal tax returns. I don’t think a 0.5% income tax reduction was the driving force behind the salary trends you cite.
<
p>Our country, and certainly MA, has made a decided shift from lower jobs. Recall the Lawrence area was affected by the Malden Mills fire in the 1990s and subsequent restructuring. While I don’t think it is the sole factor behind Lawrence’s numbers, I believe meaningful understanding of these numbers — if any can be found — must come from a more in depth analysis.
<
p>Let’s even just take the Lawrence / Lexington example on level deeper. Not only were salaries in Lawrence stagnant or declining, but so was it’s population. Whereas in Lexington, both salaries and population were increasing. Perhaps this indicates that — as a whole — people were upwardly mobile.
<
p>As for the table you cite, the largest decrease in spending is from the AFDC/TANF grants. You assert this decrease in spending went to fuel tax cuts. However, these federal grants can only be spent on applicable costs. The missing piece of data is what were the amounts MA received from these grant programs? If the allocations from the federal government were reduced as part of the federal welfare reforms, the state’s appropriations would also decrease.
<
p>On one point, I do concur, and that is that we do not appropriate enough direct aid to low-income families for child care vouchers. As the intent of the welfare reforms were to encourage people to get onto payrolls, these vouchers are a necessary component. I wrote about this in 2006. Here is the pertinent excerpt:
<
p>There is one thing Moira Kenney and I agree on — she is most definitely a preschool advocate. Not a “preschooler” advocate, mind you. That, my friends, would require putting children’s welfare before that of adults. I do not believe that Ms. Kenney is malicious, but rather that she and fellow travellers are so full of good intentions they are blind to this distinction. And it seems that Ms. Kenney is good company here in the Bay State. Just look at the items folks at the Early Education for All (EEA) campaign found worthy of state funding:
<
p> – $12.5M for the subsidized child care provider salary rate reserve
<
p> – $10.9M for the Department of Early Education and Care’s administrative account
<
p> – $1.3M increase for Resource and Referral Agencies
<
p> – $1M increase for Head Start
<
p> – $1.5M for Professional Development
<
p>For those of you counting, that’s $24.9M for administration, salaries, and professional development compared with $2.3M that may actually flow to the families who need it. In FY2004, Massachusetts spent about $107M in federal funds serving more than 14,000 children through the Head Start program, but according to the Massachusetts Child Care Resource and Referral Network (MACC&R) there are over 14,000 children on a waiting list. And in 2005, the Children’s Defense Fund reported that almost 30% of people under the age of 19 were living below 200% of the federal poverty level.
<
p>With these statistics, it would seem that our top priorties should be to ensure the neediest families are receiving services, that our voucher system is truly based on need, and that we get as many of those who qualify off the waiting list. Indeed, in June the Early Education and Care Department (EEC) reported that 3,600 vouchers had been added, and in the process consolidated over 400 separate waitlists into one centralized system. It is now in the process of reviewing and aligning various eligibility requirements and developing a 5-year plan to provide equitable access to vouchers.
<
p>Given the success of the newly-formed EEC and the volume of work that still remains, I am extremely disappointed that HB4755, an act relative to early education and care, moves us away from a targeted welfare-type program to a bloated educratic behemoth replete with a 40-member advisory panel, state reporting requirements, and standardized assessments. These are examples of the triad of troubles with this bill — purpose, people, and process.
People that go to college, and/or industrious and successful entrepeneurs make more money. They are clannish and want to live/hang around other people and see who can live more ostentatiously than the neighbors——–this is USA, that is their right and privilege. They also want to reside in communities which have the best schools schools, safe streets and are willing to pay for it through high local taxes. Are you saying this is some form of criminal act or it is unjust?
<
p>The bottom 30% of our society pays no federal tax. The top 20% of ware earners/wealthy pay something akin to 80% of the taxes in this country.
<
p>If you want to start picking on people who pay little to no taxes, let’s start on Kerry, Kennedy, Heinz, who hide their money in trusts. Professional athletes and the Hollywood crowd. Clinton, Pelosi, Reid,Feinstein, Ferraro, et al who have been suspiciously wealthy after taking public office and I will toss in 75% of all of the Republican members of the senate and 40% of republican congressman—-just to arbitrarily point out that I am suspicious of their new found wealth as well.
<
p>What I cannot understand, is that you decry people who work hard at whatever they do and make—–oh—200K a year, but on the other hand, you say nothing about people who would prefer to sit on their ass all day and drink (alcohol) take drugs, smoke (pick whatever you like), engage in sex with whatever man/woman is proximally availble ( resulting in one pregnancy after another because they are too lazy or too stupid or both to use birth control.
<
p>Socialism and communism assures that 95% of the masses live in mediocrity, despair and communal misery. I would much prefer to live my life as I did, work sixteen hours a day, often seven days a week and enjoy what I could provide for my family. If someone wants to live in Lawrence–that’s there perogative. No one has a gun in their back. That’s the beauty of America.
<
p>
The criminality lays in our federal and state government
which does little more than perpetuate itself. Self righteous do gooders who deman funding for non profits, with very nice salaries that actually do little or nothing or perpetuate the myth that they accomplish something through frivolous newspaper articles and mythical statistics. Smoke, mirrors, and bullshit to feed the bloated bureaucracy and parasites that feed off of it.
Human beings rise to the level of expectation. If you expect nothing from someone, you will receive little else.
… bitter.
<
p>Because you think government entities haven’t held up their end of the bargain.
<
p>Where else have I heard that recently?
<
p>I realize this is a bit of a snark; couldn’t help it.
The first is that pay scale is very quickly becoming tri-modal. The huge hump is at the bottom, the “service” industries paying folks hourly wages at or near minimum wage, not always giving them 40 hour work weeks, and otherwise making it difficult to clear $40,000 a year. The next bump is those with good union jobs or solid white collar jobs. Then, there’s that bump way out there… the fat tail bump. Sure, not many people are clearing $1M, $10M, or $100M a year, but they skew the average quite a bit.
<
p>Tax cap gains and dividends at the same rate as other income and you’ll see a tax burden shift (more) towards the heavy earners. Add another tax bracket of a few percent more for all income over $1M, and you’ll see another shift.
<
p>
<
p>The issue of income clumping isn’t because of federal or state tax policy per se. It has everything to do with funding public schools with local funds. If less public school funding came from the town and more from the state, then there’d be less incentive to chase school towns, since the differential wouldn’t be as extreme. There’ll always be a differential, but with poorer communities getting a bigger boost from the state there wouldn’t be so much clumping — a clumping which, I believe, is not good for general society.
<
p>How much should the top 1% take home?
1%.
And I use the term literally.
And I made the term up.
<
p>The lower bound of the top 1% of wage earners must be 1%, by definition. It could be that the top 1% of wage earners make 1% of the income or 100% of the income — they’d still be the top 1% and they’d still be at or above 1% of the earnings.
<
p>Note that I didn’t write upper bound. So, brush up on your math and lighten up, Francis.
The math.
<
p>
<
p>To reiterate: how much should the top 1% TAKE HOME?
<
p>You say, the lower boundry is 1%. Of course it’s not because under a socialist system you could compel the elite to give up the 1% wages earned and take home 0%. Or even pay for the privilege of work in which case they take home a negative amount.
<
p>So the lower boundry is of course, far less than 1%.
<
p>So brush up on your math.
<
p>
But how about this: not so much that the rest of us have to worry about things like getting and paying for health care and we take on so much debt, as a country, that the grandchildren of people who aren’t even born yet will probably still be paying on the interest.