This is absurd. Why do the Dems in our legislature have to assume new taxes are the answer to all our problems? Sometimes, I think people completely forget about the progressive agenda, and become too focused on the politics of jacking up taxes.
I saw this oped yesterday, and while its not my favorite piece of journalism, I have to agree with a lot of it: http://www.eagletribune.com/pu…
Taxing universities just is not the answer. Nor is raising taxes on individuals, or even businesses. Instead, we need a new strategy. Its called making government more efficient. In other words, reprioritize and spend on the most important programs, and cut out all of the redundancies.
By letting universities do their thing, we are bringing in huge economic benefits to the state. Similarly, by not taxing businesses too heavily, we are bringing more businesses and jobs into the state. This is common sense economics last time I checked.
MA is constantly competing with neighboring states for new business. It’s time to step it up a notch, and resist the temptation to increase taxes on universities, businesses, and mom and pop
leonidas says
Last time I checked, the only people that really oppose taxing the wealthy are those that don’t normally frequent progressive blogs.
<
p>The idea of graduated income tax is one that has been around in this country for about 100 years.
<
p>Elite universities are sitting on billions of accumulated wealth and do not justifiably exist as tax free entities.
<
p>and btw, ‘taxachusetts’ is a myth and firms usually don’t base location decisions on tax rates.
penobscott says
And last time I checked, the myth of Taxachusetts has grave potential to become a self fulfilling prophecy. It’s easy to blow it off, but this is exactly what I am talking about!
<
p>There’s no reason we can’t support good public schools, more affordable healthcare, and better social benefits without being entirely caught up in the real myth: that you need to jack up taxes on businesses to pay for it all. The problem with politics these days is neither side is willing to even consider the possibility that others may have something to offer.
<
p>My point is this: we can be–should be–pro-business and pro-government. They can work together. Sure some businesses exploit for profit, but most are owned and run by people trying to make an honest wage. The government can help them, and they can help the government.
<
p>Here in Massachusetts though government sees business as nothing more than an extra-deep pocket to dip into. We can use businesses to decrease joblessness, increase wages, and (get this) raise revenue. By bringing businesses into this state, we WILL have more tax revenues to spend on education, healthcare, social benefits.
<
p>I don’t think anyone gets to decide Taxachusetts is a myth except for the businesses who decide to come into MA or not. And it’s not always as clear cut as businesses choosing New Hampshire or MA–either/or, all or nothing. Instead, it’s which state they decide to expand into, increase jobs, etc. This happens, and our tax increases only make it worse.
<
p>Like I said above, creating efficiency rather than raising taxes should be our first instinct. This way we can continue to expand those most important programs and policies, and help reap all the benefits business has to offer.
mr-lynne says
“I don’t think anyone gets to decide Taxachusetts is a myth except for the businesses who decide to come into MA or not. “
<
p>…might have something to say about that as well. “Business-centrism” when looking at taxes might be tantamount to willfully looking at half a picture.
centralmassdad says
mr-lynne says
… how your statement relates to mine. Surely you aren’t saying that only citizens who work for the Government might have an interest in tax policy.
centralmassdad says
I’m saying that only citizens who work for government think that taxation of business is only half the picture, as everyone else relies on business for the employment from which they make the money upon which they pay their individual income tax.
<
p>Less business, less individual income tax.
bleicher says
Nothing wrong with being frugal with our tax dollars, but Massachusetts (as a percentage of individual income) is now 47th in the US in the share of local school funding by the state. Pretty soon we will be 50th as we force a larger and larger share of our local education costs on the regressive property tax rolls while having a third to one-half being the result of state mandated spend on special education, MCAS and state payroll formulas.
<
p>The effect of this (perhaps unintended policy) is to turn the tale of Robinhood on its head. We now ask many of the less wealthy to pay upwards of 10% of their income in property taxes to pay for our local schools (even with cuts), while the wealthy reap the benefits of low income taxes and pay under 5% of their income in property taxes.
<
p>What we really need to do is raise the income tax 0.5%, and mandate that the increased portion be distributed on a per child basis to each school district to allow local cities and towns to regain the revenue they need to run their schools without taxing the less wealthy out of town and to end the need for unfair overrides.
<
p>Read more at: http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
<
p>Bruce Leicher
paton03 says
Saw this article today: http://www.boston.com/bostongl…
<
p>The heart of it is good, in that it recognizes the importance of businesses to our state (just as higher education employs, educates and brings millions of “immigrants” to our state to stay). However, it alludes to the larger issue, which is how unpopular it is to do the things that actually bring revenue into the state. Why do we give businesses tax breaks? Because they give us jobs and pay more taxes, even at reduced rates, than a whole bunch of MA residents opening their own organic flower shops would.
<
p>In other words, it’s unpopular to give tax breaks to businesses, except when you’re actually working for that business, or when your organic flower shop sells flowers to people who earn their income working for that business. But we don’t realize this, because it’s much easier to go after big money than it is to do as the first poster said and cut some spending.
thomas311 says
It has become fashionable to attack the endowments of big schools like Harvard and Yale. After all, the story goes, these wealthy schools are bleeding the local economy and not contributing their fair share. Anyone who has spend any time in the Yard knows this is false. Harvard is a huge boon to the local economy bringing in thousands of students and thousands more tourists, visiting professionals, and academic leaders. These people need rooms, dinner, and souvenirs- all bought from local venders. Harvard isn’t going anywhere (which is a good thing) and we shouldn’t attack it for being big and prestigious.
<
p>We also need to realize that we can’t pick which universities we would tax and which we wouldn’t. A recent study by the university of Michigan estimates the effect of the eight biggest universities in Boston on the local economy: http://www.umich.edu/~econdev/… While Harvard may have a multi-billion dollar endowment, the Berkeley College of Music and Babson College don’t. These schools attract top musicians and entrepreneurs, respectively, to our state and enrich our communities. They employ our neighbors and educate our children.
<
p>Universities are tax exempt because they are a public service and we, of all states, should know the value of higher education more than anyone.
<
p>I completely agree that our local schools need more funding but Gov. Patrick’s plan is not the way to do that. Lets have an honest discussion about improving education, without attacking the universities that make our community special.
penobscott says
I completely agree with you that schools should not be targeted in this way. But Governor Patrick’s plan targets more than schools. He also wants to hit businesses. My thing, again, is that businesses and government should not have to be at odds. Let’s better education by using local businesses, not extracting cash from them and forcing them to send their resources elsewhere.
<
p>The benefits that university’s bring in, businesses by far exceed in aggregate. There are enough progressive business owners out there, why can’t we realize running a business is itself a social good as long as its done responsibly. Let’s see government crack down on all those greedy and manipulative corporations, and give the rest a helping hand
mr-lynne says
… as is exemplified in the exemption it enjoys. What’s being debated is whether that target is still representative of ‘fairness’ in policy as weighed against interests and incentives. To my mind, this is always a reasonable thing to consider. If it is unreasonable to change it’s special targeted status, let those reasons come out in the debate. I wouldn’t assume what the right answer is one way or another without a vigorous examination, but I certainly do not consider the question to be beyond examination.
amberpaw says
…only one of two states with NO state supported Law School?
<
p>Hint – private schools with 23 BILLION in endowments spend plenty $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on lobbyists.
<
p>Wonder exactly HOW much?
<
p>Like telecoms, maybe that exemption is not warranted.
<
p>Maybe the elite private university lobby has been no friend of public higher education…just wondering….
gary says
No state support law school. Who cares? We have what, a lawyer for every 14 people. You think we have a lawyer shortage? We have a dozen law schools, albeit private, cranking out a tidal wave of lawyers each year. Not enough?
<
p>Or the fact, that based on per capita spending the State spent only $155 per capita on Higher Education, ranking it 46th.
<
p>That’s a great statistic. It shows that the private schools in Massachusetts are of such quality, that the state doesn’t have to try to outspend to keep its graduating high school residents in the State.
amberpaw says
80% of the graduates of the private schools go away – most back where they came from.
<
p>About 80% of public higher education stay and work and live here – and start their small businesses/professional offices here.
<
p>That is true nation wide, by the way. Graduates of state colleges tend to stay put – graduates of private schools do not stay in the same state – 60%-80% move to other states and countries.
<
p>It is NOT okay with the 3rd highest income of any state that we fail to support our own private colleges universities at a competitive level.
gary says
<
p>It’s well known that 80% of all statistics are made up.
amberpaw says
…and what does Penobscott consider redundant? health care? repairing bridges? you got a complaint, be specific whoever you are.
penobscott says
Yes ma’am:
Public health offices for one…fire stations, police services. There is no reason towns can’t share, except municipal pride. This op-ed struck a chord with me.
<
p>http://www.enterprisenews.com/…
<
p>I’m happy to discuss coincidences, though I’m not really sure what your point is. Why is it so hard to believe that 4 or 5 people on this blog (and many more in the real world) don’t think taxes are the end all? Wake up
tom-m says
Original poster:
Penobscot, created 5/12
<
p>Supporting comments by:
Paton03, created 5/12
Thomas311, created 5/15.
<
p>Lucky they all found each other in this thread.