From the State House News Service’s weekly roundup:
ONE PARTY, ONE BALLOT INITIATIVE, NO CHANCE: House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Senate President Therese Murray joined Gov. Deval Patrick in public opposition to the proposed income tax repeal that’ll most likely be on the ballot in November. Working for the repeal is a good job if you like underdogs. Big Labor is against it, Murray tried Thursday to recruit Big Business to fight it, and if Paul Guzzi and Bob Haynes get on the same side and it’s not yours, well, you’ve gone and got yourself triangulated. While the governor had announced last week that he would campaign against the proposal, DiMasi warned this week that he might stand in the way even if voters did approve it, and then Murray got all mathematical on us and said income tax accounts for 40 percent of the state budget. Have a good summer, Carla Howell.
Sure, everyone who’s anyone on Beacon Hill is against the repeal of the income tax, which Governor Patrick famously called a “dumb idea” — including, apparently, the folks at State House News. But don’t you think that’s exactly why it does, in fact, have a snowball’s chance in hell of passing? What better way to send a message about being fed up than to vote for something that every single person on Beacon Hill opposes?
Personally, I doubt it’ll pass. But I think it’ll be close. Declaring that it has “no chance” strikes me as more than a tad premature.
This article is the latest in a docket of evidence that puts “triangulated” on my list of “words most often used, but not really understood, in politics”. I also would put “meme”, “appeasement” and “terror” on that list. Yours?
the Federal income tax?
Both McCain and Obama are offering comprehensive tax cut plans.
<
p>An excellent analysis (already touted by both campaigns)and from the nonpartisan Urban Institute is available here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org… Some higlights:
<
p>”Both candidates have proposed major changes to the nation’s tax laws… Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.7 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively… The two candidates’ plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households.. Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.”
Graphic from CNN
<
p>Under Obama’s tax cut plan, 97% of taxpayers will see a reduction in income taxes with only the wealthiest 1% seeing any significant increase in their tax bills. 85% of taxpayers, meaning those earning under $112,000, will take home more under Obama’s plan then McCain’s. 67% of taxpayers, those earning less than $66,000 will take home an average of $500-$700 more per year.
<
p>This is not good news for McCain should voters who want to pay less in taxes actually be paying attention. Sure, McCain cuts taxes for everyone, but giving low income people only a $19 tax cut in order to give the wealthy an extra $270K is not looking out for hard working Americans and their families.
<
p>Household Income Stats.
<
p> Question whether someone making $19K is 1) that hard working 2) pays that much tax to begin with 3) votes.
lies much of the philosophy of today’s Republican party. Translation of gary’s comment:
<
p>Low-income Americans are most likely (1) slackers who don’t deserve any more help; (2) not paying their fair share — it’s the super-rich who are overburdened and need a tax cut; and (3) not going to show up on election day, so even if they legitimately need relief, what’s the point of offering it to them?
<
p>We can only hope that John McCain is as honest as gary about the thinking behind his tax proposal.
<
p>Except I’m a registered Democrat, since 1974.
Regardless of which party you affiliate yourself with, I stand by my observation.
I’ll correct your translation.
<
p>
<
p>I never said they were slackers, but merely people who for whatever reason (students, disabled, part-timers) work less, and earn less. If you think that group needs welfare, then open the debate to whether someone making under $38k should receive welfare rather than cloking the question within obscure fiscal policy.
<
p>
<
p>Rich, super-rich, etc…don’t need more money. But, reduction of the capital gains tax will result in more tax revenue. Always has. Reduction of the dividend tax rate is simple fairness: tax has once been paid on the dividend and the individual pays the tax AGAIN.
<
p>
<
p>That’s not my point. My point is, that denying this group a tax cut won’t hurt vote tallies, because that group simply doesn’t vote.
Is having a system that works. That’s what’s fair. If the result of taxing corporations and then taxing dividend payments and then taxing personal income is, for example, a working military, effective schools, and clean streets, then that is what we should do. Or if having no taxes works better then that is what we should do. But simply claiming that taxes in themselves, once twice or one hundred times, is “unfair” reveals an essentially doctrinaire philosophy that is ill suited to finding workable practical solutions to our problems. It is, in fact, the kind of approach advanced by the Bush administration and the rigid blinkered anti-analysis that has gotten us to the sorry state where we are now with tax cuts for the richest and lousy services for everyone else.
… that you could substitute the word ‘regulations’ for ‘taxes’ and the above statement still holds true.
Not only is taxing the same income twice unfair, but taxing investment income excessively, or at all, is one incentive against investment.
<
p>It was a dark day, whenever it was that the US policy makers decided that savings was bad and spending good. As in let’s up the capital gain/dividend tax rate and give tax breaks to people who never paid tax so they can stimulate the economy.
I’d rather be taxed twice — once at 10%, a second time at 10% — than taxed once at 25%. The total tax rate is what is relevant, not the number of times a tax is collected to generate that total tax rate.
<
p>As for taxes on dividends, sign me up as one of the folks who believe that it is fair to tax income from sweat-free means [dividends and capital gains] at a higher rate than from sweat-inducing means [you know, personal income from actually working].
Following the lead of Mr Lynne above, I could substitute damn near anything in place of the phrase “investment income” and come up with a truism.
<
p>For example, taxing wool excessively, or at all, is one incentive against sheep farming. Taxing hammers excessively, or at all, is one incentive against carpentry.
<
p>Why should investment be sacrosanct when sheep and hammers are not (or at least, I’ve never heard anybody arguing for sheep and hammers)?
Learn something new everyday. This is almost as surprising as when my mom told me she voted for Mitt Romney in the primary because she hates Hillary Clinton.
Isn’t that why we have an endless list of proposals to get people to vote? Vote by mail, same day registration, no ID required, get the whole day off.
If people vote, then they have more of a stake in the society. If they don’t vote, they have less of a stake. If we are to succeed and have a decent place to live for all of us then we need to have everyone involved. This is a pragmatic approach that the GOP again and again ignores in favor of a short-term expedient solution in which decisions are made by a relatively small elite for their own benefit at the cost of longer-term prosperity for the majority. The Bush tax cuts for the very richest, and their decision to kick to the curb the poorest who we all depend upon for our collective prosperity is a good example. It has produced the current dismal economy, just as one example.
… CMD would rather voting took some effort so some evidence could be shown of ‘earning the right’ to vote by caring enough to make the effort. His record of commenting is pretty clear on the issue. The idea is not without merit, but I tend to oppose it.
<
p>Whatever ‘standards of effort’ one elects to adopt, there exists the problem of manipulating the selection criteria by adopting ‘effort standards’ that are easier to overcome for some than for others. Certainly the most likely to ‘put forth the effort’ would be ideological fanatics, and I would rather not give them anymore systematic preference than they already have.
rather than have so many people pay next to nothing, or nothing at all, when others pay 33 or 40%, eh?
<
p>
if people didn’t need food, shelter, or clothes. Otherwise, so long as we’re all going to pay the same % of taxes, we ought to pay the same % for housing, clothing, food, transportation, and health care.
<
p>We have a graduated income tax because we as a society recognize (a) that all Americans are valued, and (b) that all Americans must spend a minimal amount of money on some things, and ought to spend more than that on some things.
<
p>A graduated income tax, either nominally or through tiered deductions, becomes an obvious result of (a) and (b).
Because the economy is great and no one is taking a lower paying job to make ends meet. And someone working part-time or part of the year could never be hard working. Or perhaps a mom who was out on maternity leave or cut back hours to spend more time with kids and doesn’t file a joint return – she’d never be hard working.
<
p>I question whether anyone who posts on the internet between 9am and 5pm are hardworking, myself. But that’s just my personal bias. People who are in poverty or low-income are often some of the hardest working people I’ve met.
<
p>
Which might give them time to post during the day. But I guess night shift workers aren’t hard working?
…and I stick by it. It applies to everyone except myself, of course. Pay no attention to the time stamp of this comment.
<
p>
I dedicate this comment thread to the honor of Mr. Farnkoff.
People who know we need income tax will vote for it this time. More than needed to make up the difference in the 46% who voted for it a few years ago.
<
p>$4.00 a gallon gas and now considered luxurious (and much publicized) government employee benefits are the Lithuitania and assignation of Arch Duke Ferdinand to ignite this revolt. People will expect the legislature to impose a new smaller tax.
<
p>It is the waste and abuses not the intent of the spending that has people pissed.
<
p>There are also way too many six figured salaried jobs in middle management of state government.
People don’t like the idea of one political party calling all the shots, and saying things like, “DiMasi warned this week that he might stand in the way even if voters did approve it.” There is simply no place for that sort of royalist attitude in a democracy. The Clean Elections absurdity was a good example of the same kind principle at work: voters approved it, legislature said screw you voters, and won.
<
p>I can easily imagine more than 50% of Massachusetts voters voting to abolish the income tax.
Isn’t this akin to voting on whether or not government should be abolished?
There was no income tax for much of this country’s history. Indeed, many states have no income tax.
Read the list again. Only four have no income tax, another handful have income tax only on investments and/or corporations.
<
p>Good link though.
Either by obscenely high property taxes or absurdly high sales taxes and fees. There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
was a good thing. That’s a good example of why we need a strong Speaker.
assignations before he was assassinated.
Is it binding, or could the lege, if it passed, legally choose not to implement it?
and, like any other law, could be repealed or amended by the legislature.
<
p>[understatement] Likely.[/understatment]
<
p>This is “outrage theater”–on par with all the security theater that is keeping us so safe from terrorists blowing up jets with their running shoes. Good box office for Carla Howell, though.
<
p>Ironically a strong showing will only insulate legislators from any pressure to pony up for property-tax relief (Are you kidding? The voters would kill us)–something voters said they favor.
After getting the requisite gazillion certified signatures, Howell’s initiative went to the Lege, which had until the first (?) Monday in May to vote Aye or Nay.
<
p>They blew it off – maybe to demonstrate how they doan NEED no stinkin’ badges.
<
p>Now, if Howell gets 11,000 MORE signatures – and they have to be DIFFERENT than the ones certified in the first gazillion – it goes to the ballot. And becomes law 1/1/09, with a REDUCED rate of 2.5%, becoming a zero rate on 1/1/10.
<
p>So – Sal has fixed it so the first vote – after reelecting him Speaker, fo course – is to raise income taxes.
<
p>Nice goin’, Mr. Speakah!
people might vote on it, what strikes me about the income tax repeal is the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the small government idea.
<
p>Any serious policy discussion begins with a suggested change and ends a clear plan of implementation. In that regard, Carla Howell’s small government movement is an abject failure. She proposes the abolition of the income tax and ends with “Don’t worry be happy.”
<
p>Mark
Carla genuinely and her ilk genuinely want to destroy government. The problem is their entire arguments ends up sounding like that ambulance chaser ad “It’s my money and I want it now.” It’s appealing until you start to think it through. It’s like when Boston canceled after school programs, then were shocked at the rise in teen crime…
Ignore that first genuinely
<
p>Carla and her ilk genuinely want to destroy government.
is actually JG Wentworth.
if the income tax repeal passes.
<
p>FWIW, the only time I ever voted for one of these tax cut measures was the original proposition 2 1/2. I voted for it for two reasons:
<
p>1. Property taxes are highly regressive. The value of someone’s property is very poorly related to ability to pay, especially for retirees who may have a nice home but not much else, including no job and not much income.
<
p>2. Taxing property creates an incentive for overdevelopment, leading to abominations like the “Town Center” in Wayland where I live. City and town officials are forever trying to increase the tax base, leading to more and more sprawl and ever higher density of buildings.
<
p>If I had my way, a graduated income tax would provide the primary funding mechanism for government at all levels. The people trying to repeal the income tax have it all backwards.
“Hey, let’s invade a nation of 20 million people with 150,000 troops–the oil royalties will pay for it, and we’ll be greeted as liberators! It could take six days, six weeks–I doubt six months!”
<
p>Completely off-topic, I drove down Route 28 through Somerville last week and my two-year-old asked me, “Dad, why is the bridge rusty?”
Because the public employee unions run this state. And they have been asking for more and more concessions and benefits that those in the private sector that pay their salaries don’t get.
<
p>Also because only union contractors can bid on the repair of the bridge the price of replacing it is more than it should be.
<
p>But I bet you didn’t.
Full of ex public employees, I was amazed. The money these guys are getting paid..
<
p>Also, you got a cite on only union shops being able to work on state roads? Cause I never heard that. I’d blame the RFP process more than the union shops, myself.
<
p>But yeah, we should expect people who contribute to the public good in America to work for nothing while we overpay KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater etc by the billions. Right.
is a wholly owned subsidiary of state employee unions? Because you are going to have a really tough time convincing me otherwise.
<
p>Exhibit number one is the “flagman” idea being DOA. That is just one example of many.
Minneapolis had a bridge collapse–and Minnesota does not have the expensive police details as their flagmen as our state does. New Hampshire’s bridges near Portsmouth are in terrible shape. Oklahoma had a bridge collapse over the Arkansas River not too long ago. While the police union may be tough to shake on this one program, the cost of it really isn’t big enough to stop proper maintenance. The whole nation (in high-unionized and low-unionized regions) has rusty bridges due to a widespread belief that nobody should chip in their buck for the common things because something somewhere in the system is not perfect.
<
p>It’s the Mr. Pink approach to governing and while humorous in the movies, it’s a bad idea in real life.
The detail thing, while annoying, is actually relatively short money. It’s just that it’s so visible all the time, so it’s become a symbol.
<
p>Bridges will fail, schools will close, anarchy….
<
p>The bridge in Minneaapolis had a significant design flaw.,not lack of tax revenue.
<
p>The collapse in Oklahoma? A barge hit it.
<
p>Because bridges spanning waterways could never possibly be bumped, damaged, or struck by large watercraft, it only makes sense that these bridges would not be designed and maintained to withstand a date with a barge.
No matter how much tax revenue the state had raised, it would have still collapsed. Similarly, the one in Minn. Added tax revenue would eliminate the design flaw.
<
p>Don’t blame on taxes, or lack thereof, what can be explained by human error.
Added tax revenue wouldn’t eliminate the design flaw.
I’m not an architect, nor a mechanical nor civil engineer. However, I do know that things are designed in consideration of safety, aesthetics, and budget. There is a minimum standard for safety, but more money can buy more safety.
<
p>Could a bigger budget in the design process resulted in more review of the design? Could more money for the bridge have resulted in a stronger bridge?
<
p>Dunno. My guess is that you don’t either.
Then follow your own logic through. If neither I nor you know whether or not more money can change the review process and result in a better design, should we throw more money at the process?
<
p>I’d say, the burden of proof goes to the spender, not the saver. YMMV.
I cannot prove that bridges today are not overbuilt monstrosities that cost way too much. Therefore we should reduce our bridge-building budget by half (or more). Sound like a good idea?
and maintenance would have revealed the structure to be unsound if that is the case. Funding is required to support proper inspections that would reveal design flaws, if that’s indeed, the problem, and funding would be required to either address the design flaws or tear the bridges and rebuild them.
<
p>In either case, proper taxpayer funding of a rigorous inspection and evaluation process for bridges would minimize the risk to the public.
No one is saying we should cease inspection and maintenance.
<
p>Upthread is suggesting that the bridges failed for lack of maintenance. There’s no evidence of that. One failed from a design flaw introduced 40 years ago, the other from a barge striking the bridge.
<
p>Simply from those two examples, it’s hardly a call to raise, or not lower, taxes.
inspection and maintenance; I’m suggesting, as many here are, that proper funding of these functions is likely to reduce the past and potential hazards associated with these structures.
<
p>And if you are really suggesting that we properly fund inspection and maintenance of our roads and bridges, well, then, whatever.
I never said you said we should cease inspection and maintenance. Multitasking is not my forte.
Let’s just eliminate the income tax and not rebuild any bridges. Unless they’re in Iraq.
And if we’re Republicans who are happy to spend just as much money as Democrats so long as it goes to our friends and family.
<
p>If the GOP were a model of rectitude some of the arguments Gary and EaBo make might be convincing, but to argue with a straight face after seven years of the Bush administration that the Republican Party cares at all about fiscal responsibility or tangible results for money spent is, sadly, laughable.
<
p>And to claim that the GOP in MA is different after Ognonowski couldn’t even organize a
game of beer pong in a brewerygather 10,000 signatures in a state with millions of voters, and Romney made a mockery of the words, “competence” and “results,” is, also very tragically, equally laughable.<
p>We need to drop the rhetoric and concentrate on practical things that can work, like green energy programs and specific education and health care reforms.
You’ve been quoted!
<
p>Pretty sure the’re referring to you in your former life, though.
Cobbett was a fascinating individual, and genuinely seminal to modern journalism – which I think is blogging.
<
p>I don’t read Eugene all the time, and could well have mise that – thank you!
Great point, Joel.
<
p>Makes me think of all those Homeland Security grants that states get to buy fancy equipment and training to protect bridges from being destroyed by the al-Qaeda boogieman, when in reality the greatest threat to our infrastructure is not bombs, but neglect.
<
p>I’d feel a lot more secure in my homeland knowing that my Red Line train won’t plunge into the Charles as it crosses the crumbling Longfellow Bridge. Can’t an argument be made that “our dilapidated bridges are more vulnerable to damage during a terrorist attack, therefore it would be wise to spend Homeland Security grants on infrastructure”? Or is that way too pragmatic?
Note to self: Use this rhetorical device more often when arguing with those with whom I vigorously disagree.
Look at the bridges and the roads you drive on: they are for the most part in shoddy condition–if voters really were to cut off 40 percent of the state’s revenue and destroy the state’s credit rating they could then conduct an experiment to find how many would collapse and fall down.
<
p>As for details, it’s widely agreed that they are a bad idea and that they serve as a negative sybmol, but stop with the smears against public employees, including police. They should not earn huge sums for serving on details, but the fact that some may play golf is irrelevant to any discussion of public policy. How are the unfounded claims that they are playing golf while getting paid any different from slander?
that if there were a large tax increase, that all of the bridges, tunnels, and roads would be in excellent condition within a few years.
<
p>I do not. On the contrary, I think they would be in precisely the same condition that they are in presently, but would cost more.
… that if you wanted to rehabilitate a large chunk of infrastructure, you’d have a very hard time doing it without revenue. Hard to imagine the universe where you get bridge repair for free.
That’s showing the libs. After all, fixing bridges doesn’t have anything to do with kids!
<
p>Oh, wait …
Not again with the Minnesota Bridge Collapse. It was a design flaw, not the shortage of tax revenues that caused that collapse. Inspectors for 40 years hadn’t caught the problem.
<
p>Typical. Find the castastrophe, red herring the hell out of it.
… the point your making with that comment. To pay for it with ‘real’ revenue or credit is one debate. The notion that it has a real cost and that if you want to accomplish anything, that cost has to be addressed and not ignored is another.
The point–rudely speaking for PP–is that the infrastructure bill is a bazillion dollars to pay for broken road stuff.
<
p>And in this thread, some are saying, Oh my God, we need more revenue to pay for broken road stuff. But in fact, broken road stuff is going be fund by i) gas taxes and ii) the Deval Broken Road Stuff Credit Card.
After all, the “credit card” also known by adults debating responsibly as “market rate bonds” has to be paid off over x years.
<
p>So, what’s funding (ii)?
it won’t matter that the state’s revenue will drop by 40 percent! It won’t matter that dismissing all state employees will not cover the revenue short fall! Everything can be paid for by bonds, which will be issued based on the assumption that the state will have no revenue.
<
p>This is not an argument about economics or numnbers, but about faith and the belief that it is possible to get something (health care, schools, roads and bridges, and public safety) for nothing.
Isn’t that a problem with lack of transparency and weak management?
<
p>I’m hoping the Liberal Agenda includes such a commitment to the common good that more citizens get involved in looking out for it rather than lazily trusting not-always-competent decision makers.
Exactly how does someone paying $0 taxes get a reduction of $500 dollars from Obama. Sort of lie the Federal tax rebate where people paying $0 in taxes gets a REBATE (REBATE – a partial refund to someone who has paid too much money for tax, rent or utility). SLACKERS!!!! Sure, just keep taking the money from the hard working smart people and give it to the slow moving, slackers with no brains. Someday there will be a revolt, only it won’t be the bottom feeders.
A greater tax refund to those who pay no taxes. Why does that make no sense. Realistically speaking, there is a population class that contributes nothing to production, other than producing more of themselves. If it’s collectively decided that this class needs more welfare, then debate whether pay more welfare and by whom (fed or state). But to craft the debate into the obscurity of tax policy is terribly dishonest.
<
p>In fact a large portion of the Obama v. McCain tax discussion is Capital Gains and the appropriate rate. Every time capital gains tax rates have been cut, capital gains revenue has increased. The policy (Obama’s) to increase capital gains tax is simply poor tax policy and not because of some “tax breaks for the rich” meme or the whine that “McCain is mean to working families”.
Though I think it’s clear you don’t really want know…
<
p>Obama’s plan includes the “Making Work Pay” income tax credit that would offset payroll taxes on the first $8,100 of earnings, generating up to $500 per person. That would completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million workers classified as the most low income.
<
p>Obama’s plan would also eliminate income taxes on seniors making less than $50,000 annually. More than $20 million working seniors would no longer need to file an income tax return or hire a tax preparer.
<
p>Under Obama’s plan, the IRS would also send prefilled tax forms to 40 million workers who take the standard deduction. They would simply have to sign and return it, which would save hours of work and tax preparer fees mostly for lower and middle income workers.
<
p>Oh, and there’s also an expansion of the Earned Income tax Credit.
<
p>Meanwhile, under McCain’s plan, 23% of the tax cuts for to those makeing more than $2.8 million a year.offers Once fully implemented, the report finds 23 percent of McCain’s tax cut goes to the wealthiest Americans making more than $2.8 million a year. By 2012, the McCain plan would cut taxes for those in the bottom quintile by les than 1% of income, or about $100 per household. Middle-income households would receive an average tax cut of 3.1 percent of income, or about $1,450. Those whose incomes put them in the top fifth of earners would receive an increase in after-tax income of 6.4 percent or $13,858.
… tblade’s graphic above.
Whether it is Gay marriage, the death penalty or repealing income tax the legislature has shown that they believe they are much smarter than the people who elected them. When it is convenient we hear how they must represent their constituents, but when it isn’t they simply vote however they want. I like this effort because these jokers will have to stand and be counted, but anyone believing the income tax will be repealed can simply remember the law saying the toll booths on the Mass Pike will be coming down in 1997. The addiction for our money in government is almost as insatiable as the US public’s addiction for oil/gas. With a Dem Gov, House and Senate it must be frustrating to have no Republicans to blame for all our problems!!!!
…the NAGE sent out a blast email – “This announcement by the Adminstration is a continuation of the policies of Mitt Romney.”
<
p>So, see? You CAN keep blaming people after they’re gone!
…of why we should not be a “democracy” as discussed on another recent thread. An elected legislature is the right balance between taxation without representation which will always raise taxes, and the people as a whole, who never will. I guess the only political benefit is if the General Court wants to buck the voters they will have to go on the record. I hope they have the spine to do so.
<
p>Yikes. North Korea on the Charles.
<
p>I’m voting for the income tax repeal!