As reported by the Herald:
House Speaker Robert DeLeo is saying next year’s budget deficit could be as big as $4 billion, prompting potential tax hikes on everything from personal income to booze and candy.
Under one proposal, state lawmakers are considering a .1 percent personal income tax hike which could bring in $1.5 billion to $ 2 billion a year.
“We’re taking a look at everything and anything,” said DeLeo (D-Winthrop) of the proposals. “We have to be concerned about the next three years and try to use as little of the stabilization fund as possible . . . so then the only other option becomes various revenue enhancements.”
Please share widely!
that the income tax proposal was a non-starter. Not gonna happen.
What else we gonna do? Drown in our own blood?
<
p>Remember the story of the soldiers coming into a starving village and instead of stealing food from each household they threw a couple of rocks into a big pot, filled it with water from the stream, and each villager came out with a different ingredient:a couple of carrots, a ham bone, some potatoes, some greens, some noodles and lots of other good stuff. It took a while, but eventually it turned into soup. And everybody shared.
<
p>From the State House News service yesterday. “During a two-hour caucus in which economists predicted the fiscal crisis could last until fiscal 2012, Rep. Liz Malia (D-Jamaica Plain) suggested the income tax as a means to stave off deeper budget cuts, according to several lawmakers who attended. Lawmakers also discussed elevating the state’s 5 percent sales tax.”
<
p>Well, Speaker DeLeo has “tasked” (don’t you hate task as a verb) Chairman of House Ways and Means Murphy and Chairman of Revenue Jay Kaufman to look closely at all the various revenues sources available, including those in the Governor’s budget and including our two biggest broad based taxes the sales tax and the income tax. And they are. Looking at all the different possible revenues.
<
p>Well, it ain’t soup yet.
<
p>For a short 3 minute tutorial on the meaning of “progressive” when it comes to taxes check out PPI ONE Mass latest video
<
p>
Thanks, Judy, for sharing the ONE Massachusetts video.
<
p>ONE Massachusetts is doing great public education work on the subject of taxes.
<
p>We also need to remind people in Massachusetts that many other states have a genuinely progressive/graduated income tax.
<
p>Unfortunately, our state Constitution, so good in so many ways, does not allow for a graduated income tax. So we are stuck with a flat tax rate, though–as Carmen points out in the video–this tax is made somewhat progressive because of the personal exemption and EITC.
<
p>It is time for us to start thinking about a serious multi-year campaign culminating in a ballot question to change the state Constitution to this common (and common-sense) form of taxation.
<
p>Yes, this has been tried before. But the last attempt was in 1994!!!! That was 14 years ago. Let’s dust ourselves off and start working toward something that could provide the revenue we need in an equitable manner.
<
p>One meaningful and concrete organizing step that folks could take over the next couple of weeks is to recommend that the Mass. Democratic Party include a plank advocating for the necessary constitutional change. The state Party platform is in the process of revision and will be voted on at the Party convention in June.
<
p>To find out how to make your voice heard on this issue, go to massdems.org and also give your local Democratic Party chair a call. See if she will join you in advocating for this progressive reform
<
p>–Leo
<
p>
If a ballot question advocating for a more “progressive” income tax were successful, what makes you think it would become law? Haven’t we already had successful ballot questions regarding a tax rollback to 5% and clean elections? Do progressives think that somehow their initiative is more important or more likely to be received positively by the Governor or the Legislature? Are we now at the point with ballot questions where the philosophical leaning of the party initiating the ballot question determine whether or not the ballot question ever becomes law? Sorry for the tough question.
<
p>Full disclosure-I would vote against your ballot question.
How many of you opt to pay your MA income tax at the higher rate?
despite being Howie
How about this one:
<
p>”If you thought that increasing your income tax by 1 percentage point would increase your gross income by more than 1%, would you be for it?”
<
p>Or
<
p>”Have you stopped beating your wife?”
<
p>You choose.
If a ballot question advocating for a more “progressive” income tax were successful, what makes you think it would become law? Haven’t we already had successful ballot questions regarding a tax rollback to 5% and clean elections? Do progressives think that somehow their initiative is more important or more likely to be received positively by the Governor or the Legislature? Are we now at the point with ballot questions where the philosophical leaning of the party initiating the ballot question determine whether or not the ballot question ever becomes law? Sorry for the tough question.
You’ve forgotten to mention that a centerpiece progressive policy — Clean Elections — was ignored by the Legislature. The Lege’s litmus test on ignoring referendum results isn’t ideological of party: it’s self-interest.
<
p>As a progressive tax doesn’t seem to threaten members’ chances of being re-elected, I don’t see how it would be a problem.
<
p>PS: Despite your efforts at partisan spin, the freedom with which conservatives and progressives have let the Legislature ignore inconvenient results (and the recent urging for it to consider doing so again) is a serious problem in whose making many, many of us share.
I mentioned clean elections. Try reading both of my posts again. The legislature is not exactly partisan when it comes to ignoring the will of the people.
My bad. Good for you for including a point that utterly undermines the rest of your question. Which makes me wonder why you bothered asking the question in the first place.
You ask
<
p>
?
<
p>I honestly can’t answer on behalf of all progressives. I guess some of us do and some of us do. Just like you regressives.
<
p>I can only state my own opinion(s). One of them is that I am against government by plebiscite. Look at the mess CA is in. Look at what Prop 2 1/2 has done to us (huge damage!).
<
p>Our Founding Fathers (and yes, I’m the world’s biggest feminist, but the facts tell us that in the 18th century, women had little, if any, voice) anticipated the dangers of mob rule (“democracy” they called it). Remember, for example, that one control against that was that the people (= white, property-owning males) could not be trusted even to elect their own Senators. We are (or were designed to be) a Republic, not a Democracy.
<
p>That means Representative government, where we elect smart people who keep track of the public interest, educate themselves in the intricacies of governing, and do the logrolling required to please all parties.
<
p>I’m all for that. Except for the flies in the ointment. Like the fact that money talks. But, let’s face it, that’s the way of the world. We can try to control it, but like the proverbial balloon, you push it down in one place and it pops up in another.
<
p>That’s why ballot questions, like Herald on-line polls, are so unreliable (one is tempted to say “useless”). They present only one side of a multi-faceted problem. When you ask, for example, “Do you favor a rise in the gas tax?” who in their right mind (besides me, for environmental reasons) would say, “Yes!”? But, the problem is much deeper than that. What is not presented is the other side of the question. How about asking something more accurate, like, “Would you favor keeping the gas tax where it is and not raising it if you knew that your roads would never again be plowed?” That’s a more realistic scenario.
<
p>But what advocacy group is going to put a question like that on the ballot?
<
p>So, with that as background, back to the main point: is it a good idea to push a ballot initiative to create a progressive income tax system? With all due respect to my friend Leo, no, I don’t think so. I think the way to accomplish this is to persuade the legislature it’s a good idea, and let them lead the charge. If they don’t, as you point out, they can just find a way to defeat it.
<
p>And, just to be clear, I DO favor a progressive income tax in Massachusetts. I mean, heck, let’s live up to our rep as the bluest of the blue states! But, pragmatically, I’m with you — the way to do this is through the legislature.
Whoever takes the lead–and we have ample evidence that the legislature rarely takes the lead when it comes to raising taxes–the only way we can have a progressive income tax in Massachusetts is if the current state Constitution is amended to allow it.
<
p>Without going into details….There are two ways to change the Massachusetts Constitution. But both methods require that there be an affirmative vote by the voters.
<
p>The voters have the final say.
<
p>That’s why we need to initiate the conversation now if we are going to have any shot at achieving this common and common-sense change in 5, 10, 15 years.
<
p>–Leo
However, I still think the way to spend out energy is to lobby our legislators, and if they don’t buy into it, replace them with people who “get it.”
<
p>o/w you’re in the same spot as with Clean Elections, where they first tried to sidestep it by not funding it, then abolished it altogether.
<
p>Granted, you’re talking about a Constitutional Amendment, which they can’t unilaterally overturn, but they can ignore it. Just because the Constitution allows a graduated tax, doesn’t mean they have to legislate one into law. Or, if one is required, they can make it a token series of steps.
<
p>My point is that, without the active support of the legislature, the whole idea has little chance of working. Remember the healthcare amendment (among others).
But of course, replacing legislators is no small thing. Its a lot easier to win a referendum that legislators can ignore.
<
p>Progressives need to really focus on building political capacity and media infrastructure, and worry less about what I think of as big, and usually empty gestures.
While I agree that it would be nice to lobby our legislators first and foremost, mainly because if we had the types of people elected who supported a progressive income tax amendment they’d probably support other progressive causes, like single payer. However, people have been lobbying forever. A more concerted effort may get us to the end zone in a few decades, but incumbency is far too powerful to overcome the flat tax anytime sooner than that.
<
p>Meanwhile, we could achieve a progressive income tax in a matter of years if progressives, unions and others got behind a massive movement and spent what was necessary to defeat the Carla Howells of the world, who would try to stop it. A very easy fix is to require a progressive income tax that is in proportion to the federal income tax, which keeps filing just as easy as it is at present. This is what a large preponderance of other states do. This is something that could easily be sold to the people of this state.
Pull out the stops and spend every campaign dollar you have to push for a progressive income tax in MA. It would be fun to watch and we Republicans could surely use some help getting some people elected to the House and Senate so wasting all your money on the DOA movement like changing the State Constitution would be a grand idea.
<
p>Go for it and don’t let any of these nay-sayers slow you down. Hope you can count on!
to elect their own Senators?
<
p>Apparently someone slept solidly throughout their American History 101 class and hasn’t picked up an American history book since.
<
p>That US Senators were appointed by the state was a fundamental component of federalism. The US Senate was supposed to be a more deliberative body than the US House of Representatives, more representative of a collection of equal states rather than individual American citizens . . . not that the concept of “American citizen” was a universal one when the Constitution was written. Hence the longer term in the Senate than the House, hence the equal representation of each state (two Senators).
<
p>And how the Senators were elected was up to each state. Some state government appointed Senators, others were elected by the general public. When the 17th Amendment was passed, it fundamentally changed the nature of the US Congress. No longer, really, did each state have a “say” in the deliberations of the Federal government. The Senate today is simply the major leagues to the House’s AAA ball . . . absolutely NOT what the Founders intended, in my opinion.
<
p>
American democracy isn’t at all what the Founders intended…heck, just look at the president.
Try to keep your ad hominem attacks to a minimum, please, if you want to continue to participate on this site.
<
p>
<
p>You, sir are the one who needs a history lesson.
<
p>At no point prior to 1913, when the 17th Amendment came into effect, did any state have direct election of its Senators. The Founders expressly left that decision to state legislatures. It was not “up to each state.” That said, many states, in the years leading up to 1913, had adopted a procedure by which a public referendum was held so the voters (all men, at that time) could express their opinion. The state legislature, in its wisdom, could appoint the popular choice. But it was still the legislature that chose each Senator.
<
p>As to “fundamentally” changing “the nature of the US Congress” — what nonsense! How so? The Senate has many functions not shared by the house — approving treaties and cabinet appointments, etc.; just the way it’s always been. It is the more unrepresentative of the two houses, by far, and therefore very undemocratic (the Founders would be pleased!). If you look at the number of people who voted for Democratic Senators versus the number of voters who favored Republicans, the result would be much more lopsided than the current composition of the Senate. Why? Because, if you think about it, Democratic Senators tend to come from the larger states, yet those states still get only two Senators, despite their larger populations.
<
p>Shall I go on? I think not, but thanks for the insult.
Fairly thin-skinned, don’t you think? Either way, your pique doesn’t mask the holes in your argument.
<
p>1) Read further into your cite: “By 1912, as many as twenty-nine states elected senators either as nominees of their party’s primary or in a general election. As representatives of a direct election process, the new senators supported measures that argued for federal legislation, but in order to achieve reform, a constitutional amendment was required.”
<
p>In other words, many states simply rubber stamped direct elections or near-direct elections. Not unlike the Electoral College.
<
p>2) Again, American History 101. The US Senate was to be more of a deliberative body than the House, and representative of the interests of the various states, rather than the interests of the people. Hence the longer term of Senators than Representatives, and hence the equal representation of each state (two Senators). Decoupling the appointment of Senators from the province of the state changed that fundamentally. No longer were the constituencies of each Senator his or her “state,” but the citizens of that state, i.e., exactly the same as the constituency of Representatives, albeit state-wide instead of district-wide. Thus, the notion of state sovereignty went completely out the window, allowing, further, for the primacy of the Federal government in all things “American government.”
<
p>”Shall you go on?” Go right ahead; it’s a free country. But I think you’ve already spent all your bullets.
I don’t think that honoring the Founders intentions is important for its own sake. Should anyone honor their intention to maintain slavery or restrict voting privileges? Of course not. So in arguing the merits of a Constitutional change, we should just drop that line of argument and instead focus on the benefits and drawbacks of the proposal for current and future citizens.
was laid, however, my friend. If you alter the foundation of a building, say, you alter the very structure of that building.
<
p>Ours is a union of several “sovereign” states. It is not a nation divided into states a la administrative regions.
I am not saying we should ignore the Constitution, just that we need not overly concern us with the beliefs of the founders. The founders are not the “foundation of our building of state”, the Constitution is. Nevertheless, in their wisdom, they deliberately created a system that allows the Constitution to be changed through amendment. You seem to be arguing that it should not be amended just because the change is not what the founders originally intended, despite the fact that those same founders themselves amended the Constitution.
Honoring the Founders, honoring the Constitution: say what you mean. The Constitution, as written by the Founders, clearly creates a Senate to serve as a body that represents the interests of the unified states, while the House represents the interests of the citizens of those states. It’s one of the bedrock structures of federalism.
<
p>Do you think the Founding Fathers intended the amendment procedure to be able to negate federalism altogether, i.e., it contains a “suicide pill” for the very thing it created?
<
p>The fact that it’s so hard to pass a constitutional amendment means that they probably thought it would never be completely obliterated, but yes, we could vote to completely change the constitution. That said, would changing the nature of the Senate (or even eliminating it) truly be a gigantic change for this country? There would still be three coequal branches, one of which includes the legislative branch, it would just be much more democratic and representative of this country.
<
p>I submit that there is, in effect, no real difference — other than the fact that the Senate is less representative of this country. The founders didn’t institute the bicameral legislative branch with one house representing the people and the other representing the states out of some great wisdom. They did it in order to make the political concessions necessary to get the small states willing to sign on. They in effect punted on what was right and wrong for what was easy.
Honestly, guys, some of you need to re-read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers again . . . or maybe read them for the first time. Especially the Anti-Federalist Papers.
<
p>
Maybe you need to be the one that does a little more reading.
<
p>The Federalist (and Anti-Federalist) papers were not the be-all, end-all on explaining the reasons of the Constitution. You have to remember that, by and large, the people back then were the same as people today. The Federalist papers were like any other PR campaign meant to convince people to support a cause. Just because something was written in there doesn’t mean that’s how it actually went down.
<
p>The reason why we have the differences that exist in the House and Senate is because of the Connecticut compromise. Big states wanted things to be based completely on population, small states wanted an equal voice in at least one of the legislative houses. Maybe that made sense back then, back when people truly considered each state at least somewhat independent of the other, but even if it did, it doesn’t make sense today considering the fact that people don’t consider themselves citizens of their states first.
<
p>We’ve become one country now, whether you like it or not. The only reasons the Senate hasn’t been changed yet is because a) too many glorify the constitution and b) even if they didn’t, it’s still (too) freaking hard to change it.
No, you don’t. Not one of you.
<
p>All you progressives who absolutely froth with joy at the idea of paying more taxes, to pay even more of our “fair share,” to fund all the wonderful government programs you insist the Commonwealth of Massachusetts provide, you all have a chance to do exactly that when you pay your MA state income tax, by opting to pay at the older, higher rate. And the overwhelming majority of you do not.
<
p>Rip on Howie Carr all you want, but on this issue, he has you progressives dead to rights, because all he’s doing is holding up a mirror so you can see yourselves. When it comes time to put up or shut up, you neither put up OR shut up.
<
p>You people really don’t see the disconnect between insisting we all must pay higher taxes, and not paying higher taxes yourselves voluntarily when given the option of doing so?
I’ll make a deal with you Old Scratch- I’ll pay the higher tax rate when you agree to use fewer services.
fewer state services than I do now. I don’t know how you run your life, but as for me, I favor independence, doing things my own way, and relying on as little outside forces as possible. I want to have as few interactions with government in any form as humanly possible. The freedom to live my own life as I see fit is all I ask, as long as I live peacefully, according to the law.
<
p>But you fail to grasp the point, in any event. Your side is clamoring for more money via taxation to pay for some ever-increasing level of mandated government services. If those services are absolutely vital and central to the lives of each and every individual in the Commonwealth, and not a single one of them could be eliminated without dire consequences to humanity as a whole, why don’t you pony up the extra money and pay at the higher rate?
<
p>Honestly, why don’t you?
<
p>You have a chance to make a difference by paying at the higher rate, but the vast, overwhelming majority of you don’t. Why is that so? Can anyone give an honest answer, or are all we going to see around here is snark?
It must be nice not to need to use roads, or need clean water or air, or police protection against marauding bands of burglars, or a fire department since I assume your house (if you have one) must be fireproof. Nor, I take it, do you need to live in a state that has a healthy, educated workforce. I guess your vast inherited wealth makes you immune from all of these needs.
<
p>Just one question: why do you live here?
must be your middle name.
<
p>”Marauding bands of burglars?” In what part of Massachusetts do you live—Mogadishu, MA? Any burglar unlucky enough to stick his snout into my house will meet with the business end of a Remington 870 Express 12-gauge shotgun, in fact. By the time the police in my town responded to any distress call from me, it would be too late. Plus, the police aren’t legally mandated to protect my property in any event.
<
p>Also, it’s very telling that whenever progressives start talking about necessary services, they always cite police and fire. Yeah, thanks. Those are no brainers; we conservatives agree with you: society needs cops and firemen. What we don’t need is the rest of the bloat.
<
p>I live here because my family emigrated to here in the 1920s. I love it here. And it breaks my heart that I, as a member of the “working” middle class, might no longer be able to afford to live here because you progressives insist on bleeding us dry.
<
p>
<
p>What, do you just sit inside your house 24 hours a day with a shotgun on your lap? Don’t you find that tiring? 😉
The 870 Express is fairly light. My M-60 machine gun, however, can get a bit cumbersome 😉
I have this 870. The gunsmith liked the design so much he put it on his website. Try this: buy the short barrel ported, get the extended tube, plus the bandelero sock on the stock. That means a total portable capacity of 13 rounds.
<
p>
You need to plug that bad boy, so no matter what, you’re limited to three: one in the chamber, two in the mag.
I think the plug limit to 3 only applies to hunting. A FID class A allows high capacity.
“Any burglar unlucky enough to stick his snout into my house will meet with the business end of a Remington 870 Express 12-gauge shotgun, in fact.”
<
p>You do get that most robberies happen while people aren’t home right?
They’ll get blown to smithereens by my claymores instead. Equally dead.
<
p>That’s hard to do. Most people immigrate to this country, and emigrate from someplace else.
<
p>
<
p>Okay, good, please stop using my roads, and the medical services that are heavily subsidized by our government. Stay home, grow your own food, and above all, don’t use the internet that Al Gore invented.
How very snarky and clever, Michael. The last refuge of a losing argument: picking apart points of grammar or prose.
<
p>Medical services are heavily subsidized by our government? My paycheck begs to differ. And when I had to pay for my family’s health insurance out of pocket, the monthly nut was the size of a mortgage payment. For all that money, I got singularly shitty service from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of MA, a company that makes Comcast look like a warm, friendly mom & pop corner grocery store.
<
p>Roads, cops, firemen, teachers: yes, these are all services the government SHOULD be providing. On this, conservatives and liberals agree. Where we disagree is in the “nice to haves,” not the “must haves.” Are you people failing to grasp this point on purpose?
<
p>
public roads and demand that the police and fire not ever respond to anything that happens at your home?
<
p>I hope you have a large garden and a small chicken coop in your backyard…
<
p>Did you go to public schools? I’ll make the assumption, if you did, that you’ll be sending a check to your hometown to pay off the costs of your education, plus interest.
Roads, cops, firemen, teachers . . . these are the essentials, the “must haves” that both conservatives and liberals agree should be provided by the state. Nobody’s arguing that these are necessary services. Rather, conservatives are arguing against the progressive scope creep that turns everything under the sun into a service that government must provide.
Government is defined as how society organizes itself for its own betterment. If we as a society, body politic, Commonwealth (whatever you want to call it), collectively decide through our elected representative to provide addition programs and services, why not? We should stick to the merits of each proposal and be careful not to trounce basic individual rights.
I’d dispute your definition of government. Government is a body that enacts and enforces the law by which a society has agreed, either implicitly or explicitly, to live. “Betterment” is subjective value judgment applied by you. I’d argue that a government doesn’t always have the “betterment” of its constituents in mind; at least not enough to make that part of the definition.
<
p>The number of programs and services provided by the government should be strictly limited because if it were otherwise, the system itself becomes untenable, and what you end up with is a situation like the one we have today: when layers and layers and layers of government programs and services have built up to a point where the average citizen can no longer pay taxes and support himself or herself. And that’s just the practical reason. Ideologically, ours is a system of government based on liberty and freedom: individual liberty, and individual freedom, and these notions are wholly incompatible with an ever-expanding, ever-encroaching government. You say that we should be “careful not to trounce on basic individual rights,” but nothing could trounce more on basic individual rights than the creeping scope of government. Don’t forget, with the power of a government to provide service X, Y, or Z comes the power to compel behavior P, D, or Q.
<
p>Do you really want to give the government the power to compel you to behave in a certain way? Remember, your side might not always be in power. Would you give the same power to, say George Bush, that you’re dying to give to Deval Patrick?
The people get to decide, through their representatives, how much government we want. It is natural that these attitudes go in cycles among the populace. I’m not sure what power you’re refering to giving to Deval Patrick, since the legislature must consent to raise taxes, but as for the comparison to Bush, that’s what checks and balances are for. I’m fine with limiting on the practical level since funds are not limitless, but I’d rather debate merits rather than cling to ideology. Our basic philosophical disagreement seems to come down to this: You see the government as “them”; I see the government as “us”.
Have you ever served in the government, or in the military?
I’ve been a substitute teacher in my town’s public schools, a paid summer intern for my state rep., and a seasonal park ranger. Just to anticipate where this might be going there is plenty of other aspects I would advocate funding before boosting any of these. I have not served in the military.
is based on long experience working in government and being surrounded by examples of excellence and competence, or the cock-eyed optimism of someone who just really, really believes in government as a provider of solutions. A take on your “I think gov’t = them, you think it’s us” proposal.
<
p>I was a Naval officer for six years, and even in that short span of time, I saw government waste and corruption on a scale that would turn your hair white. That’s one of the reason’s I’m so anti-government. It seems to me that despite your limited experience working in a government setting, you’re largely uninitiated to it. That you don’t really know how it works might be the reason you have so much (misplaced, in my opinion) faith in it.
Like I say, my own experience within government is pretty limited, but I have mostly seen competence. My faith is really in the system that we the people have set up. Ultimately our government is and should be accountable to us, but that only works IF we as voters do our jobs as well. As for examples you cite, by all means call them out on it, but stick to the specifics. The military is interesting because it’s an area of government people on my side do criticize for the proverbial $700 hammers, but that doesn’t mean we should be anti-military either. We’ve also seen lately how horribly wasteful the corporate world can be (See the diary currently at the top of BMG’s front page.) so it’s not like government has a monopoly on waste either. I say channel your energy toward making government work for all of us rather than just being anti-government. My studies and experiences (I’ve volunteered and interned as well, but didn’t include those in my original answer.) have been largely about government so I’m hardly uninitiated. I don’t necessarily need government to do everything and I have seen public-private partnerships work very well in some areas. I just don’t want to tie our hands by an ideology that insists government should not do something even if evidence and experience suggests it gets the best results.
If roads, cops, firemen and teachers are a necessity, the “essentials,” you have a funny way of showing it. We’re not even providing that in sufficient amount.
priorities in this state are messed up. Think of Massachusetts like an MLB team, and think of the Big Dig as a major superstar, like Alex Rodriguez. What Massachusetts did vis-a-vis the Big Dig was acquire a super-expensive superstar like Alex Rodriguez (whose value is sketchy nonetheless) at the expense of being unable to spend on the other things necessary to build a baseball team capable of contending for the World Series, like a decent pitching staff or a good middle infield.
I had to give up at “H”- there are too many but I could live without these.
<
p> * Department of Agricultural Resources
* Department of Business Development
* Department of Conservation and Recreation
<
p> * Department of Mental Health
* Department of Telecommunications and Cable
* Department of Transitional Assistance
* Department of Workforce Development
* Department of Youth Services
* Development Corporation, Massachusetts Business
* Development Finance Agency, Massachusetts
* Diversity and Equal Opportunity, Office of
<
p> * Division of Career Services
* Division of Conservation Services
* Division of Employment and Training
<
p> * Division of Labor Relations
* Division of Local Mandates
* Division of Local Services
* Division of Unemployment Assistance
* Division of Urban Parks and Recreation
* Dukes County Sheriff’s Office
<
p> * Emergency Finance Board
* Emergency Management Agency, Massachusetts
* Emergency Telecommunications Board, Statewide
* Employee Relations, Office of
<
p> * Essex County Sheriff’s Department
* Executive Commission for Homeless Services Coordination
<
p> * Executive Office for Administration and Finance
* Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
* Executive Office of Health and Human Services
* Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development
* Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development
* Executive Office of Public Safety and Security
* Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works
* Export Center, Massachusetts
<
p> * Fish and Game, Department of
* Franklin County Sheriff’s Office
<
p> * Gay and Lesbian Youth, Commission on
* Governor’s Commission on Mental Retardation
* Governor’s Council
* Governor’s Council to Address Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence
* Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee
* Governor’s Task Force on Hate Crimes
* Grants and Technical Assistance, Office of
* Group Insurance Commission
<
p> * Hampshire County Sheriff’s Office
* Hate Crimes, Governor’s Task Force on
* Hazardous Materials Response Program
* Head Injury Program, Statewide
* Health Care Finance and Policy, Division of
* Historical Commission, Massachusetts
* Housing Development, Division of
* Housing Finance Agency, Massachusetts
* Human Service Transportation Office
Nobody ever said that every resident of MA was going to need the direct assistance of every agency. There are, however, about six million residents of the Commonwealth and a government needs to have a variety of services to address the various issues that arise.
However, that government does not need to, nor is it mandated to, address each and every issue that arises. Just because a particular interest group has a need doesn’t mean that government must provide a service to address it.
<
p>In terms of software development, for a long time now, the “nice to haves” have become the “must haves,” so much so that the real “must haves” (i.e., fire, police) are virtually indistinguishable from the “nice to haves” (parks and recreation).
You asked what services “I” would give up and I answered you.
So it’s like all the big-talkin’ conservatives who never sign up for the military? When you’re done celebrating your discovery of hypocrisy in American politics, maybe you want to tell us why letting local legislators take occasional control of spending from the Washington,DC bureaucracy is such a bad thing.
When it comes to slimy frauds, chickenhawks and tax-dodging progressives are on the same level. I served my time in uniform. I have nothing but contempt for those who wave pom-poms for war but don’t don a uniform and man the trenches themselves.
<
p>And where did you get the idea that I think letting local legislators take occasional control of spending from the DC bureaucracy was a bad thing? I don’t think that at all. In my opinion, the federal government is WAY too powerful. We conservatives are all for states’ rights these days, my friend.
<
p>2. Secondly, I grapple with your second paragraph. The statement “we conservatives are all for states’ rights these days, my friend” either admits that there are few conservatives left in the GOP, that “these days” started sometime in late January, or is a lie.
You have me confused with another poster.
<
p>As for 2, you labor under the misconception that the GOP is a conservative party. The GOP is simply the Democratic Party with a different set of special interest masters.
I actually flipped a couple comments. As for 2, I just wish most conservatives would recognize that they have been abandoned by the Republican Party.
If my taxes go up when everybody’s go up than so be it, but I won’t pay more than I have too until everybody does.
Perhaps you’re embarrassed because you haven’t the fortitude to put your money where your mouth is. If you think taxes should be higher, you can pay higher taxes in this state. It shouldn’t matter what the rest of us do. If it’s the right thing to do, then do it. Your extra tax money goes into the State coffers, and more money goes into those programs you claim we can’t live without.
<
p>Sorry to sound so harsh, but until you do, you’re no better than a warmonger who won’t pick up a gun and stand in a trench. You’re no better than a Christian who preaches abstinence but lives a life of fornication on the side. You lack the courage of your convictions.
<
p>Again: you people can rail on Howie Carr all you want, but on this, he has you NAILED.
Right now I generally end up with refunds anyway. To me taxation is a collective rather than individual action.
With all due respect . . .
<
p>”Maybe when you make more” you’ll be willing to pay more in taxes voluntarily? Are you serious? How could you possibly advocate a policy by which you’re willing to give the government the power to stick a gun in my face and demand more of my money, yet you’re unwilling to give more of your money voluntarily to accomplish the same goal? Is government property confiscation only valid when it’s compelled by force?
<
p>I hope none of the “progressives” around here went apoplectic when Dick Cheney so famously said “he had better things to do” rather than fight the Vietnam War even though he supported it wholeheartedly. As big a hypocrite as he was (is), you progressives are just as bad.
<
p>Please do go ahead and push as hard as you can for a progressive income tax. Nothing will hasten a conservative revolution in this state faster than that.
That’s the difference. Cheney avoided getting drafted when everyone was on the hook, just like I said I would pay more taxes when everyone is on the hook for them. If there were no draft I wouldn’t fault Cheney in the least if he simply chose not to join the military.
<
p>Taxation is absolutely NOT confiscation when determined by the people through their elected representatives. It is, however, by definition redistributive which is pretty much what taxes are for in most contexts in my opinion. The making more argument is very valid if progressive taxation is the goal. Progressive taxation is about higher brackets paying more so I am saying that when I am in a higher bracket I would be open to paying more. That is exactly the opposite of being hypocritical. Any money I voluntarily contribute would go directly to appropriate organizations.
Did what tens of thousands of other men did in the sixties: applied for, and received, draft deferments. Whether or not while as a student he was a vocal proponent for the war in Vietnam I don’t know, but basically, he did what many men did, and avoided the draft via legal technicalities. Theoretically, it makes no different whether or not there was a draft on or he was subject to it: if he supported the war, he should have manned up, volunteered, and gone over to fight it. Many, many, many men and women did: my father and uncle among them.
<
p>You, however, are arguing vigorously for paying more income taxes. In this state, you have the option to do just that—voluntarily. Just like those who supported the Vietnam War had the option—voluntarily—to fight over there, if they were that passionate about it. Yet you don’t pay more taxes voluntarily. In other words, you lack the courage of your convictions, you won’t put your money where your mouth is, etc., etc. That makes me, as someone opposed to paying more taxes, question not only your dedication to the cause, but the cause itself, since someone so passionate about it won’t follow through on it unless compelled to do so by force.
<
p>You claim one of the reasons you don’t pay at the higher rate is that you can’t afford it. When the Commonwealth sticks its gun in your face, are you going to be able to afford it then? Is it suddenly more affordable when you’re compelled to do it?
<
p>And taxation is ALWAYS confiscation of private property. You understand this implicitly yourself because you won’t give the Commonwealth any more money unless they wave a gun in your face.
<
p>
First, a progressive system takes into account whether I can afford it or not, whereas the current flat system is less able to do that. Second it will at least feel fairer to me when everybody is compelled to contribute because it’s spread out more. To pay more when others are not feels like unilateral disarmament to me. We obviously disagree philosophically on where taxes come from. It cannot be confiscation if done with our consent, such consent implicitly granted by electing legislators who will enact such. I flat out reject your accusation of hypocrisy – period.
But it stands out stark-naked here to everyone, plain as day . . . just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not true. You progressives say one thing, and then do quite the opposite. You want government to provide everything under the sun to all people, but when the time comes to pay for it all, you get the alligator arms.
<
p>When you go to a restaurant, do you order everything on the menu and wait until the waiter, cook, and maitre d’ pull guns on you before you pay up?
<
p>
Hi Judy,
<
p>I was just reading your website.
<
p>I was so surprised to see your funders — I’m familiar with 4 of the 6 foundations (and get $ from them), and have a ton of respect for them as change agents. They wouldn’t invest in your org if you didn’t have a good plan.
<
p>I was surprised b/c I had (mistakenly!) assumed your funders were simply institutions that directly benefit from more and more gov’t spending.
<
p>I’m more curious than ever about the “common value proposition” of One MA.
<
p>Am I misunderstanding to view your org as advocating for higher taxes in many forms, and not advocating for any specific spending cuts?
<
p>Ie, there are a lot of words like “rebuilding public confidence” on your website, but I couldn’t find (and realize I likely just didn’t look in the right place) where you talk about firing incompetent people, or slashing MBTA pensions, or really getting rid of police details, or whatever — stuff that rebuilds public confidence.
<
p>It seems like the strategy to “rebuild confidence” is entirely to say “Gov’t does good work….” — but I’m sure I’m simply not representing u accurately, b/c then why would folks like Boston Foundation and Barr et al fund you….
What is it?
<
p>There’s no record of a Massachusetts Corporation by the name of One Massachusetts, no record of IRS charity, no record of funding from at least 2 of the listed ‘funders’ (could be a situation of timeliness of spending reports).
<
p>From the One Massachusetts site: it’s a “network”. What’s a network?
As opposed to a more formal structure, such as an organization with dues and officers and chapters, etc.
<
p>That’s an oversimplification, but I think it will suffice for present purposes.
<
p>In the case of ONE Massachusetts, individuals or organizations can join by simply agreeing to support the Collective Value Proposition.
<
p>They can then join in on the network’s activities (or not) as they see fit. And they can drop out anytime. As I mentioned elsewhere, we work by consensus, so, for example, we decided to NOT take a position on casino gambling, because some of our members were for it, and some were against it.
The listed “funders” actually funded a “network” as opposed to a legal entity? funders like boston foundation, schott foundation, etc….
I’m not involved in the finances of the organization. Someone else will have to answer your question.
The opposite of ‘legal entity’ isn’t illegal entity. Legal entity simply means an entity given legal recognition by a government: LLC, Corp, partnership, etc.
<
p>I’m questioning how the funders like schott, boston foundation, etc., are able to contribution to something that is not a legal entity, but rather a ‘network’.
Judy is out of town (and can answer more fully on her own behalf when she returns), but I’m told that ONE Massachusetts is a “project” of the Public Policy Institute, which is a 501(c)3 that receives the funding from the foundations, earmarked (you should pardon the expression) for that purpose.
<
p>I’m kind of a babe in the woods in regard to this stuff (non-profits), having had a career on Wall Street (before that was disreputable), so pardon my naïveté.
… but as a member of the Leadership Team of ONE Massachusetts, I think I am in a position to give my take on some of the things you ask about.
<
p>You say,
<
p>
<
p>What kind of institution did you have in mind? The people, imho, who benefit the most from “more and more” state government spending are the people at the lower end of the economic spectrum and the people who need and depend on state services. If by “institutions” you meant (and from your tone, I doubt it) non-profit agencies who provide services to people with disabilities, for example, I’m wondering if you find that objectionable.
<
p>Another of the hats I wear is as an advocate for people (like me) with autism. I am a member of the State Committee and serve on the Disability Outreach Subcommittee thereof. In the first round of 9C cuts that Governor Patrick did in this budget cycle, autism services funding got cut by ONE THIRD! That is devastating to families who depend on these services, many of whom cannot possibly afford to pay for services (such as counseling) privately.
<
p>As to the other points you raise, I urge you to read Pat Carney’s testimony to the Joint Transportation Committee, which she has given me permission to share.
<
p>I think Pat has captured the essence of the debate. She supports the Governor’s reform proposals (like changing the MBTA pension and healthcare systems to be the same as other state employees), while recognizing that we need to also, for now, support the Governor’s proposal to raise the gas tax (and/or tolls) because no one else has (yet) come up with a better plan, and reform ain’t free. She goes on to address Leo’s point about the need to rely more on the income tax, which is a much less regressive tax, and to think about ways to make it even more progressive. At least, I think she said all of those things (or maybe I am mixing in my own wishes). In any case, read it!
<
p>This is the kind of debate that is going on internally right now at ONE Mass.
<
p>We work by consensus, so I can’t predict the outcome of the discussion, but as you can probably tell, my own inclination is to come out where Leo and Pat did — reform and eliminate waste, yes, as the Governor has proposed; stop the shell games and deceptions of the past and move on to a more transparent and fair funding system, so that all in the Commonwealth get the maximum benefit, and the payment for that benefit is fairly allocated.
<
p>My own opinion. I do not speak for ONE Mass as an organization.
Just got back from a two day road trip in Western Mass where we ran Connect the Dots sessions in all 4 Counties. Amost 100 folk from 22 different community based organizations. Unfortunately, one of our most faithful Leadership Team Members, Michael Forbes Wilcox from Alford was going to other meetings like the too busy civic volunteer that he is. He did do a pretty good job of expaining ONE Mass here anyway. Hope he didn’t do hit reply while he was driving or sitting in somebody elses meeting.
<
p>Thanks to Goldstein Gone Wild for the good questions. The answers are sort of buried on our site under get informed.
<
p>Basically the ONE Mass Network is a project of the Public Policy Institute with it’s own Leadership Team and governance process which is based in outlined in some detail under about us.
<
p>Working toward the goals outlined in our Collective Value Propostion the ONE Mass Leadership team has defined three operational goals through a strategic planning and action process using a Performance Tree model. For each of the operational goals there is an assumption that we are adding value by contributing to the work of other civic partners. For instance:
<
p>We are working with Mass Vote and a wide range of community based organizations in communities of color and ethnic communities to strenghen the voice and input of our Commonwealth’s multi racial and multi ethnic communities that will be tagibly reflected in the public decision making process. Specifically we are part of a coalition pushing for Election Day Registration
<
p>We are working with Common Cause and Mass PIRG to push for the most basic and fundimental process reform which we think will force our elected and appointed officals to implement the kinds specific reforms you mentioned — namely increased transparency in the policy making process and the policy implementation process. Specifically we are working to make sure the Legislature includes in their ethics reforms some easy to use pathways for ordinary people to find and understand the information about the budget process, the legislative process and the regulatory process. Of course our real challenge is to encourage and support any one who want to take advantage of this new tool to make public officials acountable.
<
p>We are working with a wide range of diverse community based groups, various public officials at all levels, the business community,faith based organizations, human service professions, educators, parent organizations, union members and other un affiliated individuals toward a goal of building informed public support for a fair, adequate and stable tax system that will raise suffienct revenue so that our state and local governments can fund the array of public structures needed to make and keep our communities healthy. With technical assistance from the Mass Budget and Policy Center, and the Demos Center for the Public Sector we have developed some culturally competant budget and tax literacy programs that help community based activists communicate forcefully and participate effectively in the current community wide debate about tax and budget policy. Some network members are working hard in support of the Governor’s 19 cent gas tax. Some are working with public transportation activist and fighting for a higher gas tax. Some netowrk members are part of a coalition to remove the sales tax exemption for alcohol, soda and candy. Some network members are trying to figure out how to raise the sales tax and make it more progressvie at the same time. Others are looking at restoring the income tax to the 5.95 level and making it even more progressive. Some are in favor of slots and casinos. Some are not(to put it mildly)
<
p>Anyway, as I said above about taxes, the same judgement applies to increasing transparency and strenghtning civic engagement in under respresented communities.
<
p>It ain’t soup yet.
Gotta love your bio!
<
p>
I think its interesting that the original post was about a proposal to increase the income tax to meet current budget needs, and that the thread immediately changed to a discussion of a constitutional amendment to authorize a progressive income tax three years down the road.
<
p>Do you think the legislature should raise the income tax? I think this is inevitable, and necessary, for 2010.
<
p>If you favor a progressive income tax, do you anticipate paying more tax? Less tax? Are you proposing a tax cut for yourself, and an increase for others?
<
p>
“Tax the other guy” is of course a theme dear to the hearts of many here in Massachusetts. In the gas-tax debate, for instance, there is no shortage of special-pleaders who prefer that the environmental and other costs of their automobile use be paid by others.
<
p>I support a progressive income tax from beyond John Rawl’s veil of ignorance about how it will affect me.
<
p>I really am ignorant about that because I expect to do substantially better this year than last year. And I have absolutely no idea how it would affect me in the four to eight years it would take to adopt a constitutional amendment.
Progressive tax: poison to conservatives, libertarian alike as an afront to liberty. Holy grail to liberals as an equalizer of sorts. The only decisive argument for or against it is, I’m right and you’re wrong, or visa versa. It is an argument not worth having.
<
p>The progressive harpies can rail about fairness and equality and the un-American way all they want, but with progressive tax, and with something like 89% of the households earning under $100K, the revenue derived is going to be disappoint you all the way from the bank unless you pass a law that says anyone earning over $75K is rich. I suppose the reasoning of taxing the rich during a recession is the same reason that gangster rob banks.
<
p>The trouble for the forseeable future in Mass in my estimation is that this year Mass came out on the wrong side of its tax revenue policy: i) sales tax dropped as consumption dropped ii) excise dropped as car sales dropped iii) mileage driven dropped and Mass assesses a per gallon, not % of price, gas tax iv) capital gains vanished and with it the cap gains tax and v) the Legislature doofuses passed the Unitary tax just as the World fell into a greater recession than Massachusetts. Sucked the profits right out of the state vi) and last, the economy is contracting and government is growing larger, relatively speaking. Altogether, it’s like the perfect storm.
<
p>The real policy questions, IMHO, are two:
<
p>First, does the state bide its time and wait for cap gains and corporate profits (combined world wide) to return or does it raise the individual income tax. Time’s a’wasting because the gouch the taxpayer window closes at the end of ’09 (prior to the 2010 election year).
<
p>And second, does the State abandon pretense and its stealth ‘no layoffs’ position, and actually cut costs over the next year.
<
p>This sounds so like that old saw: “The law, in it’s majesty, forbids the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread.”
<
p>I mean… seriously? 89% of the households accounts for less than 20% of the wealth. Don’t go hurting yourself with overly difficult math, now… The only way your scenario (“with something like 89% of the households earning under $100K”) makes any sense is if the curve, above 89% earning, is linear. This would put an upper bound on the 11% such that average pay at the top 1% could never get above 3 or 4 times average pay of the middle percentage… This is patently ridiculous when we know that average CEOs compensation is several hundred times average pay.
<
p>It’s non-linear with that a very very steep rise somewhere beginning in that 11%. So there’s a lot fewer rich, but they make so much more money it’s ridiculous.
<
p>Also, when Clinton raised the top marginal rates in 1993 (to the dismay and horror of the GOP who defined that as the beginning of the end…) to 35% it indeed generated a great deal of revenue. Again the GOP reacted with dismay and woebegotten cries of despair. Obama is going to do the same thing. Looks like you’ll have to suffer through more dark sleepless nights wrestling with cognitive dissonance…
<
p>
It all depends on how much money the State wants to take from the most productive people that make up its population. Like I said, progressive tax is fair if you think so, or unfair, if you think so. That’s the distillation of the argument.
<
p>Want $2 billion extra bucks in taxes, then let’s try raising the rate to 6% on all returns in excess of $60K. Rats, that’s only $1.4 billion, assuming no drop-off (i.e. no Laffer effect).
<
p>Instead then, let’s just raise the tax to 7% on those rat bastards earning over $1.0 million. Drat! That’s only $700 million. Such a small heist for the effort.
<
p>BTW, these are all numbers generated using the Mass DOR database from 2006.
<
p>Let’s try taxing at 7% those households earning over $100K. Ah! There’s $2.4 billion you want. We’re onto something! $2.4 billion. That’s enough … until you inevitably want more. So let’s go with that.
<
p>(i) Raise the tax on those earning $100K plus to 7%. (ii) Tax those earning $50K to $100K at 5.3% and (iii) drop the tax rate to zero for those households earning less than $50K. Oops. The drop of the low earning folks off the rolls, means the State take is now a dissapointing +1 billion.
<
p>Hmmm…now what?
<
p>Ok, so let’s tax the super rich, recognizing that those are the people most flexible about where they live when facing higher taxes. i.e. they can move.
<
p>Jack the rate on those earning $10 million per year to 8%. We’re up $1.221 billion.
<
p>Jack the rate on those earning $1 million to 8%. We’re up to $1.5 billion.
<
p>Ok then, jack the rate on those earning over $200K to 8%. There we go, there’s the $2.0 billion you want, until you want more. The $2.0 billion solution:
<
p>0 tax to $60K
5.3 tax to $100K
7.0 tax from $100k to $200K
8.0 over $200K
<
p>Enough progressive goodness for you? Want more? You clever dog. When you want more, you just sit back and let inflation lift the earners into higher brackets.
<
p>
<
p>Unfairness is neither here nor there, since your argument wasn’t about unfairness, but about efficacy:
<
p>
<
p>Perhaps you were confused or couldn’t make sense of what you wrote… But your attempts to lay the argument on pinions of ‘fairness/unfairness’ is tangential to the point.
The point’s not tangential. It’s what I said from the first sentence, the first time I responded to the liberal call for progressive tax: It’s a pointless argument between someone conservative versus liberal. One says it’s right; one says it’s wrong. One fair, one unfair.
<
p>You can’t point to a tax system that’s progressive, or recessive and claim that it obvious produces the better outcome.
<
p>Feel free to actually challenge the numbers, because mine are pretty specific, while yours, nonexistant. I wonder do you favor progressive because it might yield more money for i) a favorite government program ii) shift more dollars to the less fortunate, or iii) gouge the rich. Or, is it just a bit of each?
The call for a progressive STATE tax system is terribly irrelevant. A state income tax, contrasted with the higher federal ought, as a matter of policy be i) broad, ii) flat iii) low and iv) easily, cheaply complied with. For example, the Massachusetts 5.3% tax minus the feel-good deductions.
<
p>Take a perfectly acceptable flat rate. Tinker with it, add the EITC, the circuit breakers, the rent deduction, exclude federal and state pensions, add some credits for driving on the PIKE, or using oil to heat the home, allow dependent deduction, figure depreciation differently, add a few extra brackets, cap gain rates, toss in some differences from the federal like installment gains.
<
p>The simple flat tax morphs into something that everyone needs a computer or preparer to figure out.
<
p>End result is that the $20 or $30 of extra fairness you’ve legislated into the system, goes out the wallet times 5, to a tax preparer or software vendor.
<
p>After which you went in an entirely different direction claiming that progressive taxation would ‘disappoint’. This is the point I addressed because your math is about as fuzzy and disengenuous as your notions of fairness and productivity. Typical libertarian hoo-ha, actually…
<
p>
<
p>Um.. Perhaps there are two people at your keyboard? Are you taking turns banging out alternating paragraphs? Perhaps you two ought to communicate with each other a little better: One of you is hung up on fairness, the other pointed at the progessive tax system and made the distinct claim that it produces a worse outcome. This is an explicit endorsement of the the regressive tax as the better solution.
Simply respond to the points I’ve written. As someone who is more conservative, I favor a simple flat tax. You, I suppose, figure the opposite. There’s no objective means to claim one is superior to the other. Clear enough?
<
p>Certainly, you’ve not provided it. For no apparent reasons, you’ve just been and continue to be an ass in your responses spouting generalities and character accusations.
<
p>As opposed to the elliptical responses I’ve been making? You tell jokes, too?
<
p>
<
p>Why, no. It’s not clear at all. You made the claim that “revenues would disappoint” if derived from a progressive tax. Sounds to me like you’re using objective means to claim one is inferior, thus explicitly claiming the other is superior. So no. You’re not being clear at all.
<
p>
<
p>I am an ass. That’s the signature feature of one who doesn’t suffer fools gladly. And yes, anyone who claims outright conservative preferences has character issues. Clear enough?
that liberal ethos of tolerance and diversity.
<
p>
<
p>It is what it is.
<
p>Should the doctor tolerate a cancer in the name of biological diversity? Should the cop tolerate the burglar in the name of jurisprudential diversity?
<
p>Should the GOP tolerate prostitution and anonymous sex in airport bathrooms…? Oh, wait. Never mind.
Go to http://www.freerepublic.com.
<
p>That site gets as many visits/posts in fifteen minutes as this site has received since its inception. On it, you’ll find all sorts of the same childish branding–of liberals, by conservatives–that you’re doing here on this thread in the opposite direction. Stuff like “liberalism is a mental disorder,” and that sort of thing. And people over there believe that pablum every bit as much as you believe it here.
<
p>Just goes to prove that all liberal talk of tolerance and diversity is hot air. You people tolerate only the type of diversity that walks in lock-step with your own ideology. I don’t know why I expected better from this site, but I did.
<
p>Reality trumps all. I care little about what happens with the freepers. I respond, here on this blog, to what people say. I respond to those people who self-identify as conservatives and, to date, not a single one has proffered an argument in defense of either libertarianism or conservatism that isn’t bereft of intellectual or moral weight(or both.) It’s that simple. It is what it is. All my previous comments and posts are saved here. You can read them if you wish. I can read yours.
<
p>Of course, it is entirely possible that I’m nuts. If you think that is the case, you ought not to argue with me. Choice is yours.
<
p>
<
p>”Reasonable people can disagree” works only for the set of all reasonable people. Gary proffers an entirely unreasonable proposition on progressive taxation and then tries to hide behind the “reasonable people can disagree” shtick. Maybe I’m nuts, but that doesn’t make me stupid.
<
p>You, as well, seem to prefer definitions of tolerance and diversity that lies outside the realm of reasonable. Me? I’m not your monkey, so don’t expect me to dance.
<
p>As the man said; “I am but mad north north west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.”
But your intellectual curiosity level evidently rivals that of our most recent former President. You seem to embody the typical smug liberal stereotype, laying claim to intellectual superiority while lacking the intestinal fortitude to accept your fallibility as a human being. You seem to be one of those delusional demagogues who thinks that the loud applause from the hallelujah chorus is clear evidence of the superiority of your argument and your gravitas as the one making it, all the while masking your self-superior attitude with self-effacing humor, which is as phony and transparent as a modern-day network “reality” television show.
<
p>Defending libertarianism or conservatism with a weight both moral and intellectual is no problem at all; none whatsoever. I wouldn’t have you as my monkey, and seeing you dance would sicken me.
<
p>I bet you don’t pay taxes at the higher MA rate either, do you . . .
<
p>
… for letting my madness interfere with your intellectual (and moral) superiority. Can you forgive me…? Please?
<
p>(and, by the way, what, exactly, is involved vis a vis forgiveness? Do I get to be Rush Limbaughs towel boy? Larry Craigs personal bathroom attendant? David Vitters flight attendant? I do have a secret fantasy of being Newt Gingrichs fourth wife…ssh… don’t tell anyone… rest assured, however that whatever I have to do to atone, I’ll be there.)
<
p>
<
p>Ok. You convinced me. Wow, that was easy! Hmm. I now have a strange urge to make a purple heart bandaid and spit on a veteran.
<
p>So… now that that little unpleasantness is behind us… What do I have to do to become a member of the conservative cognoscenti? (or is that too French?)
<
p>I think I could get on TV and force Michael Steele into making three competing phrases in one sentence.
<
p>Hmm… what else?
<
p>I know of a cripple who begs for money around the corner from me… I could berate him publicly. Would that do?
<
p>
<
p>wouldn’t be the first time my dancing sickened someone… In addition to being your inferior (ideologically speaking) I’m also fat and ugly.
<
p>
<
p>Ouch. Now that really stung! Hitting me right between the taxes… That really really hurts!
<
p>
I thought you weren’t going to dance for me, monkey?
<
p>Boy, that was easy. You couldn’t help yourself, could you?
<
p>And a magnificent anti-homosexual undercurrent to your snarkiness, too. I thought you progressives were supposed to celebrate diversity, especially diversity of the homosexual flavor? You’re emerging as the standout progressive hypocrite here on this board. All tooth and nail, however, with none of the muscle to back it up.
<
p>You don’t pay at the higher rate, do you. Do as I say, not as I do.
<
p>Go ahead—start a thread in which conservatism/libertarianism/whathaveyou goes head to head, intellectually and morally, with progressivism/liberalism/whathaveyou, and ping me to it. Beating you like the proverbial rented mule will be no problem at all.
<
p>
But I think he’s arguing that a progressive tax is bad in theory. I agree. It’s bad in theory because it’s more complicated for the state to administer, more complicated for taxpayers to comply with, disincentivizes productivity, incentivizes leaving MA for people who are productive, incentivizes tax evasion and avoidance for people who are productive, and would have an overall negative impact on the MA economy.
<
p>Then he’s showing that he can walk and chew gum at the same time by arguing that its not only bad in theory, but it’s also bad in practice. He carefully supports this argument by using numbers from the DOR website to show that the brackets would have to kick in at middle income levels to actually raise the amount of money that’s being talked about. Would a tax proposal that doesn’t offer any relief to anyone that makes over $60k really excite the masses enough to pass a constitutional amendment?
<
p>So maybe you could lay out your proposal for discussion. What should the tax rates and income brackets be in your desired progressive tax system? How much revenue would your desired system raise?
<
p>He’s arguing no such thing. He’s grandstanding that I want to “gouge the rich”.
<
p>
<
p>Using the assumptions that there’s a finite pile of money to be taxed and a linear progression to get to the top of that pile isn’t either careful or supportive. In point of fact, its loopy.
<
p>
<
p>Why should I dance to your tune? Nothing reasonable has been proposed. So I said. So I continue to say. I have little faith in my ability to suddenly create a reasonable argument on your side. I’m just pointing that out.
<
p>If you want to have a reasonable discussion, then you have to start with a reasonable proposal.
Proponents of a progressive income tax are arguing for a constitutional amendment. I think the burden lies on those supporting a constitutional amendment to show its value. And pointing out both the theoretical and practical problems with a constitutional amendment just act to raise the burden for those proponents.
<
p>So, if you want a progressive income tax in MA, what should the tax rates and income brackets be? Why is that better than the current system? Are you considering all the consequences of a progressive tax?
He’s not going to actually discuss real points. He’s got his liberal “progressive tax is good” talking points and he’s not moving off them.
<
p>Just to summarize some of the few points, that Petr chooses to ignore:
<
p>
<
p>Response from petr, none.
<
p>
<
p>Response from petr. Those numbers are suspect. No “why”, no “here’s my solution”, no “that doesn’t work”, no comment that the progressive rates above will or will not be a better tax policy. Nothing but platitudes and childish insults.
<
p>
<
p>Petr: nothing.
<
p>
<
p>Petr: oh my god, he says I want to gouge the rich.
<
p>
You said:
<
p>
<
p>And then, of course, it is an argument you went on to have… using fallacious logic, disengenous and erroneous assumptions and bad math, to boot. So, as far as I can tell, you (and whatever other personalities share your keyboard) want it in three distinct and specific ways:
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>Are you dizzy? Do you need to sit down? Perhaps a nap is in order?
<
p>
You said:
<
p>
<
p>And then, of course, it is an argument you went on to have… using fallacious logic, disengenous and erroneous assumptions and bad math, to boot. So, as far as I can tell, you (and whatever other personalities share your keyboard) want it in three distinct and specific ways:
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>Are you dizzy? Do you need to sit down? Perhaps a nap is in order?
<
p>
…an amendment opens up the options. Remember, an amendment per se won’t raise anyone’s taxes; it just allows to move forward without our hands tied. We can debate the merits of actually raising taxes later. Flat taxation is inherently regressive because X% to a wealthy family will be a lot less missed than X% of a struggling family.
will have much appetite for approving an amendment that will lead to a “tax increase to be named later”?
<
p>And please define “wealthy family” and “struggling family.”. Gary’s point above is that if you run the numbers then you need to define “wealthy family” as a family making $100k in order to actually raise $2 billion in revenue. That doesn’t seem that wealthy to me, it seems more “middle class.” What happens when voters learn that the amendment would lead to a middle tax tax increase? Probably not going to be too popular.
National debates usually peg 200K as wealthy. There would probably be brackets in between too. It will only lead to a middle class if the legislature so enacts. I just want to untie our hands.
<
p>With about $12B of revenue at a 5.3% rate, an additional 0.1% should provide about $225M.