Today’s Boston Globe contains an Op Ed written jointly by Senator Eldridge and Senator Chang-Diaz. Their courage and straight talk makes me proud to be a democrat.
Among other things, they point out that a 1% increase in the personal income tax would cost households with an income between $40k-$60k a year, on average less than $7.00 a week.
They also describe a plan where the personal exemption and head of household categories could shield those at the bottom of the income scale from any increase at all.
For their complete Op Ed go to: http://www.boston.com/bostongl…
I agree with their conclusion that the most equitable course of action would be for Massachusetts to join the 35 states and the Federal Government by amending our Constitution and enacting a true, tiered progressive system of taxation.
Reliance on budgetary “crack” like the capital gains tax has rendered us vulnerable. Exchanging the “crack” of capital gains for slot parlors is only exchanging one toxic, cyclic, regressive scheme of taxation for another.
To ensure that our state can maintain its infrastructure, ensure access to justice, public safety, 21st century public education, and our new health care plan revenue must be stable, structurally sound, and honest.
The current revenues that go into the general fund are neither structurally sound, nor honest in that the revenue scheme is not directly related to the actual duties of government nor the incomes of citizens and residents.
While I appreciate the courage shown by our House of Representatives and its Ways and Means Chairman Charles Murphy in crafting a budget that only spends what we have, and using a sales tax to generate enough to hopefully protect the most vulnerable this year – a long term solution is needed.
Senators Eldridge and Chang-Diaz have spelled out that long term solution. I hope their colleagues on Beacon Hill are listening.
Taxing capital gains is not regressive. Low-income and middle income folks have hardly any capital gains.
<
p> Way to go Sonia and Jamie!
Should be used to generate reserves (aka the rainy day fund) and not be the basis for the yearly budget.
It’s true that capital expenditures should be fairly smooth, but a few good years of capital gains tax could be used to bang out a few extra capital improvement projects, or even (gasp!) be used to pay down debt early on existing bonds, thereby reducing debt service payments and freeing up a little extra room in other parts of the budget for salaries or a future downturn.
Capital investment helps the poor by buying plant and equipment to improve their productivity. In an economy with high capital investment, those at the low end see the biggest gains in their incomes. A guy with a backhoe makes a hell of a lot more than a guy with a shovel.
<
p>By taxing capital gains you are hurting investment and limiting the low income worker to using shovels. You are limiting the amount of dirt he can move and since he only makes money by the pound of dirt, you are cutting his income. Even though the worker never pays a cent of capital gains tax he will still see a fall in his living standards.
<
p>Your response is typically statist-liberal in that you only see the value of a government action by the revenue it brings into the state, disregarding that most improvement in a citizen’s quality of life comes from activity outside government control or provision.
Its always easy to support those issues that are popular. Being the first electeds to speak out without knowing what the outcome will be is very risky politically. But without the type of leadership exhibited by Chang Diaz and Eldridge we would be subject to the whims of the vocal far right.
There is sure to be a vocal backlash in the Globe and elsewhere. If this is the type of leadership you want, now is the time to show some vocal support outside the confimes of our liberal readership for Chang Diaz and Eldridge. Reach out to the outside media and give all the great arguements you have been making here.
<
p>I have always believed that progressive taxes are not only fair, but best for the economy. If you want their fellow legislators to jump on board, show them it is safe to do so.
would have combined this request with specific reform measures to reduce expenses enough to put a little more progressiveness into the income tax code via higher exemptions, etc.
put an end to this type of behavior? Granted, giving a gift to a supporter isn’t really bribery since they already support you, but wouldn’t you expect political gifts of any sort to be banned?
If you’re concerned about what you think is unethical gift-giving on the part of legislators, why don’t you write your own post about it? And try to be honest while you do – your link notes that Senator Moore used campaign funds to a few hundred dollars worth of Amex gift cards which he gave to staffers, not supporters…
Sorry, I actually meant to post this comment in this post. I hadn’t realized I had posted in the wrong one.
Interesting question.
<
p>It seems blatantly corrupt to gain supporters by offering them gifts. Buying votes does not sit well.
<
p>I would prefer that legislators give some of their supporters gifts rather than amendments. For example, if we gave everyone in the oil industry a teddy bear, could we get some good climate change legislation?
MGL 55:6. Restrictions on expenditures; penalties. “Any other political committee, duly organized, may receive, pay and expend money or other things of value for the enhancement of the political future of the candidate or the principle, for which the committee was organized so long as such expenditure is not primarily for the candidate’s or any other person’s personal use,”
<
p>There were Republicans in our area actually giving away gift cards and free gasoline to acquire support. OCPF director, Michael Sullivan has ruled that the expenditure is acceptable as it, ” enhances the candidates political future”. Bribery condoned by the OCPF?
<
p>There’s no use having laws if they are not enforced.
So you can give a guy a cigar to enhance your political future as long as the guy you gave it to doesn’t smoke it?
You know when a sentence starts that way the taxpayer ends up getting screwed. No snow flake in an avalanche ever felt responsible.
<
p>These guys are elected to make tough decisions. Taking more money from the taxpayers and making our tax code even more complicated and convoluted isn’t courage in my book.
“it will only cost you an extra cup of coffee a day”
<
p>That one slips by even easier.
I sympathize with the argument to not raise taxes when times are tough. Except… with an income tax, if you haven’t lost your job things shouldn’t be much tougher for you right now. Gas prices are relatively low, as are home heating oil prices. Meanwhile, if you have lost your job, raising the income tax won’t hurt you a whit, but increasing the exemptions might provide a small boost next April.
<
p>As for complicated — there’s no reason to think that 6.3% is more complex than 5.3%, or that a 25% EIC is more complex than the current 15% EIC. The process is identical; the number you punch into your calculator is different. That’s neither more complicated nor more convoluted.
<
p>So, to recap: raising the income tax is the least obnoxious tax increase precisely because it doesn’t punish those who have been laid off or seen their hours cut dramatically like the sales tax does. Increasing things like the EIC and/or the personal exemption help make the tax easier to swallow for those who are underemployed and struggling — the working poor.
I am thrilled to hear some of our elected officials begin the discussion on a tiered, progressive tax rate system. Since Obama seems to be able to talk about it with little negative press or backlash, it’s about time this is discussed in a serious way.
<
p>There have been so many trial balloons floated out about tax increases that you just don’t know what to think anymore. I understand how an income tax increase can be a safer way to raise revenue, since if one loses their job, they will not have to pay the tax. But I wish our government would get a realistic grip on what one has to make to be poor in today’s world. People who have families who earn $40,000-60,000 in our state and country ARE POOR. They don’t seem to realize how the cost of everything has skyrocketed while wages have not, so while 5 years ago $40-60,000 was a living wage, it is not anymore. And $7.00/wk can be A LOT of money. $30 per month pays one prescription co pay, or the 20% due on a medical bill, or your child’s lunch money (actually, school lunch is now $12.50/ wk). The “inbetweens”, which is the salary range you mention, make too much money to qualify for any aid yet is at the low end of trying to keep up with the ridiculous inflation we’ve seen over the last years.
<
p>At least with a sales tax, those people can choose to not buy things, with an income tax, those people will have it pulled right from their check, no matter how thrifty they are trying to be.
<
p>I think if they are going to hike the income tax, then this proposal from Senator Eldridge and Senator Chang-Diaz…..
….should be incorporated so those making less than $100,000 per year, will not see a tax increase.
<
p>Please.
<
p>Any idea where that stat is?
This source, from taxfoundation.org shows Massachusetts tax paid as % of income, consistently in the top half.
Here is link to a page on the Mass Buget and Policy Center’s website that includes a chart comparing taxes to income in all 50 states as of 2006. Massachusetts is 14th from the bottom.
<
p>http://www.massbudget.org/docu…
Mass Budget and policy uses census figures. Criticized here.
<
p>
Massbudget.org has some good info, but it also clearly has a point of view. Not saying it’s a bad point of view, but it’s a point of view nonetheless.
<
p>Also, these tax stats are misleading imho. Massachusetts may rank 14th, or 7th or 29th or whatever depending on who’s doing the counting. There are all kinds of ways to measure tax impact.
<
p>What these rankings don’t factor in is the significantly higher Cost of Living here as opposed to other states that might have otherwise higher tax rates.
<
p>Things like mandatory police details, public service pension funds, project labor agreements, water and utility rates, housing costs, CPA surcharges, insurance regulation, uncompensated care pools, etc…These may all be fine and dandy, but they do all add the financial burden taxpayers must carry, even though few of them are direct taxes that show up in these kinds of rankings.
<
p>Massachusetts may not be Taxachusetts, but it’s still an expensive place to live.