In Bridgewater Mass.
On July 31st in the Enterprise
Bridgewater officials turn up noses at meals tax.
Interim Town Administrator Jeff Ritter proposed putting the meals tax on the warrant for a special town meeting on Aug 18. He said Aug. 31 is the deadline to approve the tax if the town wants it to go into effect on Oct. 1.
Ritter said the state Department of Revenue estimated how much money each community would raise by enacting the tax. According to the DOR, Bridgewater would take in $209,000 annually.
On the same day in the Enterprise
Cuts force Bridgewater senior center to close two days a week.
With a $45,000 budget, the center has been forced to close some days
And the day before in the Enterprise
Bridgewater-Raynham eliminates middle school sports programs
Officials say cost of soccer, basketball and baseball is estimated at $60K
Geez, they could have $104,000 left over.
crossposted at ONE Massachusetts
All those cuts! Which is remarkable considering the spending is budgeted to rise from 2009 to 2010 by 14.9%.
<
p>
<
p>They left the meals tax money in the taxpayers pockets. Guess they figured they just be hogs to overspend by a flat 15%.
<
p>Kinda like John Dillenger tipping on his way out.
…when costs increase as well, just to MAINTAIN service levels. I was heartened by the diary title. I’ve always believed that people who scream for tax cuts need to be the ones who say what they will sacrifice.
<
p>I might amend it to say which following public structures on which everybody enjoys and often takes for granted, will they and their loved ones will no longer use or take advantage of.
<
p>Water treatment plant, bridges roads and sidewalks including snow plowing,fire protection, police protection, sewerage system, public health inspections, street lights, garbage control and sanitation. To name a few.
Most of the people screaming for tax cuts (emphasis on the “screaming” part) are the last people to ask for suggestions about what should be sacrificed.
<
p>First of all, many of them (in my experience) don’t have a clue about how their local fiscal system works at a town/county level, much less at the state or federal level. These are the “magic bullet” people who assume that if revenue is reduced then the cost of doing business will mysteriously fall in sync. They are like the mob chanting for blood at the fight. They don’t actually care what happens as long as people getting nailed are nobody they know or care about. Pity these people with their child-like fervor, but don’t offer them any real authority until they do their homework.
<
p>Then there are the people with a real agenda, i.e. those who seriously want to cut public health care, public education, public works, and anything they see as not directly benefiting themselves. The matter of direct benefits is more a matter of perception than reality. When, e.g., cuts to public health lead to epidemic outbreaks, or cuts in public education gut their state’s economic engine, or cuts in public works lead to collapsing bridges, they will point their finger at immigrants or gays or “elites” or anything but their own short-sighted perspective.
<
p>When cuts are necessary and/or unavoidable, the people who least want to make them are often the best source of practical suggestions.
<
p>FWIW, I do think those people who scream for more spending (not less) should be prepared to talk about where that money will come from, be it higher taxes or cuts to existing programs.
…I very deliberately used the word “sacrifice”. I was concerned that if I said “cut”, that crowd would go after something that doesn’t affect them personally, whereas “sacrifice” suggests giving something up in exchange for lower taxes.
You linked to Bridgewater, Virginia, not Massachusetts. Is that where you got your number?
<
p>Care to back up your 14.9% claim with a better link?
I have no idea where this 14.9% spending increase number you’ve mentioned several times is coming from. Do you mean that the Massachusetts state budget has or will increase 14.9%? If that’s the case, the number is wrong.
Apologies to Bridgewater, MA; Bridgewater, VA and John Dillenger.
I hate the taste of crow when I’ve had to eat it. I appreciate and admire your integrity in acknowledging your mistake.
Your compulsive need to gainsay any point containing a numeral that doesn’t conform to your sensibilities is as predictable as the day is long. Granted, in general, your responses are civil, but I envision you as a guy who sits shirtless in his boxers all day eating Fritos just waiting for the next libtard to post something with a number in it so you can go ferret out the “truth.”
And, this as irrelevant as your comment, you, while your comments are typically uncivil, are as banal and stock with cliches as ‘the day is long’. The difference is, I waste no time envisioning you, but appreciate your obsessions with my boxers and snacks.
Out of chips?
<
p>Smile, Mr. Chartered Accountancy. You’ll make a lion tamer yet.
http://www.bridgewaterma.org/G…
<
p>FY09: $40,654,696
FY10 (proposed): $38,414,000
<
p>So it’s around a 5% overall cut. And that number doesn’t do justice to the cuts to public works, health / recreation, library, etc. (ain’t it always the way…). They’ve even managed to tame employee health insurance benefits (aka “costs” by some people), though retirement benefits were probably the single biggest line-item increase.
The town votes down the acceptance of the local option, is there a provision in the bill that reduces local aid due to the failure of a Community to accept the local provision?
<
p>It seems that the Town of Bridgewater, if it votes the measure down, will have a more difficult time pressuring their representatives in the Great and General Court to increase local aid.
Metrowest Daily News
<
p>Vote taken on 7/20/09.
I hope the city side absorbed the cuts, and didn’t pass them along to the school department. Do you think that happened?
I believe Marlboro’s school budget escaped any drastic cuts at this time. Economic outlook does not bode well for FY10 & FY11. Marlboro applied 1.2 million of stimulus to FY10. Just hope no further cuts to local aid (I am doubtful due to poor revenue collection).
<
p>District is also losing students to the AMSA charter school. I think the count is 200.
What were we thinking?
The economy would improve enough to fill in the operational gaps in the 298 towns and 53 cities education systems when the federal stimulus ended?
<
p>We would have two whole years to build public will for tax reform that would yield an adequate balanced revenue stream to replace 2 billion dollars?
<
p>Or is it 4 Billion dollars, I forget.
Thankfully, Amherst Representative Town Meeting voted unanimously in favor of the higher meals tax.
<
p>–Leo
NYTimes editorial today: States in Distress
<
p>In part italics mine …………
<
p>
I don’t want my taxes to go to a town that refuses local option taxes. They are telling us they expect OTHERS to pay for THEIR municipal services.
<
p>On August 1, I was at the beloved Barrington Brewery where the couple at the next table were arguing about the 6.25% tax on their meal. “I thought they just raised the SALES tax.”
<
p>The woman was saying they would never eat out again because of the tax hike. They could cross the border to Columbia County, New York where the state tax (4%) and the county local option tax (4%) adds up to 8%.
<
p>They could go to Vermont, with a 9% state plus 1% local option meals tax. Vermont also has a 10% plus 1% local option alcohol beverage tax.
<
p>They could go to New Hampshire (a shlep) with an 8% meals tax.
<
p>They could save money by heading to Connecticut, with a 6% sales and meals tax (and no local option), so they could have saved 50 cents on their $50 meal.
<
p>Or they could cook their own meal. I don’t think that’s going to happen.
<
p>A .75% local option is 75 cents on a $100 meal. It’s three cents on a $5 coffee and breakfast sandwich combo. It’s pennies, but it’s real money at the end of the year.
<
p>Any additional local aid should be matching funds against a town’s meals tax. Refuse to enact a meals tax? Self inflicted problem. Sorry. Restrictive zoning, and no restaurants? Self inflicted problem. Sorry.
…with no restictive zoning…just not enough people to justify a restraunant?
Sounds like a town that needs additional aid. But the tiny little town should also enact the local option first, as even the pennies at the pizza shop add up.
<
p>My point is that I am very willing to help a city or town that lacks the tax base. I don’t want to raise my property taxes, vote in a local option tax, than have my state taxes go to towns that are not willing to tax themselves.
Great story!!!
<
p>Somebody has to develop a post card sized handout with your data (plus RI) to give to people you overhear saying they are never going to eat at a restaurant in Mass again because of they don’t want to pay another 50 cents to help pay for the roads they drove in on.
<
p>I’m going to try to find Barbara Anderson’s quote about that a couple of weeks ago. Something about quitting buying her lunch at a fast food place and making her own. Probably healthier for her anyway.
According to the Bridgewater budget found at http://www.bridgewaterma.org. The town is paying $2,164,382 on capital debt service. Had the prevailing wage in Massachusetts been set at the calculations used by the U.S. Department of Labor, they would have saved on average 17.7% of every dollar spent on the projects they bonded. This is according to an op-ed by David Tuerck of the Beacon Hill Institute in the Boston Globe.
<
p>17.7% of $2,164,382 is $383,095.61 so yeah raising taxes is the only way to find that money.
Is there a way for Bridgewater (or any other town or city) to retrieve that money and apply it to the FY 10 budget?
They wouldn’t be spending it in the first place. That’s a great argument. I fought you being more fiscally responsible and now that I don’t have the savings you proposed I need to tax for more money.
<
p>Nice…..
How could this happen?
by statute. The republican house members tried to do this for the stimulus money but were rebuffed. That’s what I’ve been arguing for the past month and a half.
<
p>I’m glad to see you may finally be coming around.
I’m paying attention. Now for a little research ……………
it’s nice to flash a little logic on the dimwitted schemes of the anti-tax crowd. Thankfully, most people get it, if you spend even just a little time talking to them about it. Someone fund a Bridgewater poll: I’d stake every dime I have that around 60% or more would support the meals tax if it would level fund the sr center, youth sports and some other program that funds those we care for the most, who are least able to actually protect themselves in the political process.