The proposal calls for lowering the property tax and imposing a 2 percent tax on income. This means that each person would contribute a more equitable share of his or her income to the local community, making the overall local tax system more progressive.
Some other cities and states in the country, including New York City, allow the implementation of local income taxes. The Massachusetts Legislature would have to amend the state constitution to allow cities and towns in the state to implement and collect this new source of revenue.
It is interesting to note that Concord is considering a progressive local tax proposal at a time when some elected officials say there is no interest for more taxes. In addition to statewide revenue reforms, like the five previous ballot attempts to build a more progressive tax structure, maybe it is time to help communities like Concord create a tax system that sufficiently funds the needs, programs, and structures we all value and rely on in our own communities. Through these local initiatives we can demonstrate to our elected officials that our state as a whole needs real solutions to address our budget gap and the lack of resources needed to maintain and rebuild our public structures.
Keyes said the property tax system was adopted when the country was formed because real estate was a measure of a person’s wealth.
<
p>But times have changed and taxes should reflect those changes, he said.
<
p>But even he admits any immediate change is unlikely.
<
p>”If we’re lucky, this could happen in 15 to 20 years. But if you don’t start somewhere, it would never ever happen.”
folks in Concord making sure their taxes won’t be spent in Lowell.
<
p>A statewide income tax and an equalizing distribution formula is a much better idea; a progressive income tax better still.
Our silly little constitution keeps getting in the way to having a real progressive income tax, but I’ve heard of some ideas to effectively create one without running into constitutional issues.
<
p>I think someone may have submitted a bill on this, and maybe a BMGer could provide more insight.
<
p>Basically, you raise the income tax rate to something like 7% or 8% and then just create more or expand exemptions. For example, the state could exempt the first $30K of income. Low-income individuals would pay 0 to about 2% income tax, middle-income earners would pay less or about the same they pay now, and high-income individuals would pay a bit more than they do now.
<
p>As far as I know, this sort of idea hasn’t gotten too much traction.
it would get support. If the only thing people hear in the news is that the income tax is going up, without the additional information of the exemption, there will be a flood of calls against it. We need to rename progressive taxes. For some reason, the word “progressive” itself causes uninformed voters to go into “auto-anti” mode, even though they do not understand what it means. Can’t call it a tax on the wealthy either because then the wealthy start the cries that we are robbing them. So we need to think of a new name for progressive taxes.
and it didn’t work.
chanllenging the finding you linked too?
Instead of exempting the first x dollars, create deductions for necessities but not for luxuries. Make money spent on housing, food, clothing, medical expenses/health insurance, childcare, etc. deductible up to certain limits.
One can raise the No Tax Status ceiling —
<
p>One can raise the Limited Income Tax ceiling —
<
p>One can raise the percentage of Earned Income credit deducted
Progressive taxation is a good idea because wealthier people have more money that can be taxed, and poorer people spend more of their income on buying things, which is what stimulates the economy.
<
p>I believe that this should be implemented at the STATE level, not in just one Town or City. It is much easier in most cases for wealthy residents to move to a different town or city (to avoid municipal income taxes) than to move to a different state.
<
p>It could start as having two income brackets (for Massachusetts State Income Tax):
<
p>$0- $400,000/ year 5.3% APR (current rate)
<
p>$400,000 + 7.5% APR
<
p>This would create state revenue, to pay for current programs, perhaps expand programs or start new programs, and may make a cut in property taxes possible.
from Tax Girl
<
p>
<
p>Buffet has also been quoted, sorry I can’t find the source, that he likely couldn’t have achieved his financial success had he been born in Bangladesh instead of the United States, because Bangladesh had no banking system and no stock market.
<
p>Finally, let me borrow from Hidden Truths of Progressive Taxes, Lakoff & Budner, April 16, 2007 and point out that the wealthy have made greater use of the common “goods” of our society – they have been empowered by them in creating their wealth – and thus they have a greater obligation to sustain them.
<
p>
<
p>
You’re too smart, Peter, not to understand that it is neither hypocritical, nor inconsistent, nor unreasonable to hold that something would be good as a matter of general policy, yet to recognize that absent its enactment, a few individuals voluntarily acting in accordance have a negligible effect, and might more profitably save their efforts; so I won’t insult you by belaboring the point.
<
p>Also, you might want to check your math – I’ve got my Form 1 booklet in front of me, and it’s 5.85%.
Are there that many liberal spenders in MA who actually pay more taxes… after all they keep saying we can afford more taxes so surely the must be paying more taxes.
<
p>Hypocrites!
What’s that? You don’t want to?
Is this something to be brought up at a town meeting. I then feel sorry for the citizens of Concord. I’m sure the town can’t do anything about the issue and it will just waste people time. Town meetings are about local goverment. Endless pontificating about issues which the town has no control just discourages people from participating in local politics.
<
p>
That’s the fun part!
I always bring a book.
who makes our meetings go to 11.00pm
In my town the only items that get discussed are the specific warrant articles, which it is my understanding would never make it on to the warrant if they did not address a decision that the town is legally competent to make. Moderators have also been pretty good (almost too good sometimes IMO) about making sure the speakers stay on topic. My town has open Town Meeting. Do representative Town Meetings have more leeway in this regard?
debated sending a letter to FDR urging him to keep us out of war in 1938. I know because I was there in my Mothers belly as she debated it. She always claimed I was kicking her, which explains my activist beginnings I guess.
We have an open meetig also.
<
p>Any ten citizens can place any article they want upon the warrant. We’ve had articles creating dental programs, abolishing 40-b, and refusing to cooperate with the PATRIOT Act, of the top of my head.
<
p>Also, in my experience, the damndest things turn out to be controversial. Using Community Preservation Act funds designated for historical purposes for a 18th century church and graveyard with donors making matching donations provoked an hourlong discussion on the seperation of church and state. The fact taht said church had hosted the first 100 years of town meetings until a town hall was built was deemed irrelevant by some. (The article passed, adn the town received a national award for the quality of said restoration).
…still had to stand up to the AG’s scrutiny or something like that. It seems I hear quite often at town meeting that we can’t do such and such because it is inconsistent with state law. I suppose though that town meeting, like any other body could pass resolutions expressing their collective opinion on something. Maybe my town just has the habit of not addressing issues it really has no control over.
I try to think of it as an offbeat movie filled with quirky characters, though admittedly with really poor pacing and editing.
You ought to listen to yourselves
<
p>… higher tax rates are better … silly little constitution … don’t call it “progressive” … “need to think of a new name for progressive taxes” … “would create state revenue, to pay for current programs, perhaps expand programs or start new programs”
<
p>This sort of talk is 3 standard deviations to the left of the average voters’ position on public sector largess and taxes (maybe 2 SD in MA.)
<
p>I suspect you all see the election of Scott Brown as a political aberration and not a meaningful and perhaps long-term political shift.
<
p>And Peter’s right … how many of you pay the voluntary 5.85% rate? Show of hands please.
is create voter awareness about tax cuts for the wealthy and the false pretense that they will trickle down and create a robust economy.
<
p>
<
p>A meaningful and long-term political shift? It’s entirely possible. The power is with corporations, the wealthy and well-connected. Meaningful in the sense that the Republicans are the mouth piece for the powerful, and are willing to misinform people in order to win elections? Yeah, that’s pretty meaningful. Frightening too when you consider that the MSM are members of the well-connecteds
and are entirely willing to pass along information that is lacking in completeness or balance.
“Aha!” moments to believe that that is the case overall. (Certainly is the case sometimes.) When you share facts with voters, it may not turn a vote immediately, but it makes people understand that they have some thinking to do.
What then is NY-23 indicative of? Was that an aberration?
Is an aberration, according to the preferred regressive analysis.