“It could be worse!”
That’s the mantra we’re now used to hearing from human services, education and local officials grappling with budget cuts and the resulting layoffs. Maybe in this context, an 8.4 percent cutin the state’s k-12 education spending may seem mild:
“While certainly severe, cuts to education have not been as extreme as those in some other areas of the state budget including Local Aid (cut 37.6 percent), Environment & Recreation (cut 26.7 percent ), and Law & Public Safety (cut 14.6 percent). Much of the total cut to Education comes from Non-Chapter 70 Aid programs (cut 24.5 percent), Early Education and Care (cut 18.3 percent), and Higher Education (cut 16.4 percent).” (Mass Budget and Policy Center report)
Here’s a snapshot of how this 8.7 percent cut looks in North Worcester County, where the Sentinel and Enterprise reporting staff did an excellent job of quantifying the cuts:
“Six teachers in Fitchburg public schools have received layoff notices, and Ashburnham-Westminster Regional School District has notified about six teachers representing 4.85 full-time positions that they will be laid off along with a guidance counselor, a custodian, and six paraprofessionals for a total of 14 lost jobs.
North Middlesex Regional School District expects to layoff about 20 teachers and let go another 15 non-teacher employees through attrition, said Superintendent Maureen Marshall.”
In short, the only towns not laying off teachers and staff are those who did so last year.
Kudos to the Sentinel and Enterprise for bringing these stories to light.
Our elected leadership has understandably downplayed the cuts in the budgets released by the governor, House and Senate. No elected official cherishes being the bearer of bad news. But the reality is, our education system and other key public infrastructures are not being funded at sustainable levels.
We need more investment. Downplaying the severity of budget cuts can undermine meaningful debate about revenue solutions like the Act to Invest in Our Communities.
invest in a $2 billion, taxpayer-subsidized, Convention Center expansion.
What always irks me is the sense local and state leaders try to cultivate that these types of punishing cuts are inevitable- that they have no choice in the matter. But clearly, they make choices every year, and these choices reflect their real priorities. There’s even talk of raising taxes to fund the (dubiously necessary) Convention Center project.
There is plenty of wealth in Massachusetts. It is criminal that our elected representatives refuse to consider raising taxes, especially on the wealthy.
If we can’t get it done while we have an overwhelming Democratic majority in the legislature, when WILL we be able to do it?
Do we really want to be like Tennessee?
For decades, I’ve railed against greedy and selfish GOP slash-and-burn tax cutters. The long-term effects of the horribly-misguided proposition 2 1/2 are just now hitting us — all that capital equipment and infrastructure that we stopped investing in three decades ago is now wearing out and rusting away.
Today, we have a Democratic governor and a Democratic legislature.
Why aren’t we investing in our future (never mind our present)?
Please
kind of went over like a lead balloon, so why not put it back to where it was when the economy was doing well?
That doesn’t make sense to Republicans. Can’t go back to thing when the economy was booming, Democrats were running the country.
Households with net non-home wealth in excess of $20M.
Are you seriously going to argue that Massachusetts isn’t wealthy?
I found a study that shows that in 2006, the first quintile of family income earners (i.e. the lowest 20%) was at $15,761 in the Pioneer Valley and $20,314 in Greater Boston. Considering that, I think that any family that earns over $250,000 per year and argues that they are not wealthy should be taken with a very large grain of salt; they should try living on $15,761 for a few weeks to see what “not wealthy” really is all about.
I think it’s time to reinstate the 5.6% income tax rate in this state. It’s not going to break anyone, and would counter the cuts in public services that we have been experiencing for the past several years.
I hate to belabor this, but it really DOES matter.
Income is not wealth. Wealth is not income. Wealth is what happens when high income is not accompanied by high expenses. A family that earns $275K/year in gross income and that has $280K/year in expenses is just as broke as any minimum-wage earner.
We need to be talking about how those residents whose wealth exceeds, say, $20M can contribute more than they do now to the state we all live in.
Too whom much is given, much is expected.
So you are saying that someone who makes tons of money but spends it all on vacation houses, cars, and other luxury goods (expenses) is not wealthy just because they don’t put aside any savings?
I really think you need to distinguish between voluntary and necessary expenses.
Lemon P. Snodgrass, IX, who has a significant trust fund borne of great-grandpa Snodgras’ dubious business activities, owns a home in Louisburg Square, a house on Nantucket and a 4,000 square foot condo in Aspen, doesn’t work because he doesn’t need to and gets all of his income from muni-bond funds.
As his taxable income is near zero, he doesn’t pay very much in income taxes, if anything. When you are truly wealthy, you can set things up so you don’t have a big salary, and don’t pay a lot of income taxes.
What the high-income tax rate targets is the upwardly mobile middle class: the doctor with $200,000 in student loans and a jumbo mortgage on a very nice house in Medfield. It misses the wealthy, by a mile. He needs a big salary to keep it all going because he is accumulating wealth, rather than the owner of wealth.
Tom is advocating taxing the wealth rather than the income.
Characterized by abundance; possessing resources in ample amounts; having plentiful possessions.
Next question…
I wish we could see the old Blue Mass Group. Some months ago, there was a lengthy discussion of how much income it takes to sustain a “middle class lifestyle.” There was much discussion over what things comprise a middle class lifestyle now, and in generations past. The point was, roughly: See, you think you’re middle class, but you’re really backsliding! You’re not wealthy! Why are you voting for Republicans that adopt policies nest suited for those FAR wealthier than you are?
Then, in this context: Wait, nope. You’re wealthy after all. Zap!
Rather than arguing about who the wealthy are, why don’t we just tax everyone in a way where we all pay the same percentage of our income in taxes. Right now, the low-income folk in Boston, the Pioneer Valley and elswhere in the state pay about 9 percent of their earnings in taxes while those making $250k/yr pay about 6 percent, according to the Mass Budget and Policy Center.
United for a Fair Economy says if we flipped that, so the wealthy were paying the higher percentage and the low-income were paying a lower percentage, Massachusetts would raise an additional $11 billion in revenue (check it out: http://enews.faireconomy.org/2011/flip_it_state_sheets/massachusetts.pdf).
The Act to Invest in Our Communities would raise $1.3 billion by just bringing things a little bit more into balance. Here’s the Coalition for Our Communities’ newly-unveiled website, bww: http://ourcommunities.org/
She made the oil companies pay their fair share, and Alaska benefited.