Hey, there! Log in / Register
Deval Patrick gets tough
By adamg on Wed, 08/13/2008 - 10:14am
First state pensioners, now detail-lovin' police, but there's an endgame in mind here and it's not necessarily Washington:
... Make no mistake, Patrick has an election in mind all right. It's the November referendum on Question 1, the income tax repeal. Polls suggest voters are unhappy enough that they could vote their wallet and not their best interests. Sacred cows need to fall.
If that means dealing with upset pensioners and police officers angry because they've been asked to do some dieting along with the rest of the state budget (and there will be a lot of that in the months ahead, particularly if the federal Medicaid waiver is slashed) that drama may only help convince fence sitters that Question 1 is a recipe for disaster. ...
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Repeal would be good
The income tax is one of the worst taxes, both in its intrusiveness into people's lives and in its punishment of productive activity. It's not by chance that income tax codes have become a convoluted nightmare while sales and real estate taxes are straightforward and simple by comparison.
real estate tax, sales tax, income tax
Real estate tax - business and homeowners - pay for local costs like public schools, police, fire departments and other local services.
You might want to check with property owners to see if they want their taxes raised again to make up the difference each time the state cuts the local aid budget. It happened under Romney as a policy decision to balance the state budget and as a direct result, local real estate taxes increased at rate of 10x the CPI.
Sales taxes also comes at a cost of reduced consumption.
The state income tax is a relatively low 5.3% and it does not tax a higher percentage as income rises. It taxes all who work and earn here.
The real estate tax is the
The real estate tax is the worst tax as it taxes you on what you have and can not change. If we get rid of the income tax we will have to raise real estate taxes which is unfair to almost everybody (except for the people who make the most money, and doubly if they live in cheap homes.)
Think about your grandmother for a second. She did everything right when her and gramps bought the house in Cambridge, you know back before the real estate market exploded and Cambridge wasnt what it is today. They have done well with the upkeep and have contributed to the community. Their neighberhood has gone from run down to very nice and the value of their home is well past what they could afford if they were young and buying today. So now they are in house and paying high taxes on their property because it is now worth more than they ever expected. Now your going to turn around and charge them even more for taxes on that property. On their fixed income how are they going to be able to afford the increase?
Give me a choice between a repressive tax and a progressive tax and I will choose the progressive tax any day of the week.
Pointless getting worked up about this
Why do any of the commentariat (including the original poster and the commenters above) get worked up about this at all?
Is there a single one of you who doubts for a second that if this passes the Legislature won't immediately re-enact the income tax?
Sure -- it's a chance to send a message to the Legislature about how you feel money is being spent.
But all the progs and libs who are working themselves into a frenzy about how the world will end if the state income tax is repealed are silly. Regardless of how Question 1 turns out, the state income tax isn't going anywhere.
get worked up about this?
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). wiki
Where in either of the two prior posts do you see evidence of what you claim? Other than that, I think you have a point and at the same time you miss a point: Mass. will tax and how it taxes is a matter of equitable burden, which is a related topic that merits discussion.
I think you have a point and
I think you have a point and at the same time you miss a point: Mass. will tax and how it taxes is a matter of equitable burden, which is a related topic that merits discussion.
You miss my point: nothing is going to change.
If Q1 loses, then nothing's going to change by definition.
If Q1 wins, then nothing's going to change, because the state legislature will immediate re-enact the state income tax scheme as it existed immediately pre-repeal. Again, is there really anyone out there who seriously thinks that won't happen?
Now maybe, maybe, maybe Q1 winning will prod our wonderful solons to ponder why it won, and maybe down the road there might be some reforms (like getting rid of the pension system for workers hired after some date and moving to a SS+403(b) system, much like the US govt did in 1986), but that's not doing to happen for a long while.
The resources spent by the proponents of Q1 would have been better used to begin a campaign to rebuild the MA GOP back to the point where it could sustain a veto, and then work to get a GOP governor again. Having an actual veto threat could be used as a lever to actually fix some stuff.
But diddleysquat is going to happen as long as the Hack/Progressive Alliance (as Jay Fitzgerald over at HubBlog calls it) is in control of everything.
State Income Tax
Income tax in Massachusetts is 5.3% though voters who feel they don't give enough of their money to the state coffers can opt to be taxed at the old rate of 5.8%. A few years the taxpayers of Massachusetts flexed their democratic muscles and overwhelmingly voted to lower the rate to a flat 5%. That vote was hugely ignored by the state legislature so 5.3% remains.
Even if Question 1 passes, I doubt our legislatures will care.
Optional rate = 5.85%
For a person earning $100,000 per year, they can either pay $5300 or $5850 - a difference of $550.
Personally, I'd like to see Question 1 pass just for reaction's sake. If the residents of Massachusetts are p.o.'d about Governor Patrick and the legislature, then why bring pitchforks and torches to the Golden Dome when you can take away their source of revenue?
I'd use the money I save in taxes to fund my 401(k) account - money to pork projects vanishes and goes into my retirement, plus a match from my company to boot.
Thats wonderful for people
Thats wonderful for people that dont need essential services and if you happen to live in Newton. We live in a full state that includes some people that need that "pork" and would also be harmed by a loss in state revenue. I agree that the politicians on Beacon Hill need a jolt because they waste alot of money but the solution isnt to give everyone their money back so they can build their own 401Ks.
Not all pork is bad. Some of it becomes a swimming pool for a poor community, or to pay for a road in a rural community that couldnt afford to build it all at once by itself (keep in mind some of these communities only come up for money once in a long period of time, so its kind of like a loan because they are bound to pay it back in tax receipts by the next time I come back for more.) What they need to slice is guranteed money for cities and towns if they do XYZ, way too often people take advantage of these programs and just do what they have to do to get the cash with no evidence of it helping anyone. Im not sure if its a state or federal thing but phantom bike lanes come to mind, those lanes that last all of a block or maybe two and were created because the city/town got lots of cash for putting it in without regard to connectivity.
True: not every section of pork is bad...
And when used for its exact purposes ("your tax dollars opened a new gym for Lawrence High School"), I don't mind the tax dollars I pay going to these programs. On the other hand, if my tax dollars are redistributed in favor of the Legislatures pet projects and not to where it's supposed to go, I would rather see the money that I would have paid to the state go directly to where it's needed.
On the other hand, you make several good points. Say they do get rid of the income tax. Where do the necessary and unnecessary programs stand? The difference will have to be made up somehow - sharply reduced Lottery payouts (from 68-87% down to 50-60%), ever higher property taxes, higher fees, and perhaps the doubling of the sales tax. The side effect of the income tax repeal may include reduced or cut services. Result: to save the 5% per year in income taxes, you shell out 15-20% in extra costs. And this means everyone of all means - rich, middle class, and poor - will have to pay it.
Exactly Our lottery system
Exactly
Our lottery system is very popular because of its payout system. If we were to cut payouts the net income would drop.
I agree with your assesment of where money goes though. When you give a city money for public safety and they repave a road with it with the explanation that the police need good roads to drive on people get annoyed. The road needed to be fixed, but thats not what the money was for. Maybe we should focus on changing the system by which we give out money and make sure its used what it was meant for, and make sure that some of these side projects are financed by a different grant system if they truely need to be done.