Hey, there! Log in / Register
Should Mass voters get rid of income tax?
By rsiasoco on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 10:44am
It's a wild idea that I've been giving serious consideration to: abolishing income tax for Massachusetts residents. How would saving "the average taxpayer about $3,600 a year" a loss of about $12.5 billion a year, "roughly 45 percent of the state's budget of about $28 billion" actually affect Massachusetts? Would schools suddenly shut down, hospitals and police crumble? Or would those things that make our state function-unnecessary jobs and wasteful goods-be organically pared away?
Free tagging:
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
'Kooks at it again'
Tall Asian Dude isn't buying their explanation of what would happen if the question passes.
Cutting tax revenue without cutting spending is irresponsible
The proponents of this tax repeal have an obligation to explain how the state budget will be balanced without the income tax revenue. So far, I haven't seen a spending cut proposal from them.
It's a bad idea
In the MA voter guide the proponents' argument says that it will create "hundreds of thousands" of jobs. How can that happen? I'm voting against it.
Bostonian this goes to you
are you that dumb to want to let the government take your hard earned money? vote against it if you want to be idiotic and let people steal from you. ;) Just like if I came and wanted a part of your paycheck, would you give it to me? why let the government do it then?
If you're FOR getting rid of the Massachusetts income tax,
I disagree with you wholeheartedly. If you want essential services, including snow removal in the wintertime after storms, and if you own property, and you buy, then there's no two ways about or around it: One has to pay taxes....period.
He brings up NH in the
He brings up NH in the blog... They have very high property taxes. They are more rural. Also they control a good portion of the alcahol market in NH through the state liquor stores.
Let me ask him this, if getting rid of state income taxes is such a massive boon and would create so many jobs, then why do so many people from NH work in Massachusetts during the day and go back to NH at night. You would think that the massive flux of people would be heading to NH to work and MA to live.
I think that instead of spending all their time trying to pass anti tax laws through the ballot box these people should run for public office (or support others) and cut the budget from inside the state house. If their is truely a ground swell to eliminate "excess spending" then you should be able to easily elect a large number of representatives who agree with you. The truth of the matter is people are against taxes until you cut the funding for their local schools and funding for their elderly parents medicine and that is why we dont have a majority of anti tax legislators.
Maybe MA
could then put a toolbooth on the MA side of 93 and 95 and do what NH has to do?
Bad idea all around. My brother lives up there and pays 3X the real estate taxes on a house that is worth 1/3 of the one I have in MA.
Id abolish the flat tax first than the whole thing.
Great idea - I'll vote for it!
Reducing tax revenue is the only way to force the legislature to balance the budget and reduce frivolous spending. There is so much patronage and waste in the state government and its quasi-governmental agencies (hello, MBTA, Mass Highway, BRA) that it will require a major shakeup to reform the system. Putting some limits on their unlimited spending is a good place to start. There's a good web site that provides some good information: http://www.smallgovernmentact.org
Right
Yea, we could save money by having only one toll taker at each toll plaza. Get rid of the lousy bums. And those indolent MBTA bus drivers, just fire them. We don't need that many buses anyway. While we're at, there are way too many commuter rail trains at rush hour, why bother paying for them all? We could even close a few parks, and hey, why bother having a DEP? The private sector can do a great job at protecting the environment.
I agree with you, people are
I agree with you, people are always looking for a scapegoat. The MBTA has a very low turnover, because they actually pay a living wage. People seem to hate the fact that someone can spend their whole career doing one job everyday and actually afford a place to live and to cloth their children. Also somehow they find it ludicrus that these people can actually retire at some point instead of running themselves into the ground.
Hey maybe the problem isnt how well the MBTA treats its employees maybe its how lousy the public sector treats its employees while its upper management makes millions a year, and gets bailed out everytime they make a mistake.
Well maybe
Part of the problem is how terribly some public employees do their job.
Thats so ludacris. That is
Thats so ludacris. That is a very serious matter and could put these agencies in a complete free fall. It is not the answer; it is FAR TOO EXTREME. I think you should just do your part and pay your taxes and stop making such huge fundamental decisions. These government agencies - no matter how erroneous their spending habits are - are in place, doing a decent job - it could be better - and will get better as time progresses. Trust me, there are a lot of shakers and movers coming in and that are already in place to fulfill the reformation you're speaking of.
I'm all for toll increases and environmental & rush hour taxes for all the idiots that still drive oversize cars though.
please nobody vote for this
please nobody vote for this god awful bill. It would affect the state, it would close down schools, it would account for poor - er infrastructure. It's 12.5 billion. It's going to come out some other way - you'll just end up spending it anyway. I think it's the stupidest thing ever....absolutely.
Don't worry--I ain't!
This:
I wholeheartedly agree with.
Question #1: How stupid can people get??
Seriously, this is one of the most, if not the most asinine idea I've heard in ages! I'm voting against it, for sure!! I see total chaos and anarchy, not to mention even higher property taxes, if Massachusetts abolishes the income tax.
Why This Has A Chance
When the voters of Massachusetts passed the ballot initiative to gradually reduce the state income tax to 5%, the General Court said, "We don't need no stinkin' voters telling us what to do." The income tax was never reduced to 5%. The reason this initiative has a realistic chance at passing is because many voters are fed up with being treated with disrespect.
I am not arguing the merits. This is just why it may pass.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Where were those voters when
Where were those voters when these legislators were running for reelection? We dont live in a direct democracy, we live in a republic. In a republic we tell our representatives what we want them to do, they can choose to ignore us, we can choose to vote for someone else. Case in point was the gay marriage debacle, some legislators in liberal districts said no to gay marriage and the people responded. Some of them are no longer in the state house, and some of them have conveniently stopped fighting it. You want the income tax to be lowered to five percent? Then get out their and support people who agree with you.
No Doubt
Absolutely, that's one way to do it. The other, in this state, is to bypass the legislature completely via the initiative petition process. Which is what the voters did, and then the legislators decided to ignore.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
States without income tax
States without income tax (I'm looking at you, Washington) have higher sales tax. Sales tax is more regressive, since the people lower on the class totem pole spend more of their income buying taxable belongings (furniture, school supplies, stuff from the hardware store, etc.) and aren't in a federal income tax bracket where they're writing this stuff off. Higher income tax and no sales tax (a la Oregon) seems to be the way to go if we want to avoid stomping on the lower classes.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
What about abolishing both then?
Would that make you happy? We could just have property taxes. That way only the people who choose to live on and own valuable peices of property pay more. They do it in New Hampshire and it seems to work out just fine. The suggestion that the state could not function without an income tax is just ridiculous. If it were rolled back progressively, we could do it. I would be all for it.
It doesn't work out fine
Consider the Claremont vs. Gregg lawsuit.
NH has been scrambling for a decade to avoid having to institute a broad-based tax because the inequities in education between communities were so profound that their supreme court ordered the state to fix them. This means that they have put fees on everything, whether or not those fees actually go to the service associated with them. It is now and will be a big mess so long as they refuse to change their tax structure.
This happened because people in rural northern areas were unable to pay more than the $70 per thousand they were taxed for schools and services, yet they had schools working with text books from the 1960s, teachers paid $15,000 per year with no benefits and students who couldn't read at grade level. Meanwhile, people in the populous southern regions were paying far less and getting far more because the tax base included more industrial and commercial property. The resulting successful lawsuit (I believe it was a constitutional protection of equal rights and access, but I'm not sure) has put the traditional resistance to broad based tax up against the reality of fair access to resources.
So no, it doesn't really work. Expect the charade to crumble in the next 10 years.
New Hampshire also has a
New Hampshire also has a population of 1.3 million - with A TON OF EDUCATION problems in certain parts of the state. So yes, just by that one example - because of the socioeconomic inequality in certain areas - with fees because of no taxes, the schools suffer. That one example alone is enough to reconsider. Massachusetts has a major urban hub (in Boston,) which is a major high technology, education, medicine, etc area with services that need to be paid for by state taxes - which also contribute a BOAT load of money to the state treasury. The state has to support such a population center. It is detrimental to society. If you want no taxes then leave MA, you're in the wrong state.
NH is a bad example
Sorry mouse, but NH is a really bad example. Their education system is pretty dismal, as has been pointed out in previous posts.
Property taxes are one of
Property taxes are one of the worst forms of taxation, more so then sales tax and way more then income tax. If someone buys a house in the 1970's in a bad neighberhood while they were in their 30's by the 2000's that area may be nicer and that person is approaching their late 60's and their income is now declining. They spent 30 years waiting, and many times pushing, for the neighberhood to get better and just as it does they have to sell because they cant afford the income taxes anymore. A high property tax is very regressive and punishes people for making their communities nicer. In my opinion its even worse then the sales tax because at least the sales tax can be tweaked so it doesnt get added to food and clothing (like we do in Massachusetts.) I would rather drop the property tax and increase the sales tax while maintaining no taxes on food, clothing (below a certain point) and possibly even things in thrift stores (its like recycling) and super discount stores.
Begged Question
What is the best form of taxation, in your humble opinions?
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Income
Income
Income, property and fees -
Income, property and fees - with limits for those of lesser means. In some states, you don't pay tax on the first $75,000 or $100,000 of home value, for example. Or you don't pay taxes if your wages are below, say, 2x the poverty line.
Property tax just isn't that bad
I have no sympathy for someone sitting on a million dollar piece of real estate and cries because they can't afford the taxes. Yes, it's unfortunate that they may have to move from their home, but it isn't as if they have a bad choice:
1. stay and pay taxes like everyone else
2. cash out
And it's not "regressive" if that owner essentially has a ton of assets tied up in real estate. They are "house poor", but I can think of worse situations.
Property tax is also a tenant tax
You can't expect landlords to absorb large increases in property taxes without passing them on to tenants as rent increases.
exactly, prices would
exactly, prices would skyrocket. They're already high enough!
So what's the problem?
Yes, maybe the landlord would increase the rent if his property taxes went up. But, since when does a landlord need a reason to raise the rent? Rent is market driven, so there are a number of factors that influence the actual rental price, one of which is the taxes on the property.
Uh the problem is that
Uh the problem is that Boston rent prices are the highest in the country. I'm already paying 1600 for a one bedroom - as a college student - in a shitty neighborhood. I work more than 40 hours a week and go to school FULL TIME and am not complaining at all; I'm doing it because I want to, but, I don't want it to increase AT ALL. Uh and I don't understand what you're saying. Obviously if the income tax is gone, property taxes will go up, which in effect will raise my rent prices and also have a catastrophic affect on the city economy. So that obviously, is the problem. What are people going to do with $3600 a year anyway? Save it? I doubt it....they're just going to spend more on things they don't need. Taxes are here for a reason - to pay for public services and infrastructure - something all of us take for granted every day whether you drive or take the train. Whether its a fire or a shoot out....whether its a new skyscraper going up or it getting knocked down by the NABB (haha,) Taxes are a good thing. Stop whining. Our standard of living is good and this is all just coming to fruition at a ridiculous pace now because of all the 'goings on' in wall st and the economy. This state needs taxes just like any other state. What do you expect to happen if they are gone? A complete epiphany on the account of these government offices? doubt it. Fares will increase drastically, rent prices, tolls, food, etc. Everything comes back and hits us somehow. I thought that for a liberal, educated state, concerned with social welfare and services that this would NEVER come to fruition. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
If 1,600 is too high maybe
If 1,600 is too high maybe you should move a mile in any direction... Why does a college student need a one bedroom apartment. You ever been out to Allston, Brighton, Brookline even? (All accesible by Green Line.) How about Cambridge, Quincy, South Boston? (All on Red Line) Medford, Malden, Melrose (Near Orange.) Revere and East Boston (Blue Line!) Thats not even bringing up places that are still accesible to the T but without train lines like Watertown, Chelsea and Lynn. If you add commuter rail options on youve got a long list of communities that offer a better deal then what your getting, especially if your willing to get a roomate. My roommate and I dont even spend 1,600 a month on rent, and we have 1200 square feet and a third bedroom we use for musical instruments and office space/guest bedroom. Im in my late twenties and choose not to live alone because I dont want to spend money on rent. If property taxes go up and my rent goes up we will just move the musical equipement out to the enclosed porch, the desks into the almost empty dining room and rent out the third room for like 450 (its kinda small, only big enough for a full sized bed, buerue, desk and its closet) and call it a day.
I still think its the worst tax out there, but I feel that way because of senior citizens and older people with declining incomes. I honestly never even thought about college students and people in their 20's renting because were mobile and can easily adapt if needed.
I live in Allston...In case
I live in Allston...In case you didn't know, rent prices are universally high all around which is a further fundamental argument and concern I have as the city should not be too expensive for the average person to live in. It's one of the original points or themes of a city - socioeconomic diversity. This is only going to further separate this ideal. I was living with someone but we broke up....and I said I wasn't complaining, I was just making a point that rent prices are too high already and shouldn't be. I/m not going to commute into the city either. If I wanted to live outside of the city I would have gone to a different school. It's nice that you're being innovative though. I commend you. But besides all of that, VOTE NO ON THIS BILL.
Then you are a moron
Seriously. $1600 for a one bedroom in Allston? You are either lying or stupid.
I share $1400 with a single roommate for a two bedroom just down the road from you. It's an entire floor of a two family home and I have tons of off-street parking.
It's meant to be a 2br but
It's meant to be a 2br but it's not. As is mine, I'm just saying that rent prices are high and will be higher if this is passed.
They arent all that high
They arent all that high considering demand. Demand has pushed the prices up, not real estate prices. I assume for the 1600 you must be living in some tall building, like the Archstone. If demand drops they would drop the rents.
Rent prices are very responsive, they will find what people are willing to pay and float to that level. Many people who own lots of apartments and rent them out are making alot of money now and can afford to eat up some more real estate tax if people are not willing to pay more for their apartments.
On a side note, get a roommate! Knock that 1,600 down to 800.
haha, in the process. No I
haha, in the process. No I live off of Brainard in a 2 family house.
You are getting ripped off
That is all. I would never pay that much to live there.
Seriously for 1600 I better
Seriously for 1600 I better be in a place with a gym and pool on site.
Vote Yes on 1
I'm am absolutely 100% voting to repeal the income tax. However, even if it passes, I am not naive enough to think that our legislatures will actually heed our democratic vote and give us back our 5.3%. After all, a few years ago the taxpayers of Massachusetts voted to lower the income tax to a flat 5%. That vote was largely ignored, never to be spoken of again.
I don't care if my property taxes triple; it's still better than wasting 5.3% of my money and getting very little in return. We don't live in a welfare state (yet) and it is not our job as taxpayers to bankroll double dipping state employees, construction details, $70,000 salaries for toll takers (the vast majority of whom could be replaced by an EZ Pass transponder), and "permanently disabled" MBTA workers. Enough is enough. Since the strong-armed unions of this Commonwealth would never allow a real reformer to be elected to public office, the only ammunition that honest taxpayers have is to pass Question 1. It's more of a symbolic gesture than anything else.
Hmm
Although a very interesting collection of grievances, it makes no viable argument for voting against an income tax.
If unions are preventing responsible representative governance, shouldn't you be trying to put together ballot questions that break up unions? Or give them too much power, since they would obviously abuse it and cause drama?
Symbolic gestures of this sort will not get you majority support, and thus, the effort is dead on arrival and energy of your movement is wasted.
Libertarians need to organize around local principles that will actually be viable at the ballot. Until then, there is no value in alternatives to the current governance and your sideline role perpetuates.
If it works
Next year we can abolish death.
Ha!
good one.
I'm A Christian Libertarian
I don't believe in the inevitability of either death or taxes :-)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Expensive!
You realize that would raise health care costs immensely ;-)
Vote No!
Without income tax we would have fewer cops and/or other essential services. Here's how it would sound if it passed; "911, this is a recording....we couldn't afford call-taker's salaries so leave a message detailing your emergency and we will put it on the list and hopefully the few officers we have left might get to you in time to save you."
Scare Tactics - Vote Yes!
More Government Union scare tactics!
Vote YES on Question 1