Since the liquor stores are lobbying to be able to sell p o t, if they're allowed to, then the retailers should be able to sell beer and wine in Massachusetts, like they do in New Hampshire.
What's the net impact of both (a) the millionaire's tax increase, and (b) the sales tax decrease? I think it means a decrease in total budget, but I could be wrong.
The net impact of both changes is a more progressive taxation scheme, but if it means a smaller state budget, it also means less progressive state expenditures.
Explain how they intend to pay for formerly subsidized services that will not be subsidized anymore, and will carry the additional profit margin of privatization.
Doe sales taxes are regressive taxes disproportionately levied against those who spend a greater proportion of their income. Progressive government initiatives will always have to fight for their funding but this isn't their battle.
If you want a budget proposal, how about a proportionate increase in revenue from increasing (and enforcing) luxury tax?
Temporarily increase Mass Income tax with funds directed into funding , duration of time and utilization of funding clearly non-negotiabley altered under penalty of being shot at dawn in the slush .
At 6.25% Massachusetts is still very low compared to most of the USA. I think 4-4.5% (which is what they're proposing) would be hard to pass. Most voters remember 5% and would probably be comfortable with that.
It would make sense to have a permanent exemption on clothing under, say, $50.
Comments
While the retailers are at it...
Since the liquor stores are lobbying to be able to sell p o t, if they're allowed to, then the retailers should be able to sell beer and wine in Massachusetts, like they do in New Hampshire.
Net impact of both?
What's the net impact of both (a) the millionaire's tax increase, and (b) the sales tax decrease? I think it means a decrease in total budget, but I could be wrong.
The net impact of both changes is a more progressive taxation scheme, but if it means a smaller state budget, it also means less progressive state expenditures.
The majority of voters dont give a crap about
Progressive state expenditures. They see by voting yes they get to keep more of THEIR HARD EARNED money, and rightfully so.
Rightfully so?
Explain how they intend to pay for formerly subsidized services that will not be subsidized anymore, and will carry the additional profit margin of privatization.
Take your time.
Doe sales taxes are
Doe sales taxes are regressive taxes disproportionately levied against those who spend a greater proportion of their income. Progressive government initiatives will always have to fight for their funding but this isn't their battle.
If you want a budget proposal, how about a proportionate increase in revenue from increasing (and enforcing) luxury tax?
"Doe taxes"
How many bucks?
nooo
i got really good at figuring out what 6.25% of something was finally!!!!
Except it's actually 7% in
Except it's actually 7% in many places, because there's a town-by-town option to add an additional ¾%.
I'm for this
if, at the same time, they give the MBTA a dedicated funding source
Temporarily increase Mass
Temporarily increase Mass Income tax with funds directed into funding , duration of time and utilization of funding clearly non-negotiabley altered under penalty of being shot at dawn in the slush .
"Temporary" is how we wound
"Temporary" is how we wound up with tolls and the sales tax in the first place.
Once Beacon Hill has you contributing blood they never pull the IV out. They want MOAR MOAR MOAAAAAAAAAAR!
It's like obtaining a loan from the Mob. You never can pay it off.
The sales tax hike was back
The sales tax hike was back in 2009. I remember being in the UHub discussions back then about it. Time flies.
I also remember that whole 3% vote, I do remember I wanted the sales tax to go back down, but reducing it to 3% was too drastic.
I would like to say it's time to bring it back to 5% as promised back then, but we just went trough budget cuts. Will there ever be a right time?
At 6.25% Massachusetts is
At 6.25% Massachusetts is still very low compared to most of the USA. I think 4-4.5% (which is what they're proposing) would be hard to pass. Most voters remember 5% and would probably be comfortable with that.
It would make sense to have a permanent exemption on clothing under, say, $50.
That already exists
Clothing is non-taxed up to $175 per item: http://www.mass.gov/dor/individuals/taxpayer-help-and-resources/tax-guid...
Food is exempted, too
MA sales tax exempts food, something many other state sales taxes include.
This is why there are big masses of grocery stores on the Oregon/Washington border that you don't see on the NH/Massachusetts border.