Hey, there! Log in / Register
Legislature set to balance budget on the backs of the poor
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
I would be more akin to
I would be more akin to agreeing to a much larger sales tax for items in certain categories and leaving the tax as it is for smaller items. I realize we already have the food and clothing exception but even that should be looked at.
I would put a sales increase exemption on low cost furniture and other items poor people are more likely to buy but a two cent extra tax on big ticket items like leather sofas or the most expensive computers (while leaving low end computers alone.) I would also advocate lifting the tax ban on the junkiest of junk foods and soda as well and while were at it lets toss a bottle bill onto juices, water and sports drinks, if the 5 cents if going to hurt your wallet then recycle the bottle... otherwise the state gains some extra cash.
One issue with adding
One issue with adding exemptions to the sales tax is that it is a barrier to collecting lots of uncollected taxes, internet sales. Internet retailers use the exemptions clauses of the 40 some odd states that have sales tax as a reason they cannot collect state sales tax.
MA and other states should be working harder to collect internet sales tax. There is no way I am going to buy a computer at a retail store, which not only has the state losing 50-75 dollars, but also hurts companies that invest and hire people to work for their retail stores.
I would be surprised if raising the sales tax from 5% to 6% hurt the poor more in MA than the benefits of restoring social services and public transportation the revenue is to be dedicated to.
It is interesting that it is always republicans who want to slash social services and other aid for the poor are always suddenly interested in the poor when it comes to taxes. It is more likely the wealthy and people who visit MA who will be paying more in sales and hotel taxes.
A Question of Regressiveness
I am not so sure that raising the sales tax is any more regressive than raising the gas tax, because of the existing exemptions from the sales tax (food & clothing). Also, if you consider the magnitude of the increase, 1% vs. (perhaps) 19 cents/gal, I think a gas tax increase would hurt lower income people more (presumably, lower income folks are not regular purchasers of high-priced items where the 1% would add up to a lot more money).
Also, I think that lower income people drive more miles per dollar of income earned. Think about it: outside Boston, the Commonwealth's poorest communities (Holyoke, Lawrence, Fall River, etc.) have little or no public transportation (and even inside Boston, the poorest people have the worst public transit - you've all seen the google maps showing the 1 mile radius circles from subway stops). Hence, many of the so-called working poor in those communities have to drive to work, and often have to drive great distances to where the jobs are (e.g. the 128 and 495 belts or the upper Valley (Northampton/Amherst) - see the recent MassInc posting on CWunbound.org on unemployment rates).
With respect to creating more exemptions to the sales tax, that might work, but you have to be careful that the exemptions don't swallow the rule and render the increase not worth the battle. Exemptions also increase the costs of administration (more audits, etc.), so we would have to watch that. It could work though, if competent people were tasked with implementing it (a rather large if).
Why not tax proportionally to environmental damage?
Taxing "high-end" stuff works in theory, but then it becomes unfair to the lower-middle-class people who buy sturdy furniture once every 15 years when their upper-class neighbors are buying cheaper stuff every season. And people with higher incomes still will manage to have all sorts of deductions and tax shelters, which people in the lower brackets won't. There's not really a way to make sales tax not be regressive.
But here's a better idea: Why not tax heavily processed foods, produce grown with pesticides, petroleum products, animal products, etc.? Have the tax scale be based on the environmental harm that producing the product causes. Tax excessively packaged items too. This will solve all sorts of problems; people who want this stuff will have the freedom to choose it, but they'll need to generously fund state programs in order to get it. Companies will be forced to use greener methods in order to create a demand for their stuff. And we won't have to worry quite as much about Boston being under water in 10 years.
Eeka... now your pretty much
Eeka... now your pretty much just laying down a gurantee that poor people will not be able to afford anything at all. As much as I love the fact that I can shop at Trader Joes and buy some of the higher priced foods in my local supermarket because they are better for the environment or for me , the fact remains the food your complaining about is the cheapest option. The cereal is half or a third as much as the stuff I buy at Trader Joes etc. I can afford it, but what about a family of four, or five? I really want them eating healthy and it would be great if their food hurt the environment less, but they may not be able to afford the fees your talking about. I would rather see a chicken in a cage then a hungry child.
No, that's exactly what would help them
Locally grown produce from family farms should cost less than chemical-laden produce that's been transported from South America, but it doesn't always. This is largely because of supply and demand. If it suddenly costs $12 for a couple of tomatoes that have been sprayed with toxic chemicals in Chile, placed in a plastic box, and been flown to Massachusetts, there's going to be a lot more demand for tomatoes that are grown in Massachusetts and handed to you at a farmer's market. This will bring their prices down to better reflect the actual cost.
Also -- and this isn't a criticism, but rather a reflection on the kinds of values that become a priority when one is in a lower socioeconomic class -- I've noticed that people in lower classes tend to throw out their old furniture, clothing, toys, kitchenware, etc. As in, stick it on the curb so it ends up in a landfill. Most of the people I know who are really struggling financially buy new things rather than fix the old ones (seriously, stuff like throwing out a sofa because the baby threw up on it instead of cleaning the sofa because "that's just nasty"), and they don't deal in hand-me-downs or giving things to thrift stores, nor do they partake of these things, preferring to remain completely outside of these kinds of economies. Poorer people also will do things like go into serious debt to buy a brand new "living room set" and "bedroom set" for their first apartment or a new apartment when a couple splits up, rather than finding a few things here and there from relatives and thrift shops like most working-class and lower-middle-class people will do in the same situation. I'm all in favor of equality among the classes, but we also have to look at personal responsibility and values across all classes. No class of people should be given free rein to destroy the planet.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
I agree and disagree on many
I agree and disagree on many of the arguments that you make. I have noticed that many lower income people, for one reason or another, stay away from second hand items. Maybe its a stigma or denial, but it is true, especially among many newer immigrants to this country, which is unfortunate because there is allot of good cheap stuff out there that you could make work. On the other hand there are plenty of poor people who do take advantage of thrift stores and hand me downs, go into a Salvation Army store, you will see them. Its hard to place a whole class of people into one basket.
As for the food, while I understand where you are coming from the transition would be difficult and prices would not quite be the same. Many lower income communities do in fact have farmers markets, and I have actually noticed a new trend of having vans with open backs and a trailer parked in random areas selling produce out of the back at 5pm. Ive seen this in a few cities within eyesight of police officers so I dont know what the deal is but it all seemed fresh from somewhere.
I grew up relatively poor and do understand the stigmas of that. We would buy cheap stuff, but then use it forever and did buy used as well because it was cheaper. I do share you frustration though because it is amazing to see someone who takes no shame in rejecting a hand me down because they are independent only to see them collect a monthly government check or food stamps. I just think we can not allow our feelings about those who abuse the system rule our ability to ensure the rest of the people in that group have access to food even if its not organic and grown within 5 miles of their apartment.
Wasn't talking about system abuse
I'm all in favor of systems in place that ensure that everyone has what they need. First and foremost on that list would be that we all need to have land that's not under water and breathable air and drinkable water. The threat of screwing over our planet isn't enough to get people to act responsibly, so we need to use something that hits a little harder, like financial incentives. There are a number of ways that aid to families could be funneled into helping the planet at the same time as helping all of us still have a planet. Landlords could be required to make their units greener in order to rent to Section 8 voucher holders. WIC already gives out farmer's market coupons; they could go a step further with this and only provide organic and minimally packaged foods to families. Same with EBT. And before providing income-based energy assistance, the energy companies could require a free energy efficiency audit instead of just offering it.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
I will leave it to you to
I will leave it to you to sell this plan to the population and to the people considering section 8 as an option for their rental buildings. I have no problem with food stamps being used for organic produce (or wic for that matter) as opposed to the current cheapest item system, but that will require an increase in funding for these programs.
As for section 8, they already have lots of requirements for participation and many people I know who own buildings avoid section 8 if possible because there is so much involved in it already.
Section 8
Well, landlords can't refuse to rent to a voucher holder, so I don't know how your friends are avoiding it, but I was thinking like of starting with the landlords who get their apartment pre-approved so it can be on the list at the housing offices. A lot of people do this because it provides them with already-screened tenants who are connected with a subsidy management program that will help the landlord with collecting rent, eviction process, etc. It's really a pretty nice deal for landlords.
If Section 8 started with the landlords who are asking to be pre-approved and on those lists, it would create demand for eco-friendly properties. People looking to pay market rent would be telling landlords that people on Section 8 don't have to put up with drafty windows and oil heat and halogen fixtures, so why should they?
And as far as energy audits being required before fuel assistance, this is just good economic sense above anything else. It's much like how WIC won't give free formula to biological mothers who haven't tried breast feeding and don't have a medical reason not to breast feed. They want people to try breastfeeding first so they aren't handing out cans of formula unnecessarily. Similarly, they shouldn't be handing out free electricity to people who have all kinds of shit on when they aren't home and whose windows leak and who have no insulation.
There is one exemption
If you are living in the building where you rent an apartment (e.g. 2 family, three family, etc.), you get to decide who you get to live with without many restrictions.
Other than that, refusing to rent to families with children to duck the lead paint liability, refusing to rent to an unmarried couple, refusing section 8 vouchers, etc. is illegal discrimination.
Most of the people I know
Most of the people I know live in the buildings.
Also the ones that don't just don't advertise. Rather they visit craigslist and search themselves and "tell" people by word of mouth that they have apartments open. Have you ever noticed that in some neighberhoods you can tell apartments are open but when you look on craigslist or go to real estate agents they never seem to have them listed? Its a loophole you could drive a mac truck through, if your never on the grid no one can prove that you are discriminating. Also thats why I said avoid and not refuse...