ACK!
In Massachusetts, there's a ballot initiative out there that's seeking to end all income taxes - about 40% of the state budget, or 27% of all state spending. The argument for doing this, which on its face seemed sort of reasonable, was that the relatively unchecked Democratic Party Rulership out here wastes a lot of money...and in fact, there is some waste. The high profile examples include:
But the referendum is a terrible idea. Here's the problem with the Libertarian (anti-tax) argument.
#1) The new rule would cut the state budget by $12 Billion. That would cut 65 - 90% of state aid to schools, fire departments, police, etc. throughout the state, which is a disaster by itself.
#2) The 41% figure is a statistic garnered from a partisan poll and does not reflect any sort of account of actual spending practices. It's the best guess of people who support eliminating the tax, not an actual relevant piece of information.
#3) The "waste" cited by proponents of the referendum is in fact upsetting, but doesn't add up to $1 Billion, let alone $12 Billion
#4) The fact that Massachusetts spends so much money is due to a couple of factors - first, Massachusetts government provides many useful services that are expensive, and second, Towns and Cities in Massachusetts keep passing property tax overrides to pay for improvements to schools and infrastructure they want. The important thing to bear in mind there is that Property Taxes are actually regressive - they hit the poor harder than they hit the rich, because they go after fixed assets. Sales taxes, the other way the state makes money, are also regressive - and both would have to increase to make up for a $12 Billion shortfall, so the result of the measure would be that it would be expensive to live in Massachusetts and expensive to shop here, driving away both residents and business. I'm pretty sure that's a bad thing.
#5) Income tax is progressive. It hits the rich harder than the poor, as all good taxes should. But that also means that eliminating income taxes would give the wealthiest (those making over $100K/year) of residents an average of $16,000, while the the average for the bottom 2/3 (who make less than $50K/year) would be around $850. So the deal is: for most people in the state, a Yes vote would mean 1 free month of rent, a rent hike, fewer cops, crippled schools, un-affordable public transportation, broken roads, and a 10% sales tax. For the rich, it would mean all that plus a new boat.
If you live in Massachusetts, it's a very good idea to remember to vote against this nonsense.
- "Double Dip" Pensions, in which retired public officials take a second job after retiring, continue to collect a pension, then take a second pension when they retire from the second job.
- Police "Details" in which cops stand around next to construction sites doing little to nothing while collecting overtime pay.
- Employee theft at the MBTA and from a copy machine in the State Capitol.
- The Big Dig, which pretty obviously was riddled with corruption and incompetence, the clearest example being the piece of it that crushed a woman to death. The company responsible, Bechtel, had to pay the state $428 Million to avoid criminal charges (another company is facing those charges, despite their being significantly less responsible but also less wealthy)
But the referendum is a terrible idea. Here's the problem with the Libertarian (anti-tax) argument.
#1) The new rule would cut the state budget by $12 Billion. That would cut 65 - 90% of state aid to schools, fire departments, police, etc. throughout the state, which is a disaster by itself.
#2) The 41% figure is a statistic garnered from a partisan poll and does not reflect any sort of account of actual spending practices. It's the best guess of people who support eliminating the tax, not an actual relevant piece of information.
#3) The "waste" cited by proponents of the referendum is in fact upsetting, but doesn't add up to $1 Billion, let alone $12 Billion
#4) The fact that Massachusetts spends so much money is due to a couple of factors - first, Massachusetts government provides many useful services that are expensive, and second, Towns and Cities in Massachusetts keep passing property tax overrides to pay for improvements to schools and infrastructure they want. The important thing to bear in mind there is that Property Taxes are actually regressive - they hit the poor harder than they hit the rich, because they go after fixed assets. Sales taxes, the other way the state makes money, are also regressive - and both would have to increase to make up for a $12 Billion shortfall, so the result of the measure would be that it would be expensive to live in Massachusetts and expensive to shop here, driving away both residents and business. I'm pretty sure that's a bad thing.
#5) Income tax is progressive. It hits the rich harder than the poor, as all good taxes should. But that also means that eliminating income taxes would give the wealthiest (those making over $100K/year) of residents an average of $16,000, while the the average for the bottom 2/3 (who make less than $50K/year) would be around $850. So the deal is: for most people in the state, a Yes vote would mean 1 free month of rent, a rent hike, fewer cops, crippled schools, un-affordable public transportation, broken roads, and a 10% sales tax. For the rich, it would mean all that plus a new boat.
If you live in Massachusetts, it's a very good idea to remember to vote against this nonsense.