WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-10-09 02:39:14 +0000

Don't waste your energy even thinking about this, MC, as it doesn't have a chance of passing. Two similar proposals got killed in 1994. It didn't pass in 2002 (though it was fairly close - 40%/48%). Massholes recognize how drastically other taxes would increase w/o an income tax. (Like say a sales tax of 8%, which adversely effects the less wealthy.) Regardless, the proposed law seems to say that if some part is invalid, the rest "would stay in effect" which is essentially the opposite of what you're worried about; they cannot reverse the measure even if a piece is invalid.

Posted by tommy on 2008-10-09 10:48:30 +0000

That clause is pretty standard. But, it's referring to court decrees, not what lawmakers think about it. It's basically saying "if a judge rules one part of this law unconstitutional, we only throw out that part, not the whole law". Most longish proposed laws have a bit like that in them. Even cell phone contracts have shit like that now. CC might be right about whether it passes or not, but supposing the measure does pass, I think MC is right to be concerned that the legislature will reverse it. The legislature can add, repeal, or amend any law it wants to. So, if the question passes, the legislature could repeal it. If I recall correctly, this is exactly what happened to the "clean elections" bill: it passed on the ballot, and then the legislature repealed it. If this happens, and voters don't like it, then they can of course not re-elect the reps/senators who voted to repeal.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-10-09 13:03:47 +0000

In 2002 it got only 45% of the vote needed to repeal state taxes. Take into consideration: 1) More people vote in a Presidential election than a Senatorial one. Both the '94 and '02 ballots weren't Presidential. 2) There's a financial crisis (depending on your perspective) going on right now. And people will read that bill and think they'll save more money should it pass.

Posted by tgl on 2008-10-09 13:34:30 +0000

Um, "democracy in action" does not mean "rule by referendum".

Posted by tgl on 2008-10-09 13:37:04 +0000

I'd agree, this stands a chance of passing, unfortunately.

Posted by tgl on 2008-10-09 13:38:38 +0000

No on 1! I'd hope Bay Staters realize that our current overall tax burden is less with a state income tax rather than relying on property taxes (like our friends to the north).

Posted by tommy on 2008-10-09 13:48:27 +0000

Also, of the "big three", it's the fairest. Sales tax is less fair because it hits lower income people harder. Property tax is less fair because it is done at the local level, so rich towns get more of this money than poor towns. How does NH state government get its money? With no income and sales taxes, it's all property tax, right? In Mass, property tax is levied by the local town/city. Is it statewide in NH? Or does the state collect money from the towns somehow?

Posted by tgl on 2008-10-09 14:21:58 +0000

State-owned liquor stores. Income from interest and dividends. Cigarettes. Meals? Room & Board? Property taxes in the Northeast are high already. Expect a bump of at least $1,000 to the median real estate tax in MA if No. 1 passes. Which effects renters, too, of course. http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html

Posted by tgl on 2008-10-09 14:31:00 +0000

I realize that standards are slipping, but, can someone explain to me how polling taxpayers to estimate the amount of waste in state government is a reasonable way to determine wasteful spending in state government. If I was asked and replied "0%", would I be included in Carla Howell's average? What if I had said "100%"?

Posted by tommy on 2008-10-09 14:59:05 +0000

What if you thought the state should really be paying its employees more, and so you answered "-30%"? Are you talking about the little web poll on her site there? Web polls are good... if you're looking for the opinions of zealots who are new to the internet.

Posted by tgl on 2008-10-09 15:20:53 +0000

She used the results of poll as an argument for a Globe Op/Ed piece a week or so ago. It's one thing to state people "feel" there is 40% wasteful spending, another thing to say that the poll indicates there is 40% to cut. 41 cents wasted.

Posted by G lib on 2008-10-09 15:28:24 +0000

But at last check, NH was still looking for a constitutionally 'adequate' education system.

Posted by tommy on 2008-10-09 15:31:29 +0000

I was going to ask how you figure the elimination of a state-based tax would cause property taxes to go up, since those are not controlled by the state, nor does their money go to the state. But, one way that could happen would be if the state stops local aid to the cities and towns. It looks like local aid last year was about $5 billion. Eliminate that, and the towns have to make that up with property taxes. There are about 3 million housing units in the state, so the average property tax bill would be about $1600 higher. That's average, though, not median. So I think you're about right on with the $1000 estimate. Another thing though is that income tax pulls in about $11.5 billion for the state. Subtract the $5b for local aid, and that still leaves over $7 billion the state needs to take care of. So, I would expect an increase to the sales tax as well. Sales tax currently brings in about $4b a year. So, might we be in for a tripling of the sales tax to make up? I also noticed that the state pulls in over 4.6 billion (10% of its income) from the lottery. That means that the average Massachusetts resident pisses away about $750 per year on the fucking lottery?!?!?!? Jesus.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-10-09 16:25:12 +0000

1) I suppose this may mean a higher percentage for the repeal of income tax (Are you suggesting the less informed only vote in Presidential years?), but I would guess it stays about the same percentage as in non-presidential years. 2) True, "Never underestimate the stupidity of the voting public". But I do think people in MA are more aware of their tax burdens.

Posted by tgl on 2008-10-09 19:07:32 +0000

I pulled the $1000 by looking at the difference between the median property tax in NH versus MA. My assumption is that local aid would be the first thing to be cut, and property taxes would have to increase so that localities can continue to provide cops, firefighters, teachers, snow plows, etc.

Posted by tgl on 2008-10-09 19:15:46 +0000

Funny. $750 is the likely savings to "middle-class" MA taxpayers. The oft-quoted $3,700 is if you're making more than $75,000.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-10-10 11:31:43 +0000

Don't know what class I'm in; don't frankly care. In 2008, I will have paid over $3000 to MA alone. $3000 would go a long way toward a downpayment, a Roth, etc. I guarantee that I'm not making anywhere close to $75K this year. Where'd this quote come from?

Posted by tgl on 2008-10-10 22:23:37 +0000

Wait a couple more months, that $3000 might be more than a down payment. Howell's campaign continually mentions $3700, check the Glob link. The state average (how about that for the "middle class"?) was $1506 in 2005. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/35.html

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-11-05 17:31:28 +0000

Question 1 N=69% : Yes=31% Biggest defeat of this idea to date. Question 2 Yes=65% : No 35% Should be interesting to see implemented. Will this affect anything? Question 3 Yes=56% : No=44% Not that close, but the closest of the ballot questions. Adopt a greyhound next year?

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-11-05 18:23:16 +0000

Greyhound adopting has become VERY popular. In my travels I see them everywhere - a lot of times in pairs!