34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
News
So long, income tax?
Top Headlines With ballot signatures certified last week for the proposal initiated by the libertarian group Committee for Smaller Government, the push to repeal the state income tax is officially on. And it creates a lot of opposition. If the proposal passes, the state would lose $12 billion a year, a 40-percent cut in annual revenue that opponents say would gut local aid to communities across Massachusetts. "We already have a $1 billion shortfall in the budget with the state income tax," said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which opposes the repeal. "Without the tax, it would be a $13 billion shortfall." If local legislators, cities and towns and major interest groups are opposed to it, they all concede there is a good chance the proposal will be approved by voters fed up with rising living costs and gasoline prices. "This is a very difficult time for many people," Widmer said. "And that's the problem. I take it very seriously because if it passes, it will be a huge problem." A similar proposal in 2002 got 45 percent of the vote. Widmer said that even if there was also a recession that year, there was not the surge in prices that people face today. And that could make a difference. Geoffrey Beckwith, president of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said repeal of the income tax would have an "extraordinary impact," especially on cities and towns already struggling with their budgets. "It would make a very bad situation an unimaginable one," he said. But Carla Howell, president of the Committee for Smaller Government who filed the petition for the second time, said the state will survive without the income tax. "When we end the income tax, politicians on Beacon Hill will still be collecting $17 billion in other taxes and revenues," she said. Her group collected more than 20,000 signatures to support the proposal, far more than the 11,099 needed to place it on the state's general election ballot in November. Howell said she is optimistic about the vote's outcome. "We have a good chance to get it passed," she said. "We've been hearing from people collecting signatures that a lot of people are enthusiastic about that." Howell said hundreds of volunteers will focus on a grass-roots effort. "We encourage volunteers to go to our Web site, send links to their co-workers and friends to learn about the state income tax and our campaign, write letters to newspapers editors, call and talk on the radio, put up yard signs," she said. "We don't have a specific plan yet, but we'll be calling out to volunteers to end the state income tax." It's shaping up to be an epic battle. Already, opposition is mobilizing in the state, led by the Coalition for Our Communities, a group comprised of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, several communities, non-profits, businesses and individuals. The AFL-CIO is calling on all unions to join the coalition and urges on its Web site to oppose "the decimation of local aid to cities and towns, and the inevitable property tax increases to provide the necessary funding for our schools, police and fire protection, emergency medical services and transportation infrastructure." State officials and legislators also vowed to fight against the repeal, along with interest groups such as the Massachusetts Teachers Association and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Beckwith said that although the municipal association won't directly campaign against the proposal because it is not a political organization, it will comment on implications of the repeal. "We'll do educational work on it," he said. "We will be informing anyone interested in listening about the impact of such a measure." Widmer said his organization will start work on an analysis on the impact of the measure as soon as the state budget is complete next month.
Post Your Comments cam1 wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:20 PM: " Did you know that all State Pensions including those of the Legislature are exempt from the State Income Tax. Yes all those do gooders from the Teachers Union and the Legislature will pay no State Income Tax on thier pensions. These are the people that are telling you to keep on paying while they get a free ride. Call you Legislator and ask him/her about this, ask them what they intend to do to correct this injustice " realist wrote on Jun 26, 2008 12:18 PM: " to bmcvay731 - What I was trying to say, in my usual long winded way, is that if the legislature and other elected offices weren't so cushy and didn't have such attractive retirement and health benefits then maybe we could get fresh ideas and attitudes in the state house and get rid of the people who feel they know what is best for the masses and solve every problem by raising taxes or imposing a fee. " bmcvay731 wrote on Jun 26, 2008 11:13 AM: " realist wrote "Set up a 401k that they have to contribute to out of their own salaries" as part of a comment that the next petition should be to eliminate the pensions of elected officials and transfer over to 401Ks. I'm not 100% versed on what I'm talking about, so correct me please if you have more information - I am under the belief that elected officials, as well as all public employees, are employed in the state pension fund, in which case 10% of their salaries are withheld from their paychecks and deposited into this fund, which is in turn invested. Under some presumably complex chart that would make Ross Perot proud, officials can retire at certain ages with certain service at certain percentages of their salaries. I have no problem with this, as it's not my money. To my knowledge, the elected officials and public employees don't pay social security taxes, which saves the state from matching social security payments. If they all invest 10% of their money and are guarenteed X dollars per year at retirement out of their pot of cash, I could care less. What should be on the ballot is making sure this pot of cash is not further subsidized by the public. Either pay more of their pay to reach the same level of return to fully fund the pension fund, invest the pot more wisely, or get a new job! " realist wrote on Jun 26, 2008 8:48 AM: " ucbruin hit the nail on the head. The problem with government spending isn't my program it's someone else's pork. The problem with the legislature isn't my rep, it's the ones from the other districts that only try to bring the pork spending. I'm reminded of a political cartoon in the early days of the Reagan years. Reagan is depicted as a cowboy riding herd over hundreds of head of cattle all with various govt spending programs as their brand. Reagan asks which ones are the "sacred cows" and the reply from another cowboy is "Just ask them". I guess you had to be there. Since no one else has offered a compromise, I propose that if this initiative fails that the next one be to eliminate the pension plan for elected officials. Set up a 401k that they have to contribute to out of their own salaries. Also, if they want health insurance - they get the minimum coverage required by employers. That will produce a lot of turnover in the legislature and eliminate the belief that you are elected for life. The initial savings won't be a lot - but in the long run maybe we get more responsible people in office. Those who aren't looking for a free ride for life. " ucbruin wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:59 PM: " Everyone wants alternative fuels or additional fossil fuel exploration just not in their backyards. It is the same for government spending, everyone wants the government to cut back on their spending except for the "special" things they want. " bmcvay731 wrote on Jun 25, 2008 1:10 PM: " I believe you're correct in that the status quo must change and as someone who has voted for and against 2.5 overrides for many years, I understand why people say enough is enough. What troubles me in this one is the percentage of voters who are going to vote to repeal the income tax, and honestly expect a $3,600 from Carla Howell every year and hundreds of thousands of new jobs to sprout out of the woodwork. After everyone pays their oil bills, enrolls their kids in private school, hires a street plower installs an alarm system and upgrades grandma to the good nursing home, they'll surely be enough money left over to stimulate the economy. Here's all I got. Right now we pay, compared to most of the states surrounding us, low income taxes, a low sales tax, and low property taxes. NH has one of three, and it's a high one. If the income tax goes down, other taxes and fees will go up. Will the pols cut the fat or cut the bone? It's their call. I think the state needs reform, and if this measure scares them into enacting it, that's one thing. If you're intelligent enough to know that your vote will have consequences beyond the potential for a 5.3% pay raise, I honestly respect your right to cast that vote. " skeptic wrote on Jun 25, 2008 1:04 PM: " No one is thinking life will be magical if this initiative happens, but something has to be done to change the status quo. On the one side you have spamalot01 talking about "community" and our responsibilty as if we are being governed by enlightened beings. On the other side are people who view the govt as corrupt and only interested in holding on to their jobs. If there were a middle ground I wish someone would present it. Otherwise I will have to support the intiative. Oh and I don't read the Herald. Just the Globe, SC, Wall Street Journal and sometimes the NY Times on line when I want to see what the Elect Obama campaign (also known as the NYT editorial board) is doing. " bmcvay wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:58 PM: " An additional hypothetical for those interested in intelligent discussion - Kevin, as you actually wrote "PS - Keep hammering him!" IN a post, the equivalent of "Get him! Get him!", you are exempt. I haven't seen any polling on the income tax issue since January, where I believe it stood 46-45-9, for-against-undecided. I can't recall the numbers from 2002 but I believe it was a 48-40-12 vote, aye-nay-no vote. Absent a new vote, some things to consider. - The last vote was not a presidential election year. If Obama brings out the Democrats, there's a likelihood for a greater share of nay votes than would have come out for Shannon O'Brien. - A Republican won a statewide election during the last vote, and I believe Romney independents would have been more likely to vote aye in 2002. Unless there's a surge for McCain, not as many likely aye votes with this factor. - The income tax issue was mostly ignored in 2002 by everyone except Carla Howell, who responded to the question "Do you know where the ladies' room is?" with "Small government is beautiful!". Creepy. This time, it will drive people to the polls on its own than in 2002. - Inflation is on the rise, specifically oil prices, which will lead many to vote with their wallets. That said, the dow dropped from 11,700 to 7,200 during the last vote. " bmcvay731 wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:31 PM: " "Bye Bye Income tax. Yee Ha!!!!!!" Bye Bye Prop 2.5! Hello 8% sales tax! Bye Bye property values!!! I can understand that people are pinched with inflation and read about corruption every morning in the Herald and want to do something. I just cannot, for the life of me, understand why seemingly educated people assume that the income tax will be voted out, the politicians will all resign and issue letters of apology to the people, and you'll never notice a blip in essential services. The same people "realist" complains about are still going to decide where the cuts are going to come from, and they're still going to be able to pass a new law overriding the voters just like they did last time. Saying NH and Florida don't have an income tax and are doing just fine ignores their massive property tax rates. If someone can find a quadrillion barrels of oil in downtown Framingham, the Alaska comparison works. Wyoming and North Dakota are wonderful examples of how your state can prosper without an income tax if it were a giant forest or desert. The income tax may very well be voted down in November, and no matter where you stand on the issue, don't let Carla Howell, a woman who refers to herself in third person, convince you that angelic choirs will sing and everything will be wonderful. " kevin h. wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:19 AM: " Spamloaf, You are clearly a elitist, nanny-stater who is sure that you know better than those who you would tax to death to create a better community. Commie Bye Bye Income tax. Yee Ha!!!!!! p.s. Keep hammering him realist. " realist wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:09 AM: " Spamalot01 is fun to debate. Anyone disagreeing is a selfish neanderthal, anyone use a historical or constitutional point is "cherry-picking". While we talk of cherry-picking; Jacksonian democracy did have an upside. It cleaned house of people who thought they had jobs for life and knew much more than the rabble. This made for a lot of confusion at first but made the government more responsive to the people. Do you see the parallel? The problem is Spamalot01 seems to live in an ideal "community" where all the leaders are wise and benevolent and all good people pay the taxes the wise and benevolent leaders levy. Please, at least tell me what county you live in so I may enjoy this paradise. The reality is a good portion of our elected leadership has only one interest, getting re-elected. The electorate is getting lazy and keeps casting their votes for the familiar names (I know we get the government we deserve). The employee unions in the state and local towns are interested in preserving their jobs (no merit pay or promotions for teachers, for example) and when we Neanderthals complain we are called selfish because everyone else is working for "our children". Before this thread started I was on the fence about this ballot initiative - but I've become a supporter. Someone please get me a bumper sticker. " Spamalot01 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:38 PM: " Ignoring kevin h.'s puerile adolescence, let me address a couple of things here. 1) Sorry to disappoint, but not a communist, just dedicated to the idea that people living in the same town or city are supposed to help one another and not be stingy, selfish and self-absorbed. 2) Contrary to realist's implication, I don't believe everything the US has ever done is wrong. What I despise is the mis-use of history to justify an ideological polemic. Using history to make a point is laudable, so long as you use ALL of it and don't cherry pick the points with which you agree or only support your viewpoint. 3) bigfishsmallpond implies that I support nepotism. Sorry, but I support a meritocracy where the best qualified should be employed, not those who have any connections and use that to secure a post better filled by someone more qualified. However, plenty here would find that thought "elitist" because it would require people to actually work to earn the job in government rather than just call up a friend or cousin or whomever and too many folks here believe in the small potatoes approach to local government. Hence the patronage system of Andrew Jackson being so much more popular to folks rather than the "elitist" system of best qualified which was practiced by administrations from Washington through J.Q. Adams where intellect trumped connections. " kevin h. wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:16 PM: " bigfishsmallpond, I like your thinking. Empty the wagon and just start over. " kevin h. wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:07 PM: " UGH! If Spamloaf says "community" one more time I'm going to puke. Alright already, You are a communist. I get it. " bigfishsmallpond wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:54 PM: " Spamalot01 and others with similar posts seem to feel that our taxes are wisely spent so that the current standard of living for all of us can be sustained. We all want to enjoy personal safety, property rights, public education, roads and bridges that don't collapse, etc. The major difference, however is that we don't want to provide highly paid, do nothing jobs for the extended families of the elected officials! If I could be in charge for one day, I would walk through the State House and ask each employee, "To whom in state government are you related?" Anyone who gave me the name of a current or past elected official would be summarily dismissed from the "job." At the end of my first day in charge, the State House would be nearly empty. Then we could start over, write a new organizational chart, and set up the business of government in a business-like fashion. Money could be saved on EVERY task the state currently undertakes. This won't happen, of course. The incumbents are the problem. Voters with an "attitide" are the solution. " dandydon wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:25 PM: " WELL I REMEMBER WHEN PROP. 2 -1/2 CAME ABOUT, ALL THE POLITICANS WERE SAYING GOOD BYE TO ALL OUR SERVICES. ANYONE WANT TO BET WE SHALL SURVIVE THE LOSS OF THE INCONE TAX, WILL THE POLITICANS ???. " realist wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:23 PM: " Spamalot01 - you're right. I see the error in my ways. Everything the US has ever done is a lie. The amount of the tax was not the issue, it's being told to pay and not have anything to say about it. Since our elected reps won't listen we have the recourse of the ballot initiative. We obviously will never agree because you don't see taxes as I do; an inherent evil that must be minimally tolerated and not levied without the consent of the governed... or is that another quaint lie Thomas Jefferson told us. " Spamalot01 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:16 PM: " realist wrote: "No taxation without representation is not a quaint saying from 230 years ago, it is the basis of our way of life. Or it should be." For the historically challenged, that oh so holy grail of the American Revolution was a form of propaganda to encourage Americans to take up arms against the British. The "exorbitant" tax rate that Americans were being told to pay was approximately 1/10th that of the subjects of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. It was being collected to repay the costs incurred by the British to defend colonists against the attacks by the French and Indians during the French and Indian War. Granted, the methods of taxation were unrepresentative, but the taxation itself was hardly exorbitant when compared to that of other British subjects. Comparably, the tax rate for living in Massachusetts (and my family has literally been here since the Mayflower, so I don't accept realist's sanctimonious 'I like here so I'll stay here' attitude since comparatively realist's a carpetbagger) is smack dab in the middle of the pack nationally, far below the tax rates of living in NY, CA, IL, PA, CT, MI and roughly a couple dozen other states. The true bite out of everyone's paycheck is the cost-of-living, which is a combination of real estate prices (even in the slump), fuel prices, food, etc. Taxes contribute very little to that problem. " realist wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:04 PM: " I should not rant I meant to say -- "our form of government means I don't have to bend over " " realist wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:03 PM: " To Spamalot01- you sound like you want us to live in an oligarchy where we must pay taxes and let those smarter than us decide how much and how the money is spent. I grew up in Massachusetts and I like it here, so I won't move to someplace where people are like me. Our form of government means I have to bend over every time someone wants more of my tax money. I know taxes are inevitable, but I have a right to a say in how that money is collected and how it's spent. To my fellow posters, please excuse the rant, but Spamalot01's Cambridge style of holier than thou politics is the type of thing that sets me off. No taxation without representation is not a quaint saying from 230 years ago, it is the basis of our way of life. Or it should be. " Spamalot01 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:33 PM: " Harry Hindsight wrote: "Seven states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming) do not tax personal income. Alaska, Texas and Wyoming pump oil and they tax that. Additionally, Alaska only has a population somewhat less than Vermont, as does South Dakota & Wyoming, which like Texas and Washington have plenty of agricultural subsidies flowing in from Washington, DC. Nevada has casino money the way New Hampshire (which also doesn't have a personal income tax) has liquor money. Florida has some of the highest property taxes in the nation, with New Hampshire being in the same condition. Public services require public funding, meaning that taxes are needed for those services. Combine that with the fact that this commonwealth has some of the oldest infrastructure in the nation, thus requiring more expensive repairs and replacements than just about anywhere else and you have a situation ripe for failure if 40% of the budget evaporates because some malcontents don't want to support the communities they chose to live in. If you are enamoured of living where there isn't any income tax, then move to one of those states and live your dream. Don't work so hard to condemn the rest of us to suffer a lowered standard of living just because you've decided to not fulfill your commitment to being a full-fledged member of society. " Spamalot01 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:24 PM: " kevin h wrote: "Spamloaf, you think we are greedy. It is OUR money." Yes, but you chose to live in a society, a community. Unless you're a hermit (and if you are, what are you doing reading this?), you agree when you live anywhere to be a part of a community, to contribute towards the education of young people, to protect the life and property both of yourself and of your neighbors and to support a standard of life for the community in which you live. If you have a problem with that standard of life, then you leave, move elsewhere where people just like yourself live so you will belong to a community that mirrors your way of thinking. You moan and groan and complain about anything in this commonwealth that doesn't fit your way of thinking, yet you refuse to do the one thing that would make life perfect for you...moving to where others like you live. Instead, you choose to betray your ignorance and short-sightedness at every turn, something I'm sure others here have fully realized. " guynoir wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:49 PM: " Oops. That's The state hides about $15Billion off-books. " guynoir wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:48 PM: " First, Widmer does not represent taxpayers. He's a $450K/year lobbyist for big government interests. Fraud Next, the way a shortfall is created is by the following: The legislature adds up all the fun stuff they want to spend money on like a Christmas list, then cry that there's not enough money to pay for it all. Deception. Finally, the state hides about $15M "off books," so the state actually spends over $40B according to the CAFR. Ending the Income Tax would amount to a ~27% redction in revenue, not 40 like the legislature claims. Lies. " realist wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:07 PM: " At first I thought us1087 was being sarcastic, a rhetorical method I have been known to use. However since he or she does not bother to think that the cop at South Attleboro Square is paid for by the owners of the shopping center then I have my doubts. DiMasi showed a lot of promise, for a Democrat, when he obtained his office. But he too has been corrupted by the trappings of power and the unwillingness of his party members to control him. " us1087 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:01 PM: " It's forward thinkers like DiMasi that know what's best for us. We should just let him decide the will of the people. You blind fools that think that everything is fine have lived in Mass too long. Where is this quality of life I hear so much about? I have lived in Mass for two years and all I see are bad neighborhoods, questionable people, and clueless politicians who know how to run my life better than I do. I would like to see a politican (any politican) who would cut some of the do nothing waste of space state employees who show up and collect a paycheck. Or how about the cop who sits in South Attleboro Square on the weekends who keeps people from turning on to Route 123. Seems like his time could be better spent helping the community. " bigfishsmallpond wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:34 AM: " I'd be all for the elimination of the income tax, if it would accomplish ANYTHING. Unfortunately, Speaker DiMasi has already stated that he won't enact the law, if it passes. (See results of the will of the people when we voted to reduce the income tax rate from 5.3 to 5.0 percent.) Further, if the people do vote to eliminate the income tax, the pols will see their role as vindictive despots who will "teach us a lesson." Say good bye to police stations, fire stations, school programs, libraries, 9-5 schedules at town hall, etc. They'll get back at us for being so "arrogant" as to tell them what to do with OUR money. But, they will never cut the fat, e.g. the deputy-assistant-junior-coat-holders at the state house, the endless fat and pork at the court houses (how many days off does a judge need?), the increased staff at the executive office of the State House, the layers upon layers of administrators who oversee layers upon layers of redundant departments (see MassHighway, MassPike, MassPort, etc., etc.). The only solution is to defeat EVERYONE who is an incumbent every time they run for re-election. At least that would remove their pensions. See you at the polls! " bmcvay731 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:41 AM: " It will never be fully implemented. The income tax is a flat tax that affects people with the ability to pay (ie people with income). A property tax/excise tax/water rate increase/sales tax increase, etc...which could help to plug the gap would affect those who may live on fixed incomes. My prediction - the income tax will be cut back to 5% and in the 2010-2012 election period you'll see ballot initiatives targeting areas for reform. " realist wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:04 AM: " May I try that comment again? I realized there is an extraneous word that confuses my sentence regarding credits. " A further comment, This measure will likely fail because of the two ends of the economic spectrum in Massachusetts. On the lower end you have people who get more in tax credits than they pay in taxes and at the upper end (I'm talking to you Cambridge and Wellesley) you have people who pay little in personal taxes but feel that everyone should be giving "their fair share". " " Soxfan wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:02 AM: " What services do the supporters suggest cutting to make up for the $12 billion shortfall? Look no further than our city last week and the outcry over the cuts at the library. We can kiss a lot more than the library goodbye should this pass. Additionally, are there any voters who realistically believe that the politicians will not do everything in their ability to get the money back? Excise taxes on motor vehicles will go up at least 400%. Think our officials play fast and loose with the water and sewer rates now? Just wait to see what they do if this goes through. The devil we know is better than the one we are looking at. " realist wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:59 AM: " A further comment, This measure will likely fail because of the two ends of the economic spectrum in Massachusetts. On the lower end you have people who get more in tax credits than you they pay in taxes and at the upper end (I'm talking to you Cambridge and Wellesley) you have people who pay little in personal taxes but feel that everyone should be giving "their fair share". " realist wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:29 AM: " Unfortunately groups have for years tried to get the commonwealth and its cities and towns to live within their means. It hasn't worked. This is very much like the Prop 2 1/2 movement in the early 80's. It's a whack in the side of the head of state leaders (the term leader is used very loosely). However, the legislature and governor will have no problem ignoring the will of the people. Additionally, why is it selfish to not want to pay taxes? Unjust taxes led to a revolution that started a country somewhere... I forget which one. " kevin h. wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:25 AM: " Decimate means to reduce by 10%. I think the decimation of this poorly run government is a great idea. In fact, do it two or three times. We need to do this to clear away the decades of sneaky budget items, influence and quid pro quo. Get these legislators to DO SOME WORK instead of them banning trans fats or some other tripe. Viva la resistance. p.s. Spamloaf, you think we are greedy. It is OUR money. It is those with viewpoints such as yourself who must greedily find more ways of collecting hard earned tax payer monies to redistribute to the projects THEY FEEL are more deserving than those who CREATED that wealth. " bmcvay731 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:16 AM: " Alaska has an enormous amount of oil wealth, Florida's property taxes were so enormous that it became a major campaign issue when Governor Crist was elected, and New Hampshire has a double property/education tax, with many southern residents working in Massachusetts. MA benefits from prop 2.5 and the second lowest sales tax of surrounding states, which would be out the window if the repeal passes. " Soxfan wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:10 AM: " Utter stupidity " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:03 AM: " Seven states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming) do not tax personal income. Of the states listed above, do any of these seem to be poor states. A case may be made for Alaska, but it may not be too strong. Texas, Washington, Florida and Nevada are not what I think of states in distress. South Dakota and Wyoming have small populations compared to land size. I don't think of these two states as those where people are that suck off of the system though. From these seven, I think Mass can learn how to function properly without an income tax. " watcher2 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:42 AM: " Simpler may be better, but to eliminate the entire state's income nearly by half is foolhardy. I personally like the idea that the state is contributing to the well being of the city and helping my property tax be more reasonable. State's with no income tax are hurting and have outlandish property taxes...2 1/2 keeps our taxes low...so is it reasonable to remove income taxes as well? Reform YES decimation no..we haven't been Taxachusetts for a long time now. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:36 AM: " But isn't a simpler life a better life? It would force each community to live within the means of their taxpayers. Not to rely on state aid to function. Sure the poorer towns will be stagnant, but the ones that plan and budget the best should thrive. I'm not saying that this is perfect idea. Let's look at the states without income tax and see how they function. I'm sure Mass is not the first and only state to try to operate like this. " Spamalot01 wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:54 AM: " Carla Howell and those who support her are some of the most selfish people imaginable. If you want to see towns and cities being forced into MASSIVE Prop 2 1/2 override votes in the next couple of years to make up for the loss of state Aid to Cities and Towns, Ch. 70 and education funds, then support this appalling voter initiative. However, if you do, watch everything from schools to police and fire protection and even the state transportation system (already on life support) collapse utterly. I'm for eliminating waste in government. I'm NOT for decimating services based on some narrow, ideological concept of "less is more" making for good government. This needs to be stopped and stopped now before the selfish and, yes, ignorant, wreck the quality of life in this state and turn it into a northern version of Hollywood's depiction of a hick, Southern state. " or
|
