Ballot Question 1

[teele-sq.livejournal.com]

First a reminder that if you still need to register to vote in MA, your mail-in voter registration form must be postmarked by next Wednesday, October 15th. Call 1-800-462-VOTE to request a form. You can also register in person at City Hall, again, no later than Wednesday next week.

---

SUMMARY OF QUESTION 1
As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General, and the statements describing the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

This proposed law would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. The personal income tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of "S corporations" as defined under federal tax law. The proposed law would not affect the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before January 1, 2009. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO
A YES VOTE would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for the tax year beginning on January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010.

A NO VOTE would make no change in state income tax laws.

ref: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele08/ballot_questions_08/quest_1.htm





ARGUMENTS
As provided by law, the 150-word arguments are written by proponents and opponents of each question, and reflect their opinions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not endorse these arguments, and does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments. The names of the individuals and organizations who wrote each argument, and any written comments by others about each argument, are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

IN FAVOR: "41% waste in Massachusetts state government," reveals survey. Eliminating government waste is one reason to vote "Yes."
Your "Yes" vote cuts your state income taxes 50% starting this January 1st - and eliminates the last 50% next January 1st. For you and for 3,400,000 Massachusetts workers and taxpayers.
Your "Yes" vote gives back $3,700 each to 3,400,000 Massachusetts workers and taxpayers - including you - on average when we end the state income tax. $3,700. Each worker. Every year.

Your "Yes" vote will create hundreds of thousands of new Massachusetts jobs.

Your "Yes" vote will NOT raise your property taxes NOR any other taxes.

Your "Yes" vote will NOT cut, NOR require cuts, of any essential government services.

Your "Yes" vote rolls back state government spending 27% - $47.3 billion to $34.7 billion - more than state government spending in 1999.

3,400,000 Massachusetts workers, taxpayers and their families need your help. Please vote "Yes."

Authored by:
Carla Howell, Chair
The Committee For Small Government
P.O. Box 5268
Wayland, MA 01778
(508) 630-9520
www.SmallGovernmentAct.org

AGAINST: This legally binding initiative would slash state revenues by more than $12 billion a year - nearly 40 percent of the state budget.

It would force dramatic cuts in state aid to cities and towns, driving up property taxes and reducing funding for vital local services.

It would mean a drastic reduction in state funding for local public schools - leading to teacher layoffs, school closings and other cutbacks that would harm our children's education.

It would threaten public safety by cutting funds for police, fire protection and emergency medical services.

It would prevent us from making badly needed repairs to the state's aging roads and bridges, or making other investments needed to attract businesses and create jobs.

And it could force the state to raise other taxes and fees that would hit moderate-income families hardest.

Times are tough enough. Let's not make them worse. Vote NO.

Authored by:
Peter Meade, Chair
Coalition for Our Communities
150 Mt. Vernon St., Suite 200
Dorchester, MA 02125
(617) 284-1208
www.VoteNoQuestion1.com

Comments

[ron_newman]

You can also print this out and mail it to your local city or town hall or to the state election department.

[teele-sq.livejournal.com]

I'm curious to hear what people think of this ballot question. I'm all for smaller govt and eliminating wasteful spending, but I also like having a police force, a fire dept, and bridges that don't crumble.

[ron_newman]

I'm voting "No", as it makes no sense to cut revenues without proposing corresponding cuts in spending. I was thinking of having a poll posted here for all three ballot questions, but I don't have a Paid LJ account.

[knowthyself.livejournal.com]

I'm voting no. A friend who's a teacher was telling me about how much funding this would cut from public schools, etc, and it just doesn't sound like it'll really work out that well for anyone in the long run to me.

Does anyone know if City Hall is open this coming Monday?

[plumtreeblossom.livejournal.com]

I need explanation about how a "Yes" vote will create hundreds of thousands of new Massachusetts jobs. That's an enormous claim, and I can't see a tax cut could have that effect.

[ifotismeni]

actually i love big government and wasteful spending!

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

A resounding "No." The entire logic behind "Government will become more efficient if we take their money away" is the same logic that leads us to conclude Elvis is alive and unicorns exist.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

i'm sure that in *this* case, unlike all previous cases, any spending cuts would magically remove the waste - no matter how politically well connected - and preserve the important parts of government services.

[infinitemorning.livejournal.com]

I'm voting no. I agree that our spending is sometimes questionable, but we're already having difficulty making ends meet on several essential state programs, including the subsidized health care programs that have actually helped make our current health care legislation possible. Cutting the income tax is going to make things worse, not better.

[in-parentheses.livejournal.com]

Your "Yes" vote will NOT cut, NOR require cuts, of any essential government services.

How is that possible? I'd like to hear more explanation of what this side thinks are "essential government services."

[nathanjw]

It'll "cut the fat". Because the amount of "fat" and "waste" in government services is always at least as large as the size of the tax cut you want to enact.

[badseed1980.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I haven't heard any explanation of how they think this is going to happen, without raising any other taxes.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Your "Yes" vote will NOT cut, NOR require cuts, of any essential government services.

Because the state will pay for these things through the miracle of "borrow and spend!" There will always be investors and bankers eager to buy up state bonds. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajNjk_xRku.Y&refer=home)

[miss-chance.livejournal.com]

Your "Yes" vote will NOT cut, NOR require cuts, of any essential government services

One of the non-essential services that might be effected, however, would be grammar-school education regarding how to properly use the Neither/Nor construction in a correctly formed English sentence.

[nathanjw]

Check out the full text of Q1. The entire first section is pure editorializing. On the editorializing-to-law ratio, Q1 is the worst, Q3 is low but non-negligible, and Q2 is nearly zero (just the title). I think that's a pretty good metric to use on these things. "Good ideas don't need ranting to look good."

[exsplusohs.livejournal.com]

I'm voting No, because: http://mblc.state.ma.us/mblc/news/releases/past-releases/2008/nr080905.php

[josephineave.livejournal.com]

Since no one will have jobs in the post apocalyptic economy coming in a few months, it won't matter what percentage they multiple 0 by.

[miss-lisa-ma.livejournal.com]

Most Mass. cities and towns get major chunks of their budgets from the local aid portion of the state budget. According to this calculation from the No on 1 folks (http://votenoquestion1.com/towns.php?t=somerville&town_code=274), Somerville would lose 90% of its school aid from the state and 65% of its local aid.

Think about what that means in real life. Class sizes double, or worse. No after school programs, no sports, nothing to keep kids out of trouble after school. Not enough police to keep them out of trouble when they have no place else to go after school. Higher crime rates when police presence dwindles. Higher homeowners' and renters' insurance rates when the crime rates go up and they start shutting down fire stations to stretch the budget. Prop. 2-1/2 overrides up the wazoo, and higher property taxes if they pass. Higher rents when property taxes go up, because landlords aren't going to absorb those hikes. More potholes, and increased chances for more expensive car repairs, because the depleted DPW can't fill all the holes fast enough.

Start adding up the cost of tutors, home alarms, Lojack, replacing stolen goods, car repairs, days lost at work because you're snowed in and they can't plough you out, no trash pickup, etc., etc. and all of a sudden, that "government waste" doesn't seem so wasteful.

$3,700 refund? Not so fast

[miss-lisa-ma.livejournal.com]

By the way, the "$3,700" return the yes-on-1 folks are talking about? Not exactly true. The Mass Taxpayers Foundation (admittedly no-on-1 types) did a pretty good Question 1 analysis" (http://www.masstaxpayers.org/files/MTF_Question1_Analysis.pdf). Go to page 3--there's a chart breaking down who pays what in state income tax. If you earn under $50k, which is something like 2/3 of the state, you pay at most $1,773. The people who make out like bandits are the people earning over $100k.

Voting NO!!!

[sundaisy-summer.livejournal.com]

While I agree that wasteful government spending is problematic, I don't think that getting rid of the income tax is the answer to that solution. Instead of solving the wasteful spending problem many critical services will be cut like police, fire, schools, libraries, funding to families and people in need, roads, etc. Many of those services don't get enough funding as it is! A better solution would be to cut wasteful spending and put that money towards the things make a better society like schools!

Re: $3,700 refund? Not so fast

[redcolumbine.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's the problem with "cut resources = cut the fat" argument. The fat is always the best-protected part of the body, or it wouldn't be there in the first place.

Definitely voting "NO"

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

If we don't contribute to our own state, what will happen is that everything will become sponsored by corporations and churches.

Re: Definitely voting "NO"

[redcolumbine.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Yeah, that too. Of course, some would say that that's GOOD, because they figure corporations are composed of people who really have their act together and churches are composed of moral people. But really, the skills needed to rise to the top of either institution are the same as the ones needed to succeed in government. Common sense and morality are just as rare as the desire to serve, and should not be assumed on the basis of career. The desire to succeed is pretty much universal.

[tt02144.livejournal.com]

I'm leaning towards a 'yes' vote simply because it will send such a clear message to the legislature that the people are unhappy with the amount of taxes we pay, and the way the money is spent. Cities and towns have become too dependent on state aid to fund things like schools. They continue to add wasteful spending, knowing that the state will pick up the difference. If anyone truly looked at the city budget, for instance the school department, you would be horrified at the amount of wasteful spending. Thousands of dollars could be cut without ever having an impact on education! Perhaps we could move to a legislature such as New Hampshire - part-time legislators who aren't making lots of money and taking advantage of the state pension system. By the way, state pensions are one of the things that are OUT OF CONTROL. Just take a look at what is offered to state workers. And do we really need to pay our Aldermen and School Committee approximately $350,000 per year, plus their health insurance and retirement? It's past time for the government to scale back and they have proven over and over that they won't do it on their own.

[ron_newman]

What is an example of something that the Somerville school system should not spend money on?

Some references?

[peregrinehill.livejournal.com]

I've been trying to do a little research on this question, but reading the wikipedia entry isn't quite cutting it as far as rigor goes. There are a lot of percentages and dollar amounts being thrown around, without citing any authoritative sources.

Maybe I should know this already, but where can I find out how tax dollars are currently being allocated? I believe California uses specific portions of their state income tax for specific purposes (1% is for mental health, for example). Do we have something like that and I just don't know it?

Also, anyone know where there's a breakdown of where state funds come from?

I'll keep looking, but I'm drawing a blank so far.

[hissilliness.livejournal.com]

Holy crap, that's as close to a consensus as I think I've ever seen davis_square come on anything.

[craigindaville.livejournal.com]

A resounding NO vote from me. This is just an effort to kill government by de-funding it, since they can't get people to agree that things like schools and food stamps are bad. They just starve these programs to death (see: Entire Bush Administration Domestic Fiscal Policy).

I love the theory that schools, social services, etc will not be badly affected because people will use their tax savings to give to the charity(ies) of their choice. Right. Once again, the disinterested invisible hand theory is used, whereas the reality of human greed will show us what would really happen.

Online Income Tax Filing

[replicawatch101.livejournal.com]

Personal income tax (http://www.myitreturn.com) systems vary widely across states, leading to different levels of progressivity.