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?

[teele-sq.livejournal.com]

I was planning to post the other two ballot questions in order to encourage some debate. I'm unsure how I'll vote on 1 and 2.

[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.

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

Well, you see, efficient private services, which never cut corners or have labyrinthine bureaucracy, will step in to fill the gap! Now, instead of everybody getting the same education, your children will get the education you can afford!

In other words, typical extreme-libertarian masturbation. I like my government small and efficient myself, but the way to do that isn't drastic tax cuts.

[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."

[ron_newman]

I posted this regarding question 2 last month. I'm voting Yes.

[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.

[nuns.livejournal.com]

wait - this sounds like you think Elvis isn't alive and unicorns don't exist!

[nuns.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's all in what they intend by the word 'essential'. It's a nice squishy word that can mean pretty much whatever they need it to mean, and after the fact they can just say "that wasn't essential" to defend any discontinued government service.

[nuns.livejournal.com]

They're claiming that with a smaller budget the government will simply waste less money so as to provide the same level of service for cheaper. It's pure sorcery.

[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.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Besides, i'm willing to bet no one has done an impact measure counting the number of free-enterprise jobs that depend on "government waste," which would be destroyed if this passes.

[infinitemorning.livejournal.com]

I'm also voting yes on Question 2 and...I honestly haven't decided how I'm voting on Question 3. Emotionally, I don't like greyhound racing. Rationally, I'm not sure I have a good reason to vote to end it.

[ron_newman]

I just called City Hall, and the answer is No. They are open until 8 pm on Wednesday, however.

[knowthyself.livejournal.com]

Well, that's good to know. Thanks :)

[badseed1980.livejournal.com]

I know at least one person who's worried about losing her job if Question 1 passes.

[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)

[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."