Question 1 – Voting Yes
by Erin - October 29, 2008 2:07pm
Question 1 seeks to eliminate the state income tax. For more information, visit the state’s Information for Voters website.
According to the Committee for Small Government, the proponents of Question 1, eliminating the state income tax will boost the state economy by allowing taxpayers to keep (and spend) more of their paycheck, encouraging businesses to locate in Massachusetts and create more jobs, and attracting people to move to or remain in Massachusetts.
Perhaps what best appeals to voters is the suggestion that eliminating the income tax will subsequently eliminate government waste, as the state government is forced to contract and end “flawed, Big Government programs.”
When you pick up the local paper and read that the national economy is floundering, and then turn the page to read about state legislators stuffing their undergarments full of cash and state employees padding their paychecks by doing ‘favors,’ one can certainly begin to feel the pull of Question 1. How badly do we need all of these people to represent our interests and handle state business?
Of course, there are plenty of state legislators and employees who are not acting like pigs at the trough, and the majority of state employees enter public service knowing that they won’t get rich. Then again, if you’ve lived in Massachusetts long enough, you probably have at least one relative, neighbor, or friend who works a state job – say, a toll collector on the Mass Pike – and earns a surprising sum for the work actually being done. A $70,000 salary for someone to make change is rather high; in private industry, an employee paid $70,000 probably has the title of scientist or engineer.
When I went out looking for opinions on Question 1, most of the feedback that I received came from people planning to vote ‘No.’ Perhaps I didn’t get to the right people for ‘Yes’opinions, or perhaps many people do think that Question 1 is a bad idea.
What do you think? I’d particularly like to hear from people who support Question 1.
Tomorrow – the argument to vote ‘No’ on Question 1.
Mass Pike toll collectors aren’t paid out of the income tax, they’re paid out of tolls, duh!
I’m sure that toll collector salaries are paid out of the Turnpike Authority budget, and underwritten by tolls – but the Turnpike Authority *is* a state agency, and probably one of the layers of bureaucracy that Question 1 aims to eliminate.
I would love to see the State income tax done away with. People are much more effective and efficient at accomplishing social goals than is government.
I believe that government intervention is more often harmful. Families can come to depend on government intervention and assistance and cease to perform the duties that only mothers and fathers do well. Even neighborhoods can be impacted. The idea of a community coming together to address a problem is threatened if everyone considers it the government’s job. Even something as simple as helping out a young mother with her kids is something that people are less likely to do today.
We need government intervention. But people also need to take responsibility for themselves and their neighbors.
Especially in family situations, I think that individuals are better suited at taking care of problem children. We have a host of social disorders that did not exist twenty, thirty, forty years ago. Often, they are a bona-fide medical conditions , but I think that doctors have a tendency to “institutionalize” common childhood issues. Lots of money gets spent and lots of people join committees and publish papers on the public dime. Maybe the kid needs a little more attention, or structure, or discipline. More effort by parents would accomplish far more, for far less money, than making it a public issue and a government concern.
Prop 1 isn’t gonna do anything to reduce the size of the Turnpike Authority. Quite the opposite — with the income tax gone, much of state government will be shifted to similar off-balance-sheet agencies, funded by “user fees”.
My son would be screwed if Question 1 goes through. Actually, his services are guaranteed by a federal document. So regardless of the money going into the schools, he will receive his services, by law. I guess it is all the other kids who will lose out. Too bad I have 2 other kids…
Andre – the income tax may not be ‘paying’ toll collectors directly, but the issue is voters’ impression of state government. People hear about government waste and their immediate emotional reaction is that they’re being ripped off somehow. Thus lending them more likely to sympathize with Question 1, even if there’s no direct line connecting what comes out of their pocket to the money perceived as wasted.
In my opinion, Question 1 plays on that emotional reaction rather than appealing to logic. I don’t agree with Question 1, but I can understand it’s appeal to people.
That said – the Turnpike Authority may not be long for this world. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/10/02/turnpike_authority_may_face_demise/?page=1
Mia – that raises another good point about Question 1. We’d still pay federal taxes, which are higher than state taxes. And while we’d maintain our federal services, I think that people rely on local services a great deal more than we ever even conceive. Schools being the best example, as they are entirely local save for federally-run programs installed in certain schools.
Question 1 is a reasonable, and ultimately beneficial, proposal. For decades the Legislature has had free and easy access to your income, even brazenly ignoring the will of the voters regarding the rollback. Have they done what they promised with that money? Are the schools now paragons of learning? Are the streets now perfectly maintained? Have crime rates dropped precipitously? No, no, and no.
Rewarding failure with more money is not the answer. While they callously threaten to cut schools, cops, libraries, etc. they never talk about eliminating the do-nothing sinecures and P.C. programs that suck so much money from our pockets for zero positive effect. That should be enough to tell you where their priorities are.
Between 5 and 10% of our State Legislature is under investigation/already indicted on any given day. Assuming that these people will actually use your money to help you, rather than to help themselves, is mind-bogglingly myopic. Keep your money, you earned it.
Erin,
Why do you suppose that people who support Question 1 are merely having an emotional reaction? I would like to learn, so that I can be more reasonable.
Personally, I can’t think of a logical reason to vote Yes on Question 1. Yes, it would be nice to have more money in my pocket, but that money is a pittance compared to the state services that benefit me. Roads paved and maintained, state parks maintained, etc.
Could the ways in which our tax dollars are spent use an overhaul? Absolutely. Lincoln’s comment that 5-10% of MA legislators are in trouble on any given day is interesting – I’d love to know where to validate it.
But eliminating the income tax is not going to eliminate pork.
Wilkerson, Marzilli, Spellane, DiMasi, etc., just off the top of my head.
Wilkerson and Marzilli make up 5% of our Senate. Both indicted this year. I guess I could look up all of the State Reps. that have also been investigated/indicted/arrested, but you get the point.
Lest you think that this is some sort of statistical aberration, as opposed to the institutional corruption that it is, I submit the following:
Wilkerson will be the third CONSECUTIVE legislator from her district to become a felon. First was Bill Owens, then Royal Bolling, now Wilkerson.
If you don’t see the sickness of the system, then nobody can help you. But we can at least ask you to not continue funding these criminals with our hard-earned money.
I’m not sure if you’re referring to me when you say “If you don’t see the sickness of the system, then nobody can help you. But we can at least ask you to not continue funding these criminals with our hard-earned money.”
I agree that there’s gross abuse of the system, and unfortunately it’s often perpetuated by the people we’ve chosen to run the system.
Or hired to run it – let’s not forget this dude: http://www.telegram.com/article/20081030/NEWS/810300466/1116
BUT – eliminating the income tax is not going to get rid of the state legislature or pork projects.
Pork does not exist without the “fat” that generates it. That “fat” is your income taxes. They’ve had your money and failed to do anything constructive with it (they invent “social programs” that they staff with lackeys and then fund them, no improvements are ever achieved by these programs, but when someone wants to dispose of them that person is accused of “gutting social services”).
$3,600 (the number being bandied about as “the average tax bill”) is two entire mortgage payments for a lot of people. Or a whole year’s worth of car payments. It’s only real money when the earner keeps it, once it goes to the Statehouse it becomes something entirely different.
If the Legislature can’t maintain basic services with the sales tax, the massive corporate tax, tolls, fees, fines,etc., then they shouldn’t be in the job to begin with. Hopefully, the elimination of the income tax would show just how incompetent they are, and people with some brains will take their places.
[...] forget to check out Question 1 – Voting Yes. Erin Donahue lives in Worcester and is quite fond of the city. She is finishing an MBA at Clark [...]
Again Lincoln,
The average tax payer is not the one in need of social programs which will be the 1st things to be cut. The person that needs some of tax dollars are people who will not see no $3,600.00 in their wallets, they will see nothing. So please stay in Carolina and stop worrying so much about Massachusett Income Tax if you do not pay Massachusett Income Tax. I believe this is a comments area and not a “forum”, so better to speak your peice and then move on instead of trying to get a stir from people.
Crystal, how very Liberal of you to tell me to shut up or get out. For the umpteenth time, you can do whatever you want with YOUR money. I suggest that you use the tax cut and deliver the 70 measly dollars to someone that you know who is in need, every week. I’m sure you won’t, but it would at least make you less of a hypocritical shrew. Entrusting that 70 bucks to Wilkerson, Spellane, et al. will only result in more of the same failures.
If you honestly believe that the Government will do more good with your money than you could, then I pity you.
i give more money 2 charties than i should for my income level so nothing hypicritical about what i say
Crystal. So you give $5 annually to your charity of choice.
Big deal. Want a medal?
Spend it on a remedial spelling course.