Question 1 – Voting No
by Erin - October 30, 2008 3:52pm
Question 1 seeks to eliminate the state income tax. For more information, visit the state’s Information for Voters website.
In their argument against Question 1, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation notes that our tax dollars “pay for basic services like schools and teachers, health care, environmental protection, local aid that funds police and fire protection, nursing homes for the elderly, human services and infrastructure.” ‘Infrastructure’ is a pretty innocuous word, considering that in this case it covers clean drinking water, the roads we drive on, and numerous other aspects of our daily life.
All of this ‘stuff’ is there for our use when we need it, whether or not we’re cognizant of how it got there in the first place and who takes care of it. When we turn on the tap, we expect water to come out, and we expect it to be clean enough to use for drinking and bathing. If it snows, we know that our roads will be treated and plowed – perhaps not as quickly as we’d like, but it gets done.
And someone has to pay for it.
When I was younger, my dad liked to say, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” This statement always made me groan, because it meant that I was about to spend an afternoon raking leaves or painting the house in exchange for a ride to the mall. As an adult, this statement sounds less like a philosophy of indentured servitude, and more like reality – you’ve got to invest in the system to get something out of it.
Eliminating the state income tax would require some trade-offs. Perhaps the school day would be cut short to save money, and we’d need to start spending more time each week educating our children at home. Of course, in that instance we’d be getting more bang for our household buck, as property taxes would surely go up.
So what do you think about Question 1? If you’re in favor of Question 1, visit this post and thread.
A friend of mine, Stacey, made a good point when she noted that cutting the state income tax is “the equivalent of knowing that you would be spending one month in the forest, but eating most of your food the first night and having to go hungry for the rest of the time.”
TANSTAAFL should be applied to the Government, not the citizens. Our “leaders” have been eating our lunch for decades. We’ve reliably entrusted them with our money while they’ve repaid us with incompetence, corruption and failure. Eliminating the income tax will not only allow many people to remain in their homes (2 full mortgage payments, remember) and retain more control over their own lives, but it will also send a signal that the ballot box has proven ineffective in sending.
Money is the universal analog for power. When we shift an inordinate amount of money to the Government, as we are doing today, we are also shifting an inordinate amount of power away from the citizenry and into the hands of the Government. Massachusetts has seen the results of the artificially high income tax. Bloated bureaucracies, rampant criminality among the elected, and an institutional lock on power. It’s time to exercise some common sense and not fall prey to the barely masked extortion of “cutting our schools” that the politicians hang over our heads. They ruined our schools and now we’re supposed to pay them off or they’ll ruin them further? Gimme a break.
$3600 a year over 52 weeks is an extra $70 per week back in the taxpayer’s pocket. Not exactly a windfall, and likely to go right back out in the form of property and sales tax.
What would fix the system? Should people start playing a more proactive role in their schools and towns? Taking better care of their women, children and elders? There’s a lot of ‘work’ that needs to be done by someone. Right now, we effectively pay the state to handle a lot of these services for us.
The system may be broken, but there’s no substantive movement toward fixing it.
If you honestly believe that more money going to the Government means better results, then there’s nothing I can say to change your mind. I can assure you that you’re wrong, but I can’t make you believe that which you’re determined to ignore.
“Only 70 dollars per week”? If it’s such a tiny amount, then why does the State need it? Parse the numbers any way you want, but 70 dollars can buy a lot of food for a family, pay all of the fuel expenses (both automobile and heating), and allow families to go from horrible living conditions to decent apartments in decent neighborhoods. $280 a month would elevate many people out of poverty, but only if they have it. Pretending that such families will somehow receive more benefits by staying in their hovel and giving the Gov’t their money is spurious.
It’s never happened, it’s never worked, it never will.
Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennesse, Texas, Washington, Wyoming are the states without income tax. They do, however, have revenues from sources such as gambling, tourism, high property taxes, oil, etc. We don’t have those options. In some of those states, they also lack the level of services that we’re lucky to receive in MA.
Income tax is graded according to income – more income, higher tax. Sales tax, property tax, and fee-based services are levied across the board – putting a greater financial burden on people with lower incomes.
Those people who do truly need the $70 cash per week are some of the same people who also depend on government programs and ‘free’ services such as clean drinking water, public parks, libraries, good education, etc. Not to mention direct services like fuel assistance, food stamps, etc.
That $70 per week will not send their kids to a private school, buy filtered water, vacations, and unlimited books.
I’ll put my $70 into the system to support those services.
What does change the system, even if the money is taken away? I’m asking this in all sincerity.
You force the politicians to work within a budget. Budgets are not just money-saving devices, they are accountability measures. The worst school system in America (D.C.) pays the most per student. This will not change because the focus of the school system is to function as an employment program for otherwise unemployable people. Kids go uneducated, but pols get the Teachers’ votes. The same dynamic can be seen in countless programs here in MA. (Full disclosure, I lived in MA for 33 years, I pay property taxes in MA, but worked there for only 3 months last year, I’m officially a North Carolina resident as we speak.)
Eliminating the income tax would force Government to be accountable to the citizens. They would, for the first time ever, not have a blank check on which they’d write away our futures for their instant gratification.
With what we know about politicians for the most part is that the programs that need the most money will most likely be hurt the most and the special interest and staff of these such politicians will prosper as always. The problem at hand is the wrong programs will be cut, it will not hold anyone accountable. I think wasteful spending needs to happen first, I think fixing a program system first then see where cuts can be made. I think I pay about 90 dollars a week in state income taxes, so I am sure the people that could use the money the most are only really going to see 20-30 dollars more per week and they are not the ones owning the homes whose property tax will go up. I would rather put my $90.00 into a pool of money that will help social programs. I understand conservatives want to do away with every social program but there are people that truly need help and I am not going to be above that to help. So more or less “Show me the money” in respect to show me the cuts in the system without taking away the means to pay for such programs. Then maybe you can get me on lowering but not 100% eliminating the income tax. Or show me that we are Texas and receive millions upon millions in tax revenue from Big Oil… It isn’t going to happen.
Oops I meant fixing wastful spending
You are allowed to give as much money as you want to whatever social programs you want. It’s called charity. I suggest you participate.
One thing that I think should be made clear, is that this is not a choice between the continuation of taxes or their elimiination. It is not radically changing the face of our political system to eliminate the income tax. As Erin mentioned, there are other states that currently have no state income tax. It would involve changes, but the world would not stop. There is no need to use extreme examples on either side.
Also, even if this initiative passes it will not really have the impact that a lot of people think that it might. The reality is that the legislature will never incorporate this into law. Remember, this is Massachusetts. Our legislature will do exactly what they did with the gay marriage initiative – they’ll ignore it. It will never become law.
What it can do is send a message to our legislators that we are watching. Personally, I’m opposed to big-government solutions. I think that there are many logical reasons to oppose a welfare state, or anything approaching a welfare state. People and communities are more efficient than government. Make things smaller, and they run better. Look around you, the evidence is everywhere. It’s called the principle of subsidiarity – the idea that things should be devolved to the lowest level possible. Individuals, families, neighborhoods, communities – this is where the action takes place.
On November 5th, the legislature will get an idea of how many people think like me. I have a feeling it will be quite a few.
-Sanchez