Hey, there! Log in / Register
Slight majority favors cutting the sales tax
By adamg on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 6:48am
The Globe does some polling on Question 3, which would cut the sales tax from 6.25 to 3%.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Beggar thy neighbor?
If all these people think that paying extra taxes to the government is a good thing because the state "needs" it - why do so few people check off the option of paying a higher income tax rate?
If I recall Howie Carr's statistics (even if you think he's a blowhard, his numbers come from DOR) - almost nobody checks the box and when you work backwards from what they pay you can calculate that the average salary of someone checking that box is somewhere around $20k per year.
Some people believe that
Some people believe that supporting society in the form of taxes should be something that everyone does, not just those who decide they "want to", and thus do not support and do not want to encourage the idea of the voluntary higher tax rate.
Exactly
Why would I check the box to use the 5.85% tax rate when I can just give the extra .55% of my income directly to something I think is underfunded?
I'd be in favor of EVERYONE paying more taxes. Or everyone being required to give to charities. But no, I'm not going to donate to the government and let them do whatever they want with it.
Better yet, get rid of the flat tax and have a progressive tax like forward-thinking places do.
Reread your statement
Where is the logic in EVERYONE should pay more taxes but you are not going to donate to government to let them do whatever they want with it. If you pay more taxes, they will do whatever they want with it - which usually amounts to hire more people, give existing employees a 3% raise, maintain benefit levels and get about the same amount done this year as we did last year - sometimes less.
Do you think if we all are forced under threat of prison to hand over more of our money to them they will somehow do what we want? We've tried that - it doesn't work.
I would have no problem with a progressive tax (or an income tax to replace the regressive property tax system in this state)- but I don't think the Mass constitution allows progressive taxes. Time for an amendment.
Where's the logic?
If everyone had to pay it, then yes, I'd love to give more money to the government along with everyone else.
But until they're asking me for more, I'm going to donate directly to causes the government is neglecting.
Some logic for you
If Eeka or I are the only people who pay the tax, we are also the only people who will care to monitor what government does with the money. I'd prefer that the entire community handle the monitoring. I want Stevil and others to help me with this, so that we can hopefully get some good government here and there.
Likewise, if I'm one of the few paying for it, I don't want those who don't to have a voice in how it is spent. But if everybody pays, I'm willing to accept that my voice is just one of many.
I'm still paying tax - you are just paying more
I would still pay the 5.3% rate, so I still care what government does with it. You would just be paying more - if you believe so strongly in bigger government - I'm not going to stand in your way. I find it hypocritical when people say i should spend more on government when they are not willing to step up to the plate and do so themselves - lead by example. It's not who pays and how much, as long as it's one system. if that were the case, half of America would have no right to pay in federal elections as they pay effectively no income taxes.
Don't get me wrong - there are things I would be willing to pay more for and actually just sent a letter to Scott Brown telling him that if our taxes were earmarked for increases that directly benefited our military families and/or deficit reduction I'd be more than happy to pay higher taxes. But I'm not paying up to support the evergrowing bureacracy of government whose budgets go up at twice the rate of inflation.
You've identified the core
You've identified the core problem. We each have things we might wish to pay more for, but taxation is about general funding. Government cannot meet the desires of every single citizen perfectly. What I support is not bigger government, but fully funded government. If 5.3% is not enough to fund the government we have, then we should all pay more, or all accept a limitation in scope. But what we can't expect is the option to be selective, where I apportion my taxes to schools, libraries, and trains whereas you apportion yours to veterans' benefits and whatever else most excites you about government function.
And you've identified the nucleus
Mass is about 5th in per capita spending on government - if that's not enough - then there will never be enough. They need to learn to do more with less (or at least the same as last year). But money is power and the more they can accumulate the better it is for them - and the worse for the rest of us.
Whole picture, please
You know it's not that simple. State spending is relatively high in Massachusetts, but we are also one of the states that receives the least amount of federal spending per capita. The state has to make that up some how. But there's another element. We spend more because we have more. Massachusetts is one of the wealthiest states, our tax rates are in the middle, not too high, not too low. They generate a lot of revenue because incomes are high, real estate values are high, etc.
Now, you are free to argue that means we can lower rates, but I'd counter that it means we can do more than other states without needing to have the highest rates. There is a reason that our schools are the best in the country, that our residents are the healthiest in the country, etc. If we can get more from the same rates another state charges, why shouldn't we? I don't want to live in Mississippi, if I did, I'd move there.
Mass. schools are best in the
Mass. schools are best in the country? Look at how people drive here, or the discussion around issues of the day. Normal adult education level here is 5th grade at best.
Costs are not relative to income
This is the typical spin - we make more so we should spend more. Why? - what are we getting that other states are not? A slight premium for housing costs I could see - but beyond that there is no reason any government service should cost more here than elsewhere.
The reason we have such good education boils down to accountability - if you look at the numbers they skyrocketed the minute we made MCAS a graduation requirement - had nothing to do with quality of teaching or cost of teaching - came down to here is what you need to do to graduate and now our kids are great test takers (advantages and disadvantages to that). We'll take another step up soon because now we have real competition between the publics and the charters (cue Sock Puppet).
The reason we are the healthiest correlates to the high levels of education, not our higher taxes (I could actually work less and exercise more if our taxes were lower :-))
The average house in the US is under $200k. The average here is probably around $400k - does that mean we should spend twice as much on goverment? Same for salaries or any other taxable item.
Nothing should be measured in "rates" - the currency of the country isn't percentages - it's dollars!
I think you have to start from the top Stevil
If you start from the bottom (tax/government income), then the people who decide where this money gets spend are still in charge. So they can decide where to make up for the lost money.
So in the end this just means the City of Boston might get 500 million dollars from the state instead of 550 million dollars. I might save $1,239 in taxes this year that I will now probably have to make up on my property tax (I bet anyway)
In general I agree with you
Start from the top - but it's almost impossible to get an incumbent out of office around here. As for the property taxes - only if there is a Prop 2 1/2 override - otherwise your taxes are decided strictly by a formula - they have nothing to do with the city's budget or cuts in local aid (very few people realize this - the pie just gets about 4% bigger every year and then they divvy it up based on the value of your home compared to all the other properties in the city).
That's what they want you to think.
But you and I know they can play games with assessments.
But I always had and idea that they should cut sales taxes and raise income taxes for a set period of time before they go back down to the current rate (2-4 years). That way we can see what the sales tax cut really does. We don't know for sure that it will generate all these jobs.
Statistics
Which means there isn't a majority, it is a (statistical) tie. It's nice the Globe included the above line early in the article. Too bad the headline is misleading (as is yours Adam, sorry). I thought the media would figure this out by now, but I still see many stories about "slight leads" when there's no evidence of it.
Margin of Error aside, the
Margin of Error aside, the headline should really be "slight plurality" and not "slight majority." A majority requires 50+.
46% are in favor, 43% opposed. This by default leaves 11% undecided, and the chances of passage rise/fall with what this 11% decides.
If a slight majority (say 51%) are for passage, it would make no difference even if all the undecideds broke toward opposition.