A week from today is election day. In Massachusetts, there will be three statewide ballot questions in addition to candidate elections. These ballot questions are important and I strongly urge all registered voters in Massachusetts (if you’re not registered, register before the next election!) to visit the polls and weigh in. I recommend voting no on all three ballot questions.
Question 1: Repeal the alcohol sales tax
Question 1 is an attempt to roll back the recently enacted sales tax on alcoholic beverages. In my opinion, the arguments against this question distributed by the Secretary of the Commonwealth (as required by law) are persuasive:
Alcohol is not a necessity and does not deserve a special tax exemption. The only goods in Massachusetts exempt from the sales tax are necessities like food, clothing, and prescriptions. If anything should be taxed, products like cigarettes and alcohol should be.
Revenues from the alcohol tax provide dedicated funding for healthcare services for more than 100,000 residents with behavioral health problems. Massachusetts has some of the highest rates of alcohol and drug abuse in the country – the last thing we need is to take money away from prevention and treatment services to make alcohol more accessible. The alcohol tax helps saves lives by reducing teen drinking and funding treatment services to help people beat addictions and get their lives back on track.
Nearly every state has a sales tax on alcohol in addition to excise taxes. Massachusetts faces a serious budget deficit; don’t give alcohol a special exemption.
Question 2: Repeal “Chapter 40B”
Question 2 would repeal the Massachusetts affordable housing law. No one is claiming that Chapter 40B is perfect, but the ballot question would not fix it or enact a better alternative. Rather, it would simply eliminate the existing law, thus leaving a serious legislative vacuum.
I join many members of the clergy, JALSA, and many, many other people and organizations in opposing this ballot question.
In contrast, there are no endorsers or backing organizations listed on the site supporting the question.
If they were transparent about who is backing them, and if they had put a question on the ballot mandating an alternative system for guaranteeing the construction of affordable housing, as opposed to merely suggesting on their Web site how the problem might be dealt with were 40B to be repealed, then I might consider supporting them. As it is, however, that’s simply out of the question.
It appears that the members of the “Coalition to Repeal Chapter 40B” are to a large extent organizations that formed to oppose specific Chapter 40B developments. In some cases, the developments they oppose are in the early enough stages that repealing 40B would shut them down. This looks like classic NIMBY.
Question 3: Roll back the income tax to 3%
This question is spearheaded by Carla Howell, who is, to be frank, one of Massachusetts’s most prominent nutcase Libertarians. It is difficult to take seriously anything she says or does.
The state simply cannot afford to cut revenue by $2.5 billion.
Even were this ballot question to pass, the legislature would have no choice but to pass new legislation restoring the previous tax rates, because the Commonwealth would be simply unable to operate on the amount of revenue Howell seems to think is appropriate.
Treasurer Candidate Karyn Polito has an interesting take on the sales tax: 6.25% is too high but 3% is too low. She’s planning on voting for the reduction, and then immediately calling on the legislature to bring the rate back to 5%. See http://www.wickedlocal.com/masspoliticsvideo/x115381371/Treasurer-Candidate-Karyn-Polito-meets-with-The-Patriot-Ledger?page=1
One last thing, the Beacon Hill Institute in this debate is no less credible than the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, which, since inception, has consistently lobbied against any tax cut initiatives, no matter how small. Some taxpayer foundation that is. And for a leftist paper like the Globe to publish the article I referred to, there must be some credibility to it.
NB – I am typically democratic-leaning, and I supported Patrick four years ago, on the presumption that republicans no longer had the high ground when it comes to fiscal resposibility. But enough is enough.
One last thing, the Beacon Hill Institute in this debate is no less credible than the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation,
This is hardly relevant, since whatever the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has to say about this ballot question has nothing to do with my opinion about it, whereas you cited the BHI study in support of your opinion. Having said that…
which, since inception, has consistently lobbied against any tax cut initiatives, no matter how small.
This is not true: http://www.masstaxpayers.org/publications/public_finance/taxes/20000301/ballot_questions_mtf_unveils_alternative_tax_cut_plan_opp
And for a leftist paper like the Globe to publish the article I referred to, there must be some credibility to it.
This isn’t true either. The Globe, and other papers, publish studies and press releases from all over the map, and that’s all this article was — a press release put out by the BHI through the State House Press Service.
Jik, I’m not a US citizen (yet) so you have the upper hand on me here – I can’t vote, even though I have to pay taxes. I’m the prime example of taxation without representation. 🙂
I must say that you usually argue your cases better. I for one don’t think that people who drink responsibly should have to pay for substance abuse treatment programs. If you are of the opinion that this cost should be carried by taxpayers (which I’m personally not sold on), at the very least it should be carried by ALL taxpayers equally. Most states have either an excise tax OR a sales tax on alcohol. As it stands Massachusetts is double-taxing alcohol.
I agree with your opinion on the second question, and with your comments about Carla Howell, although those are hardly an argument to vote against question 3. While I agree that cutting sales tax to 3% is a little drastic, I think it’s time to send a message that the wasteful spending on Beacon Hill has to stop. Patrick has done nothing to cut unnecessary spending. Instead he has repeatedly opted to raise taxes and fees, and now he is trying to blackmail people into voting no on Q3 by telling them that it’s going to result in cuts to local aid, teachers and emergency services. When you look at the budget, it is actually quite easy to cut 2.5 billion without touching any of these. Moreover, the budget gap as a result of the sales tax cut would not be 2.5B, but closer to 2B if you take into account the boost to the economy. Last but not least, if the sales tax cut indeed results in a cut to local aid, I would support an increase in local property taxes to restore the resulting local budget deficits. That way, at least we get to decide how to spend the money on a local level instead of having Patrick waste it.
I for one don’t think that people who drink responsibly should have to pay for substance abuse treatment programs.
Great, then let’s tax the people who drink irresponsibly.
Oh, wait, that’s what we’re already doing! See, if you tax alcohol, then the more alcohol you drink, the more tax you pay. And the more alcohol you drink, the more likely it is that you are drinking irresponsibly.
The percentage of alcohol drinkers who are irresponsible drinkers is far higher than the percentage of the general population (i.e., both those who drink significant amounts of alcohol and those who don’t) who are irresponsible drinkers. Taxing alcohol drinkers to pay for substance abuse programs is therefore an extremely effective method of placing more of the responsibility for those programs on the people who cause them to be needed.
Not everyone who smokes cigarettes gets cancer, and yet there’s pretty much universal agreement that cigarette taxes are a reasonable way to raise money for stop-smoking campaigns and programs.
Not everyone who buys health insurance gets majorly sick. And yet there’s pretty much universal agreement that health insurance is a reasonable mechanism for spreading the costs of treatment for major illnesses among many people.
Not everyone who buys car insurance has a major car accident. And yet there’s pretty much universal agreement that car insurance is a reasonable mechanism for spreading the cost of major accidents among all drivers.
This is no different.
Most states have either an excise tax OR a sales tax on alcohol. As it stands Massachusetts is double-taxing alcohol.
This is incorrect. All but five states charge sales tax on alcohol, and the vast majority of states also charge excise taxes. See http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html .
You’re welcome to argue and disagree with me on my blog, but please do me the courtesy of not making claims that are objectively not true.
When you look at the budget, it is actually quite easy to cut 2.5 billion without touching any of these.
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2010/10/24
Everybody says it’s easy to find waste to cut. The problem is that they usually can’t be bothered to name any specific programs to put on the chopping block, and when they do, they usually discover that the programs they consider “waste” are not perceived as such by half the population, if not more.
Moreover, the budget gap as a result of the sales tax cut would not be 2.5B, but closer to 2B if you take into account the boost to the economy.
Can you provide a citation for that statistic so that those of us who prefer to make decisions based on facts can properly evaluate its veracity? Considering that the state sales tax is only 6.25%, it’s hard to see how giving the state would get back 25% of $2.5 billion returned to the taxpayers. 25% is a lot more than 6.25%.
wrt point 1, I think you are making my point for me. EVERYONE pays car insurance, EVERYONE pays health insurance. So EVERYONE can also pay for substance abuse treatment, if it has to be paid for by tax payers.
The table you refer to does not indicate whether spirits tax is in addition or in lieu of sales tax or excise tax. It could mean anything. Also note that sales tax is significantly lower in most states.
With regards to point 3, you can refer to the web site http://www.rollbacktaxes.com for plenty of ideas. I won’t rehash them all here, but one I particularly like is an example of an audit done by the state of Iowa that identified 340M in savings on an annual budget of 6.2B. Apply that to the Massachusetts numbers and you’re pretty much there. Then cut a few people of Patrick’s personal staff and sell the curtains in his office, that should take care of the rest.
The 2B number actually comes from the Massachusetts budget office, and takes into account the jobs created and the boost to the economy by people staying in Massachusetts to buy their goods. I can’t find the link anymore, I’m sure it was conveniently removed from the website by one of Patrick’s minions. I’ll keep looking and I’ll post it here when I find it. I believe the exact number was 2.05B.
In short, my position is that the state should be increasing the number of taxpayers, not taxes.
sorry for multiposting, I should have looked a little longer. The amount is 2.08B and there was an article about it in the globe: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/10/16/sales_tax_cut_would_create_27199_jobs_study_says/. I also have to correct my assertion that it was the budget office itself, instead it was a study conducted by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University
The Beacon Hill Institute describes themselves as “Massaschusetts’ premier free-market think tank.”
In another of their studies, they concluded that federal health care reform is a “job killer.”
Then there’s the study in which they decried new green-energy mandates because they would cost Massachusetts utility ratepayers money. Studies like this always make me slap my forward and proclaim to myself, “Well, duh, nobody expected cleaning up the environment to be free.”
Jay Fitzgerald describes the Beacon Hill Institute as “conservative.”
So does Wikipedia, which also notes:
So forgive me for being somewhat unsurprised by, and suspicious of, claims from the Beacon Hill Institute that they can predict the future, and conveniently enough, it turns out the way they want it to if the people of Massachusetts vote the way their political slant would dictate on Question 3.
If it were the budget office which came up with those numbers, then yeah, we might have something to talk about. As it is, they’re not worth any more of my time than I’ve already given them typing this comment.
One more thing… Anyone who thinks that “it’ll create jobs in the private sector” or “it’ll actually only result in $2.08 billion of lost revenue rather than $2.5 billion” is a decent argument in favor of Question 3 is missing the point.
Those jobs created in the private sector would be at the expense of important government services.
And just because $2.08 billion, even if it’s an accurate number, is less than $2.5 billion doesn’t mean that it isn’t a whole heck of a lot of money taken away in one fell swoop from the government, which is stupid for the reasons I’ve previously explained.
wrt point 1, I think you are making my point for me.
On the contrary, I think you are totally missing mine.
EVERYONE pays car insurance,
No, people who drive pay car insurance. If you don’t engage in that potentially risky activity, you pay $zero to support others who are damaged by it. The parallel is, I think, patently obvious.
EVERYONE pays health insurance.
Um, no. Even with universal health care in Massachusetts, you can opt not to buy health insurance. Even with federal universal health care, you can opt not to buy health insurance. And guess what? If you make that choice, then it’s going to be a heck of a lot more difficult for you to get care you need.
Having said that, there is a clear, obvious reason why universal health care makes sense in a way that making everyone pay equally for alcohol abuse programs does not, and that is, quite simply, that everyone needs health care, and anyone can get sick or injured, whereas the only people who have any chance whatsoever of suffering from alcohol abuse are the people who drink alcohol.
The table you refer to does not indicate whether spirits tax is in addition or in lieu of sales tax or excise tax.
The per gallon alcoholic beverage rates in that table are all excise taxes. Sales taxes are not charged “per gallon,” obviously. And the five states that do not charge sales tax on alcohol are the five states that do not charge sales tax at all, as shown in that table. There is, as far as I know, no state which charges a sales tax on other things but not on alcohol. Massachusetts was the only one until it put the sales tax back on alcohol.
With regards to point 3, you can refer to the web site…
My previous comment applies here. Just because Carla Howell says that something is government waste doesn’t mean that it is. As I said before, every candidate who ever ran for office said they knew how to cut waste, and every single one of them discovered, once elected, that it was easier said than done.
I am not saying that there is no waste in government. Of course there is. I am not saying that none of Howell’s ideas have any merit. I’m sure some of them do (just as I’m sure some of them are overly dramatized, factually suspect hype). What I’m saying is that cutting the sales tax to 3% before cutting waste is putting the cart before the horse.
It wouldn’t result in an orderly elimination of waste from government. It would, instead, result in chaos and massive disruption to critical government services, at least until the legislature put it back the way it was, which they will most assuredly do, thus accomplishing nothing but wasting the legislature’s time (and money!) dealing with a stupid ballot question.
Question is pablum politics, not good policy.
Normally I would agree that an ‘orderly elimination of waste’ would be preferable. I just don’t see that happening with Patrick. I just see more waste being added. Look, I’m pretty sure that Patrick, if reelected, would simply ignore the passing of question 3. But I think it’s time to send a message. At the same time I happen to believe that it’s very possible to cut 2B from the state budget without impacting any essential services, and we’d all be better off because of it.
Wouter:
jik:
Actually, if you subscribe to that reasoning, then the logical course for funding the programs is via an increase in the alcohol tax (which is based on volume) rather than via the sales tax (which is based on retail cost).
However, given that alcoholism is a matter of genetic predisposition rather than of choice, and that there are many factors in society that cause even those who are not alcoholics to make bad choices, I do feel that those of us who want alcohol to be readily available so that we can drink responsibly should share the burden of dealing with the consequences of that ready availability on society. So I do think it’s fair that a component of the tax on alcohol be based on value rather than on volume.
So I do think it’s fair that a component of the tax on alcohol be based on value rather than on volume.
Yes, exactly.
I agree 100% on all accounts.