It’s Massachusetts’ version of the federal tax debate that bitterly divided Congress: Will tax increases of the kind recently proposed by Governor Deval Patrick help or hurt the local economy?
And much like the federal debate, economists disagree. Some support the governor’s plan, lauding it for creating jobs and making the state more attractive to businesses, while others object to raising taxes on the heels of federal tax increases.
Comments
This comment has been removed.
Gov Patrick needs 100 million to build the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal for the ocean wind turbines .This project was originally 35 million two yeras ago .It now looks like another Big Did because the governor has the SouthCoast rail project also going to New Bedford . The renewable energy goal of 2000 megawatts of power by 2020 is not going to happen. The towns of Scituate,Kingston,Fairhaven,Plymouth and Falmouth have thousands of noise complaints against commercial wind turbines . It looks more like SE Mass and Cape Cod will be going into class actin litigation against the state over property rights . These commercial wind turbine projects run by a semi quasi state agency the Mass Clean Energy Center are going to cost triple in legal fees - That's why they need the extra money !
Patrick's plan includes a rail connection between Fall River and Boston. There are buses now between Boston and Fall River that are more than half empty. It would be much cheaper to provide a limo and driver for every person traveling between Fall River and Boston than it would be to build this boondoggle. Patrick's plan also includes a rail link between Pittsfield and NYC. Even if the entire population of Pittsfield went to NYC every day, this line would lose money, and besides, if somebody in Pittsfield needs to go to the city, they go to Springfield or Albany, not NYC.
Yeah...I read that limo line from that wingnut Herald columnist too. Using it without attribution is ethically iffy though...not to mention that the Herald article, as usual, was crap...which I guess makes yours plagiarized crap.
But not incorrect kyriil.
This comment has been removed.
Article says: "Clayton-Matthews said unemployment in Massachusetts remains highest for those who hold a high school education or less, and the state will need qualified workers in preparation for an onslaught of retirements among baby boomers." Correction. "for an onslaught of retirements and exodus to lower tax states by baby boomers." An exodus that Gov. Patrick's plan will undoubtedly increase...
Where is your demography degree? Or at least your evidence of population changes that involve moves to lower tax states? Public policy decisions should not be made on opinions, but evidence.
Population and employment shifts to lower-tax states have been documented for decades. Add in the retiring baby boomers who move to Florida, South Carolina and the like, not just for the climate and the lower cost of living, but also for the lower estate tax rates. They want to leave their hard-earned savings to their children and grandchildren, not to a demonstrably wasteful state government.
In a state that can boast of Nobel Prize-winning economists, Ms. Woolhouse located only some obscure sources of opinion. The entire article reads like mechanized news--another Groundhog Day story. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - One previous comment attacks the proposed passenger-rail service between New Bedford and Boiston, and another does after the proposed rail service to Pittsfield. Actually, neither is really a likely prospect. The federal government turned down most "stimulus" funds for the New Bedford line, and Pittsfield has always looked like an exercise in nostaqlgia. They were both tokens of Lt. Gov. Murray's abandoned run for governor, and both are going down with his ship.
Governor Patrick laid out clearly what stands before the Commonwealth: if nothing is done to address the catastropically dysfunctional transportation system the state will suffer much more than the burden of increased taxes. Eastern Massachusetts is a disaster, transportation-wise, it's so bad that most people consider it perfectly normal to sit in their cars for hours on end in traffic gridlock. I look at people puddling along at 5 mph in their Mercedes, BMWs, and Lexus's, as I ride by them in my bicycle thinking, 'Geez, you look real smart in that $50,000 car right now, moving more slowly than this $500 bicycle!' One thing you can say about gridlock, it's the great equalizer! No car, however expensive, can do anything about it.
And we should believe Patrick why?
You don't have to take Governor Patrick at his word. Get out there and ride the congested roadways. Do you see room for an increase in cars in over the coming decades? Okay now ride the T at rush hour. Do you see the capacity for the additional passengers we will have to accomodate in the future. Ridership has increased drastically over the last few years.
If Eastern Massachusetts is to function at all (and the
The state has made a huge issue for years about how Amazon and other online merchants are screwing it out of sales taxes. Absurd numbers were bandied about regularly about how much revenue we were losing, numbers the Globe printed without question. Now, no sooner do they get Amazon to capitulate and agree to collect sales tax, they turn around and propose to slash the sales tax by nearly a third. Does anyone else think something smells fishy here?
Not thrilled about higher taxes (our household is in that >103K bracket), but I think the plan is a good start. I don't think the South Coast line is a good idea right now, but then I also think the gov put it in there just so that the legislature could cut something out and declare victory for the taxpayer. We need to resolve the T's budget situation fast, before it requires a federal bailout. And a top income tax rate of 6.25%, while higher than some, is not unreasonable -- compare that to New York's 8.82% or Vermont's 8.95%.
As for moving to other states because of the tax rate -- I don't think that's a concern for the near future. We're not at California tax levels yet, the jobs are in MA, and investment in transportation infrastructure is what will keep them in MA.
"We're not at California tax levels yet, the jobs are in MA, and investment in transportation infrastructure is what will keep them in MA"
Mcubed and his ilk need to talk to folks in Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Nevada and ask where new residents in those states are coming from.
"We're not at California tax levels yet, the jobs are in MA, and investment in transportation infrastructure is what will keep them in MA"
Mcubed and his ilk need to talk to folks in Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Nevada and ask where new residents in those states are coming from.
Let's ask the folks in areas like Northwest Massachusetts how they feel about paying more taxes for improved public transportation systems for which they will recieve zero benefits.
And MassPike riders how they feel about paying tolls that don't just go for the MassPike but for other debts as well.
talk about shortsighted. I barely use the T but I recognize its importance to the state's economy and our living standards
Dear Associated Industries of Massachusetts,
I've worked in the software industry for ten years, and I can safely say I have never heard an engineer even suggest the idea of moving to another state because of its lower tax rates. It's just not part of the equation. The only states we are seriously at risk of losing engineers to are New York and California. Both states with higher tax burdens than our own.
Most engineers I've met would never even consider moving to states with a lower tax burden because those states usually have inferior transit systems and other public infrastructure.
To me the main shortcoming of this plan is that our enfeebled congress is forcing it to be paid for on a state level, which means the tax increases must come now, during the recession, rather than later on when the economy has recovered, thus significantly hindering its effectiveness as a stimulus. Also annoying is the lack of graduated income tax in Massachusetts, which hobbles our ability to separate taxes from the well-off and gainfully employed (who could certainly afford it) from those who are just getting by.
Once you're established is an entirely different world than starting out. Both of my computer-scientist sons moved to Seattle--good transportation system (system wide pass paid for by their employer), high sales, but no income tax, and most, if not all, of the amentities of a first class city, not to mention a place where apartment houses looking for renters advertise their included download speeds. Recreational opportunities abound. They neither own nor need cars. How well this will work out if they marry and decide to have children, I don't know; if the majority in their position do so, tax burdens will probably rise, and it might become a whole new ballgame.
For the record, I do agree that graduated taxes make for a fairer system, even if I appear to be a shill for Washington state; I think they've gone the exactly opposite directiion with the high sales tax, although it certainly saves individuals and the state time and paperwork.
exaqctly, ericherot.
Be serious. People have little left to give. Why not cut graft and bloated MA Gov first- there are a lot of savings to be had there..
The only thing that is split , is the IQ. Those who want higher taxes and thinks it will work, have no IQ.
Having met the man, I can assure you that Allan Clayton-Mathews has an IQ. Comments like these represent everything that is wrong with our current political climate - it is neither a well reasoned critique nor a polite one.
and mtnhxc, it's par for the course among the righties who write everyday on these boards
The difference between the economists reflect a difference assumptions and in time horizon. If we spend more money on education and if the money produces highly educated workers and if those workers don't leave MA after graduation, then Deval's plan could have a positive effect in ten or twenty years. However, if he jacks up taxes on productive, higher-income employees, then in the next few years some or perhaps many existing residents and new graduates will leave for greener pastures.
Sorry for the typos in my comment. I have to get back to work.
And as those productive, higher-income employees (and employers also will no doubt leave), they'll take with them their high-achieving children. As their kids are inarguably among our better students, MA's educational output could well decline despite more spending.
“I think it’s really positive in terms of the impact it will have,” Northeastern University economist Alan Clayton-Matthews said of Patrick’s proposal, citing the benefits of a better-educated workforce. Maybe, but would you believe a guy who couldn't make up his mind about his last name. Ok, ok, maybe it was his parents fault, but he should have changed it by now.
boy is that convincing logic
@rwc2 - isn't it?
Go ahead and raise the income tax. We could spend the entire $1.9 billion on rooting out corruption in Mass state government and the public sector. Come to think of it, that probably wouldn't be enough.
Every nickle will be squandered on pensions , health insurance for state employees and expansin of the state government. This is a continuation of a never ending cycle . The only attractivness here is t the politicians The working class will have less and less .
Stop this now. Tell everyone you know.!!!
There is not one single dime of my hard earned income that I would trust with Deval and this state government. I thought that the tolls were supposed to pay for road repair? I thought that my exporbitant excise tax was supposed to pay for road repair? I though that the gas tax was supposed to pay for road repair? WRONG WRONG AND WRONG AGAIN! These taxes (and ANY new ones in the future) are going to be imposed to pay for the BLOATED beaurocracy that is Mass. state government AND NOTHING ELSE! It ain't gonna end taxpayers and YOU DESERVE IT!, for continuing to vote into office these frauds. Good luck.
Heh, you mean all those 'targeted taxes' aren't put in a lockbox?