Last week, Governor Patrick proposed increasing the income tax and eliminating over $1.25 billion worth of deductions to “support our schools and our highways and byways, and do it for every corner of our Commonwealth.” But his proposal isn’t just a net increase in taxes. It also involves significant redistribution. The income-tax hike would be coupled with two changes that shift the tax burden away from lower-income families: a 1.75-cent reduction in the sales tax and a doubling of the personal exemption.
Patrick’s two-pronged proposal deserves a two-pronged analysis: First, should the government spend more? Second, should the Massachusetts tax code become more progressive? On the latter point, playing Robin Hood at the local level could be dangerous, because businesses and prosperous residents can relocate so easily.
Comments
Re-distribution of wealth is a progressives dream, the problem is the people or businesses can relocate, means lower revenues. It happened in Maryland a few years ago, they were sratching their heads when the revenue didn't rise, some moved out. I'm sure that will happen here also.
They moved to Virginia and Virginia now has a worse transportation situation than we do. Virginians are unwilling to raise money for roads or transit but are suffering with worsening congestion and deteriorating roads. We can do better.
I find it interesting that some have described his proposal as courageous as he is now a lame-duck Governor who claims he will never run for public office again. What is so courageous about that?
This comment has been removed.
Yes, the tax code should be more progressive, so that Massachusetts can make more progress. When we give more opportunity to everyone, not just favors and easy tax breaks to the top, then the prosperity is broad-based and longer-lasting.
Personally I'd be happy moving to New Hampshire and thumbing my nose at Deval Patrick.
Go. Nothing's stopping you. I just hope we get a commuter tax soon, too. NH can keep to itself.
If you find employment in NH you would certainly be able to thumb your nose, but you would still have MA income tax withheld if you continued to work here, and you would be expected to file as a non-resident.
The proposed taxes are moderate when compared nationwide.
This is the best-educated state in the country. Somehow, I think we'll be okay.
A move toward leveling the playing field, is not playing Robin Hood.
Governor Patrick's ideas are sound. That includes higher income taxes, and taxing soda and candy, which are major reasons for the epidemic of obesity and diabetes that is driving up our healthcare costs - for all of us.
But while I personally almost never use the T, I believe T riders should be encouraged, not hit with still higher fares. Why should T riders pay for the diversion of funds from the MBTA towards paying for the Big Dig?
Everyone who takes the train instead of the car is keeping the air cleaner, and the roads less congested. I believe T fares need to go down, not up.
Seriously? A tax on candy and soda? Patrick's ideas sound? Tax everything. Fee for everything. Ban guns, ban water bottles,ban plastic bags, hell they want to ban chic-fil-a in Boston. Let's raise the gas tax, excise tax, property tax, tolls, sales tax (do you really think this will get lowered?), income tax. Tax, tax, tax. How about cutting spending and corruption first? Not here. Not ever. SAT had it right. People are fleeing from this area.
One need only look at the results of the last Congressional reapportionment to see what the results of higher state taxes are. Those states with low taxes are growing, gaining more citizens and increasing their representation in Congress. Those states with high taxes, like Massachusetts, are shrinking and losing representation in Congress. The net effect is a death spiral - high tax states lose both taxpaying citizens and the clout in Washington to bring in more federal dollars. It's no accident, within just the past week, North Carolina and three other states have called for eliminating their state income tax. They know what most people do - raising taxes increases the incentives for both business and people to leave a state.
google it. according a Wall St. Journal article the biggest difference in tax burdens: states with lower taxes paid by their residents are those dependent on the oil industry and mining -- Texas, La, Alaska, Wyoming -- and tourism, Nevada, Alaska again-- and hence get their taxes from non'residents. The average state gets 75% of their taxes from residents, those low-tax ones get half or less from residents -- Alaska only 24%. Also, no many how many times it is repeated it doesn't make it true. Massachusetts is not shrinking; its population is growing, just not as fast as some other states.
Funny that you don't mention either New Hampshire or Florida - both which have NO income tax and are also the places many Mass. esidents move to.
Another wealthy not pay their fair shareif taxes article from Eddie G. Yeah I want our kids to be as dumb as those kids in crappy schools in low tax states. Little Ed, and all the whiney Wealthy, think this. It costs more to drive a BMW. Our school system is the BMW of the country. Why do people pay more for a BMW? Cause it's worth the money.
Hey, everyone else is regressive, we should be regressive, too.
Mr. Glaeser, I bet you would have been a happy slave owner 200 years ago - and written proudly about it.
The slave-owner comment is absolutely unwarranted.
In mathematics, the easiest way to refute or confirm a proposition is often testing extremes. Mr Glaeser uses an absurd argument to support his hypothesis - I simply carried his argument a step further. And his mentality CERTAINLY DOES indicate that he would have favored an unjust, but ingrained, social order 200 years ago.
"absolutely unwarrented"? I dont think so.
Does Dr. Glaeser realize that Massachusetts is one of the only states in the nation that does not have a graduated income tax? Does Dr. Glaeser in fact realize that when all taxes are taken into consideration low income Massachusetts families pay a much higher share of their income in taxes than the wealthy - in fact almost double? The current tax policies for Massachusetts are already redistributive: they redistribute from the poor to the rich. Dr. Glaeser is certainly a smart man and surely knows this. He apparently likes it that way.
From the poor to the rich? What's life like in fantasyland?
actually, soxdem, Glaeser's column already pointed out exactly that: that the poor pay twice as high a percentage of their income in state taxes as the wealthy. As for incredible, it's no use arguing facts with him, since he lives in rightwing fantasy land.
So people will move beause they have to pay an extra 1K? The moving van will cost $1500. Doesnt make sense.
No, people are moving because they would have to pay 6.25% income tax in MA instead of no income tax in states like New Hampshire and Florida. Don't take my word for it - look it up. It IS happening, no matter how much you might like to think otherwise.
Are we at a tipping point? As wealth and power is shifted from the private sector to the public sector, the private sector is weakened and the public sector is strengthened. The more powerful public sector is, therefore, able to extract more, in the form of taxes, from a weaker private sector. As the public sector grows, more people benefit from government services and these beneficiaries are more likely to accept additional tax increases and the politicians who support them. And so it goes. What we're witnessing, both in Massachusetts and nationwide, is a fundamental shift from a free enterprise system to European-style socialism.
If it is not clear to you that corporations and the ultrawealthy elite are actually running the show, then there is no hope for you.
The power and influence of the ultrawealthy elite and the corporations is waning. The power and influence of the government is increasing. Since there are far more people who benefit from government largesse than there are wealthy people, this trend will continue.
It just won't work. Yes, the wealthier, excluding small businesses, should pay more. That is just common sense. The funds collected will never be used for its intended purpose. It never is. How about a contract with the tax payers that the add'l funds being collected are actually used for the intended purpose with bi annual published reports of the funds dispersed and the results achieved?
If there were accountability to the tax payer who carries this tax burden, you probably would attract people to the state.the gov.'s proposal specifically would designate all sales taxes to infrastructure and transportation.
Progressive tax = progressively punitive.
Has the governor, the commonwealth and many local governments earned the right to ask for more money? Have they been prudent stewards of the funds we already pay? Patrick's lofty ideals cannot overcome his administration's poor management execution which in my opinion undermine his credibility to ask for more money. Evergreen Technologies, Probabtion dept., Drug lab, Greenway salaries, questionable MBTA procurment and leadership selections, housing authorities stealing money, EBT fraud and on it goes. Should we funnel more money into a state governmnet that doesn't exhibit any respect for those who earn it?
Nicely put, NativeBos. You can bet that the 7 people who clicked the dislike button are in a position to benefit from additional public sector spending. The higher the taxes, the highter their income, the better they like it.
Re: Income/Sales taxes .. When I moved to MA just over 10 years ago .. I was shocked to learn that the state income tax was flat (i.e. not progressive) .. Further that it was mandated to be flat by the MA constitution .. I am told that past efforts to change this provision failed .. All flat taxes are regressive .. So I for one welcome Gov. Patrick's proposal to remedy this issue and reduce the 'regressive' taxes paid by lower income families/seniors .. By reducing the sales tax and increasing the personal deduction ..
Re: Education .. I agree with Dr. Glaeser on this one
Re: Infrastructure .. Safe reliable transportation is critical to acheiving and maintaining a vibrant economy .. Delays, road induced vehicle damage, lack of reliable and broadly available mass transit costs us in productivity, repair costs and negatively impacts our environment .. Further, I've read that infrastructure outlays return 2.5X for every dollar spent .. And the mix of tax reductions for those with the lowest incomes together with the jobs created by the infrastructure programs will help to insure that the Commonwealth continues to prosper
Together Gov. Patrick's proposal will insure not only the health of the Commonwealth's economy .. But insure that MA remains high of the list of locations that corporations consider when considering relocations given not only our strong, well educated work force .. But also the enabling infrastructure critical to the proper functioning of a corporation as well as the MA economy on the whole
Arlington, MA
exactly, thinkingdem, only I'm a Mass native.
re: infrastructure Look, added "revenue" aka TAXES, will NOT go where it is intended, some of it MAYBE, but the bulk of it and more and more of it in the future, will go to fund the general beaurocracy of the "machine". We've done this dance many times over, tolls were supposed to pay for the maintenance of the pike, then the excise tax was supposed to do the trick, then the ever increasing gas tax was the final solution. BS. The problem with Mass. is that the politicians know when they have stooges to sling their BS to and boy do they have a MASSIVE audience now.
Here's one BIG problem with Deval's proposed tax increase and the Globe's and Edward Glaeser's reporting of it. As reported by a REAL newspaper, the WSJ in today's editorial, "The state's REAL spending driver is the EXPLODING cost of RomneyCare. Last August Beacon Hill was forced to impose new price controls and a cap on overall state health spending because "health care has crowded out key public investments", as Mr. Patrick puts it in his budget. health care has risen to 41% of the MA budget for 2013. ...In addition, the State Constitution says that the MA income tax is a flat tax on EVERYBODY. It cannot be made "progressive" by changing the personal exemption.
The governor's inability to exhibit prudent management skills undermines his credibility to ask for more money. Regardless of where one stands on taxes, the fact is he and his extended management team are inept.