Hey, there! Log in / Register
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.
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
I left Boston a couple years ago
I left Boston a couple years ago as part of the Free State Project. I still work in the Boston area. But, I moved to Salem, NH. It was a great decision for me. Taxes and fees have just gotten to high is MA. I don't think that this is the last company that will be leaving MA soon. There are rumors that a number of the financial companies in the Boston area planning to move to the Manchester, NH area. Here's the URL for more info if you're thinking about leaving too: http://freestateproject.org/
Wait, what?
Wait a second. If you work in Boston, you (and your employer) still pay MA income/sales/corporate tax. And if you live in New Hampshire, you're paying NH property tax. You have, in fact, managed to end up in the worst possible situation tax-wise.
Also, I fully support the idea of all self-identified libertarians walling themselves off in one place. I would rather it be further away than NH, though, since the inevitable collapse and ensuing Mad-Max-style free-for-all resulting from fully-privatized police, fire, and transportation services is likely to affect the Bay State, too.
But it's lurbirty!
Derp!
Yeah, after one does the math it's not much cheaper living in NH unless you move into one of the townships. MA and NH are side by side in how much their governments take from their residents, they just different in the details of HOW they do so.
Property owners in NH get creamed, while Renter's end up better off. It's kept the McMansions at bay, but it's still nothing to gloat about.
As for the Liberty project fools...
Um, property taxes tend to be
Um, property taxes tend to be lower in NH than in Boston and the towns that border it. Pay tends to be about the same in NH and MA. NH has no wage tax, no general sales tax, the lowest alcohol taxes in the US and so on. People in NH tend to pay less taxes than people in MA plus several taxes are being cut this year in NH, http://www.cheneyco.com/nh=lowesttaxes.cfm
You seem to be confused.
You seem to be confused. Unlike Massachusetts, New Hampshire has a state property tax on top of the local property tax, making property taxes in New Hampshire about third highest in the country.
Services
Taxes in general may be low, but you get what you pay for. Well, actually that's not true, because many times you pay a whole damn lot and get precious little for it, but definitely if you pay little you will get little.
I mean if the answer to "what if gas gets too expensive for the drive to work?" is "I'll take the commuter rail," well not if everyone in Mass stops paying their taxes or makes the decision to defund public transit (which is what plenty of anti-govt types want). I'm not clear as to the Libertarian position on public transit, and we can't equate free staters or Libertarians one-to-one with Tea-Partiers, GOPers or the various franchises of conservatives, but we do know that those later groups have adopted the "no govt is good govt" mantra and are therefore against socialist control experiments like public transit (that's what Cato Institute researchers consider public transit to be).
Just curious, what are the demographics of the Libertarian party? Has any of their message resonated at all with poor people, minorities, immigrants or any non-white, middle class groups? (That's not a facetious question .. it's a lazy one, considering I could try to find the answer myself via Google -- but why bother given the power of the UHub Collective-Mind?)
I Can Only Answer From Personal Experience
No data, just my observations from time spent at conventions, party functions, as a board member, etc.
The majority are male and white. The gap between male and female members is not huge, while the gap between white and non-white members is. Having said that, it's not as though there weren't any black, Hispanic, or other minorities involved. My campaign manager for my 1992 state rep race was an African-American, for instance. I could cite many more minority party members, but I fear it will come off sounding like a "some of my best friends are...", and that wouldn't give the correct picture. I cannot recall a single instance of anyone being discriminated against because of race, ethnic origin, sexual identity, gender, or otherwise sometimes societal polarizing factor, during my entire time in the party. That's not to say unequivocally it doesn't exist, but I never saw any.
Poor folk? I could have possibly qualified when I joined. I lived in a run-down section of Dorchester down the street from Mattapan Square; rented my living quarters, rather than owned a house; worked as a security guard, getting about $6 an hour; and drove a 1981 Oldsmobile (this was in 1992.) I didn't have two nickels to rub together insofar as savings was concerned, and I had just recently kicked a four year cocaine habit. I surely wasn't rich, in any case. However, more of the membership were above-average in earnings than not, that I'm fairly certain about. They tended to be computer geeks, on the cutting edge of technological advancements, and that put them in good stead for the time period.
The one demographic that always stood out, to me, was that there appeared to be a high percentage of openly gay, lesbian, and transgendered individuals active in the party. I always considered this the way it should be, and I never understood why folks who had been oppressed by laws created by the two major parties would think the place to find their freedom was from those same entities. I mean, I understand that you need to go where the power is in order to get some for yourself, but...
Anyway, that's how I saw things. I hope this helps. I'd be interested in seeing any statistics that either back up or blow up my personal recollections.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
It's the short term capital
It's the short term capital gains tax at 12.5% that made up most of my state tax bill when I lived in MA. I still have to pay 5% of my MA income. But, I don't have to pay capital gains taxes to the state. I also run a small business (6 employees) on the side in NH. I don't have to pay any MA state taxes on my income from that business, of course.
Nice website... BUSTED
If a bunch of loons (and I use that term as somebody who grew up shooting and owned 5 guns) who practice "open carry" want to live on their secluded 100-acre lots, leaving only to cruise the strip malls and outlet stores for bargains, that's their business.
Let's just call this what it is, though: a half-assed attempt to get 20,000 Tea Party libertarian voters to move into one of the nation's smallest electorates. They want to carve-out a little Glen Beck fiefdom over there (if I recall, a group of conservative Christians tried to do the same thing a year or two ago with South Carolina--moving a bunch of Christians in from all over to colonize the place).
Why New Hampshire? Well, if they're going to make their impact felt, that's 20,000 whackos thrown into the nation's first presidential primary, 20,000 well-placed whackos who could force GOP candidates to run further to the right if they want to survive New Hampshire. Basically, this little fulcrum allows 20,000 people to push the entire GOP in a more conservative direction.
Tea Baggers? More like CARPET BAGGERS.
More Conservative?
"Basically, this little fulcrum allows 20,000 people to push the entire GOP in a more conservative direction."
I don't believe you're wholly correct. From what I know of this, yes, some things they favor would be considered conservative, but most involved are more libertarian than conservative. Thus, we're looking at looser drug laws, more open borders, less military involvement overseas, and many other stances not usually identified with conservatives.
The fulcrum part is correct.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Libertarian border views
I wouldn't exactly call Libertarian position as favoring "more open borders." Ironically they look back on history and favor things like the bracero guest worker program which relies on central government policy to maintain a lower working class so that products can be maintained at a low price. Not an open border but a selectively permeable border that requires that some of those that get through are treated differently than those that are already here.
Libertarians typically favor less government and market-based solutions when the effects do not fall on them. The philosophy works better in a world where you can actually go out to the frontier and live on your own -- completely depending on your own capabilities for everything. New Hampshire doesn't cut it.
My Experience Informed My Opinion
John-W:
I was heavily involved in Libertarian politics for quite some time. I was a candidate for state rep in MA in 1992, later managed races for such offices as Auditor and Governor, served a term as state chair of the party, was a delegate to national conventions, served on the state committee, served on local town committees, wrote a monthly newsletter, and otherwise totally burned myself out trying to get the party to understand that political success has to involve some compromise. I am no longer officially affiliated with the party, either locally or nationally, and even my voter registration in MA is now "unenrolled" as opposed to L.
Anyway, the stances I listed above were those that immediately came to mind as readily identifiable as Libertarian Party staples. I'll grant you that the "open borders" one was mostly brought to mind due to my personal interactions with various presidential candidates and national committee people, and not because it has (to my knowledge) been part of any official plank in the platform. As with some other issues (abortion, for instance) there is some strong disagreement among Libertarians just as there is in the population as a whole. For the majority, though, I believe "open borders" would be a reasonable way to describe their feelings toward immigration.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Problem is
These are not the libertarians you're looking for. Move along.
(Teabaggers in drag are not libertarians)
Respectfully, I'd say that
Respectfully, I'd say that their overall tone is conservative. They talk about the unabated "growth of government and taxes." If that's not unabashed, garden variety, small-government conservatism (the kind Reagan paid lip service to), I don't know what is. The vague emphasis on "responsibility" is more conservative rhetoric, something conservatives never really define in context (but, gee, it sure sounds nice). Also, their desire for "Constitutional Federalism" says a lot. Tea Party poster child Rand Paul, you may remember, tried to make an argument that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional Federal overreach. He backed-off a bit when that statement blew up in his face, but that's honestly what a lot of these Federalist Society types believe. They want ideological purity first and foremost, but somehow this ideological purity always winds up benefitting those with cash and influence and stepping on the less fortunate. "Freedom" that always seems to help the rich get richer, that rolls back social progress, is just a means to the same old end.
You're certainly right that it's libertarian, but I would argue that it's only libertarian-flavored conservatism. Look at the Tea Party. Early on, a lot of their rhetoric was about personal responsibility and freedom. Then, the GOP powers-that-be got involved. Now, the Tea Party advocates freedom--for corporations to ignore environmental regulations, for banks to ignore financial regulations, and for the rich to pay fewer taxes. Rather than blame the banks that started this mess, they use "personal responsibility" as a cudgel to pin the recession on people who, misguided though they were, were just trying to buy homes. Basically, they got co-opted by the big money establishment. I think anybody who sees this as a chance to start some live-and-let-live utopia is fooling themsleves about what, and who, they're dealing with; they're being taken advantage of. I'd love to see who backs these goofballs financially and organizationally.
Also, less military
Also, less military involvment overseas has long been a bedrock conservative priciple. Bush and Co. were neo-cons, not old school conservatives. All throughout the 90's, Pat Buchanan and other conservative talking heads spoke and wrote a lot about how we couldn't go around being "the world's policeman," making a lot of noise about George Washington's admonition to avoid foreign entanglements. If anything, Dubya's presidency separated the conservative wheat from the chaff--a lot of these 90s isolationists did a 180 when a Republican came into office, and only a few die-hards, people more interested in ideological purity than political expediency, stood on the margins and said it wasn't our job to strut around the globe engaging in nationbuilding.
Well...
Well, we have to define our terms. Conservative, Old School Conservative, Neo-Con, Libertarian... that's what I was getting at, so we're not totally in disagreement, by any means. To just label this particular movement as "conservative" isn't wholly correct, right? That was my point.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Agreed--generally speaking.
Agreed--generally speaking.
Except that Libertarians have
Except that Libertarians have teamed up with Republicans. It is very difficult to take "Libertarians" the least bit seriously when they are allied with authoritarians. Republicans are busy trying to force their religious and cultural values on everyone else. That doesn't sound libertarian in the least. Republicans only hate government that does things they don't like personally, such as helping the poor. But when it comes to starting unnecessary wars, promoting Christianity, or prosecuting a massively failed war on drugs, Republicans are more than happy to borrow and spend.
There's a word for Libertarians who support the Republican party: hypocrites.
You Bet
"There's a word for Libertarians who support the Republican party: hypocrites."
Mostly correct. However, when one finds allies in a battle, it's best to join with them rather than tell them to screw. That's a lesson I tried to impart to my L brothers and sisters, many times, but they were too busy purging the party of anyone not ideologically pure (which, it seems, you might do given the same circumstances.)
The idea is to pick your battles. Nothing wrong with teaming up with those who wish to abolish a tax if you yourself wish to abolish that same tax. Likewise, nothing wrong with joining with those who wish to legalize marijuana if you wish to do so, too.
The tough part is to distinguish yourself enough from those you've joined so that people who don't know what they're talking about won't accuse you of selling out completely.
Rest assured, those who consider themselves Libertarians are not looking to promote the Republican Party. They are looking to promote those ideas upon which both they and Republicans agree, same as they will when they find areas of agreement with Democrats or others.
By the way, why is it that Libertarians (or other lesser party partisans) should be expected to be pure in their stances while Democrats and Republicans can have wide variance? I've never quite understood that line of reasoning.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
There's a difference between
There's a difference between compromise and exploitation, however, and libertarians are being exploited by conservatives. Those who break from the Republican party line are marginalized.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/12/where-do-lib...
Brink Lindsey's essay basically sums up how I feel, including:
The atrocious quality of the follow-up "counterargument" by Goldberg and Kibbe is indicative of how deeply the conservative infection has spread into libertarian thinking.
Brink Lindsey (and Will Wilkerson) subsequently "departed" from the Cato Institute, amidst speculation that they were forced out.
Nice.
Nice.
If anything, there is a LOT
If anything, there is a LOT of pressure on both Democrats and Republicans to be "pure" these days.
Moderate Republicans have either been severely marginalized or squeezed-out entirely. Anybody who's not an across-the-board conservative has been labeled a RINO, "Republican in name only," by conservative media. Simply put, you can't be a Republican without being a conservative these days--you'd be laughed out of your own party.
As for the Democrats, consider that one of the major political story lines over the last couple years has been Obama vs. the Democratic base. Two years in and we're still going like gangbusters in Afghanistan, Gitmo's still open, the Bush tax cuts were extended, and the huge bonuses given to bankers on our dime have yet to be returned. Healthcare reform is pretty much the only liberal policy initiative he's gotten passed, and the tidal wave of liberal euphoria that accompanied his election has ebbed to a trickle. Basically, all he has to do is stay just left of the far right and Dems are stuck voting for him by default (with bitter memories of Nader in 2000 still fresh, nobody has the cajones to bolt for a liberal 3rd party candidate). It's like a bad relationship--since he knows we're too battered to leave him, he's not returning our calls anymore because he's busy engaging in heavy petting with the political center. It's like Clinton all over again. From Welfare reform to balancing the budget, I think one of my profs back in undergrad was right when he called Clinton the most successful Republican president in recent memory. Like Clinton, Obama has managed to divorce himself from his party's left wing base. Whatever else has happened to Dick Morris' career, he can rest assured that "triangulation" appears to be alive and well.
As an aside: I'll say this
As an aside: I'll say this for the far right (aka the GOP base)--as of late, they've refused to let themselves be triangulated. Any Repub who drifts toward the center in the slightest is dead politically.
Wouldn't the far left love
Wouldn't the far left love that power?
"Republicans fear their base..."
David Frum's quote that "Republicans fear their base and Democrats hate their base" sums it up pretty well.
True, But I Wish To Clarify
My gripe is that folks will look over whatever information they can find on the Libertarian Party and when they spot one stance they disagree with, they say that they could never support such a political organization and walk away. Meanwhile, I'd theorize that the majority of people who label themselves either Democrat or Republican have at least one serious disagreement with either party policy or the stated goals of some candidates, yet they remain.
I realize there are certain "dealbreaker" issues for some people with more at stake than others (abortion, gay rights, foreign war involvement, or whatever) but I've always felt that the party which best represents the majority of your personal viewpoints should be the one you call home. The Democrat and Republican parties seem to get that call, but not the LP (or any other smaller party, for that matter.)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Wait, what?
The FSP has nothing to do with the Tea Party. The FSP is well over a decade old. The public announcement was in July of 2001. The Tea Party is a new bit of nonsense, created in the last couple years.
The only thing that FSP members agree on is:
"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."
That means rule by religious fundamentalists, just as much as it means no rule by the nanny state.
Yes, gun rights are important. So are low taxes. But Freestaters were integral to getting civil unions, and then gay marriage passed in NH. How do you think "Becky" would feel about that? Freestaters have been fighting for privacy rights, fighting back against Bush's ill-named "Patriot Act," and pushing for decriminalization of marijuana, as well as medical marijuana laws. Think the Tea Party folks would be happy with that?
Ever see the bumper sticker, "Libertarians: We're Pro-Choice On Everything"?
I have a number of friends who have encountered Tea Party nuts at events, and all they've been able to report on the matter is that nearly all Tea Party members seem to hate Freestaters.
Hows that $4 a gallon gas
Working out for ya?
It would be nice if it only
It would be nice if it only cost $1/gal. But, it would have to get near $18/gal before the move stopped making fiscal sense.
I'd probably just start taking commuter rail instead of moving back to MA if it got that high, though. Or, negotiate with my employer to work from home most days.
At least . . .
. . . they stay in New England.
Anybody know
What Fidelity does in Marlboro? i.e, what kind of jobs are being shipped out of state? I'm pretty sure that they have a data center in Merrimack, not sure what they had going in Marlboro. That's an awful lot of jobs to be dropping. Also gotta wonder what kind of impact it will have on the local tax base.
Call center
There's a call center for death, retirement, and other insurance businesses. There is CS for online issues, and I believe a bunch of other benefits-related customer service type-stuff. Not so much the investment side, I think.
They do a little advising and
They do a little advising and do a lot of IT work too. Calculating pension funds, data analyst and research, ect. I have a buddy that will be moving Manchester because of it.
Love those MA tax credits
Let me do the math: we give tax credits to encourage companies to move here while other companies that are already here bail out.
I don't want any tax credits for anyone, but the irony of this can't be overstated.
Take care of your own, should be our mantra.