Hey, there! Log in / Register
Campaign roundup: Cutting the sales tax
By adamg on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 8:31am
WBUR takes a look at both sides of Question 3, which would cut the state sales tax from 6.25 to 3%.
Globe: Tax cuts could take time; Slots foes target Patrick. The Herald endorses Baker, is simply stunned to learn that a worker in the governor's office helps the governor's wife coordinate her official appearances. The Phoenix wonders what went wrong with the Baker campaign. The Outraged Liberal wonders about Baker sliding away from initial tax promises.
Controversy in the race for Secretary of State.
Barney Frank lives with a heckler.
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
How many days in a row has
How many days in a row has the Herald had Charlie Faker on the cover, at least 3 (all positive). are they going to continue this fair and balanced coverage thru election day, will he be every cover until then to satiate Herald readers Baker crush?
He's this years Scott Brown!
Tall, good looking, and white! By replicating the local conservative media's saturation bombing of feel good coverage about said candidate, they hope to repeat Brown's success. While Brown may be a semi-likable doofus, Baker comes off as just another crook with a big smile to me.
good looking I disagree. I
I disagree. I think he looks like a total goofball.
What was wrong with 5%?
Simple, dead-easy to calculate. Can we please go back to it? :(
And if that were on the ballot?
The exact same interests would be saying the exact same things ... Oh my God it's Armageddon, it's for the children blah, blah blah.
No it's not- it's for the toll takers, it's for the pensions, it's for the no show/do nothing jobs and eat a doughut in the car details.
Is a 50% cut in the sales tax too much - sure it is -even I'll agree with that. But here's the thing - for once, instead of government always having a little more than they need, they will have a little less. I don't want education or human services cut any more than the next person. But I want a reasoned argument around why we need those extra administrators etc. etc. at every level. If you keep giving them a little more than they need, they will never be efficient. But if you keep them just a tiny bit hungry, they'll have a tough time arguing for another $60k a year toll taker or some pension benefit when the alternative is getting someone the drug treatment they need or paying off some of the debt our state has accumulated.
The shoe will finally be on the other foot. And with our shoes on right, maybe now we can walk a little more comfortably once the blisters from years of waste go away and THEN determine properly if we really need a new pair of shoes or just needed to learn our right from our left.
Cut it all you'd like
It'll just show up in the state income tax. Don't you know how this game is played?
The Game
It's about time our side plays some offense.
The other side was already working on new ways to grab your paycheck.
They already had the forms ready before Ques. 3 was underway.
The sales tax was ZERO percent until 1966, when the legislature enacted a "temporary" sales tax of 3%.
Gov't Won't Have Less: We'll Have Less
Cutting state revenue won't reduce "hacks." It will reduce services. The people who lose jobs won't be the nephews, brothers-in-law, or all the people who should be "hungry."
To use the MBTA as an example, lost tax revenue won't mean firing redundant middle- and upper-management types. It will mean firing bus drivers and mechanics. It will mean losing the people who actually perform the services.
I'm amazed that people so rightfully cynical about state government are so floridly gullible about how to cure its ills.
It's also amusing to me...
that some people think maybe a few hundred or thousand people making 70 G's a year is the problem in a 27 billion dollar budget.
OK, so where's the waste? I'm
OK, so where's the waste?
I'm perfectly willing to listen if you've drilled into the budget and have a clear list of programs that are wasteful and how these programs can be cut.
But nobody advocating for this has actually done that. Making $2 billion disappear isn't going to make government magically more efficient. Large organizations don't work that way.
Works in the private sector
Lots of companies lost $2 billion of revenue or more in the recession and they have found ways to cut and be more efficient. Large private organizations DO work that way or they die. Government can't (nor should it) die.
For a start - try pensions and insurance benefits. Why are we only now just "talking about" raising the retirement age from 55 to 60? Or capping pensions at $90k per year? Or making state employees pay more of their health care - at least relative to income - like the rest of us? How about all the rules that mandate using union labor for public projects? Police details v. flagmen? Welfare abuse? There's certainly no silver bullet and per my original post we might not find all of it - but if you keep just giving them more, they will simply spend it. I'd rather have gov't begging us for more money (with very specific line items for where it should go - let them identify what they need it for - that's their job) than have us begging them not to spend every dime they can get their hands on. Will they raise other costs/taxes/fees - probably - but as we all know it's very hard to do without a large and public fight - a fight that's long overdue.