No on 1! No on 1!

Vote “No!” to Carla Howell’s scheme on
Tuesday, November 5, 2002

Of course, no one did anything of the sort, as the Globe's acceptance of the ad proved. The fact is, this anti-tax rhetoric has been raised before, debunked before, and defeated before. It barely qualifies as news anymore.

But in case you're wondering, Massachusetts taxpayers pay less in taxes per person than many so-called "low tax" states because our already low sales tax (5%) exempts basic needs like food, medicine, and everyday clothes — unlike Tennessee or Texas residents, who pay 8% or more on everything.

As they say, there's lies, damned lies, and statistics. The trouble with Howell's statistics is that they're lies.

The figure of $3,000 is an average, not a typical amount. Not everyone will get that much, and most people will receive less. In 2001, you would have to have made over $53,550 to reach that figure—and that's after your exemptions! We're really talking about $60-70,000 incomes here!

As usual, a tax cut will benefit the rich most, especially since they will be the ones best able to privately replace lost services. Howell even admits this point, but then goes back to falsely using the average savings with the words "each" and "every."

And as for the claim that taxpayers will have extra money to spend, Howell neglects to mention that since the tax cut favors the rich, who already have a lot of spending money, not much of those savings will trickle down to local businesses.

In fact, for 2001, Massachusetts had the 13th lowest tax burden (state and local) of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, according to The Tax Foundation. Our toal tax burden (state and local taxes paid as a percentage of income) was 9.6%— lower than many tradionally conservative states like Montana (9.8%), Arizona (10.0%), Kentucky (10.4%), and Utah (11.1%)— considerably below the national average of 10.1%. Even our total tax burden of 33.6%, including federal taxes that would be untouched by Question 1, is in line with the national average (32.8%) and better than most other states in the region, like New Jersey (35.3%), New York (35.6%), or Connecticut (37.8%). Even "no tax" New hapshire is only slightly better at 32.7%

So why do all these people moan about how high the taxes in "Taxachusetts" are? Where do they get their "facts"?

Since Howell offers no proof of this highly questionable claim, it's hard to refute; however, common sense suggests that the opposite will be true, and much of the savings enjoyed by taxpayers will be eaten away by higher property taxes, car registration, sales taxes, etc.

Her "fact" that this would lead to 300,000 new jobs is not a fact, but a projection, and a rosy one at that. Businesses look at many factors when deciding where to locate, and taxation is only one — a minor one, too, if you listen to the CEOs. More important are quality of life issues, such as education, the arts, and the environment — exactly the sorts of things that would be hurt by Howell's scheme.

It's just as likely that there will be fewer jobs in Massachusetts, not more, and when the state lays off more than 100,000 workers — Howell's number — those workers will be unemployed a long, long, time, and will be a drain on the state's economy for decades.

This is technically true, but a misrepresentation, since you will still have to tell the federal government this information (census and federal taxes), as well as local government (census). Wow, don't you feel safer already?

The fact is, your financial privacy is far more at risk with businesses who collect the data without your knowledge and sell it without your permission than it is with the government, which is legally bound to keep it confidential. Even the FBI would need a court order to get your records from the IRS or the Mass. DOR.

This is an opinion, not a fact, and if Howell truly believes that private industry is inherently better run than government, I suggest she start reading "Dilbert."

Fact is, most government programs are very lean and do more with less than a comparable business. For every overpaid or underworked state employee who's only there because their job is safe, there are dozens of skilled workers who work for less than they could earn in private industry because they want to serve the people.

How many college educated people would work 60 or more hours per week for less than $29,000 per year? A lot, it seems, because the average starting salary for a teacher in the United States is only $28,990!

As for "not working," wasn't it government programs that sent a man to the moon? Built the highway system? Developed the internet? And, let's not forget, keep our country safe, both at home and abroad? Shame on Carla Howell for maligning government employees, including teachers, police officers, and military personnel!