As many of our readers already know, Carla Howell succeeded in collecting a sufficient number of signatures for her ballot initiative to end the Massachusetts income tax. There may be further legal challenges but it will almost certainly be on the ballot this year. With polls showing a dead heat between yes and no voters the inappropriately named “Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation” is already preparing its defense of high taxes.
Although the core battle is months away, politicians are already hitting back. Can you guess which party this statement came from?
“I personally understand why someone would vote for it out of
frustration that Beacon Hill has not been doing its job for quite a
few years now,” says Torkildsen, a former congressman. “A lot of
people on Beacon Hill start the argument with how much money would
they like to spend,” he says. “A better starting point is, ‘What’s an
appropriate level for people to pay?’ and then ‘What’s the most
economical way for the public officials to use that money?'”
It was from Peter Torkildsen, the Republican state party chairman of Massachusetts.
And you wondered why libertarians do not flock to the Republican Party?
The correct answers to Torkildsen’s quiz are: “Zero” and “Leave it with the honest folk who earned it”.
If the bill passes, the MTA could earn their name and make it appropriate. Even with no income tax, I assume there would be no legal objection to citizens voluntarily ‘taxing’ their own income and sending the money to the state, and that the state would gladly accept such contributions and spend them for the general welfare. So the MTA could, if the bill passes, comprise the 2% of Massachusans who continue to pay taxes.
Perhaps itwould be more like .2% or .02% or even .002%, but my point stands.
It only repeals the income tax, so state receipts are still quite large: as large as they were in 1995.
All this does is roll back the level of Appropriation of wealth by the Massachusetts Aristocracy to what it was a bit over a decade ago.
As the saying goes: “It’s a start”.
A Republican? That’s absolutely staggering. He ought to be tarred and feathered.
Maybe we need a new political party with “Government as Small as Possible” in the name, so the politicians won’t forget.
I don’t see what’s so wrong with what he said. State governments need to exist – IIRC, they do the vast majority of law enforcement, at least – and in order to exist they need to levy taxes. And when it comes to determining rates, keeping fiscal prudence and efficiency front and centre, along with the fact that these taxes are coming from actual people, seems like far and away a better approach than the one he’s alleging the Democrats use, of spending as though money grows on trees. Sure, his idea of “appropriate” is probably different from yours and mine(he *is* from Massachusetts), but the content of that particular quote is fine by me.
As far as I know, some states in the US have no state income tax. So, what’s the big deal ?
Any initiative to reduce taxes and government spending is fine. But you have to check the details of the proposition. If it’s finsl effect will be to switch from income tax to sales tax – this would be no big acheivement.
Alsadius, you missed focus of our objections to the quote. It’s not the second half, which enjoins government to spend money wisely (no one argues with that), it’s the first half:
“A better starting point is, ‘What’s an appropriate level for people to pay?’
In other words, “what is the absolute pain threshold of the populace; how much can we exact from them before sparking armed rebellion? With that as the starting point, then we get to work allocating the loot (effeciently, of course).” That’s the political mindset which is so pernicious and so objectionable. The proper mindset would be “what is the absolute minimum we need to handle the state’s legitimate functions”, then proceed to create taxing and other revenue-generating mechanisms to raise that amount (and no more).
This buffoon clearly shares the communitarian (communist?) philosophy that everything belongs to The People, and that anything the government graciously allows us to keep is pure generosity on their part. In other words, in his heart he’s a thief. (But, since he’s a politician, I suppose that’s redundant.)
Laird,
I think you are being too harsh; “appropriate” in this context means “suitable or fitting for a particular purpose, person, occasion, etc” which is non-committal concerning the reason for setting one level of taxation or another. If during the argument as to which is that “appropriate” level, the decision is made to make it “the absolute minimum we need to handle the state’s legitimate functions,” that has not been precluded by the question. Besides, your “absolute minimum we need to handle the state’s legitimate functions,” only opens another argument as to which are the state’s legitimate functions, rather than answer the original question.
You are reading too much into what is after all a question intended to start an argument, not an answer.
Dale,
Do not forget that not everyone who calls himself a “libertarian” is an anarcho-capitalist; minarchists do accept the need for some taxation, and consider it “appropriate” for it not to be zero.
Well, FD, I see your point but you haven’t convinced me that I’m being “too harsh” on Mr. Torkildsen. Even if one accepts your charitable interpretation of his words (which I am uninclined to do without more evidence), he still has the order of his questions reversed. One cannot determine what is “suitable or fitting for a particular purpose, person, occasion, etc” without first defining that purpose, i.e., determining what is appropriate for a government to spend on its legitimate functions. That does not, of course, answer the question of the extent of those “legitimate” functions, which is a topic for another thread, but it frames the question in the proper way.
And if, instead, you think he means what level of taxation is appropriate for an individual person, then he’s advocating a Marxist “from each according to his means” standard, which brings me back squarely to my original rant.
I grew up in Boston, and I can tell you- there aren’t any true republicans there.
The joke around Boston when people would ask how Mitt Romney managed to run the state as a Republican was “Mitt who? Never heard of him.”
I’m fascinated to see how this plays out. Living in a state now that has no income tax(Tennessee), and growing up in one that did, it always makes me wonder why you need one in the first place.
Tman, I agree that it will be fascinating to see how this plays out, and I wish Carla Howell well in her quixotic quest (she is, unfortunately, ultimately doomed to crash and burn; the will of the people be damned).
However, as to your question about the necessity for a state income tax, eliminating it doesn’t really solve anything (symbolism notwithstanding). States without one rely on other taxes (primarily property and sales taxes) for their revenue, which leads to other issues of (perceived) inequity. In Florida, for instance, the rapid rise in property values over the last few years caused the legislature to “cap” assessed values at the time of purchase (for owner-occupied properties). All this did was shift more of the burden onto latecomers and renters. Plus, given the current collapse in property values in that state, owners everywhere are petitioning for a reduction in assessed values, resulting in rapidly shrinking tax revenues. Everyone is unhappy.
Taxation is always about goring someone else’s ox, and the identity of the victim changes with shifts in power. The real problem is the absolute level of governmental spending. Shrink that to a rational amount and, to a large extent, tax issues will take care of themselves.
Alsadius,
Actually, most law enforcement in the US is done at the local (city or county) level. It’s generally paid for by property taxes.
There are also state police, but they’re mostly involved with things outside the local jurisdiction. Patrolling highways. Providing backup to small local forces if needed. That sort of thing.
Laird,
I agree with your overall assessment, and the true message should always be about limiting the amount of total government spending.
However, the sad reality is that Massachusetts already has an income AND a sales tax. In Tennessee we only have the sales tax. There have been several attempts by lawmakers in Tennessee to install an income tax, and they have always been rebuffed primarily because a.) The state already has enough money-we usually end up with a surplus and b.) no one believes the politicans when they say that by getting one over the other that we won’t end up with both anyways.
There is currently massive migration patterns in the states from high income-tax states to those without income taxes on both a personal and business level. Nashville and the surrounding area has brought in big players like Dell and Nissan primarily because of the pro-business atmosphere. Sooner or later the high tax states will have to adjust to get people to come back.
I suppose if there’s to be a tax revolt, Taxachusetts is a reasonable place for it to happen. I fear it’s probably doomed to fail, though, since so many people collect more from the government than they pay.
Just a few thoughts regarding several of the comments above –
1) Regardless, in the end, the is NO LIMIT to the hunger ALL levels of government have for YOUR money.
2) In the states ( my side of ‘the pond’ ) most middle class people are taxed at about 50%+ of their income.
Don’t believe it ?
Start adding –
Federal income tax
Property tax
Sales tax ( on ALMOST everything )
State income tax ( where applicable )
City income tax ( yes, it exists in some places )
Gasoline tax ( drop that one and most would stop complaining about the cost of gasoline !! – it MUCH higher than what oil companies make in profit for each gallon !!!)
Car license plates & inspection(s)
Building permits
Carefully go over gas, electric, water, phone etc. bills and see if you can honestly determine what the myriad of charges are ( you can’t and in many cases, the particular entity can’t tell you EXACTLY what they are either – I know, I’ve tried )
The list is almost endless, and notice that some of the items are not called a ‘tax’ but are referred to by other terms, lest we upset the payers !!
Now, in addition, it seems that ANYTIME the elimination of some form of revenue to the state is tried ( or even not INCREASING a particular ‘tax’ ) the hue and cry comes forth that the police, fire department, or schools/children will suffer thereby causing most to say ‘Gee, we can’t have THAT’ so we must increase/add to the taxes out of generated fear and/or guilt.
NO ONE EVER suggests that maybe we don’t need multiple studies done on the sex life of pingpong balls or why fresh cow dung is slippery ( Yes – that second one was actually done !! )
There is always some ‘justifiable reason’ presented by government as to why they need more money to do something more that, it many cases has not even been asked for by ANYONE except the politicians !!
Imagine going in and telling your boss ( on a regular basis ) that you simply had to have more money because you simply cannot live on what you are currently earning. You be told, learn to live on what you are earning and then laughed out of the building if not outright fired.
And yet, this is EXACTLY what gevernment does only it does it at, literally, the point of a gun.
Own your home free and clear, HA !
Stop paying property taxes and sees what happens.
You’ll find out exactly who owns your house and IT ISN’T YOU.
I do not argue that government does not need money but if you tried to run a business the way governement runs, you’d go broke in short order.
The tactic used is the same everywhere – small increments.
No one ever suggests raising taxes by 5 or 10% because it would never be accepted. So they take the long term approach and do fractions of percentages, a penny here and a dime there ( Gee, Martha – it not THAT BIG of an increase !! )and before anyone notices, taxes HAVE gone up 5 or 10% or more !!
Short story about how DUMB people can be when it comes to taxes.
Billionaire football team owner searches for YEARS to find a town STUPID enough to raise their own local taxes to build a new playpen ( stadium ) for a bunch of overpaid, spoiled brats ( football players ) and finally finds it. If I lived there I would have to help pay for something that I would NEVER set foot in but because of popularity of football, yep it’s being built as I type.
An aside, this owner could have paid for it himself but I guess you don’t get to be a billionaire by always picking up your own tab.
This is another definition of democracy ( aka – majority rules ) as opposed to a constitutional republic which is what we are SUPPOSED to have here.
Taxes for gevernment, fine but FIRST let’s determine EXACTLY what government is supposed to be doing and then figure out how much it SHOULD cost as opposed to collecting buckets full of money and then figuring out what it can be spent on.
I first saw the headline and “saw” “The contestants are circling the drain…”
Actually reading the article was a little bit of a letdown after that.
The latest assault by the legislatrones is an attempt to gut Proposition 2 1/2, which has limited property-tax increases for nearly 3 decades. The assault takes the form of allowing towns to exempt senior citizens of low and moderate income from having to pay the tax increase being voted on. This attempt to divide the electorate, keeping seniors home or allowing them a consequence-free vote, openly expressed as being for the purpose of making property-tax increases easier to pass, could well add fuel to the fire, if it passes.
Every year these benighted creatures engage in a feeding frenzy, spending unspent taxes so that the money does not have to be returned to the taxpayers. When that would get too embarrassingly huge, they divert the money into a “rainy-day” fund. When that reaches its limit, they increase the limit.
The most obscene thing about the budget in MA is that even for people with professional training in finance, it is impossible to comprehend. Maybe having less money to spend will force enough justification of spending to open up the budget for meaningful analysis.
In the meantime, the legislatrones are playing chicken, despite the statistical dead heat between supporters and opponents of freeing MA of its income tax. They keep looking for more ways to screw the taxpayer. While it would be easier to transition to a smaller budget if they weren’t on a big-government bender, in a way I hope they keep it up.
Last time the effort to repeal the State income tax in Mass came a lot closer to success than I thought it would.
And that was when the State Governor at least made a show of trying to control government spending – the present one makes no effort to do so.
Duval Patrick is a joke – and no (before the angry replies start) this is nothing to do with him being black.
The voters just have to ask themselves this question “should people be allowed to keep their money, or should this clown be allowed to take it?”