MA Question 1

[dougo]

The Massachusetts State Income Tax Repeal Initiative, aka Question 1, will end the MA state income tax if passed (in 2010, after becoming 2.65% in 2009; it's currently 5.3%). At first glance, this seems like an obvious liberal/conservative split: conservatives want to cut taxes, and liberals don't. But I saw an ad for voting no that made me consider voting yes: it pointed out that if passed, it would cause property taxes to rise (as opposed to increasing the sales tax, or cutting spending, which is what the Libertarians who sponsored this question really want). Is that such a bad thing? Which is better, an income tax or a property tax? I feel like a property tax is more progressive, because homeowners are probably more wealthy than those whose income is greater than their exemption + deduction. Also, I think it would be better to reward labor over ownership. In the short term, higher property taxes will hurt people who are already suffering from the mortgage crisis (and also further depress the housing market), but I don't think that's a strong argument against it. In the longer term, it would hurt retirees whose homes are fully paid off and who don't earn income, and I'm not sure what I think about that. What are some other arguments for and against?

Comments

[amphibolous.livejournal.com]

So, you prefer that we let the people we elect to decide these matters? I'm pretty sure that they are also elected by a population, 90% of whom don't have sufficient command of the facts to make an intelligent decision. Further, rather than voting for a specific issue, electing a politician is an endorsement of an entire platform Sadly, in this state, it's unlikely that they even face significant opposition by another party (I will happily blame the other parties for this inexcuseable failure of democracy), so there is no debate on the issues should the citizens even care to hear it.

I'd much rather be given the option of voting my opinion on an issue by issue basis rather than hoping that my choice of one of a very small slate of candidates (most often decided in the primary and not the general election) will agree with me on all the vital issues I care about.

That said, the idea is poorly planned and will cause a ton of strife if it does indeed pass and Beacon Hill doesn't find a way out of it and they are unable to ignore it (and citizen anger at the pols unconcerned inactivity after a rousing referendum demand to repeal the Dukakis tax hike is fuelling much of this debate). Strife which, if seized on, might actually give the other parties the swift kick in the petitions they need to organize actual resistance to the one-party rule.

But otherwise, I fear the vast majority of our voting population will vote yes on any feel-good aid to the community while voting in a feel-good slashing of their own taxes.