< .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Massachusetts Liberal

Observations on politics, the media and life in Massachusetts and beyond from the left side of the road.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Season's bleatings

I bet people on the receiving end of cuts as a result of the dip in the Massachusetts income tax rate won't be snarking about its size.

Yes, the Applebee's tax cut, as the Globe sniffed, is microscopic -- 0.5 percent. Yes, it is a long delayed delivery on a vote to roll the income tax rate back to 5 percent. And oh yeah, since Massachusetts has a flat tax, the 1 percent will benefit more than the 99 percent. The Department of Revenue estimates:
... an average family of four people that owns a home and makes a combined $100,000 would see a reduction of $39 a year. A single parent with two children living in a rented home would get about $9 in relief.
The tax cut will take $114 million out of state coffers, also chump change in a $30.6 billion budget. But the expected growth in the coming fiscal year is probably not enough to keep up demand for services required as a result of the Great Recession.
“We are concerned that this move could end up hurting the 1 in 10 individuals who receive vital human services from our state,’’ Michael Weekes, president and chief executive officer of the Providers’ Council, said in a statement. “But we must not mislead taxpayers that we have more than enough revenue in a sector where nearly 60 percent of organizations have had cumulative deficits on their state activities since 1993.’’
So to sum up: better for the 1 percent than the 99 percent. Likely to mean cuts in social services. Citizens for Limited Taxation director Barbara Anderson in grudging acceptance mode.

What's next? Jeering over the drop in unemployment?

Labels: , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you don't feel you pay enough you can always pay the optional 5.85% tax (line 22) on your return. Maybe the state in the future can add a designation tag and you can send it to specific programs.

December 16, 2011 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Ty said...

Contrary to Anon, that's not nor ever has been how governments fund themselves.

You can't have government paid by volunteerism, unless you want no government at all.

If that's the case, I suggest anon think long and hard about his childish and deeply unserious "let them pay for it" quip. Lack of government has worked so well in other libertarian paradises on this earth, has it not? oh wait.

December 16, 2011 8:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No I'll pay the standard 5%, you can pay the 5.85 rate and give your extra money to the Chelsea housing authority hacks. And those socialist states in Europe that are funded the way you want to go, they're working out well.

December 19, 2011 4:53 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home