Here's the latest update on how many concerned Massachusetts residents are
opting to pay their income taxes at the optional, higher 5.85 percent rate
rather than at the standard 5.3 percent rate.
According to the Department of Revenue, of 855,786
filers thus far this year, 345 have generously chosen to pay at the higher rate, although those
opting for the higher charges pay practically no taxes anyway.
The gesture by the 345 good liberals has raised $34,668, which means they
each had an average annual income of approximately $20,000.
The Boston Herald
Mar. 9, 2003
Read their lips, not their taxes: Most vote with words, not wallets
Even though the state faces a $3 billion budget gap
for fiscal 2004, few lawmakers are publicly expressing support for tax hikes of any kind....
"I think the public will set the agenda," [state Rep. Ruth Balser] she said. "I
predict that as time goes on we learn more about what kind of threat these cuts
represent, the public will start to support taxes." ...
There are skeptics, however, who claim House leaders
are merely biding their time before they resort to raising taxes again.
"It's the same game they played last year," said Barbara
Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. "It's always been in the works.
But if they're waiting for the populace to rise up and say, 'Tax us more,' then it's going
to be a long wait." ...
"Revenues have to be a part of the budget solution,"
said Michael Widmer, president of the non-partisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
The MetroWest Daily News
Mar. 9, 2003
Some pols say no to new taxes
Progressive Legislators: Noah Berger of the
Massachusetts Center for Budget & Policy and Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation are
the featured speakers at a forum on the fiscal realities of the state budget. The
forum is sponsored by the Progressive Legislators Group and Speaker Thomas
Finneran. (Tuesday, 1 pm, Room A-2)
MTF Annual Meeting: The Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation holds its 70th annual meeting this week. (Wednesday, 4 pm, State Street Bank, Boston)
State House News Service
[Excerpts]
Advances - Week of March 10, 2003
The "tax me more" crowd must be waiting to file their income
tax returns at the last minute, letting the state keep the float on their tax overpayments for as long as possible.
That's the only reason I can think of for only 345 of them to have taken our voluntary tax
check-off.
This still leaves 1,054,816 of those who voted against the
tax rollback on the 2000 ballot; you know, the 41 percent who asserted that they "didn't need or want a tax cut"?
Ah, but according to many legislators, another tax hike this
year is unthinkable ... unless it's as a "last resort." But that's what they said at about this time last year, just before
imposing "The Biggest Tax Increase in State History."
With "Mickey W," president of the Massachusetts Taxspenders
Foundation, still insisting more revenue is needed to balance the budget --
again providing cover for another tax hike -- comments from some legislators like "it's too soon to tell
whether tax increases may be needed to balance the budget" are politically less risky, keeping the option alive.
"Mickey W" will be teaming up with TEAM tomorrow when they
address the Progressive Legislators Group, which is quite appropriate. The outcome though will be interesting, as
the Massachusetts Center for Budget & Policy (formerly known as TEAM) is going after
corporate tax hikes this year, and Michael Widmer, aka "Mickey
W," is scheming to hold onto them at any cost, instead attempting to shift any increased
revenue burden onto average taxpayers with his proposal to increase the sales tax.
It should be an interesting annual conclave of the MTF Fat
Cats the following day. Members of the so-called Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation will convene at ... the
State Street Bank of course. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know
about MTF and its "nonpartisan" agenda?
The Boston Herald
Sunday, March 9, 2003
The Buzz
Read their lips, not their taxes:
Most vote with words, not wallets
Here's the latest update on how many concerned Massachusetts
residents are opting to pay their income taxes at the optional, higher 5.85 percent rate
rather than at the standard 5.3 percent rate.
According to the Department of Revenue, of 855,786 filers
thus far this year, 345 have generously chosen to pay at the higher rate, although those opting for
the higher charges pay practically no taxes anyway.
The gesture by the 345 good liberals has raised $34,668,
which means they each had an average annual income of approximately $20,000.
Surely there must be some mistake - the state's newspapers
have printed far in excess of 345 letters from concerned citizens demanding higher taxes, and
that doesn't even include all the deeply concerned editorial writers who have
weighed in in favor of confiscatory tax rates.
To put it another way, thus far 0.0004 percent of Massachusetts' taxpayers
have endorsed the mantra of higher taxes - with their own wallets.
Return to top
The MetroWest Daily News
Sunday, March 9, 2003
Some pols say no to new taxes
By Michael Kunzelman
State Sen. Cheryl Jacques uses a baseball analogy to explain
why she thinks 45 percent of voters in November supported a ballot question that called for
abolishing the state income tax.
She says the groundswell of support for Question 1 was a
"brush-back pitch" from voters, warning lawmakers that they have been crowding the plate on
taxes.
"I didn't see the vote as an indication that people really
want to eliminate the income tax, but a message to us that they want some relief from tax increases,"
said the Needham Democrat, whose district includes Natick.
Five months later, Jacques and most of her colleagues appear
to be heeding the warning.
Even though the state faces a $3 billion budget gap for
fiscal 2004, few lawmakers are publicly expressing support for tax hikes of any kind.
"I'm not reflexively for or against tax increases, but I
would say taxes are off the table," Jacques said. "I don't think we should do it in this budget cycle."
In interviews last week, many MetroWest lawmakers said it's
too soon to tell whether tax increases may be needed to balance the budget.
Most, however, agreed that they view tax hikes as a last
resort.
"I think it's highly unlikely that I would vote for any
statewide tax increases," said Rep. David Linsky, D-Natick. "We haven't done our job until we've turned
over every rock looking for potential cost savings. I think we have to cut, cut,
cut and cut some more."
Last year, the Legislature approved a record-setting $1.2
billion tax package that included a freeze of the income tax cut to 5 percent called for by a ballot
question approved by voters in 2000. House members from MetroWest voted
along party lines, with Democrats supporting it and Republicans opposing
it.
This year, the appetite for tax increases appears to be
limited to a small group of House dissidents, including Rep. Ruth
Balser, D-Newton.
But Balser believes their ranks, which appear to number
fewer than two dozen, will swell once the House begin to target specific programs and services for
deep cuts.
"I think the public will set the agenda," she said. "I
predict that as time goes on we learn more about what kind of threat these cuts represent, the public will
start to support taxes."
Balser expressed support for raising the income tax, from
5.3 to 5.6 percent, and increasing the sales tax by a penny. She also favors hiking certain
"corporate taxes."
"We need to be fair," she added. "We can't impose tax
increases on people who can't afford them."
Since the November election, House leaders have consistently
expressed doubt that tax increases are an option this year.
Rep. Patricia Walrath, a Stow Democrat who serves on House
Speaker Thomas Finneran's leadership team, said an informal poll of rank-and-file House
members found that an overwhelming majority are opposed to tax increases
this year.
"I think it's fair to say taxes are completely off the
table," she said.
There are skeptics, however, who claim House leaders are
merely biding their time before they resort to raising taxes again.
"It's the same game they played last year," said Barbara
Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
"It's always been in the works. But if they're waiting for the populace to rise up and say, 'Tax us more,' then it's going
to be a long wait."
Given that Gov. Mitt Romney has vowed to veto any proposal
to raise taxes, the House and Senate would have to muster at least two-thirds of members to
override the governor's veto.
Romney unveiled a no-new-taxes budget plan on Feb. 26, but
the proposal does include nearly $59 million in new fees and fee increases.
"Revenues have to be a part of the budget solution," said
Michael Widmer, president of the non-partisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "What the
Romney administration is trying to do is use other revenues, short of broad-based taxes, to
balance the budget."
Romney initially claimed that his budget eliminates $2
billion in waste and inefficiency, but critics in the Legislature countered that fees and cuts are a
large part of that calculation.
"There is no such thing as $2 billion in waste and inefficiency," said Rep. Marie
Parente, D-Milford. "That's an astronomical figure, and I think you'll find that
the administration is already backing away from that."
Many legislators said they need to pore over the details of
Romney's budget before they can decide whether tax increases should be considered.
"I really want to get to the bottom of the governor's budget
before I go forward with anything," said Rep. Deborah Blumer, D-Framingham.
Parente said the Legislature can't afford to ignore Romney's
proposals, as they have with the budgets crafted by previous Republican administrations.
"This is a very popular governor," she added. "He received
an overwhelming endorsement from the public. I would like them to see what he actually
proposed and decide for themselves if this is what they want."
In recent weeks, many local officials have joined social
service advocates in urging the Legislature to raise taxes rather than make deeper cuts to local aid
and other programs and services.
Framingham Town Manager George King isn't one of them.
"I'm not going to lead a tax parade," King said. "The state
income tax is a lot more equitable than local property taxes, but people feel we should have to do
more with less. We're going to have to try that for awhile."
Rep. Stephen LeDuc, D-Marlborough, expressed confidence that
the budget can be balanced without raising taxes.
"The governor did it with no new taxes, so we have to
strongly consider his proposals, but the proof will be in the pudding," he said.
Return to top
