CLT
UPDATE
Saturday, August 16, 2003
Beacon Hill Institute rates
municipal voters' will to pay more taxes
A study released yesterday by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University says that many of the state's most consistently antitax towns are located south of Boston. Consider, for example, the town of Halifax, a community 31 miles south of Boston. Over the last two decades, voters there have repeatedly shot down proposals to increase taxes....
The most antitax towns were Berkley, Billerica, Carver, Halifax,
Plympton, West Bridgewater, and Whitman, the study says. The study says the top seven protax towns were Amherst, Conway,
Leverett, Pelham, Shutesbury, Wendell, and Williamstown.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Study says tax foes, opponents cluster
When it comes to loathing taxes, Plymouth County is a hotbed....
The institute said the top seven "pro-tax" towns are Amherst, Conway,
Leverett, Pelham, Shutesbury, Wendell and Williamstown.
There is irony in the geography. Western Massachusetts was the cradle of Shays' Rebellion, an uprising in 1786 that was touched off in part by tax increases. Its leader, Daniel Shays, came from Pelham....
State Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, D-Amherst, who represents most of the pro-tax towns, said he wasn't surprised by the study's findings.
One of the biggest budgets of any institution in the state belongs to the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, also in Rosenberg's district.
"The people who study and work and live in those communities understand inadequate revenues means inadequate services," he said. "It's a very enlightened community."
The Patriot Ledger
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Strong antitax feeling found on South Shore
If anyone were to accuse legislators of trying to pad state coffers on the backs of head injury victims, they'd likely be crying foul from Beacon Hill to the Berkshires.
Well, we can't h-e-a-r them. Because that's exactly what they did.
In the year of dozens of fee hikes to balance the state budget ($500 million worth), the Legislature increased the "injury-head surcharge" from $25 to $50 on every speeding ticket issued to motorists in Massachusetts. In calling for the increase, legislative leaders cited the rocketing medical treatment costs for those suffering head injuries in vehicular accidents.
Fine.
What they didn't tell us, however, is that they had no intention of giving up the extra money.
A Lowell Sun editorial
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Statehouse fee-nagling
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The Beacon
Hill Institute earlier this week released a study that rates each
city and town by its voters' tax philosophy. What was most interesting
was the clusters of municipalities that were either pro-tax or anti-tax.
It'll come as little surprise that "Happy Valley" in the
western part of the state -- the bastion of UMass, college community
liberals, and aged hippies -- is the most pro-tax sector.
"Representative Ellen Story, an Amherst Democrat, said that people in her community believe that taxes help pay for necessary government
services,'" the Boston Globe reported. "'I think it shows that Amherst and the other towns surrounding Amherst all understand that taxes are the price you pay for a civilized
society,' she said. 'Amherst does have three institutions of higher learning, two colleges, and one university. Often, when there are more educated people, they do understand that taxes are worth
paying.'"
Puh-leeze!
A cluster of towns in Plymouth County along with
Berkley (in Bristol County but contiguous with Plymouth County) and
Billerica (Middlesex County) were the most anti-tax.
"We considered seven major ballot questions since 1980, beginning with the grandfather of them all, Proposition
2½, which limited the ability of local governments to raise property taxes. The other questions included the successful repeal of the tax surcharge (1986), the failed rollback of the personal income tax rate to 4.25% (1990); the successful attempt to raise the cigarette tax (1992); the failed attempt to institute a graduated income tax (1994); the successful rollback of the personal income to 5% (2000) and the failed attempt to abolish the state income tax
(2002)," BHI's report states.
Four of the seven ballot questions, four of the five
tax limitation questions, were sponsored by CLT. We were the lead
opponent to another -- the Grad Tax -- and defeated it a number of times over the decades.
BHI researchers then, along with the ballot question
results, looked at Proposition 2½ override votes for each of the
state's 351 cities and towns. You can see how your city or town rated by
visiting
its database and selecting your municipality.
If you're looking for a low tax community, Plymouth
County could get awfully crowded soon.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Study says tax foes, opponents cluster
By Brendan McCarthy, Globe Correspondent
A study released yesterday by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University says that many of the state's most consistently antitax towns are located south of Boston. Consider, for example, the town of Halifax, a community 31 miles south of Boston. Over the last two decades, voters there have repeatedly shot down proposals to increase taxes.
"Southeastern Massachusetts tends to be a more conservative part of the state," said Charles
Seelig, executive administrator in Halifax. "The people feel a greater disconnect from state government, and this is their way of saying, `No, we are not giving you more money.'"
The most antitax towns were Berkley, Billerica, Carver, Halifax,
Plympton, West Bridgewater, and Whitman, the study says. The study says the top seven protax towns were Amherst, Conway,
Leverett, Pelham, Shutesbury, Wendell, and Williamstown.
"The protax towns are all clustered in the Western part of the state," said John Barrett, director of research at the Beacon Hill Institute. "Most of the antitax towns are located south of Boston, where there are a lot of bedroom communities." The institute is a think tank associated with the economics department of Suffolk University. Its study examined voters' behavior on tax initiatives since 1980 in the state's 351 cities and towns.
Researchers tabulated voting records for seven state ballot questions: Proposition
2½, which limited the ability of municipal governments to increase property taxes (1980); a repeal of the tax surcharge (1986); a rollback of the personal income tax rate to 4.25 percent (1990); a rise in the cigarette tax (1992); a rollback of the personal income tax to 5 percent (2000); and an attempt to abolish the state income tax (2002).
For example, a 1980 vote in favor of Proposition 2½ was construed as
antitax, and a vote in favor of raising the cigarette tax in 1992 was considered
protax.
Proposition 2½ limits a town's annual increases in property tax revenue to 2.5 percent a year, plus money from new real estate development. To raise more revenue, local voters must specifically approve an override.
The study's authors examined Proposition 2½ overrides in 14 selected communities that were the most consistently antitax and protax towns. Of the 64 proposed overrides in the antitax communities, only eight have passed since 1983. Billerica and Whitman, two of these towns, denied every appeal for a Proposition
2½ override since 1983. In the protax towns, 37 of 63 Proposition 2½ overrides were successful.
Barrett said it was unclear why the antitax and protax towns were located in certain regions, but he theorized that it may relate to political ideology.
"I think some of the protax towns such as Williamstown and Amherst are college towns," said Barrett. "Traditionally, college towns tend to be more of a hotbed for liberalism. I don't think you can paint a broad brush on the antitax towns saying they are more conservative, though."
Representative Ellen Story, an Amherst Democrat, said that people in her community believe that taxes help pay for necessary government services. "I think it shows that Amherst and the other towns surrounding Amherst all understand that taxes are the price you pay for a civilized society," she said. "Amherst does have three institutions of higher learning, two colleges, and one university. Often, when there are more educated people, they do understand that taxes are worth paying."
Return to
top
The Patriot Ledger
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Strong antitax feeling found on South Shore
By Don Conkey
When it comes to loathing taxes, Plymouth County is a hotbed.
An analysis by a Boston think tank put Carver, Halifax, Whitman, Plympton and West Bridgewater at the top of a list of Massachusetts communities that vote consistently against taxes.
Of the seven communities that opposes taxes the most, all except Berkley and Billerica are in Plymouth County.
Results of the study were released yesterday by Suffolk University's Beacon Hill Institute, which specializes in statistical analysis of tax policy.
The institute examined how the state's 351 cities and towns voted on tax ballot questions since 1980 and property tax increases since 1983.
The institute said the top seven "pro-tax" towns are Amherst, Conway,
Leverett, Pelham, Shutesbury, Wendell and Williamstown.
There is irony in the geography. Western Massachusetts was the cradle of Shays' Rebellion, an uprising in 1786 that was touched off in part by tax increases. Its leader, Daniel Shays, came from Pelham.
State Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, D-Amherst, who represents most of the pro-tax towns, said he wasn't surprised by the study's findings.
One of the biggest budgets of any institution in the state belongs to the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, also in Rosenberg's district.
"The people who study and work and live in those communities understand inadequate revenues means inadequate services," he said. "It's a very enlightened community."
Beacon Hill Institute spokesman Frank Conte said the study set out to determine which communities are best-suited for those who prefer expansive government and which are best for those who prefer limited government.
"If a person has tax preferences, where would he want to live in Massachusetts? If your proclivity is to expand government and a willingness to pay, where would you want to live?" Conte said.
"We are not making a judgment. We are just looking at the way voters behave," he said.
The institute considered seven state ballot questions since 1980, beginning with Proposition
2½, which limited the ability of local governments to raise property taxes.
The other questions included the successful repeal of the tax surcharge in 1986, the failed rollback of the income tax rate to 4.25 percent in 1990, the successful attempt to raise the cigarette tax in 1992, the failed attempt to institute a graduated income tax in 1994, the successful rollback of the personal income tax to 5 percent in 2000 and last year's failed attempt to abolish the state income tax.
Whitman Town Administrator Frank Lynam viewed the study's results in a positive light.
"It is an indication of the sense of the part of the voters in Whitman," Lynam said.
"They already have a sufficient tax burden and are not willing to take on any more," he said.
Lynam pointed out that Whitman voters have in recent years passed temporary tax increases to build or renovate schools, the fire station and town hall.
"When we have a legitimate need that people identify with, they are willing to support it," Lynam said.
"As far as a message, it says voters in Whitman are frugal and looking for reasons to spend the money," he said.
Halifax Executive Administrator Charles Seelig pointed out that in the past year his town passed temporary tax increases for a new middle school and renovations to Silver Lake Regional High School. Local voters also approved a permanent tax increase for the schools last year.
"They will say yes at times," Seelig said.
"Townspeople are more apt to vote approval on a tax increase if you show them that in fact there is a specific benefit they will receive, either to the town or individually," he said.
In terms of statewide votes, "hypothesizing just a bit, there may be a sense of disillusionment with the state in terms of government," Seelig said.
"They might be saying, ‘This is our chance to say we are against this,' or to show opposition to the current state of affairs," he said.
In November, 55 percent of voters in Carver and 54 percent in Halifax supported a controversial referendum placed on the ballot by the Libertarian Party to repeal the state income tax. The question, which was defeated 55 percent to 45 percent statewide, would have ended $10 billion in annual taxes.
This spring, Carver voters resoundingly opposed any property tax increases this year. The nonbinding question, which was sponsored by a local antitax group, passed by more than 4-to-1.
The Beacon Hill Institute has posted voting records of all 351 cities and towns on on the major tax referenda and overrides on its web site,
www.beaconhill.org.
Return to
top
The Lowell Sun
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Editorial
Statehouse fee-nagling
If anyone were to accuse legislators of trying to pad state coffers on the backs of head injury victims, they'd likely be crying foul from Beacon Hill to the Berkshires.
Well, we can't h-e-a-r them. Because that's exactly what they did.
In the year of dozens of fee hikes to balance the state budget ($500 million worth), the Legislature increased the "injury-head surcharge" from $25 to $50 on every speeding ticket issued to motorists in Massachusetts. In calling for the increase, legislative leaders cited the rocketing medical treatment costs for those suffering head injuries in vehicular accidents.
Fine.
What they didn't tell us, however, is that they had no intention of giving up the extra money.
Last week The Sun discovered the $25 surcharge increase won't be aiding the $5 million Statewide Head Injury Trust Fund. Instead, it'll be diverted to the general fund, where it will pay for any number of as yet unnamed programs.
The Legislature's sleight of hand came as a shocking surprise to the 4,000 head injury victims who depend on the funds, as well as to everyone of good conscience who expected the fee increase to end up where it was intended.
There's no adjective to describe the Legislature's action, but here's a few: dishonorable, disengenuous, repulsive.
Politicians shouldn't tell the public one thing and do another. They shouldn't increase a fee for an express purpose and use the proceeds for something else. Then again, this is the Massachusetts Legislature we're talking about.
Here's what Great Barrington Police Chief William Walsh said about the Legislature's fee-nagling.
"It's one more hidden tax to nickle-and-dime people to death," he said. "I don't think they should fund this on the backs of police officers writing tickets."
Now that's indignation.
Return to
top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|