CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
CLT
looks into illegal fees
Your editorial ("Greed driving some state fees," Aug. 22) misses or ignores -- as legislators and the governor have conveniently done -- the definition of a fee and how it
differs from a tax as defined by the Supreme Judicial Court in its 1984
decision, Emerson College vs. City of
Boston....
On Aug. 19, the Herald reported ("Towns can hike fee for marriage license"): "Democratic lawmakers defended the fee hike, saying the state is still struggling to bail out a multibillion-dollar deficit, and that $500 million in new fees was better than another tax hike."
...
Legally fees must reflect no more than the cost of providing a "particular government service," a zero-sum game....
In 1989 CLT took the Dukakis administration to court over its onerous fee increases
(Ford
vs. Lashman). It's time to revisit illegal fees.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Letter to the editor by Chip Ford
Fees aren't taxes
The governor and Legislature differ on just how much revenue will result from raising dozens of state fees, but both sides agree the increases will be money in the bank for state government at a time that it's sorely needed.
Gov. Mitt Romney stuck to his "no new taxes" campaign pledge, but the sheer number and breadth of fee increases open the door to criticism that the pain of a fee increase feels the same as a tax bite....
It's a wide-ranging list intended to target users of state services while raising money the state desperately needs to operate. The fee increases should be reviewed on a regular basis and adjusted -- or even eliminated -- when times get better.
A Boston Herald editorial
*Friday, August 22, 2003l
Greed driving some state fees
And if someday we should forget, our pocketbooks won't. Unless, of course, the fees are decreased when the economic good times return.
Don't count on a decrease any time soon, however....
Fees shouldn't be used to fuel bigger government programs and more spending.
But isn't that what's likely to happen if the state's economy comes roaring back? Tax revenue will flow in and the fee increases will be in place.
Remember, overspending is what got the state into its fiscal mess in the first place.
For that reason, if the cost of state and local fees can go up during bad times, they should come down in good times too.
A Lowell Sun editorial
Thursday, August 21, 2003
Fee-fi-fo-phooey!
Lawmakers quietly uncapped the new $50 fee for marriage licenses yesterday, opening the door for cities and towns to jack the fee up as high as they want....
House Republican Leader Bradley H. Jones (R-North Reading), who filed a bill to repeal the $2 million fee hike, said the state doesn't do anything to justify squeezing sweethearts for an extra $46.
"We don't give you a piece of paper, we don't send you a congratulatory card," Jones said. "Anything's too much when the state provides, as far as I can tell, no service at all." ...
Democratic lawmakers defended the fee hike, saying the state is still struggling to bail out a multibillion-dollar deficit, and that $500 million in new fees was better than another tax hike.
"We have had to deal with an unprecedented fiscal situation," said Rep. Eugene L. O'Flaherty (D-Chelsea). "Fees are certainly a way to generate increased revenue."
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Towns can hike fee for marriage license
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
One of the best responses I've heard to fee increases
was made by Jim Wallace of the Gun Owners' Action League when
criticizing the 400 percent fee increase for firearms licenses. He
pointed out that he didn't need or want a firearms license to exercise
his Second Amendment right in the first place, but if licenses are
required then the fee should be levied on those demanding the actual
service -- the anti-gun lobby and its supporters!
The Legislature, the Governor, the media and the
public seem to have lost sight of the state Supreme Judicial Court's
strict definition of a fee and how it differs from a tax, because many
if not most of the new fee increases are illegal taxes. Worst of all,
nobody is even attempting to justify the fee increases as the cost of
providing "a particular government service." Legislators are
even calling the fee increases simply "a way to generate increased
revenue," and clearly according to the SJC that is illegal.
Fees are supposed to be a zero-sum game: "...the charges are collected not to raise revenues but to compensate the governmental entity providing the services for its
expenses," the SJC directed. The state provides "a particular governmental service which benefits the party paying the fee in a manner 'not shared by other members of society'"
and the benefiting party pays the cost of receiving that service.
Legally there can be no "increased revenue" from charging a
fee ... but that's now the clearly-stated intent.
How is the state providing any service whatsoever
while charging $50 for a marriage license?
Something's got to get this rampant new
taxes-disguised-as-fees scam back before the state's highest court so it
can again hammer home the difference between the two ... before there's
more "misunderstanding" and insatiable government starts
charging fees for everything else it doesn't do.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
* A full explanation of my letter to the editor and
date of the Boston Herald editorial is necessary. I found the editorial
on the Herald's website last Friday morning and immediately wrote my
response then sent it to Barbara to proof-read. She was confused; that
editorial was not in her newspaper. I went back to the Herald's website
and it had vanished! Nonetheless, I sent my letter followed by the text
I'd copied of the editorial to the letters editor, and soon got a call
from her.
They recalled the editorial, but it wasn't in that
day's edition and they have no idea why it was on their website when I
found it or how it got there. They asked me to revise my letter and
they'd publish it, which I did and sent it back to them. Strangely, when
my letter appeared in yesterday's Herald they'd published my original
letter that referenced the mysterious editorial, not the revision. Who
knows what happened in the confusion.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Letters to the Editor
Fees aren't taxes
Your editorial ("Greed driving some state fees," Aug. 22) misses or ignores -- as legislators and the governor have conveniently done -- the definition of a fee and how it differs from a tax as defined by the Supreme Judicial Court in its 1984 decision,
Emerson College vs. City of
Boston.
Taxes and fees are distinct the high court ruled: "Such fees share common traits that distinguish them from taxes: they are charged in exchange for a particular governmental service which benefits the party paying the fee in a manner 'not shared by other members of society' ... are paid by choice, in that the party paying the fee has the option of not utilizing the governmental service and thereby avoiding the charge ... and the charges are collected not to raise revenues but to compensate the governmental entity providing the services for its expenses."
On Aug. 19, the Herald reported ("Towns can hike fee for marriage license"): "Democratic lawmakers defended the fee hike, saying the state is still struggling to bail out a multibillion-dollar deficit, and that $500 million in new fees was better than another tax hike."
[* "'We have had to deal with an unprecedented fiscal situation,' said Rep. Eugene L. O'Flaherty (D-Chelsea). 'Fees are certainly a way to generate increased revenue.'"]
Legally fees must reflect no more than the cost of providing a "particular government service," a zero-sum game. Mandating firearms licensing, for example, then hiking the $25 fee four hundred percent with $50 of it legislated into the state general fund is illegal unless the state can show $100 to be the actual cost of providing the specific "service."
[* Increasing the marriage license fee by 1,050 percent from $4 to $50 while the state provides no service whatsoever has pushed this growing abuse well over the brink.]
In 1989 CLT took the Dukakis administration to court over its onerous fee increases
(Ford
vs. Lashman). It's time to revisit illegal fees.
Chip Ford
Peabody
The writer is director of operations for Citizens for Limited Taxation
[*] Indicates a sentence in my letter that was unpublished.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
*Friday, August 22, 2003
Editorial
Greed driving some state fees
The governor and Legislature differ on just how much revenue will result from raising dozens of state fees, but both sides agree the increases will be money in the bank for state government at a time that it's sorely needed.
Gov. Mitt Romney stuck to his "no new taxes" campaign pledge, but the sheer number and breadth of fee increases open the door to criticism that the pain of a fee increase feels the same as a tax bite.
Proponents of fee increases say they put the burden on the user rather than spreading the cost broadly, the way a tax increase would be implemented.
Looking at a list of 56 fee increases compiled this week by the administration, it's clear that some fees make perfect sense, while a handful of others look downright unfair.
In one corner, you find an increase in the surcharge on speeding violations to $50 and additional charges of $250 each to a person convicted of drunk driving or negligent operation of a vehicle. Those make sense because they fall into the category of "if you do the crime, you do the time," or pay the fine, in these cases.
Other fee increases aim at what might be considered "frills": vanity license plates, firearms ID cards and licenses to carry a firearm among them. Those increases (the FID card jumping from $25 to $100, for example) are aggravating, but tough to argue against when the state is facing a huge revenue shortfall.
Other fee increases target businesses, in some cases hitting them with a big stick. For example, a business seeking a license to sell and import alcoholic beverages will see a fee increase from $5,000 to $10,000. Fee increases are also in the pipeline for liquor retailers, ammunition dealers, lobbyists (yes, they're businesses, too) and for annual elevator inspections. These fees impact businesses and could end up being passed along to consumers.
In the governor's list there are numerous fee increases and surcharges for court filings, which would also likely be passed along from the lawyer to the client. At the small claims level -- where few people would hire a lawyer -- the filing fee goes up from $10-15 to $20-30, plus a $10 surcharge on all small claims filed. These increases come straight from the consumers' pockets.
Then there are fee increases for prisoners, ex-cons and parolees that smack of exploitation of people who are either behind bars, or trying to get their acts together on the outside. Is it necessary to charge sex offenders $75 to register -- something they're required, by law to do? Should parolees be forced to pay $50 a month, plus a $5 surcharge, for parole supervision? That last one can be waived if the parolee can prove he or she is indigent, but on the face of it the fee looks like gouging.
Should the Department of Corrections be able to "establish reasonable fees for administration of inmate accounts?" It's not as if the prison system will be managing a prisoner's stock portfolio, so how can the state justify charging inmates for maintaining accounts so they can buy toiletries and snacks from the prison store?
Finally, the $10 fee for a certificate of blindness and the $15 fee for a blind ID card for legally blind people who use the card as a photo ID and to access reduced rates seem particularly Scrooge-like. Yes, those two fees exempt Supplemental Security Income recipients from the charges, but we maintain that charging those fees to anyone borders on greed.
It's a wide-ranging list intended to target users of state services while raising money the state desperately needs to operate. The fee increases should be reviewed on a regular basis and adjusted -- or even eliminated -- when times get better.
Return to
top
The Lowell Sun
Thursday, August 21, 2003
Editorial
Fee-fi-fo-phooey!
With all the local and state fee increases that have been instituted and the new fees that have been created the budget crisis of 2003 will stay in our memories for a long time to come.
And if someday we should forget, our pocketbooks won't. Unless, of course, the fees are decreased when the economic good times return.
Don't count on a decrease any time soon, however.
Yet isn't it logical that fees, like taxes, should be reduced as the fiscal climate improves?
On Monday, a handful of Democrats in the state Legislature increased the marriage license fee from $4 to $50. That's a 1,050 percent increase! They also lifted the cap on what municipalities can charge couples for a marriage license.
Is that fair? No, it isn't.
Couples aren't getting their wedding service performed on Beacon Hill or Town Hall, so why charge them an astronomical fee for no-services rendered?
While Gov. Mitt Romney should repeal the legislation, his hands are somewhat tied. The fee increase was tucked into a $15 million supplemental spending bill to pay the state's legal costs. And you know the lawyers are going to get their money, one way or another.
The truth is fees are hidden taxes. Lawmakers like them because they don't have to admit to a tax increase.
All told, the Legislature increased more than two dozen fees this year in order to raise $500 million for the public Treasury. Many were one-time fees. That means next year, with another budget deficit looming on the horizon, the fees will have to be renewed. Or taxes will have to be increased. Or government spending will have to be cut.
Locally, fees also have increased substantially. Some increases were easily justified since several towns had neglected to raise costs for a decade. Others were a product of the fiscal times. For instance, schools, hit hard by big decreases in state local aid, were forced to increase athletic user fees, afterschool program fees, and transportation fees to help pay the costs for those services.
In essence, the reluctance on the part of local and state governments to raise taxes to provide services has generated a trickle down effect of fee increases.
Outside of a normal pricing review, we frown upon the practice of raising fees to generate operating revenue for government. That's what taxes are for.
Fees shouldn't be used to fuel bigger government programs and more spending.
But isn't that what's likely to happen if the state's economy comes roaring back? Tax revenue will flow in and the fee increases will be in place.
Remember, overspending is what got the state into its fiscal mess in the first place.
For that reason, if the cost of state and local fees can go up during bad times, they should come down in good times too.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Towns can hike fee for marriage license
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Lawmakers quietly uncapped the new $50 fee for marriage licenses yesterday, opening the door for cities and towns to jack the fee up as high as they want.
The provision is tucked deep inside a supplemental budget whipped through the Legislature yesterday under emergency circumstances involving payment for public lawyers.
Opponents of the marriage fee, which was just hiked to $50 from $4, were livid at the prospect of would-be couples being hit with exorbitant license costs, via municipal fiat.
House Republican Leader Bradley H. Jones (R-North Reading), who filed a bill to repeal the $2 million fee hike, said the state doesn't do anything to justify squeezing sweethearts for an extra $46.
"We don't give you a piece of paper, we don't send you a congratulatory card," Jones said. "Anything's too much when the state provides, as far as I can tell, no service at all."
Only three senators and a few dozen members of the House were on hand when the bill was passed in an informal session and shipped to Gov. Mitt Romney's desk.
Romney, who has line-item veto power over the spending bill, supports Jones' bill to repeal the marriage fee and will examine the legislation "very carefully," said spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman.
Democratic lawmakers defended the fee hike, saying the state is still struggling to bail out a multibillion-dollar deficit, and that $500 million in new fees was better than another tax hike.
"We have had to deal with an unprecedented fiscal situation," said Rep. Eugene L. O'Flaherty (D-Chelsea). "Fees are certainly a way to generate increased revenue."
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
|