CLT
UPDATE
Thursday, October 5, 2006
Mihos or Anderson: Whom do you
trust?
Gubernatorial hopeful Christy Mihos has spent recent
months touting a plan he’s labeled "Proposition 1" that would cap
property values from the time of purchase to the time of sale. On
Monday, Citizens for Limited Taxation Director Barbara Anderson
took aim at the proposal. "Why should homeowners who move – for a job,
for other economic reasons, to be near parents or grandchildren, to a
larger or smaller house that fits their family – pay more than those who
stay put, and then also be forced to pay the stay-putters share of tax
increases?" Anderson asked in a late morning press release. She also
cited a constitutional requirement that all property be assessed at fair
market value.
State House News Service
Monday, October 2, 2006
Anti-tax group slams Mihos property tax freeze plan
[Excerpt]
Mihos also took criticism from Citizens for Limited
Taxation, a Healey-backing group that ripped his "Christy’s Proposition One"
plan to freeze property value increases between the time a property is bought
and sold. The fiscally conservative group said Mihos’s plan would necessitate a
constitutional amendment and take at least four years.
In an emailed response, Mihos spokeswoman Nicole Nionakis said, "Barbara
Anderson is not a lawyer and therefore unqualified to offer a legal opinion
on constitutionality. We have two legal opinions that have confirmed the
legality of Christy's Proposition One. She should be expending her efforts on
limiting citizens’ taxation; rather than acting as a pawn for a failed
administration, which has raised fees, fines and taxes by hundreds of millions
of dollars."
State House News Service
Monday, October 2, 2006
Healey unveils 'Spendometer,' Patrick camp calls numbers 'bogus'
[Excerpt]
Gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos' so-called Proposition
One sounds almost too good to be true.
Cities and towns would get millions of dollars more in state aid, as 40 percent
of all state tax revenue would be earmarked for schools and municipalities....
"Massachusetts has become unaffordable," Mihos said at a gubernatorial debate on
Sept. 26. "We have to get the money back out of Beacon Hill, back to the cities
and towns, and it can be done." ...
But under Proposition One, homes would only be reassessed when they are sold.
Mihos has argued that this system is fair because homeowners would be able to
determine their own home's assessment by how much they pay for the home, and not
partly by how their neighbors' homes are valued.
But one of the architects of the Proposition 2½ law, Barbara Anderson,
said Mihos' plan would be unconstitutional because two homes of similar market
value could have widely different assessments depending on when they were sold.
Younger families who move into a new home would end up paying much higher taxes
than their neighbors who have lived in the town longer, Anderson said.
"It makes no sense at all," said Anderson, head of the Citizens for Limited
Taxation. "Even if (Mihos) freezes some people's assessments, the town is
still going to get the same amount of money. Cities and towns have an unlimited
desire for our money. The town's tax levy is still going to go up 2.5 percent."
...
Richard Scanlon, principal assessor in Billerica, said Mihos' system would
"create tremendous inequity," and added that if the housing market were to
decline, some people would be taxed unfairly for the value of their home.
"If you really want to effectively limit taxes, I don't think the way to do it
is through property assessments," Scanlon said. "Proposition 2½ is one of the
better revenue-limiting laws throughout the country."
The Lowell Sun
and other MediaNews Group newspapers
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Mihos state-aid plan: Fantasy or reality?
Edward Moscovitch’s column ("Healey tax cut won’t add up,"
Sept. 29) complains that the voter-mandated income tax rollback is responsible
for increases in "unfair" property taxes. This mantra is used by those who also
have a long-standing opposition to the voter-mandated Proposition 2½ that limits
property taxes; I’ve debated both Moscovitch and the so-called Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation while defending Prop 2½.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Letter to the Editor
Meaningless mantra
by Barbara Anderson
In a five-year projection, the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation finds that revenues under current law are just about equal to likely
spending on current programs....
As Patrick pointed out, the Romney administration has requested just under $1
billion in new taxes and fees - other than the income tax (of which the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s Mike Widmer says the governor got about
$725 million).
In effect, Romney and Healey were agreeing that revenues were not adequate to
support essential programs. So the disagreement isn’t simply about how much to
spend (and tax) but about how to tax. Healey is proposing to cut the fairest tax
we have - one that takes roughly the same percentage of income from all voters -
and to substitute other taxes - most of which hit low income taxpayers the
hardest.
The most unfair - and unpopular - tax we have is the property tax; lower state
aid means higher local property taxes. One huge advantage of the income tax is
that you pay more when your income rises, and pay less when it falls. Retirees
on limited incomes pay little if any income tax, while property taxes on their
homes generally continue to rise.
The Boston Herald
Friday, September 29, 2006
Healey tax cut won’t add up:
State programs, local aid could be cut to the bone
By Edward Moscovitch
Potential supporters of Christy Mihos’ run for
governor weren’t just fashionably late last night at Louis Boston.
They were no-shows.
A fund-raiser at the city’s upscale shopping Mecca (suggested donation:
$500) failed to materialize. But the independent candidate, a Louis
loyalist since 1971, took the dismal turnout in stride.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, October 5, 2006
All dressed up — with no cash flow
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
"Mihos spokeswoman Nicole Nionakis said, 'Barbara
Anderson is not a lawyer and therefore unqualified to offer a legal
opinion on constitutionality. We have two legal opinions that have
confirmed the legality of Christy's Proposition One.'"
Today's question is, who do you believe, have more
faith in -- who do you trust? Do you rely on an ambitious and
wealthy wannabe politician acting-out a now-obvious and purely
vindictive scorched-earth grudge? Or do you trust an activist
who's been battling from within the trenches, getting her hands dirty
for taxpayers over the past three decades?
|
 |
| |
|
The Telegram & Gazette -
Worcester, Mass.
Sep. 27, 2006 - By David Hitch |
He's had his fun. Now it's time for Christy
Mihos to bow out gracefully, leave the campaign for governor to the
credible -- those who at least didn't get into the race merely too
avenge a personal slight. There can well be real and serious
consequences, irreparable damage, if he remains as at best a spoiler.
He can singlehandedly bring down the Commonwealth of Massachusetts over
the next four years, just in pursuit of assuaging his bruised ego.
What if you threw a fund-raiser and nobody showed, as
happened to Mihos last night? Take a hint, get out of the race
immediately with as much dignity and grace as you can salvage.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Lowell Sun
and other MediaNews Group newspapers
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Mihos state-aid plan: Fantasy or reality?
By Erik Arvidson, Statehouse Bureau
Gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos' so-called Proposition One sounds
almost too good to be true.
Cities and towns would get millions of dollars more in state aid, as 40
percent of all state tax revenue would be earmarked for schools and
municipalities.
Mihos' campaign commercial shows him standing in front of various city
and town halls across Massachusetts, announcing that his plan would mean
"$88 million for Worcester ... an extra $58 million more for Lowell."
Property assessments would be frozen at their current values until the
property is sold, purportedly allowing many senior citizens to stay in
their homes longer and afford the local property taxes.
Fees on all school activities would be eliminated, and districts would
be required to provide transportation free of charge to all students in
grades 1 through 12.
In fact, Mihos' campaign Web site seems to indicate that a respected
Beacon Hill think tank, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, supports
his plan to dedicate 40 percent of state tax receipts to cities and
towns.
"Massachusetts has become unaffordable," Mihos said at a gubernatorial
debate on Sept. 26. "We have to get the money back out of Beacon Hill,
back to the cities and towns, and it can be done."
But the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation says it can't be done, at
least not within the time frame that Mihos envisions.
Michael Widmer, president of the foundation, said it's true that his
group released a position paper advocating for 40 percent of state tax
revenues to fund local aid. But the MTF recommended that the increase in
funding be phased in gradually, perhaps over 10 years or longer, while
Mihos has called for the increases to happen by the end of his term as
governor, by 2011.
"We set 40 percent out as a long-term goal, with the strong caveat that
we can't do it any time soon without any major cuts in other state
programs," Widmer said.
In this year's state budget, local aid -- both K-12 education and
general government aid combined -- was increased by about $375 million,
or about 8 percent over last year. However, Widmer said it's
questionable whether the state Legislature should have increased aid to
municipalities by that amount, considering that the state has only had
one year of a significant budget surplus.
Under Mihos' plan, state aid to cities and towns would increase by $1.7
billion within four years, an amount that Widmer said is not realistic
given the state's budget limitations.
"It's a huge amount of additional state aid, and we certainly can't
afford anything like that," Widmer said.
Critics are also finding fault with Mihos' plan to cap property
assessments at their current values until a property is sold.
Mihos' plan is modeled after California's Proposition 13, a measure
passed in 1978 that limits annual increases in property assessments.
In Massachusetts, Proposition 2½ requires that residential properties be
reassessed every three years, and that a homeowner's tax bill can't be
more than 2.5 percent of the home's assessed value.
But under Proposition One, homes would only be reassessed when they are
sold. Mihos has argued that this system is fair because homeowners would
be able to determine their own home's assessment by how much they pay
for the home, and not partly by how their neighbors' homes are valued.
But one of the architects of the Proposition 2½ law, Barbara Anderson,
said Mihos' plan would be unconstitutional because two homes of similar
market value could have widely different assessments depending on when
they were sold.
Younger families who move into a new home would end up paying much
higher taxes than their neighbors who have lived in the town longer,
Anderson said.
"It makes no sense at all," said Anderson, head of the Citizens for
Limited Taxation. "Even if (Mihos) freezes some people's
assessments, the town is still going to get the same amount of money.
Cities and towns have an unlimited desire for our money. The town's tax
levy is still going to go up 2.5 percent."
Richard Scanlon, principal assessor in Billerica, said Mihos' system
would "create tremendous inequity," and added that if the housing market
were to decline, some people would be taxed unfairly for the value of
their home.
"If you really want to effectively limit taxes, I don't think the way to
do it is through property assessments," Scanlon said. "Proposition 2½ is
one of the better revenue-limiting laws throughout the country."
Frank Reen, chief assessor in Chelmsford, said that under a system like
the one Mihos has proposed, handling tax abatements would be "a mess"
because homes of similar market value would be taxed differently.
"The tax burden would be shifted to new property owners, assuming the
market continues to appreciate," Reen said.
William Barkin, assessor in Williamstown, called Mihos' proposal
"terrible" because of the inequities that would result in how homes
would be valued.
"You end up with total inequity in the property tax distribution,"
Barkin said. "You could have two houses, side by side, of similar market
value, paying completely different taxes for town services."
He added that the current system for assessing home values allows
homeowners to compare their home's value with their neighbors to see if
they are assessed fairly. It would be difficult to handle abatements
under Mihos' plan, Barkin said.
William Derrick, assessor in Lee, said that if the housing market
declined substantially, that would leave some homeowners with
unrealistically high tax bills.
Thomas R. Caputi, city assessor in Fitchburg, said Mihos' proposal would
"create inequities" between people living in the same neighborhood.
"If a house sold last year, then it's assessed at the sale price. But if
somebody else bought their house 10 years ago, what do you do if one
homeowner feels they're overvalued?" Caputi said. "You could also have
an elderly person moving in the same town, and they would be hit with
higher taxes."
Mihos' spokeswoman, Nicole Nionakis, said that under the existing laws,
property assessments are "unfair to all homeowners" and that Proposition
One seeks to add stability to homeowners' tax bills.
"The way things are now, property assessments continually rise for
everybody, whether they own their home for 20 years or they buy
tomorrow," Nionakis said. "That's what we consider unfair."
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Letter to the Editor
Meaningless mantra
Edward Moscovitch’s column ("Healey tax cut won’t add up," Sept. 29)
complains that the voter-mandated income tax rollback is responsible for
increases in "unfair" property taxes. This mantra is used by those who
also have a long-standing opposition to the voter-mandated Proposition
2½ that limits property taxes; I’ve debated both Moscovitch and the
so-called Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation while defending Prop 2½.
A community’s property tax levy is allowed to increase only 2.5 percent
a year regardless of what is happening with assessments or with local
aid, unless voters approve an override. If Moscovitch, MTF, Deval
Patrick and Christy Mihos were really concerned about property taxes,
they would require an actual property tax cut in return for the higher
income tax rate.
Barbara Anderson
Executive Director
Citizens for Limited Taxation
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Friday, September 29, 2006
Healey tax cut won’t add up:
State programs, local aid could be cut to the bone
By Edward Moscovitch
Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey hopes her commitment to reduce the state income
tax will land her in the governor’s office.
After all, the people voted to cut the income tax six years ago, and
she’s just giving them what they want.
Or is she?
Six years ago then-Gov. Paul Cellucci told voters he could cut taxes
without cutting programs. Assuming that to be true, they voted for a tax
cut - of course! But rather than wait around to administer his cut, he
resigned as governor and fled north - to Canada as it turned out.
We now know he was wrong; the tax cut meant a cut in state government
programs and state aid to cities and towns. Between the portion of the
tax cut that did go into effect and the economic slowdown,
inflation-adjusted state government spending is down about $2 billion
from its peak five years ago.
Each voter can decide for herself whether this is good or bad. The fire
station a half-mile from my house is closed most of the time, putting my
neighborhood at risk if we have to wait for a fire engine from the main
station four miles away. Schools in my town no longer have librarians.
Across the state, class sizes are up and students have to pay fees to
participate in athletics.
Spending on higher education is still well below the peak. Tuition and
fees are higher, making college less affordable for many students.
Massachusetts is a high-tech, high-knowledge economy. Can its economy
grow if it short-changes its colleges and universities?
Other areas that have seen big cuts are public health and environmental
protection. That means fewer people to protect us against communicable
diseases and contamination of the air and water. Healey and her
Democratic rival Deval Patrick agree that the Massachusetts
Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) and its high standards are a
priority, but spending on remediation for low-performing schools is way
down.
Healey said in Monday’s debate that we had a $1 billion state surplus,
so we can afford her cut. But $600 million of last year’s spending was
drawn from reserve funds, so the true surplus was $400 million.
In a five-year projection, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation finds
that revenues under current law are just about equal to likely spending
on current programs.
That means no margin for error if the cost of the new health insurance
program is higher than anticipated or there’s another drop in capital
gains revenues.
It also means no funds to restore cuts to state universities or to
expand early childhood programs. It means that any cut in taxes means a
further cut in programs.
As Patrick pointed out, the Romney administration has requested just
under $1 billion in new taxes and fees - other than the income tax (of
which the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s Mike Widmer says the
governor got about $725 million).
In effect, Romney and Healey were agreeing that revenues were not
adequate to support essential programs. So the disagreement isn’t simply
about how much to spend (and tax) but about how to tax. Healey is
proposing to cut the fairest tax we have - one that takes roughly the
same percentage of income from all voters - and to substitute other
taxes - most of which hit low income taxpayers the hardest.
The most unfair - and unpopular - tax we have is the property tax; lower
state aid means higher local property taxes. One huge advantage of the
income tax is that you pay more when your income rises, and pay less
when it falls. Retirees on limited incomes pay little if any income tax,
while property taxes on their homes generally continue to rise.
Of course, a cut in your income tax is desirable. But remember, it also
means a cut in every one else’s tax as well - which means even deeper
cuts in spending along with increases in taxes that are more of a burden
to the average voter.
Edward Moscovitch is president of Cape Ann Economics.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, October 5, 2006
All dressed up — with no cash flow
By Herald staff
All dressed up — with no cash flow
Potential supporters of Christy Mihos’ run for governor weren’t just
fashionably late last night at Louis Boston.
They were no-shows.
A fund-raiser at the city’s upscale shopping Mecca (suggested donation:
$500) failed to materialize. But the independent candidate, a Louis
loyalist since 1971, took the dismal turnout in stride.
"My wife, Andrea, asked Louis to do this," said Mihos, dressed in a
Kiton suit and Luciano Barbera tie. Other than his political entourage
of a half-dozen and the Louis sales staff - another half-dozen - the
event was a fund-raising bust.
One attendee was Mihos’ daughter Ashley, who is volunteering full time
on the campaign. She wore a complete Louis ensemble: dress, knee-high
boots and Prada handbag.
"My dad picked it out for me. He picks out the best clothes," she said.
The young, blond Mihos said she has spent so much time at Louis over the
years, a salesman named his daughter after her.
"He heard 'Ashley, Ashley' so much, it just stuck," said the
25-year-old.
The elder Mihos said the classic styles at Louis are timeless, but the
same can’t be said for the candidate’s figure. "My body has changed, and
not for the better," he said.
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
|