CLT UPDATE
Monday, March 31, 2008
Divide and Conquer:
Expanded representation without taxation proposed
A proposal to let municipalities exempt some seniors
from Proposition 2½ tax overrides is drawing diverse responses in this
region amid signs on Beacon Hill that the legislation may be revised to
enhance its chance of passage....
Despite its strong embrace in the House, the bill has met resistance in
the Senate, prompting a move to consider changes to it, according to
Democratic state Senator Cynthia Creem of Newton, who chairs the Revenue
Committee and supports the legislation.
Those revisions would involve making the exemptions available to
income-qualifying residents of all ages - not just seniors - and
amending the income limits to $60,000 for a household and $40,000 for an
individual. Those would match the limits in the state "circuit breaker"
law, which provides income tax relief to seniors hard-hit by property
taxes.
The changes are intended to address concerns among some senators about
the effect of the exemptions called for in the existing bill on other
taxpayers, according to Creem, who is sounding out members to see if the
changes could increase Senate support for the bill....
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation and a leader in the 1980 campaign that passed Proposition
2½, opposes the exemption bill as an attack on the landmark law.
"They've never hidden their agenda, which is to keep seniors home"
during votes on Proposition 2½ tax increases, she said of the bill's
proponents.
Melrose Mayor Robert J. Dolan also opposes the bill. He said it would
lead to more overrides, which he called "the most destructive force in
local government."
The Boston Globe - North edition
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Officials split on tax break for seniors
So at least 50 cities and towns around Massachusetts, going
broke, want taxpayers to approve Proposition 2½ overrides, or else. They’ll lay
off teachers, firefighters, police. They’ll cut school programs, shut libraries,
close the firehouse down the street. If you don’t vote to raise your own taxes,
they’ll likely do all those things.
But here are some questions taxpayers should get answered before giving anyone
another dime....
You just won’t hear town officials admitting it when lecturing homeowners about
stinginess. Don’t you believe it - the real reason you’re buying Kleenex for
your first grader’s teacher and paying $175 for your high schooler to play a
sport is not because your property taxes are low. It’s because politicians are
either too inept, intimidated or worried about re-election to do a difficult
thing: demand reasonableness from municipal unions.
They can’t do anything about contracts already signed. But they can do plenty
about the future. So here’s another question: What, exactly, are they doing?
The Boston Herald
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Homeowners taken for an override
By Margery Eagan
As if soaring gas, heating and food costs aren’t enough,
cash-strapped Bay State homeowners in dozens of towns are being kicked in the
gut again as they’re asked to hike their own taxes.
The reasons towns’ budgets are being busted are myriad: escalating pensions,
health-care cost increases, energy costs, expensive construction projects.
But in many cases, it’s also to cover municipal employee raises that keep on
coming, despite the fact that the private-sector taxpayers who are funding them
are increasingly facing buyouts, wage freezes, pay cuts and layoffs....
And you wonder why we haven’t been able to shake the Taxachusetts tag . . .
The Boston Herald
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Tough times for taxpayers
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote
themselves largess out of the public treasury."
Alexander Fraser Tytler,
Lord Woodhouselee (1747–1813)
"In countries in which the poor have the exclusive
power of making the laws, no great economy of public expenditure ought
to be expected; that expenditure will always be considerable either
because the taxes cannot weigh upon those who levy them or because they
are levied in such a manner as not to reach these poorer classes. In
other words, the government of the democracy is the only one under which
the power that votes the taxes escapes the payment of them."
Alexis de Tocqueville
Democracy in America (1835)
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
The stealth attack on Proposition 2½ has broadened.
First, by a large majority its opponents in the House exempted senior
citizens below a certain income level from paying any local tax increase
approved by their neighbors -- but still allowed the seniors to vote to
impose the increase on others. At the very least, it encouraged
them to stay home, sit out the override election: The outcome
wouldn't effect them.
The House version of the bill was sponsored by Rep.
Ruth Balser of Newton, home of the notorious Taj Mahal Newton North High
School, dramatically over budget, in deep financial trouble, and
expected to exceed $200 million soon. Newton has an override
coming up soon for an additional $12 million to bail out its mayor,
David Cohen, and his grandiose scheme.
We came out in
strong opposition to the flanking assault on Prop 2½ and fought to
stop it in the House, where it nonetheless easily passed with a vote of
111-34. One of our arguments against this end-run around
Proposition 2½ was that, while it removed certain seniors from the
consequences of an override, other taxpayers would have to pick up the
seniors' share on top of their own additional burdens, and those others
may be less well off than the exempted seniors.
In
the senate, where a similar bill adopted by the House in past years
was killed, it appeared this proposed "senior override exclusion" had a
less likely a chance of passage. This may be changing if we don't
act quickly and strongly.
To overcome the fairness objection, state Senator
Cynthia Creem, also of Newton -- do you detect the pattern here?
-- is now pushing to amend the House bill currently before the Senate,
to make it more palatable, supposedly to make it more "fair." Her
tactic is to exempt ALL lower income homeowners from the consequences of
a property tax override -- seniors and non-seniors alike who make less
than $60,000/couple. She wants to exempt considerably more
potential taxpayers from tax increases which nonetheless they'll get to
vote on without any personal consequence.
If this assault passes it would mean that only those
whose combined family income exceeds $60,000 would be burdened with
carrying the entire tax increase -- both their own share as well as the
additional share of that special new class of homeowner: The
tax-exempt. The total amount of the increase, for example $12
million in Newton's case in the upcoming override, would be divided up
among a much smaller number of taxpayers.
CLT has long asserted that seniors are taxpayers'
first line of defense against overrides. The second line are those
living on the edge who can't afford more tax increases. If they
are both eliminated from consequences of a tax hike, freed up to stay
home or vote to tax others, Proposition 2½ for all intent will have been
defeated without a shot fired.
The Newton state representative and state senator
both crow that their respective proposals include a "local option"
provision, that adopting the poverty exclusion is up to each
municipality. Who do they think they're fooling? Name one
municipality that won't adopt it before putting an override on its
ballot! What do municipal officials care so long as they get the
net amount of a successful override, regardless of how few must shoulder
a larger burden. The sneaky part about the local option is, tax
exclusions aren't permanent: They can be rescinded at any time
after the override passes.
Alexis de Touqueville was a Frenchman who traveled
about the nascent United States of America between 1831-33, observing
how our nation was developing. He warned of this divide and
conquer ploy coming those centuries ago. In his subsequent (1835)
book, "Democracy in America," he wrote:
"In countries in which the poor have the
exclusive power of making the laws, no great economy of public
expenditure ought to be expected; that expenditure will always be
considerable either because the taxes cannot weigh upon those who
levy them or because they are levied in such a manner as not to
reach these poorer classes. In other words, the government of the
democracy is the only one under which the power that votes the taxes
escapes the payment of them."
This is precisely what may be thrust upon us,
codified in the proposed law to kill Proposition 2½ by stealth.
Sen. Creem's amendment does not make a bad bill
better, a weak bill stronger. It clearly makes the bad bill even
worse -- far worse for the already overburdened taxpayers of
Taxachusetts.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe - North edition
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Officials split on tax break for seniors
By John Laidler
A proposal to let municipalities exempt some seniors from Proposition 2½
tax overrides is drawing diverse responses in this region amid signs on
Beacon Hill that the legislation may be revised to enhance its chance of
passage.
The bill, approved by the House on a 111-34 vote Feb. 28, would allow
cities and towns adopting it to grant exemptions from tax overrides and
exclusions, in the form of abatements, to anyone 65 and older earning
$60,000 or less, or whose property taxes exceed 10 percent of their
gross income.
In interviews last week, supporters of the bill described it as a
welcome vehicle for cities and towns to help financially strapped
seniors, while opponents assailed it as a divisive mechanism to help
push through tax increases.
"I support things that allow fixed-income seniors, who are struggling to
meet their obligations for taxes, any kind of relief they can get. And
this would be one of them," said Joe Lisi, chairman of the Rockport
Board of Selectmen, who backs the legislation. "The important thing is
it allows towns to make that decision, the people within the towns."
But Middleton selectmen chairman Timothy Houten, who opposes the bill,
said, "The underlying purpose of this is to get seniors to vote for
Proposition 2½ overrides," noting that many refrain from doing so now
because they cannot afford the increased taxes. He said only those
affected by tax increases should vote on them.
The state's Proposition 2½ law caps the annual increase in a community's
property taxes to 2.5 percent plus new growth revenues. An override
permanently raises the tax cap by a specified amount. A debt exclusion
raises the cap temporarily to repay debt. A capital exclusion raises the
cap for one year to pay for capital projects.
Despite its strong embrace in the House, the bill has met resistance in
the Senate, prompting a move to consider changes to it, according to
Democratic state Senator Cynthia Creem of Newton, who chairs the Revenue
Committee and supports the legislation.
Those revisions would involve making the exemptions available to
income-qualifying residents of all ages - not just seniors - and
amending the income limits to $60,000 for a household and $40,000 for an
individual. Those would match the limits in the state "circuit breaker"
law, which provides income tax relief to seniors hard-hit by property
taxes.
The changes are intended to address concerns among some senators about
the effect of the exemptions called for in the existing bill on other
taxpayers, according to Creem, who is sounding out members to see if the
changes could increase Senate support for the bill.
State Representative Ruth Balser, a Newton Democrat and the lead House
sponsor of the original bill, said the measure would help ensure seniors
are not forced from their communities due to high property taxes while
also addressing the concerns of families who would like to raise taxes
to protect public services "but don't want to unfairly burden a very
valued part of their community."
"This really is a win-win," said Balser, who has filed a similar bill
now in four legislative sessions - the House has supported it each time,
and on one occasion it passed both branches only to be vetoed by
then-acting governor Jane Swift.
State Representative Mary Grant of Beverly favors the bill.
"I am very supportive of flexibility for cities and towns to do what
they need to do in particular to support things like education," she
said, calling the exemption "one more tool" communities could choose to
employ.
State Representative John Keenan, a Salem Democrat, also supports the
bill.
Keenan said that the proposed exemption could "take away the financial
stress from the decision" seniors on fixed incomes face in "trying to do
what they think is right for the community," adding that it is up to
each community whether to offer the exemption.
But state Representative Joyce A. Spiliotis of Peabody voted against the
bill, calling it "really unfair." She noted that younger families on
limited incomes and elderly residents who do not qualify for the
exemption would bear the burden of the taxes that would otherwise be
paid by those with exemptions. She said elderly renters might also have
to absorb the cost through higher rents as a result of higher taxes
imposed on apartment complex owners.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation and a leader in the 1980 campaign that passed Proposition
2½, opposes the exemption bill as an attack on the landmark law.
"They've never hidden their agenda, which is to keep seniors home"
during votes on Proposition 2½ tax increases, she said of the bill's
proponents.
Melrose Mayor Robert J. Dolan also opposes the bill. He said it would
lead to more overrides, which he called "the most destructive force in
local government."
Instead, Dolan said the state should pursue reforms - such as easing the
task for communities to join the state's healthcare system - that would
help avoid the need for the local tax battles.
West Newbury Board of Selectmen chairman Glenn Kemper supports the bill
as long as the tax relief seniors receive is permanent.
"It's something that we face every day in our positions as selectmen or
mayors: How are we going to be able to keep the older generations in the
towns they raised their families in," he said.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Homeowners taken for an override
By Margery Eagan
So at least 50 cities and towns around Massachusetts, going broke, want
taxpayers to approve Proposition 2½ overrides, or else. They’ll lay off
teachers, firefighters, police. They’ll cut school programs, shut
libraries, close the firehouse down the street. If you don’t vote to
raise your own taxes, they’ll likely do all those things.
But here are some questions taxpayers should get answered before giving
anyone another dime.
Has your town joined the state’s health insurance pool? If not, why not?
Joining would save cities and towns $2.5 billion over 10 years,
according to tax watchdog Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation. That’s enough to pay an awful lot of teachers, firefighters
and cops.
But almost no towns have joined, Widmer says, because local unions don’t
like the idea. They’d rather negotiate with individual towns. And
because the Legislature has failed to give municipalities the power to
override these unions, here go the towns again, begging, guilt-tripping
homeowners into thinking they’re cheap and mean and cynical when the
real problem is no political courage on Beacon Hill or in Town Hall.
Ask your selectmen if they’ve put pressure on Beacon Hill to act. Put
pressure on yourself. Call your own state senator or state
representative (617-722-2000) and ask why they haven’t dealt with the
health-care insurance pool. Don’t let them give you a song and dance.
A few more questions:
What is your city or town doing about police details? Pensions? At what
age can town employees retire and collect those pensions? Can they
“double-dip” (explained below)?
Some of us thought we’d be dead before what happened this week happened:
House Speaker Sal DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray and Gov. Deval
Patrick all agreed to rein in police details, plus the MBTA and the
Turnpike Authority.
Police details in cities and towns now cost between $37 million and $67
million a year, the Beacon Hill Institute reports.
The Turnpike and the MBTA are not, obviously, local. But reducing MBTA
fringe benefits (T workers can retire at full pension after 23 years)
would save the state $1.1 billion over 20 years, taxpayer groups say.
Such savings could mean the state actually funding the mandates it
imposes on cities and towns.
In Boston, health-care and retirement costs have gone up 38 percent in
just three years, the Herald reported this week. Mayor Tom Menino bailed
out schools with $10 million. But not a word about ending the sort of
practices that cost the city dearly.
Here’s a particularly galling one: the aforementioned double-dipping.
Boston Redevelopment Authority retiree Paul McCann, for example, gets a
$96,651-a-year pension - tax free. Yet he still consults at the BRA he’s
retired from - collecting a second salary of $2,550 a week there.
Incredible, isn’t it? He collects both pension and salary from the same
agency at the same time. But why shouldn’t he? It should be illegal.
Instead, it’s routine in Boston and at many state agencies and - rest
assured - in your town, too.
You just won’t hear town officials admitting it when lecturing
homeowners about stinginess. Don’t you believe it - the real reason
you’re buying Kleenex for your first grader’s teacher and paying $175
for your high schooler to play a sport is not because your property
taxes are low. It’s because politicians are either too inept,
intimidated or worried about re-election to do a difficult thing: demand
reasonableness from municipal unions.
They can’t do anything about contracts already signed. But they can do
plenty about the future. So here’s another question: What, exactly, are
they doing?
The Boston Herald
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Tough times for taxpayers
By Dave Wedge
As if soaring gas, heating and food costs aren’t enough, cash-strapped
Bay State homeowners in dozens of towns are being kicked in the gut
again as they’re asked to hike their own taxes.
The reasons towns’ budgets are being busted are myriad: escalating
pensions, health-care cost increases, energy costs, expensive
construction projects.
But in many cases, it’s also to cover municipal employee raises that
keep on coming, despite the fact that the private-sector taxpayers who
are funding them are increasingly facing buyouts, wage freezes, pay cuts
and layoffs.
Take Westwood, for example, where residents agreed to a $2.2 million
Proposition 2½ override last year and are dealing with another budget
crunch this year.
The town is giving its systems analyst a $4,000 raise on top of a nearly
$7,000 raise the previous year. A pair of literacy coordinators are
getting 6.3 percent raises; one of them will make $106,000.
But the real hikes are in administration: School Superintendent John
Antonucci is getting a $7,700 raise, pushing his salary to $162,000.
Other raises include:
Assistant superintendent: $6,000 raise to $135,000
Director of student services: $5,000 raise to $117,000
Business administrator: $6,100 raise to $97,900.
The pay hikes come just a year after the town built a sparkling new high
school nicknamed “The Mini Wang Center” that was finished late and came
in millions over budget.
And you wonder why we haven’t been able to shake the Taxachusetts tag .
. .
Alexis de Tocqueville
Democracy in America (1835)
Chapter 13:
Government of
the democracy in America
[Excerpts]
". . . Let us now suppose that the legislative authority is vested in
the lowest order: there are two striking reasons which show that the
tendency of the expenditures will be to increase, not to diminish.
"As the great majority of those who create the laws have no taxable
property, all the money that is spent for the community appears to be
spent to their advantage, at no cost of their own, and those who have
some little property readily find means of so regulating the taxes that
they weigh upon the wealthy and profit the poor, although the rich
cannot take the same advantage when they are in possession of the
government.
"In countries in which the poor have the exclusive power of making the
laws, no great economy of public expenditure ought to be expected; that
expenditure will always be considerable either because the taxes cannot
weigh upon those who levy them or because they are levied in such a
manner as not to reach these poorer classes. In other words, the
government of the democracy is the only one under which the power that
votes the taxes escapes the payment of them. . . ."
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
|
