|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Ask your friends to join too |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
CLT UPDATE
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Imagine Taxachusetts without Citizens for Limited Taxation?
|
My Auto Excise Tax (2013)
I keep mentioning how much Proposition 2½
saves taxpayers in just the auto excise tax alone.
Perhaps an example might get my point across better about the
value to you and your need for the continuation of CLT.
In 1980, passage of CLT's Proposition 2½ —
along with capping property tax increases to 2.5% per year and
other things — dropped the auto
excise tax from $66 per $1,000 of your vehicle's assessed value
to $25 per $1,000 assessed value That's an annual reduction of
62%. For the past 34 years CLT has saved motorists a
fortune year after year with just its auto excise
tax reduction alone —
not to mention your property tax savings and savings from other
taxes CLT has repealed, rolled back, or prevented.
My 1999 (14-years old) Chevy Blazer
Present valuation according to town assessor: $2,550
($25/$1,000)
Excise Paid: $63.75
($66/$1,000) Excise without Prop 2½ would be:
$168.30
This year CLT saved me:
$104.55
in just my auto excise tax alone on a 14-year old
vehicle
How much excise tax did CLT SAVE YOU
this year?
FIND OUT HERE
How much do you want this and your other tax
savings to continue?
If CLT is not supported by you and enough others and must
fold,
you'll be on your own.
It's close to that point . . . |
|
As Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby pointed out on
this page last week, part of the problem is mandatory arbitration
itself, a foolish system that discourages honest bargaining between
a municipality and its safety unions. (Civilian unions aren’t
subject to mandatory bargaining, a distinction that really makes no
sense.) Yet, thanks to 1980’s Proposition 2½, this version of
arbitration is far better than what Massachusetts used to have — the
governing bodies of municipalities and towns at least need to
approve arbitrators’ rulings. Connolly — right now a member of the
City Council — has said he would vote against the award. And it may
well come to that; Menino has just 30 days to submit the matter to
the council and it’ll be under pressure to act soon.
Coming as it does in the middle of a campaign,
Connolly’s position is courageous. It’ll earn him the fury of cops
and other safety unions, but it’s the right choice for the city.
Walsh, on the other hand, would do away with the
reforms from Proposition 2½. Legislation he’s sponsored,
House Bill 2467, would make arbitration binding, cutting the City
Council out of the process altogether. In effect, it would cede to
arbitrators the city’s authority to manage its business. It is a
curious position for a would-be mayor to take (one would think a
mayor would want to hold on to power) but it is reflective of
Walsh’s union sympathies. And indeed, aside from urging both sides
to go back to the bargaining table, Walsh has offered up little to
show what, as mayor, he would now do differently.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, October 6, 2013
The defining issue of the mayor’s race
By Tom Keane
If he wants to be the next mayor, state Rep.
Marty Walsh better pry the pinky ring off his finger — fast.
He may now be within striking distance of
City Councilor John Connolly, but when both The Boston Globe and
Citizens for Limited Taxation agree you’re a union hack,
then you’d better stand by for a barrage, Marty.
He can knock on as many doors as he wants,
but there aren’t enough business agents in the city to elect
him....
The abolition of compulsory arbitration was
one of the
lesser-known parts of Proposition 2½ in 1980,
but was
absolutely necessary because the arbitrators, then as
now,
invariably ruled in favor of the unions. So compulsory
arbitration was abolished, although later, Prop 2½ was
changed to allow some arbitration, with the stipulation that
final
approval of the union contracts would be left to city
councils or town meetings.
Now it turns out that Walsh, who until
earlier this year was collecting $150,000-plus from the building
trades as a pinky ring boss, has been introducing a bill every
year to plunge Massachusetts back into the bad old days of
compulsory arbitration.
“Now,” Citizens for Limited Taxation
said in a memo to legislators last night, “he can no longer
pretend he isn’t a tool of the union for which he’s been filing
H.B. 2467 for over a
decade.”
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
For Marty Walsh,
union ties might prove too binding
By Howie Carr
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Yesterday CLT delivered a
memo
to all members of the Massachusetts House and Senate, warning of the
latest threat to Proposition 2½. Our
memo was also sent as a news release to hundreds of reporters and
other media outlets across the state —
as well as a copy to you. This latest assault appeared in Saturday's
Boston Globe. As soon as we caught it we were on top of it
immediately over last weekend.
Like the last attack in 2010, it's not a direct
and obvious assault but rather an attempt at subtle erosion, a foot
in the door; one that could and likely soon would lead to a
wholesale gutting of Prop 2½. The 2.5%
cap on property tax increases would soon be but a memory.
When we first uncovered the last stealth threat
to our Proposition 2½ and launched our
successful defense of taxpayers, I wrote in my April 23, 2010
commentary ("CLT's 'prevent defense' winning another one for
Prop 2½"):
Too often we hear "Sure, CLT
helped taxpayers — long
ago, but why would I want to become a member; what
have you done for me lately?"
Well maybe now those cynics will
realize that 'prevent defense' in a far more
critical day-to-day function of Citizens for Limited
Taxation than it is given credit for. Sure,
the bad we prevent isn't as high-profile as our past
ballot campaigns to cut taxes
— but think what would have happened had CLT
not been here to discover and alert everyone to this
latest assault on our Proposition 2½ (see Wednesday
night's news release). Consider how much our
immediate actions —
your CLT staff's and yours —
have once again saved all taxpayers across the
commonwealth.
Well here we are again, just four years later
uncovering yet another stealth attack on Proposition 2½.
Fortunately CLT is still here, still eternally vigilant, and still
fighting back for you, thanks to the financial support of loyal members
through their continuing contributions.
A CLT BLAST FROM THE
(RECENT) PAST
CLT Update. Apr. 27, 2010
Taxpayers win a big one; CLT saves Proposition 2½ again!
My Commentary
. . . Consider how much this tax
hike would have cost taxpayers, every homeowner
across the state — if
CLT had been forced to close its doors last year as
then seemed inevitable, until members like you came
to its rescue with your generous contributions!
Barbara estimated $550 million more; The lead
sponsor, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman
Charles Murphy (D-Burlington), admitted to $164
million — but insisted
it isn't really a tax hike, and it wouldn't be a
permanent increase anyway — it was to be just
another one of those little "temporary" tax
increases.
Thirty years ago this November CLT and its members
provided Massachusetts taxpayers with Proposition
2½.
Yesterday we saved it from destruction, again.
But eternal vigilance means never resting, and the
next attack is already rising over the horizon. Even
as we were on the front steps of the State House
saving Prop 2½, the Gimme Lobby was gathered within
the walls plotting the next tax increases. Does it
surprise you that among those lusting for more of
your money is — the
Massachusetts Teachers Association?
Let's all hope CLT is still alive for the next round
of tax hike assaults.
After our successful defense of Proposition 2½
against that 2010 stealth attack, a lot of gratitude was expressed
for CLT's vigilance and tenacity. On April 28, 2010 The Salem
News pointed out ("Message delivered: Don't mess with Prop. 2½"):
The latest threat to the tax
limitation measure came in the form of a proposal by
the House Ways & Means Committee to exempt municipal
"overlay" accounts — the money set aside to pay for
property tax abatements — from Prop. 2½ limits. As
Citizens for Limited Taxation was quick to point
out, any surplus money in these accounts can be used
for any municipal purpose and thus might provide
officials with a means of circumventing the levy
limit without having to resort to an override
vote....
Monday's action represents a
minor victory for taxpayers who are already feeling
overburdened by the cost of generous wages and
fringe benefits granted municipal employees over the
years.
The Eagle-Tribune added:
A section of the bill would have
allowed communities to exempt municipal "overlay"
accounts — the money set aside to pay for property
tax abatements — from Prop 2½ limits. As tax
watchdog Citizens for Limited Taxation was quick to
point out, this would have provided officials with a
means of circumventing the levy limit without having
to resort to an override vote.
Fortunately, the ruse was
detected and the offending passage was stripped from
the bill.
CLT is still here working for taxpayers like you, struggling to get by
day-to-day as usual. For just how long remains up to you and
other supporters, past and present.
It's time to decide, and here's the question:
Can you afford Taxachusetts without Citizens for Limited Taxation?
PLEASE
SUPPORT CLT, HERE AND NOW
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
History of the 2010 Assault on Proposition 2½
|
Apr 21, 2010 |
House leadership attacks
Proposition 2½; Urges major tax hike  |
|
Apr
23, 2010 |
CLT's 'prevent defense'
winning another one for Prop 2½ |
|
Apr
25, 2010 |
Taxpayers demand a
Section 8 discharge for stealth tax |
|
Apr
27, 2010 |
Taxpayers win a big one;
CLT saves Proposition 2½ again! |
|
Apr 29, 2010 |
More news and commentary
on CLT's latest taxpayer win |
|
|
|
|
|
The Boston Globe
Sunday, October 6, 2013
The defining issue of the mayor’s race
By Tom Keane
It's nonsense to say that Boston can’t afford the $83 million pay
hike a panel of arbitrators just awarded to the Boston Police
Patrolmen’s Union. With an annual budget of $2.6 billion, of course
it can. Here’s how: Increase class sizes. Reduce the number of cops
on the street. Stop twice-weekly trash pickups. Cut the parks
department.
It’s choices like these that make this issue — a consequence of a
bombshell decision that just came out last week — perhaps the issue
of the city’s mayoral campaign. And it’s one that will hurt
candidate Marty Walsh, feeding into worries that he is too beholden
to city unions to be an effective mayor.
The impact of the ruling is, in truth, devastating. Its 25.4 percent
increase over six years is more than double the 12 percent increases
that the administration and other unions had previously settled
upon. But the effect of the award goes much further. Additional
police unions are also about to enter into contract talks. The new
raises set a precedent; they’ll hardly approve of anything less.
Moreover, the firefighters’ contract, last resolved in 2010, is soon
to come up again. The arbitrators have effectively boosted cops’ pay
well above that of firefighters, meaning there will be calls for
parity between the two. And civilian unions, including teachers,
will doubtless see the agreement as a model for their own
negotiations. With tit-for-tat escalating demands, says Sam Tyler,
head of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, “This is like the Cold
War.”
Both Connolly and Walsh have proffered grand plans for their
administration. But Boston’s revenues grow slowly. A full 66 percent
come from the property tax which (excluding new developments) can
increase by only 2.5 percent a year. The second major source of
revenue — state aid at 16 percent — is actually declining. Thus, big
increases in labor costs leave little room for anything new.
Each of the two mayoral hopefuls appears to understand this. Walsh
says the contract is “not in the best interest of the taxpayers.”
John Connolly agrees, saying, “It would damage the city’s long-term
fiscal health.” But both men, in fact, would go in utterly different
directions.
As Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby pointed out on this page last week,
part of the problem is mandatory arbitration itself, a foolish
system that discourages honest bargaining between a municipality and
its safety unions. (Civilian unions aren’t subject to mandatory
bargaining, a distinction that really makes no sense.) Yet, thanks
to 1980’s Proposition 2½, this version of arbitration is far
better than what Massachusetts used to have — the governing bodies
of municipalities and towns at least need to approve arbitrators’
rulings. Connolly — right now a member of the City Council — has
said he would vote against the award. And it may well come to that;
Menino has just 30 days to submit the matter to the council and
it’ll be under pressure to act soon.
Coming as it does in the middle of a campaign, Connolly’s position
is courageous. It’ll earn him the fury of cops and other safety
unions, but it’s the right choice for the city.
Walsh, on the other hand, would do away with the reforms from
Proposition 2½. Legislation he’s sponsored, House Bill 2467,
would make arbitration binding, cutting the City Council out of the
process altogether. In effect, it would cede to arbitrators the
city’s authority to manage its business. It is a curious position
for a would-be mayor to take (one would think a mayor would want to
hold on to power) but it is reflective of Walsh’s union sympathies.
And indeed, aside from urging both sides to go back to the
bargaining table, Walsh has offered up little to show what, as
mayor, he would now do differently.
Connolly and Walsh have been typecast by some as two peas in a pod:
smart, engaging, white Irish guys. But the arbitrators’ decision now
makes stark the differences between them. Connolly quickly sided
with the city’s residents. Walsh may yet, but his hesitancy speaks
volumes.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
For Marty Walsh,
union ties might prove too binding
By Howie Carr
If he wants to be the next mayor, state Rep. Marty Walsh better pry
the pinky ring off his finger — fast.
He may now be within striking distance of City Councilor John
Connolly, but when both The Boston Globe and Citizens for Limited
Taxation agree you’re a union hack, then you’d better stand by
for a barrage, Marty.
He can knock on as many doors as he wants, but there aren’t enough
business agents in the city to elect him.
Here’s the problem for Marty. The preliminary election was a
snoozefest, so most people still don’t know who he is, or Connolly
either (a lucky break for Connolly, given his family). But now Marty
is getting defined, but not by Connolly, who seems to be spending
most of his time hanging around City Hall waiting for a chance to
kiss Mumbles’ ring, which by the way Hizzoner keeps in his back
pocket, not on his pinky.
What’s defining Marty is the cops’ new contract, with the 25.4
percent pay raise approved in arbitration. Walsh has been trying to
tap dance around the issue, but he’s no Fred Astaire.
He says the contract is “not in the best interest of the city,” but
nobody’s buying that he
opposes compulsory binding arbitration,
which he’s been trying to get back on the books for years.
The abolition of compulsory arbitration was one of the
lesser-known
parts of Proposition 2½ in 1980, but was
absolutely
necessary because the arbitrators, then as now,
invariably ruled in
favor of the unions. So compulsory arbitration was abolished,
although later, Prop 2½ was changed to allow some
arbitration, with the stipulation that final
approval of the union
contracts would be left to city councils or town meetings.
Now it turns out that Walsh, who until earlier this year was
collecting $150,000-plus from the building trades as a pinky ring
boss, has been introducing a bill every year to plunge Massachusetts
back into the bad old days of compulsory arbitration.
“Now,” Citizens for Limited Taxation said in a memo to
legislators last night, “he can no longer pretend he isn’t a tool of
the union for which he’s been filing H.B. 2467 for over a
decade.”
Maybe this is why Walsh,
according to the Herald/Suffolk poll
released yesterday, trails Connolly by 18 points among Boston voters
who couldn’t be bothered showing up at the polls two weeks ago.
The problem for Walsh is that since the Kevin White-Louise Day Hicks
fight in 1967, minority voters have invariably
decided the winner
of the mayor’s race (the only exception
being in 1983, when Mel
King was running against Ray Flynn).
So tell me, who would minority voters prefer to see get that $83
million slated to go to the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association —
the cops or the schools, which are 87 percent minority?
Connolly is already on record as opposing the award, and Marty is —
well, he doesn’t have a vote on the council, you know, being he’s in
the Legislature and all, and shouldn’t both sides return to the
bargaining table?
Yeah, right.
|
| |
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
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|