|
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
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Gear up for another battle
CLT's ballot campaign logo against
the 1994 Grad Tax ballot questions
|
A 15-member special commission charged with
looking at ways to make the state’s tax code simpler and fairer is
recommending a graduated income tax.
A graduated income tax - which imposes higher
taxes rate on those who earn more and lower rates on those who earn
less – was rejected several times by Massachusetts voters and
lawmakers have shown little interest in the idea. Massachusetts
taxes income at a flat rate of 5.2 percent.
The Tax Fairness Commission met for two hours
Tuesday, finalizing the report it plans to present to the
Legislature on March 3. There were five major recommendations,
including instituting a graduated income tax through a state
Constitutional amendment, and a recommendation for the Legislature
to prepare for an online sales tax, should it be enacted by
Congress....
While they voted separately on each
recommendation, the commission agreed not to vote on the final
report because some members felt they could not endorse all of the
recommendations, and would be forced to vote no on the entire
report.
Before they opted not to take a single vote on
the entire report, Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, said he planned to vote against the final
report, largely because of the graduated income tax recommendation.
Massachusetts’ economic climate is not
competitive, and the middle class is being squeezed, Widmer said.
The graduated income tax would be a setback to
the state’s economy because it will impact individuals who are
making decisions about locating and creating jobs, Widmer said.
Proposals to create a graduated income tax have
been defeated by voters at the polls five times, Widmer said, most
recently in 1994....
[Sen. Michael Rodrigues, D-Westport, who
co-chairs the commission along with Rep. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington],
said there was a lot of debate within the commission about whether
or not Massachusetts is above or below the national average on
taxes. “But certainly, I think most of us agree, as far as business
costs, we are a high cost state to do business, but not as
specifically as it relates to tax policy,” he said....
The commission was created by a Sen. Karen Spilka
amendment to the transportation financing package the Legislature
approved last July. The panel's work comes on the heels of
recommendations made recently by a Tax Expenditure Commission that
took a look at tax exemptions, deductions and subsidies extended to
individuals and corporations to relieve tax burdens on certain
populations and spur growth.
State House News Service
Tuesday, February 25, 2015
Tax Fairness Commission recommends Graduated Income Tax
A Tax Fairness Commission appointed by the
Massachusetts legislature is expected to make recommendations aimed
at lowering the tax burden on low and middle income taxpayers, but
raising taxes for those earning more money.
According to a draft report, the commission will
recommend the passage of a constitutional amendment to institute a
graduated income tax, replacing the state’s current flat income tax.
The commission will recommend other legislative
changes including raising the income tax rate while increasing
exemptions and tax credits that help low-income individuals....
“Were looking at fairness,” said State Sen.
Michael Rodrigues, a Westport Democrat and commission co-chair. “The
question is, is it fair that the poorest pay a higher percentage of
their income to taxes than do the richest? We tried to address that
in a specific, but not too specific, way.”
Opponents counter that the tax proposals would
discourage people from building businesses in Massachusetts,
resulting in fewer jobs and the erosion of the middle class....
Currently, the Massachusetts income tax is a flat
rate of 5.2 percent, after being gradually reduced due to a 2000
ballot initiative. The commission recommended, by a vote of nine to
four, a constitutional amendment to create a graduated income tax,
similar to the federal tax system, in which low-income taxpayers pay
a lower rate than high-income taxpayers. Proposals for a graduated
income tax have been rejected at the ballot five times in
Massachusetts, most recently in 1994.
Rep. Jay Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat and
committee co-chair, said the only way to systemically fix the
state’s “regressive and unfair tax system” is by adopting a
graduated income tax.
But Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, a
Gloucester Republican and commission member, said voters already
rejected a graduated income tax. “To repeatedly ignore what the
voters have said I think is a mistake,” he said.
The Springfield Republican
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Massachusetts Tax Fairness Commission to recommend
lowering state income taxes for the poor,
increasing them on the wealthy
According to the “Tax Fairness Commission”
appointed by Beacon Hill, middle- and lower-income families are
paying too much in taxes. Our state’s combination of sales, income
and property tax rates can result in low-income households paying a
higher share of what they earn in taxes than high-income earners.
So the solution is for Massachusetts state
government to stop spending so much money and lower the tax burden
on working families.
NOT!
I was kidding, of course. The actual
recommendation by the “Tax Fairness Commission” is to drastically
*raise* taxes on people who work hard and earn a lot of money. That
money will then be “shared” with people who don’t.
According to a draft of their proposal (which
will be finalized and released on March 1), the so-called “fairness”
commission wants to change the Massachusetts Constitution to
legalize a “progressive” tax system.
Under the current system, people who earn more
pay more. Their 5.2 percent is, by definition, more money than
low-income earners.
That may sound “progressive” to you, but
progressives want a system where people who earn more, pay more
more — not just a bigger check but a higher tax rate.
How high? High enough so that 80 percent
of the people in Massachusetts can have tax cuts or giveaways paid
for by new money from the other 20 percent.
The draft proposes a series of cash giveaways to
lower-income families to be paid for by raising taxes “in a way that
ensures that 80 percent of taxpayers see either a cut or no
‘significant’ tax increase,” reports the Springfield Republican.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, February 27, 2014
No ‘Tax Fairness’ in this clunker
By Michael Graham
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
― Ecclesiastes 1:9
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
As we noted in
yesterday's new release, if the so-called Tax Fairness
Committee's recommendation is adopted this will be the sixth time
voters will need to defeat a graduated income tax amendment to our
state constitution (1962,
1968, 1972, 1976, and 1994). CLT last defeated the Grad Tax
in 1994 with a vote of 65% ― close to
CLT's previous crushing of it in 1976 with 68% of the vote. (Citizens
for Limited Taxation was founded in 1974 to fight against the 1976
graduated income tax ballot question.)
Article XLIV of the Massachusetts
Constitution states:
Full power and authority are
hereby given and granted to the general court to
impose and levy a tax on income in the manner
hereinafter provided. Such tax may be at
different rates upon income derived from
different classes of property, but
shall be
levied at a uniform rate throughout the
commonwealth upon incomes derived from the same
class of property. The general court may tax
income not derived from property at a lower rate
than income derived from property, and may grant
reasonable exemptions and abatements. Any class
of property the income from which is taxed under
the provisions of this article may be exempted
from the imposition and levying of proportional
and reasonable assessments, rates and taxes as
at present authorized by the constitution. This
article shall not be construed to limit the
power of the general court to impose and levy
reasonable duties and excises.
The barrier
"progressives/liberals" have for so long lusted to crash is:
"shall be levied at a uniform rate throughout the commonwealth upon
incomes derived from the same class of property."
Unfortunately for them so far, income is "the same class of
property" for all of us ― who earn an
income and pay the tax on it.
If the distribute-the-wealth crowd
ever gets its way, we'd end up with an arbitrary number of separate
income brackets. Depending on your income, you'd wind up in
one along with others who earn a similar amount: over X income
but under Y income. Once such income brackets are established
they'd be easy to hike.
Divide and conquer; raise the tax
rate on only one bracket at a time. The targeted income
bracket, as a minority group of all taxpayers, would find it
difficult if not impossible to organize significant opposition with
any success.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did
not speak out — because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I
did not speak out — because I was not a Trade
Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak
out — because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one
left to speak for me.
—Pastor Martin Niemöller
CLT initially opposed the Grad Tax
on the philosophical grounds that Michael Graham expressed today in
his column: "Under the current system, people who earn more
pay more. Their 5.2 percent is, by definition, more money than
low-income earners.... That may sound 'progressive' to you, but
progressives want a system where people who earn more, pay more
more — not just a bigger check but a higher tax rate."
5.2% of $250,000 ($13,000) is a
whole lot more taken by the state than 5.2% of $50,000 ($2,600)
― $10,400 more. If it was
voluntarily given, I'd say that's very generous, thank you.
But we also realized how devious
it could become, and likely would (this is, after all, Taxachusetts),
if a single income bracket of taxpayers could be targeted, trampled
one at a time. Instead of Bacon Hill pols weighing a
confrontation with an army of angry taxpayers in a frontal assault,
they could stealthily pick us off one platoon at a time in perpetual
rotation.
U.S. Senator Russell Long,
(D-Louisiana), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance
(1966-81), recognized the political potential of such "tax reforms."
He said it simply meant "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that
fellow behind the tree!"
In 1994 there were two Grad Tax
related ballot questions for voters to decide. Both went down
to defeat with 65% opposition.
Question 6 was the constitutional
amendment to strike the "uniform rate" flat income tax and replace
it with a graduated income tax.
Question 7 was a statute
― a law that would have changed the
rates of personal income taxes (create the brackets and rates for
each. For example it proposed for those filing single:
up to $50,200, 5.5% ― over $50,200
up to $90,000; 8.8%
― over $90,000; 9.8%). As a
statute (law), Question 7 could be changed at any time in the
future, the rates hiked or brackets "adjusted," by a simple vote in
the Legislature.
“A government with the
policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured
of the support of Paul”
―George Bernard Shaw
The so-called Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation (aka, "The
Big-Business Fat-Cats' Trojan Horse") opposes the Grad Tax and
has always been an ally with CLT in this one issue. Its
president, Michael Widmer ― a member of
the commission ― was the sole
vote against it during the commission's February 12th and 25th
meetings, where it passed both 9-1. I suspect his Big-Business
Fat-Cat membership, along with concerns about business
competitiveness, frowns on being targeted as Beacon Hill's cash
cows. But hey, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
― we'll work with them against a Grad Tax
again!
The big question now is, will the
Legislature see this as an opportunity to raise taxes more easily
― or as the skunk at a garden party?
The first battle will be to get them to reject this on their own.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over,
expecting a different result. Do legislators want to put us
and them through it again for that same ignominious result? If
they do and we must, let's shoot for beating our old record with 70%
voter rejection this time!
For more information on the Tax
Fairness Commission, the minutes of its most recent meeting, and its
draft report, download the following PDF file by
clicking here.
Gearing up for another battle
Barbara holds a lawn sign this morning
that we dug out and dusted off from the last campaign.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Tuesday, February 25, 2015
Tax Fairness Commission recommends Graduated Income Tax
By Colleen Quinn
A 15-member special commission charged with looking at ways to make
the state’s tax code simpler and fairer is recommending a graduated
income tax.
A graduated income tax - which imposes higher taxes rate on those
who earn more and lower rates on those who earn less – was rejected
several times by Massachusetts voters and lawmakers have shown
little interest in the idea. Massachusetts taxes income at a flat
rate of 5.2 percent.
The Tax Fairness Commission met for two hours Tuesday, finalizing
the report it plans to present to the Legislature on March 3. There
were five major recommendations, including instituting a graduated
income tax through a state Constitutional amendment, and a
recommendation for the Legislature to prepare for an online sales
tax, should it be enacted by Congress.
A third recommendation suggested a set of proposals to address
inequalities for low- and middle-income taxpayers, which includes
expanding the property tax circuit breaker to make all low-income
families and individuals eligible for the tax break now available
only to senior citizens.
The commission also recommended raising the current personal
exemption on single tax filers, heads of household, and those who
are married filing jointly.
While they voted separately on each recommendation, the commission
agreed not to vote on the final report because some members felt
they could not endorse all of the recommendations, and would be
forced to vote no on the entire report.
Before they opted not to take a single vote on the entire report,
Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation,
said he planned to vote against the final report, largely because of
the graduated income tax recommendation.
Massachusetts’ economic climate is not competitive, and the middle
class is being squeezed, Widmer said.
The graduated income tax would be a setback to the state’s economy
because it will impact individuals who are making decisions about
locating and creating jobs, Widmer said.
Proposals to create a graduated income tax have been defeated by
voters at the polls five times, Widmer said, most recently in 1994.
Sen. Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport), who co-chaired the commission
along with Rep. Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington), said he agrees with many
of the concerns Widmer expressed about the state’s competitiveness,
but said the problem is not necessarily tax policy.
“It is unemployment insurance. It’s wages. It’s cost of health care.
It’s the cost of housing. It’s the cost of transportation,” he told
the News Service. “It’s all the sundry costs that go into the big
umbrella of competitiveness.”
Rodrigues said there was a lot of debate within the commission about
whether or not Massachusetts is above or below the national average
on taxes. “But certainly, I think most of us agree, as far as
business costs, we are a high cost state to do business, but not as
specifically as it relates to tax policy,” he said.
In October, the commission digested data on taxes paid as percentage
of income.
The lowest 20 percent of earners in Massachusetts during 2011 paid
12.2 percent of their earnings in income, sales and certain excise
taxes and the highest wage earners paid 5.7 percent, according to
Department of Revenue data presented Tuesday to members of the new
Tax Fairness Commission.
Rodrigues said the commission tried to be careful not to be too
specific with any of the recommendations.
“We wanted the real specifics, and the dotting the I’s, crossing the
T’s to be left with the Legislature because there are lots of
dynamic analysis,” Rodrigues said after the meeting. “It is
complicated and we don’t have time nor the capabilities, if you
will, to really engage in that level of analysis. So that’s why we
left that open.”
The commission was charged with recommending ways to make the tax
code simpler and fairer while promoting economic growth and staying
competitive with other states. Yet it is unclear how much sway the
commission will have with the Legislature.
Legislators went through a grueling tax debate last year, and do not
appear ready to reopen a discussion about taxes.
Lawmakers rejected a plan Gov. Deval Patrick proposed that would
have raised $1.9 billion in new revenue for the state by increasing
the income tax rate, lowering the sales tax rate and eliminating
dozens of personal and corporate tax exemptions and deductions. The
governor argued his plan would not only generate the money needed to
invest in transportation and education, but make the tax system more
equitable for people across the income spectrum. Lawmakers opted for
a smaller package of tax hikes adding to the costs of gasoline and
tobacco.
During the meeting Tuesday, Greg Sullivan, research director from
the Pioneer Institute, offered four proposals that dealt with
taxation of corporations. After a lengthy discussion, the commission
voted 11 to 2 to recommend that the Legislature and governor
“explore” the four proposals, but they disagreed about whether the
ideas were in fact the right moves to make.
The first one, according to Sullivan, would help Massachusetts
reestablish itself as a national leader in research and development
by attracting businesses and jobs to the state through a “super” R&D
tax credit. The credit would allow qualified research expenditures
in excess of 150 percent of the prior year’s level to be eligible
for a tax credit, limited to no more than 50 percent.
“To me, if this commission wants to send a signal to make it fair
for R & D companies to really prosper here, I really hope we could
adopt this,” Sullivan said.
The second proposal would lower the minimum corporate tax paid by
small corporations. There are 37 states that do not have a corporate
minimum tax, Sullivan said. Massachusetts is the third highest in
the country at $456. Sullivan said it is unfair to companies that
are just starting out.
The third proposal reduces the corporate income tax - an idea which
Sullivan said did not seem to garner much support from the
commission.
The fourth proposal recommends reducing the small business tax rate
to 6.5 percent, down from its current rate of 8 percent. New York
lowered the small business tax rate with success, he said. It would
apply to companies with taxable income of $290,000 or less.
The commission was created by a Sen. Karen Spilka amendment to the
transportation financing package the Legislature approved last July.
The panel's work comes on the heels of recommendations made recently
by a Tax Expenditure Commission that took a look at tax exemptions,
deductions and subsidies extended to individuals and corporations to
relieve tax burdens on certain populations and spur growth.
The Springfield Republican
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Massachusetts Tax Fairness Commission to recommend
lowering state income taxes for the poor, increasing them on the
wealthy
By Shira Schoenberg
A Tax Fairness Commission appointed by the Massachusetts legislature
is expected to make recommendations aimed at lowering the tax burden
on low and middle income taxpayers, but raising taxes for those
earning more money.
According to a draft report, the commission will recommend the
passage of a constitutional amendment to institute a graduated
income tax, replacing the state’s current flat income tax.
The commission will recommend other legislative changes including
raising the income tax rate while increasing exemptions and tax
credits that help low-income individuals.
Supporters of the recommendations point to the regressive nature of
Massachusetts’ tax system, in which those earning less money pay a
larger percentage of their income in state and local taxes than
higher income taxpayers, once sales, income and property taxes are
taken into account.
“Were looking at fairness,” said State Sen. Michael Rodrigues, a
Westport Democrat and commission co-chair. “The question is, is it
fair that the poorest pay a higher percentage of their income to
taxes than do the richest? We tried to address that in a specific,
but not too specific, way.”
Opponents counter that the tax proposals would discourage people
from building businesses in Massachusetts, resulting in fewer jobs
and the erosion of the middle class.
“The problem with those proposals is they pose a larger tax on the
very individuals who are making decisions about where to build their
businesses, whether in Massachusetts or other states,” said Michael
Widmer, a committee member and president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation. “The only solution to the dilemma facing
Massachusetts is to create jobs, and this would undercut the
creation of jobs and be counterproductive toward the overall goal of
a more competitive Massachusetts economy.”
The commission will also recommend giving the state authority to
collect an Internet sales tax. And the commission asked the
legislature to study ways to increase economic competitiveness.
The proposals were outlined in a draft report, distributed to
members at a meeting on Tuesday. The final report is due March 1.
The Tax Fairness Commission is a bipartisan group of 15 people. Its
proposals will go to the legislature and be used to create
legislation, which is likely to be introduced in the session that
starts in January.
Currently, the Massachusetts income tax is a flat rate of 5.2
percent, after being gradually reduced due to a 2000 ballot
initiative. The commission recommended, by a vote of nine to four, a
constitutional amendment to create a graduated income tax, similar
to the federal tax system, in which low-income taxpayers pay a lower
rate than high-income taxpayers. Proposals for a graduated income
tax have been rejected at the ballot five times in Massachusetts,
most recently in 1994.
Rep. Jay Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat and committee co-chair, said
the only way to systemically fix the state’s “regressive and unfair
tax system” is by adopting a graduated income tax.
But Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican and
commission member, said voters already rejected a graduated income
tax. “To repeatedly ignore what the voters have said I think is a
mistake,” he said.
“The commission would be better served to look at measures that
through increased economic activity, increased prosperity, increase
the amount of revenue that we have rather than just reallocating tax
burdens,” Tarr said.
The draft report also provides a package of reforms, also approved
nine to four, that can be passed legislatively.
They include:
•
Increasing the state’s earned income tax credit, a tax credit for
low-income working families with children, from its current rate of
15 percent of the federal earned income tax credit.
•
Expanding a tax credit for property taxes and rent, which is
currently given to senior citizens, to all low-income families.
•
Raising the current personal exemption.
•
Increasing the income tax rate to make up the lost revenue from the
previous proposals in a way that ensures that 80 percent of
taxpayers see either a cut or no “significant” tax increase.
The commission decided against offering specific dollar or rate
amounts for those proposals. “It’s important to give elected
officials who will be working with the recommendation in the future
flexibility, while making a serious and sincere recommendation about
the direction we think it ought to go,” said David Sullivan, general
counsel at the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.
Kaufman said the proposals are designed to address the “fundamental
unfairness” of the tax system as much as possible without a
graduated income tax.
But Tarr responded that the proposal opens the door to potentially
major tax increases, without noting what the changes would cost or
analyzing the impact on the economy. “It makes reference to limiting
the impact on 80 percent of taxpayers. Does that mean there would be
an extraordinary increase for others to make that happen?" Tarr
asked.
The commission was unanimous, with Tarr abstaining, in its
recommendation to let the state collect sales tax from out of state
vendors selling products to Massachusetts residents online. A bill
that passed the U.S. Senate and is pending in the U.S House would
allow states to do this.
The commission will also recommend that the legislature study ways
to increase economic competitiveness, including looking at adopting
a more expansive research and development tax credit, lowering the
minimum corporate tax rate and overall corporate tax rate, and
adopting a lower corporate tax rate for small businesses.
Gregory Sullivan, research director of the conservative-leaning
Pioneer Institute, had asked the committee to recommend those
changes, arguing that they would help Massachusetts attract
businesses. But committee members declined to adopt them as
recommendations because of a lack of information about how much
money the tax breaks would cost the state and how they would be paid
for.
Passage of the committee's recommendations is far from certain. Gov.
Deval Patrick, a Democrat, proposed an increased income tax in 2013,
coupled with a reduction in the sales tax and doubling of the
personal exemption, but the legislature did not pass his proposal.
Kaufman, Rodrigues and Tarr all said they believed the legislature
would carefully consider the proposals, but declined to predict an
outcome. “There were some honest questions put on the table, and we
tried as best as we can to honestly address those honest questions,”
Kaufman said. “Where it goes from here is a matter of politics.”
The Boston Herald
Thursday, February 27, 2014
No ‘Tax Fairness’ in this clunker
By Michael Graham
According to the “Tax Fairness Commission” appointed by Beacon Hill,
middle- and lower-income families are paying too much in taxes. Our
state’s combination of sales, income and property tax rates can
result in low-income households paying a higher share of what they
earn in taxes than high-income earners.
So the solution is for Massachusetts state government to stop
spending so much money and lower the tax burden on working families.
NOT!
I was kidding, of course. The actual recommendation by the “Tax
Fairness Commission” is to drastically *raise* taxes on people who
work hard and earn a lot of money. That money will then be “shared”
with people who don’t.
According to a draft of their proposal (which will be finalized and
released on March 1), the so-called “fairness” commission wants to
change the Massachusetts Constitution to legalize a “progressive”
tax system.
Under the current system, people who earn more pay more. Their 5.2
percent is, by definition, more money than low-income earners.
That may sound “progressive” to you, but progressives want a system
where people who earn more, pay more more — not just a bigger
check but a higher tax rate.
How high? High enough so that 80 percent of the people in
Massachusetts can have tax cuts or giveaways paid for by new money
from the other 20 percent.
The draft proposes a series of cash giveaways to lower-income
families to be paid for by raising taxes “in a way that ensures that
80 percent of taxpayers see either a cut or no ‘significant’ tax
increase,” reports the Springfield Republican.
That’s right — the “evil 20 percent” will be the cow for the other
80 percent to milk.
That’s right, baby — we’re gonna stick it to the Man! We’re going to
give even more money away to the dependency class, and we’re gonna
pay for it by shaking down those “Richie Rich” households earning
$127,000!
Rich couples living high on the hog like that can …
Wait — did you say $127,000? For a couple?
That’s a bookkeeper married to a car salesman. That’s a Boston
school teacher married to a Back Bay waitress. That’s one Boston cop
… minus the detail work.
But that’s the income that puts you in the top 20 percent in
Massachusetts, according to Census Bureau statistics.
And the plan is to raise your taxes big-time. If not your taxes,
then your boss’s, or the person who was going to invest in the
company where you work, or your business’s future customers. They
will all have less money so Beacon Hill can give away more.
Now add in this math tidbit: Under Gov. Deval Patrick, state
spending has gone up almost $11 billion — a 36 percent spending
increase.
That number is only going to get bigger, at the same time the
“fairness” commission wants to make the number of taxpayers smaller.
So the challenge for the 2-out-of-10 getting stuck with the tax hike
tab will be to pay for both the next $11 billion in new spending and
all the new giveaways in this tax plan … by themselves.
The unavoidable math will be very high income-tax rates and, thanks
to ever-rising spending, constant pressure to raise them even
higher.
Meanwhile the income tax rate 30 minutes up the interstate in New
Hampshire will remain “zero.” The same in Florida, Tennessee and
Texas.
If you were an entrepreneur looking to start a new business and hire
a bunch of people, would you go to the “War On The Top 20 Percent!”
state? Or one without an income tax?
Which is why I laughed when I read:
“And the commission asked the Legislature to study ways to increase
economic competitiveness.”
Step one: Tear up the report from the “Tax Fairness Commission.”
|
| |
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
|