|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Make a contribution to support
CLT's work by clicking the button above
Ask your friends to join too |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
Barbara Anderson's Great Moments |
Follow CLT on Twitter |
CLT UPDATE
Friday, November 11, 2016
America survives
again!
|
"(We) strongly recommend that the
Legislature and governor take steps necessary to increase
tax revenues available to meet the state's urgent unmet
educational and infrastructure needs."
— Board of
Editors of MassBenchmarks, a journal of the Massachusetts
economy published by the UMass Donahue Institute.
"You mean there are actually people existing
in Massachusetts who think we need more taxes?"
— Chip Faulkner, director of communications for
Citizens for Limited Taxation
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Monday, October 24, 2016
Heard on Beacon Hill
'We need more taxes?'
Yes, says UMass institute
And Republican Lieutenant Governor Karyn
Polito — standing in for Baker, who was out of state —
criticized the 3.75 percent tax on marijuana embedded in the
referendum as likely inadequate to cover oversight costs of
the new industry.
Polito, who opposes legalization, did not
directly answer questions about whether the administration
would be open to raising the tax, nor whether such a move
would violate its no-new-taxes promise....
Massachusetts low-tax advocates were
displeased with top policy makers’ stance.
“This adds whole new meaning to the comment
that taxes are too high,” said Chip Faulkner,
communications director for the Marblehead-based Citizens
for Limited Taxation, saying he opposed the prospect of
raising a tax that has not even been put in place.
He said it’s premature for politicians to be
guessing how much revenue marijuana legalization would bring
in, should voters pass it.
“Nitpicking us to death is what they’re
doing with that,” he said. “It’s killing us with a thousand
cuts — hitting you here, hitting you there. We’ve got enough
fees and taxes in this state.”
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Top lawmakers are open to raising marijuana tax
'Nothing more than a money grab'
The promise of additional state funding has
led voters in three other North Shore communities — Salem,
Beverly and Manchester — to adopt the act in recent years.
Other communities, including Marblehead,
have rejected similar proposals.
Chip Ford, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation, which authored the
Proposition 2½ tax cap adopted in 1980, said most
communities that have adopted the CPA were sold by advocates
on a guaranteed, 100-percent match from the state.
With its pool of money dwindling, the
program has become "nothing more than a money grab" for
local governments, he said.
“It’s just another tax increase, at a time
when people are struggling to get by,” Ford said. “You’re
raising taxes for something that’s not specific and handing
over those tax dollars to an elite group of people who get
to decide which projects are put forward.”
The Salem News
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Preservation money dwindling as more towns sign up
It's now a waiting game to see if the town
adopts the state Community Preservation Act that provides
funds for open space, history, affordable housing and
recreation through a property tax surcharge.
The measure is Question 5 on the Wrentham
ballot. Wrentham is the only area town with a fifth
referendum question on Tuesday's general election ballot....
Selectmen voted unanimously for the town
meeting request, but some board members have concerns with
the tax impact of the CPA and process. The CPA has also been
endorsed by the housing authority, historical commission,
recreation committee, open space committee and conservation
commission.
However, former longtime resident Francis
"Chip" Faulkner of Citizens for Limited Taxation
has been urging residents to reject the CPA.
Faulkner calls it a "tax scam," a "feel good
tax hike" and tax on top of "already high property taxes."
He also points out the town already has a
lot of protected land.
The Sun Chronicle
Friday, November 4, 2016
In Wrentham, voters face decision on land preservation
"I continue to occasionally have
(fundraising) events, and you never know what you're going
to have in terms of opposition, so it's always good to be
prepared, and to continue to make sure that there's adequate
resources."
— House Ways
and Means Chairman Rep. Brian Dempsey (D-Haverhill) telling
the State House News Service why he has some $550,000 in his
campaign account while he has not had an opponent in many
years.
"He needs $550,000 for a campaign war chest?
What war does he intend to fund
— World
War III?"
—
Chip Faulkner, director of communications of Citizens
for Limited Taxation (CLT).
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Monday, November 7, 2016
Heard on Beacon Hill
By Bob Katzen
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Wow, what an historic election for the presidency of the United States of
America. Can you imagine how we'd be feeling right now if it had gone the
other way? Hopelessness would describe my disposition. America is
fortunate in that when things look blackest we citizens in large enough number
rise and make the necessary change that turns the darkening night into a new
sunrise, another "Morning in America" in the nick of time.
19 states and the District of Columbia were carried by the Clinton/Kaine ticket.
29 states were won by the Trump/Pence ticket. (New Hampshire and Michigan
are somehow still counting.) At this moment President-Elect Donald J.
Trump — soon to be our 45th president
— has 290 electoral votes vs. Hillary Clinton's
228. As has been acknowledged by all everywhere, this was a stunning
result.
As usual, in " The
Bluest State" (as WBZ TV's Jon Keller in his book termed Massachusetts), we
are still swimming against the tide. The Bay State's "enlightened" voters
chose Clinton over Trump by a 61% to 34% margin. Not that those 11
electoral votes helped her nationally.
On Beacon Hill the "loyal opposition" Republicans picked up one additional seat
in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Republican Will Crocker won
the open seat in the Second Barnstable District bringing the total pro-taxpayer
count in the House to 35, and held onto the 6 seats in the state Senate.
Of
CLT's 2½ PAC endorsed candidates,
20 were victorious and 11 were defeated. We can all take a deep
breath and exhale now that the nation has been saved from what could have been.
Then it's time to roll up our sleeves and ramp up for the challenges ahead,
especially here in "The Bluest State." One thing we as Massachusetts
taxpayers know for certain is that we can never rest, more challenges are about
to confront us. We will be ready for them, as always.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Top lawmakers are open to raising marijuana tax
By Joshua Miller
Creating a potential quandary for the
no-new-taxes administration of Governor Charlie
Baker, Massachusetts’ top two Democratic
lawmakers said Monday they are open to raising
taxes on marijuana, should voters pass a ballot
question to legalize the drug next month.
And Republican Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito
— standing in for Baker, who was out of state —
criticized the 3.75 percent tax on marijuana
embedded in the referendum as likely inadequate
to cover oversight costs of the new industry.
Polito, who opposes legalization, did not
directly answer questions about whether the
administration would be open to raising the tax,
nor whether such a move would violate its
no-new-taxes promise.
But after meeting with Senate President Stanley
C. Rosenberg and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo,
Polito told reporters: “This is a new industry.
And compared to other states like Colorado, the
question, in our view, is flawed because it has
a tax rate that, in our view, most likely would
not cover the costs to regulate the industry.”
Rosenberg, who supports legalization, said “yes,
I would” be open to raising the tax beyond
what’s in the ballot question. He said he’s not
convinced that the rate in the proposed law is
enough to fund enforcement and regulation of the
new industry, as well as addiction treatment,
and public health and safety concerns.
DeLeo, who along with Polito and Baker strongly
opposes legalization, said “sure” he was open to
raising the tax. “Should the voters decide on
passing it, everything and anything would be on
the board in terms of whether it’s taxation,
whether it’s regulation,” he said.
The Massachusetts measure would create a 3.75
percent tax and give cities and towns the option
to add an additional 2 percent tax on sales.
That would be in addition to the state’s 6.25
percent sales tax. But the marijuana levy would
be much lower than in other states where voters
have legalized the drug. Washington State
imposes a 37 percent tax, for example.
Massachusetts low-tax advocates were displeased
with top policy makers’ stance.
“This adds whole new meaning to the comment that
taxes are too high,” said Chip Faulkner,
communications director for the Marblehead-based
Citizens for Limited Taxation, saying he
opposed the prospect of raising a tax that has
not even been put in place.
He said it’s premature for politicians to be
guessing how much revenue marijuana legalization
would bring in, should voters pass it.
“Nitpicking us to death is what they’re doing
with that,” he said. “It’s killing us with a
thousand cuts — hitting you here, hitting you
there. We’ve got enough fees and taxes in this
state.”
And Jim Borghesani, the chief spokesman for the
pro-legalization YES on 4 campaign, said when it
comes to the measure, “anybody who suggests that
there won’t be sufficient revenue to cover
expenses is flat out wrong.”
Proponents estimate the tax would bring in $100
million of state tax revenue in 2020. They say
the rate is meant to be low enough to quickly
snuff out the black market. Higher taxes, they
argue, would encourage people to keep buying
from dealers on the unregulated market.
A special Senate committee led by Senator Jason
M. Lewis, an opponent of legalization, estimated
Massachusetts would collect “$50-60 million in
total annual marijuana taxes and fees within the
first few years of legal recreational marijuana
sales.”
Baker, during his 2014 campaign for governor,
said he would not raise taxes or fees.
“I’m not gonna raise taxes,” he said in one
debate with Democrat Martha Coakley.
“I’m not going to raise fees,” he said in
another. He has not always lived up to that
pledge, signing a small fee increase into his
first budget in 2015.
Baker has repeatedly said enacting levies on a
“new service” that the government has never done
before would not be breaking his pledge. For
example, he signed into law a 20-cent per-ride
fee on ride-hailing services such as Uber and
Lyft as part of a bill regulating the industry.
Question 4 would eliminate penalties for
possessing, using, or purchasing marijuana
starting Dec. 15 and would allow recreational
shops to open in 2018. It would create a
Cannabis Control Commission charged with
overseeing the new industry and making
regulations to protect public health and safety.
In 2008, Massachusetts voters decriminalized
marijuana, replacing the criminal penalties for
possession of one ounce or less with a new
system of civil penalties. In 2012, voters
legalized marijuana for medical use.
The Salem News
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Preservation money dwindling as more towns sign
up
By Christian M. Wade, Statehouse Reporter
Voters in Danvers and Amesbury are among 16
communities deciding whether to adopt the
Community Preservation Act to save land from
development, spare historic buildings and build
new playgrounds and parks.
If voters approve in the Nov. 8 elections, those
communities will join 160 others that impose a
property tax surcharge, ranging from 1 to 3
percent, to pay for affordable housing, open
space and historic preservation. The state
provides matching grants to fund those projects.
But, in recent years, state funds have dwindled
and left cities and towns with a larger share of
the cost of those projects. Of 16 communities
north of Boston that ratified the CPA, the
state's contribution has averaged less than 40
percent in the past decade, according to the
Department of Revenue.
In the current budget year, the average
statewide match is 19 percent.
"The match used to be a good deal," said
Amesbury Mayor Ken Gray, who opposes the
additional tax. "Ten years ago, when it was
still a 100 percent state match, it might have
made sense. We've made huge progress reducing
the tax burden. Why would we do this now?"
Opponents such as Gray, who frame the debate in
terms of increased taxes, say dwindling state
funds mean communities get little in return on
the investment.
More demand than cash available
In recent years, the state Legislature has
passed supplemental budgets to replenish the
state's Community Preservation Act trust fund,
which is bankrolled by fees imposed on most
documents recorded at county registries of
deeds. Gov. Charlie Baker pumped $10 million
into the fund from reserves as part of the
fiscal 2017 budget.
But demand from communities has far outpaced the
availability of money from the state.
Clarissa Rowe, an Arlington architect and
chairwoman of the Community Preservation
Coalition, which supports the tax, noted cities
such as Boston, Springfield and Holyoke are
considering the surcharge. This means the
Legislature needs to approve more funding, she
said.
"It's been a very successful program, and that's
why the funds are low," she said. "With this new
group of communities possibly coming in, the
fund is going to get so low that everyone is
going to be squawking to legislators to approve
more matching funds."
Sally Kerans, a former lawmaker leading the
effort to adopt the tax in Danvers, said
communities struggling to find money to fix
historic buildings and protect land shouldn't
overlook potential money from the state, even if
the match is low.
"If there are state funds out there, why
wouldn't we take them?" she said.
Keith Lucy, a former Danvers selectman and
opponent of the tax, called it an
"irresponsible" way of funding local
improvements.
"Rather than raising money and figuring out how
to spend it later, we should be identifying the
need, finding out what the cost is, and
determining whether or not to fund it," he said.
"Supporters say this is free state money, but
it's really not."
CPA's origins
The preservation program has its roots in the
Nantucket Islands Land Bank, created in 1983 to
acquire open space. It grew in popularity and
became a model for preservation across the
state.
The Legislature approved — and then-Gov. Paul
Cellucci signed — the statewide Community
Preservation Act in 2000. Initially the state
matched local funds for projects
dollar-for-dollar, but a recession and housing
crisis depleted its funds.
Typically, once a city or town adopts the act, a
local committee decides how to spend the money.
Local officials must approve projects.
In most cases, low-income residents are exempt
from the surcharge, and the first $100,000 of a
property's value is excluded.
Despite the state’s dwindling share, the
preservation trust fund has spent more than $542
million statewide — including $100 million on
projects north of Boston — since communities in
the region began signing onto the program in
2002.
CPA north of Boston
North Andover, which adopted the tax in 2001,
has banked more than $23 million in local and
state funds — more than any community in the
region — according to the Department of Revenue.
That money has paid for a number of initiatives,
including $186,000 to restore the Stevens Pond
bathhouse and $300,000 for new ballfields.
Peabody wasn't far behind, adopting the CPA in
2002. In the past 14 years, the city has drawn
on the funds for numerous projects — acquiring
hundreds of acres of open space and recreation
land, preserving historic properties (including
City Hall) and even building a museum in tribute
to the city's leatherworkers.
In addition to affordable housing developments,
the city also regularly uses a portion of its
CPA funds to support its housing rehab programs
for low- to moderate-income homeowners.
Newburyport has used money to preserve open
space, including 293 acres of the 700-acre
Common Pasture, a scenic swath of agricultural
land on the Newbury border.
The city has collected more than $8.9 million
since it ratified the act in 2004, but the state
has only contributed about 37 percent of that.
Gloucester has by far the lowest state match in
the region, averaging 25 percent. The city has
collected nearly $2.5 million in state and local
funds since 2010, but the majority of that comes
from the local property tax surcharge.
Gloucester has devoted much of its money to
historic preservation, including repairs to City
Hall and the Cape Ann Museum.
Most of the funds collected through the act
north of Boston go toward recreational projects.
Georgetown used $100,000 to build two tennis
courts, for example, and $135,000 to rebuild the
American Legion Park. It also used funds to
preserve walking trails.
'Nothing more than a money grab'
The promise of additional state funding has led
voters in three other North Shore communities —
Salem, Beverly and Manchester — to adopt the act
in recent years.
Other communities, including Marblehead, have
rejected similar proposals.
Chip Ford, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation, which
authored the Proposition 2½ tax cap adopted in
1980, said most communities that have adopted
the CPA were sold by advocates on a guaranteed,
100-percent match from the state.
With its pool of money dwindling, the program
has become "nothing more than a money grab" for
local governments, he said.
“It’s just another tax increase, at a time when
people are struggling to get by,” Ford said.
“You’re raising taxes for something that’s not
specific and handing over those tax dollars to
an elite group of people who get to decide which
projects are put forward.”
The Sun Chronicle
Friday, November 4, 2016
In Wrentham, voters face decision on land
preservation
By Stephen Peterson
WRENTHAM - It's now a waiting game to see if the
town adopts the state Community Preservation Act
that provides funds for open space, history,
affordable housing and recreation through a
property tax surcharge.
The measure is Question 5 on the Wrentham
ballot. Wrentham is the only area town with a
fifth referendum question on Tuesday's general
election ballot.
Voters have opposed the CPA over the years, but
a group of residents gathered more than 400
signatures to get the question on the ballot.
The proposed 1 percent surcharge on property tax
bills would cost the owner of a $400,000 home
about $45 a year. The first $100,000 in
valuation is exempt.
"It's a fairly low amount," said conservation
commission Vice Chairman Barry Kassler, who also
chairs the open space committee and has helped
spearhead the CPA campaign.
The state, through money collected for deeds
recorded at county registries, matches 19
percent of what a community raises with the CPA.
Wrentham residents paid about $50,000 for
transactions last year.
Kassler works part time as an advisor to a CPA
committee in Stoughton, and said he decided to
push the local CPA effort again after seeing
what Stoughton has done with CPA funds.
"By adopting the CPA we are investing in our
future," said conservation commission chairman
Leo Immonen, who has been helping Kassler with
the CPA effort. "With such a fund, the town will
be in position to make legitimate offers for
valuable parcels when the opportunity arises.
Currently, the town has been unable to slow the
development of valuable open space."
The surcharge will be less than $1 a week for
most residents, Immonen said.
More than 160 Massachusetts cities and towns
have adopted the CPA since it began 16 years
ago, he said, and none have opted out.
The CPA ends up keeping taxes lower by allowing
the purchase of land that would likely be
developed into housing that would add more
students to local schools, Conservation Agent
Darryl Luce said.
"I'm tired of seeing 90-plus house subdivisions
cut into what were once woods, I'm tired of
traffic getting heavier every year and I'm tired
of watering bans," Luce said.
Luce said CPA money can also be used for
conservation rights on land that doesn't cost as
much as a purchase and allows owners to remain.
If the ballot question is approved, residents at
the Nov. 14 fall town meeting would be asked to
form a committee to oversee a CPA fund and make
recommendations at town meetings on how to spend
the money.
Selectmen voted unanimously for the town meeting
request, but some board members have concerns
with the tax impact of the CPA and process. The
CPA has also been endorsed by the housing
authority, historical commission, recreation
committee, open space committee and conservation
commission.
However, former longtime resident Francis
"Chip" Faulkner of Citizens for Limited
Taxation has been urging residents to reject
the CPA.
Faulkner calls it a "tax scam," a "feel good tax
hike" and tax on top of "already high property
taxes."
He also points out the town already has a lot of
protected land.
In November 2006, residents rejected the CPA by
just 232 votes. At that time, a proposed 2
percent surcharge would have added an estimated
$75 to the average tax bill.
It marked the third time residents have voted on
the CPA. One of those times, the CPA was coupled
with a $1.13 million tax increase via a
Proposition 2½ override, and both were soundly
defeated.
Kassler said there has been a lot of feedback
from residents, particularly those who have
moved into town the past several years, who have
singled out the value of green space in town.
In the Attleboro area, only Norfolk and Rehoboth
have accepted the CPA. In May 2012, Norfolk
residents voted to reduce the CPA surcharge from
3 percent to 1 percent of their tax bills. |
| |
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
|