 |
and the
Citizens Economic Research Foundation
Post Office Box 1147 ●
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 ●
(508)
915-3665
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
44 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Thursday, May 31, 2018
New Micro-Municipal Government
and a New Power to Tax
|
Massachusetts lawmakers are moving to impose as much as $50
million in new annual fees, considering a surcharge on car
rentals as well as some transactions involving mortgages and
deeds. Legislators argue the new money is needed for
police training, county government, parks and open spaces,
affordable housing, and historic preservation.
But should those proposals be sent to Governor Charlie
Baker, he indicated he may veto them.
“The governor does not generally support raising fees,”
said Baker spokesman Brendan Moss in response to a question
about the proposals. “The administration will carefully
review final legislation that reaches his desk.” ...
Key parts of the fee hikes have the backing of municipal
officials, police officials, and a bipartisan group of
legislators.
But low-tax advocates, who note that tax revenue has been
coming into state coffers at a steady clip, are strongly
opposed.
“More is never enough,” said Chip Ford, executive
director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. “I don’t
care how much they take in, they want more, more, always
more! It’s just a ceaseless drive to take more from the
taxpayer — by any means necessary.”
The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Beacon Hill moves to raise $50 million in fees on rental
cars, real estate transactions
The House overwhelmingly approved
legislation Wednesday that would allow property owners to
form districts and levy assessments to pay for improvements
within them.
Lawmakers have previously attempted to give
property owners the option of establishing community benefit
districts, and included a provision authorizing them in the
fiscal 2018 budget bill. That section was vetoed by Gov.
Charlie Baker who said the assessments are "the functional
equivalent of new property taxes."
House Ways and Means Chairman Jeffrey
Sanchez said there is broad agreement on the legislation (H
4546) that passed the House on a 149-2 vote on Wednesday,
which he described as a "compromise." ...
The Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance
cheered the Senate's inclusion of community benefit
districts in its budget bill a year ago.
State House News Service
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Neighbors could band together to finance community
improvement under House bill
Voters in Massachusetts are not new in
feeling that their elected representatives do not respect
them very much. In 2000, Bay Staters voted to
roll back the state income tax from 5.75 [sic - 5.85]
percent to 5 percent only to have the Legislature override
the measure in 2002. In 2017, lawmakers on Beacon Hill
passed an $18 million pay raise for themselves even as they
complained that the state desperately needed funds for other
programs. Last week the state Senate slipped
in a budget amendment that would essentially establish the
commonwealth as a “sanctuary state.” The classification
would prevent law enforcement from making inquiries into the
residency status of immigrants. It is fairly
routine that the hard-working, law-abiding voters of
Massachusetts are disregarded or treated with a measure of
disdain by our political leaders. In some cases, the affront
comes even before the candidate ascends to the office, as is
the case in the 3rd Congressional District, where some of
those asking for our votes have shoddy voting records
themselves.... It makes cynics of us all.
Satirist H.L. Mencken had a bead on it: “The government
consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They
have, taking one with another, no special talent for the
business of government; they have only a talent for getting
and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to
search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t
get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten
that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good
by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a
broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance
auction sale of stolen goods.” A Boston
Herald editorial
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Candidates seeking office can’t be bothered to vote
Voter attitudes about possible ballot
questions to charge a surtax on wealthy residents and reduce
the state sales tax rate to 5 percent have not shifted much
in about six months and both measures enjoy broad support, a
new poll shows. A MassINC poll released
Thursday by WBUR found that 77 percent of respondents
strongly or somewhat support the proposed ballot question
that would impose a 4 percent surtax on income greater than
$1 million and direct that revenue towards transportation
and education. The bulk of respondents, 57 percent, said
they strongly support the measure....
Pollsters also asked voters their thoughts on the proposed
ballot question to lower the sales tax from 6.25 percent to
5 percent and establish a permanent sales tax holiday.
Sixty-seven percent of respondents said they either strongly
or somewhat support the question and 22 percent somewhat or
strongly oppose it.... Voters might not get a
chance to weigh in on either ballot question in November.
The Supreme Judicial Court is due to rule any day on the
income surtax's ballot eligibility and the sales tax
question has been part of behind-the-scenes talks about the
Legislature taking action to avoid the question going to the
ballot. State House News Service
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Poll shows steady, strong support for income surtax, sales
tax cut
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
More, more, always more
― and More Is Never Enough
(MINE). That's what I told Boston Globe State House
reporter Joshua Miller when he called yesterday, informing
me of the breaking news. He asked how I felt about the
hike in fees. I told him that no, I'm not "outraged,"
the pols' actions are no longer "outrageous" because when
everything is outrageous nothing is ―
the word has lost its power.
I told Miller that I feel simply disgusted.
Disgusted with legislators who keep stealing ever more from
productive taxpayers even as state revenues pour in and are
spent even quicker ― but I'm
even more disgusted with the voters who keep electing
and re-electing them.
Further proving that More Is Never Enough,
yesterday the House passed a bill
[H-4546]
creating "community benefit districts"
― which is nothing more than a
stealthy way of creating a whole new level of government
with the power to create new taxes.
Effectively, it's an end-run around the restrictions of
Proposition 2˝ by dividing
municipalities into "community benefit districts"
that can then vote to tax individual sub-divisions of cities
and towns ― a neighborhood tax.
The State House News Service reported:
"Lawmakers
have previously attempted to give property owners the
option of establishing community benefit districts, and
included a provision authorizing them in the fiscal 2018
budget bill. That section was vetoed by Gov. Charlie
Baker who said the assessments are 'the functional
equivalent of new property taxes.'"
Did you get that? "Lawmakers . . .
attempted to give property tax owners the option" to be
taxed even more. How very generous of them.
Sadly, the bill passed in the House
yesterday with only two votes against it: Reps
Michelle DuBois (D-Brockton) and Denise Provost
(D-Somerville). I wonder what the story is behind
those two 'nay' votes, but not even one Republican voted
against this atrocity.
"House Ways
and Means Chairman Jeffrey Sanchez said there is broad
agreement on the legislation (H 4546) that passed the
House on a 149-2 vote on Wednesday, which he described
as a 'compromise.'
"'This local-option bill is going to allow property
owners in a community to pool their resources together
to improve community through this benefits district
proposal,' Sanchez said on the floor Wednesday."
This is what municipal property taxes,
excise taxes, fees, et cetera are supposed to fund
― but More Is Never Enough.
So the Legislature is plotting to burden taxpayers with yet
another ― new
― level of government with
taxing authority: the micro-municipality.
Block by block they're coming for taxpayers.
Will they next propose also taxing us at the street level,
then room by room?
That quote by
H.L. Mencken captured in the Boston Herald editorial
succinctly depicts today's dire circumstances:
"government is a broker in pillage, and every election is
sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Beacon Hill moves to raise $50 million in fees
on rental cars, real estate transactions
By Joshua Miller
Massachusetts lawmakers are moving to impose as
much as $50 million in new annual fees,
considering a surcharge on car rentals as well
as some transactions involving mortgages and
deeds.
Legislators argue the new money is needed for
police training, county government, parks and
open spaces, affordable housing, and historic
preservation.
But should those proposals be sent to Governor
Charlie Baker, he indicated he may veto them.
“The governor does not generally support raising
fees,” said Baker spokesman Brendan Moss in
response to a question about the proposals. “The
administration will carefully review final
legislation that reaches his desk.”
Last week, the state Senate and House of
Representatives passed separate bills that
included a new $2 fee for each car rental
transaction in the state. The revenue would
support municipal police training.
The Senate, but not the House, also passed tens
of millions of dollars in fee increases at
registries of deeds that would hike underlying
fees — for example, the cost of recording a
mortgage would rise from $150 to $160 — as well
as increase a surcharge on most transactions
from $20 to $50.
Key parts of the fee hikes have the backing of
municipal officials, police officials, and a
bipartisan group of legislators.
But low-tax advocates, who note that tax revenue
has been coming into state coffers at a steady
clip, are strongly opposed.
“More is never enough,” said Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation. “I don’t care how much they take
in, they want more, more, always more! It’s just
a ceaseless drive to take more from the taxpayer
— by any means necessary.”
The car rental surcharge has nearly universal
support in the Legislature, passing in the
House, 149-4, and in the Senate as a budget
amendment, 37-0, with the backing of every
Republican. Those margins would easily override
a Baker veto.
Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, a Winthrop Democrat,
said, “The House heard from police chiefs and
recognizes the need for additional funds for
municipal police training.”
That new rental car fee would add up to $8
million or more each year, and would be
deposited in a fund for municipal police
training for recruits as well as veteran
officers. It would create a steady stream of
revenue that law enforcement officials and
advocates say is sorely needed.
Senator Julian Cyr, a Democrat who sponsored the
Senate budget amendment that includes the fee,
said, “The scope of law enforcement has
expanded, if you look at the response to the
opioid epidemic. . . . We’re asking them to do
more and more, so having a stable, predictable
training fund that’s not connected to the
year-to-year up and down is key.”
Chelsea Police Chief Brian Kyes echoed that view
and said, “The fee is nominal and it relieves
taxpayers from the burden of paying for this
training.”
The surcharge wouldn’t apply to ride-hailing
companies such as Uber and Lyft, nor on rental
periods of less than 12 hours that are charged
on an hourly basis.
But the top US car rental company group, which
represents 98 percent of the industry, is
decrying the effort.
The American Car Rental Association said in a
statement that it “wholeheartedly supports law
enforcement and enhanced training.”
However, the group said, “At least 50 percent of
those who rent cars in Massachusetts are local
residents and companies. So this additional tax
seems misplaced and unfair since there are other
far more equitable ways for responsible
lawmakers to fund such important programs.”
For rentals in Boston, there is already a
surcharge of $10 per transaction that goes to
the construction and financing of convention
centers in the state, alongside additional
costs.
The other slew of proposed fee increases that
could become law apply to actions people take at
the registry of deeds, such as recording a
mortgage or a deed. They were included in the
Senate-passed state budget but not in the budget
passed by the House. That means they may or may
not be included in the final budget that is sent
to the governor.
(Neither budget includes broad-based tax
increases, but voters may have an opportunity to
impose a new income surtax on high earners at
the ballot box this fall.)
One set of fee hikes would apply to transactions
at a registry. Among them: The fee for recording
a mortgage would rise from $150 to $160; the fee
for recording a deed would rise from $100 to
$110; and the fee for recording a declaration of
trust would rise from $200 to $210.
In the several counties where county government
still exists and runs the registries, it appears
much of the new money would be retained by the
county government. Everywhere else — such as in
Middlesex County — the state’s general fund
would likely get most of the extra cash.
The other increase in registry of deeds charges
would be to a surcharge on most transactions —
in addition to the underlying fees — to $50 from
$20, and to $25 from $10 for recording a
municipal lien certificate.
That increase would support the Community
Preservation Act, a state law that plows local
and state money into open space preservation,
playgrounds, athletic fields, affordable
housing, and historic preservation.
Voters in about half of the cities and towns in
Massachusetts have chosen to increase their
property taxes and put that money into community
preservation projects.
The new registry fees would supplement the
revenue generated by local property taxes. In
the early 2000s, the state was able to match the
local funds accrued under the Community
Preservation Act at 100 percent. But due to
inflation and the big uptick in the number of
communities joining, that’s now down to a match
of just 11 percent.
“There’s a bit of a crisis in funding for the
CPA program,” said Stuart Saginor, executive
director of the Community Preservation
Coalition, a nonprofit. “We certainly don’t want
to go backwards.”
He said the surcharge for registry fees has
never been increased since the CPA was signed
into law in 2000. The act, Saginor said, has
“contributed tremendously to Commonwealth’s
quality of life,” supporting vast tracts of
preserved open space, tens of thousands of
affordable housing units, and myriad historic
preservation and outdoor recreation projects.
Fiscal watchdogs urged caution.
Doug Howgate of the business-backed
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation said the
group estimates the total new annual revenue
from the car rental fee and community
preservation surcharge alone would be in the
range of $35 million to $50 million.
“That’s a lot of money,” he said. “Any time you
are generating multiple tens of millions in new
revenue, you need to make sure people are
comfortable with how it’s being spent and how
it’s being tracked over time.”
State House News Service
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Neighbors could band together to finance
community improvement under House bill
By Andy Metzger
The House overwhelmingly approved legislation
Wednesday that would allow property owners to
form districts and levy assessments to pay for
improvements within them.
Lawmakers have previously attempted to give
property owners the option of establishing
community benefit districts, and included a
provision authorizing them in the fiscal 2018
budget bill. That section was vetoed by Gov.
Charlie Baker who said the assessments are "the
functional equivalent of new property taxes."
House Ways and Means Chairman Jeffrey Sanchez
said there is broad agreement on the legislation
(H 4546) that passed the House on a 149-2 vote
on Wednesday, which he described as a
"compromise."
"This local-option bill is going to allow
property owners in a community to pool their
resources together to improve community through
this benefits district proposal," Sanchez said
on the floor Wednesday.
With the approval of the local government,
property owners within the municipality could
band together and form a district if they own a
majority of the assessed value within it.
"Large property owners already have outsized
political power," said Rep. Denise Provost, a
Somerville Democrat. She said, "This bill gives
them quasi-governmental powers."
Provost and Brockton Democrat Rep. Michelle
DuBois cast the lone votes against the bill in
the House. Provost said property owners can't
opt out of the districts, the bill doesn't
require notification to tenants in a proposed
district, and she doubts municipal governments
have "the sophistication to evaluate complex
proposals like this" under the time-frame
included in the bill.
The bill would require a hearing on community
benefit district proposals, and it would require
a decision within 180 days of filing a petition.
The Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance cheered
the Senate's inclusion of community benefit
districts in its budget bill a year ago.
The districts "provide services that are not
supported by the municipality, which may include
items like sidewalk cleaning, cultural
programming, public art, branding and marketing,
street furniture, landscaping, and more," and
they are managed by a non-profit financed by
property owners, donations and program revenues,
the alliance said about last year's proposal.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
A Boston Herald editorial
Candidates seeking office can’t be bothered to
vote
Voters in Massachusetts are not new in feeling
that their elected representatives do not
respect them very much.
In 2000, Bay Staters voted to roll back the
state income tax from 5.75 [sic - 5.85] percent
to 5 percent only to have the Legislature
override the measure in 2002. In 2017, lawmakers
on Beacon Hill passed an $18 million pay raise
for themselves even as they complained that the
state desperately needed funds for other
programs.
Last week the state Senate slipped in a budget
amendment that would essentially establish the
commonwealth as a “sanctuary state.” The
classification would prevent law enforcement
from making inquiries into the residency status
of immigrants.
It is fairly routine that the hard-working,
law-abiding voters of Massachusetts are
disregarded or treated with a measure of disdain
by our political leaders. In some cases, the
affront comes even before the candidate ascends
to the office, as is the case in the 3rd
Congressional District, where some of those
asking for our votes have shoddy voting records
themselves.
As the Herald’s Hillary Chabot reported, former
U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Rufus Gifford didn’t
vote in the 2004 or 2016 presidential primaries,
according to the California secretary of state.
Gifford is from Manchester by the Sea. He
volunteered for the John Kerry presidential
campaign in 2004 and was quickly hired, but
apparently his interest in the political process
has its limitations.
Dan Koh, the former chief of staff to Mayor
Marty Walsh, missed the 2010 special Senate
election that saw Scott Brown win the seat
formerly occupied by U.S. Sen. Edward M.
Kennedy, for whom Koh interned. Koh also failed
to vote in the 2006 gubernatorial election as
well as the 2007 election for the seat he’s
currently seeking.
Boxboro resident Patrick Littlefield cast a
ballot in the 2007 congressional primary but
missed the Oct. 16 general election, according
to records provided by town and state election
authorities. Littlefield also failed to vote in
the 2008 presidential primary.
State Rep. Juana Matias (D-Lawrence) skipped a
vote to fill John Kerry’s U.S. Senate seat and
the 2007 special election for the seat she is
now running for.
These are hardly capital crimes to be sure, but
one would hope that these future and current
public servants would have an elevated level of
respect for the system of democracy. We know
that opportunism and ego are usually core
elements to achieving success in politics, but
it is unpleasant to witness in raw form.
It makes cynics of us all.
Satirist H.L. Mencken had a bead on it: “The
government consists of a gang of men exactly
like you and me. They have, taking one with
another, no special talent for the business of
government; they have only a talent for getting
and holding office. Their principal device to
that end is to search out groups who pant and
pine for something they can’t get and to promise
to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that
promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made
good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words,
government is a broker in pillage, and every
election is sort of an advance auction sale of
stolen goods.”
That’s a reason not to vote.
The difference is that Mencken is not running
for Congress.
We should be clear, though. Many Americans stay
away from the polls. In November 2016 there were
245.5 million Americans age 18 and older in the
United States, according to the Census Bureau.
Only 157.6 million of those indicated that they
were registered to vote. That means that 87.9
million or so people had essentially
disenfranchised themselves.
To err is human and many folks forget to
register properly. Eric and Ivanka Trump could
not vote for their father in the New York
primary in April 2016 as they’d missed the
deadline to register as Republicans.
Candidates in the 3rd District will be in full
Get Out the Vote mode shortly and some of them
better hope that the political powers of
persuasion work better on the electorate than
they did on themselves.
State House News Service
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Poll shows steady, strong support for income
surtax, sales tax cut
By Colin A. Young
Voter attitudes about possible ballot questions
to charge a surtax on wealthy residents and
reduce the state sales tax rate to 5 percent
have not shifted much in about six months and
both measures enjoy broad support, a new poll
shows.
A MassINC poll released Thursday by WBUR found
that 77 percent of respondents strongly or
somewhat support the proposed ballot question
that would impose a 4 percent surtax on income
greater than $1 million and direct that revenue
towards transportation and education. The bulk
of respondents, 57 percent, said they strongly
support the measure.
Opposition to the so-called millionaire's tax,
which is being challenged in court after being
advanced twice by the Legislature, registered at
18 percent total, with 5 percent saying they had
not yet made up their minds.
When MassINC and WBUR asked the same question in
November, public opinion of the income surtax
was split 76 percent in favor to 19 percent
opposed.
Pollsters also asked voters their thoughts on
the proposed ballot question to lower the sales
tax from 6.25 percent to 5 percent and establish
a permanent sales tax holiday. Sixty-seven
percent of respondents said they either strongly
or somewhat support the question and 22 percent
somewhat or strongly oppose it.
Six months ago, support for the sales tax
reduction was measured by MassINC at 69 percent
and opposition at 20 percent.
The MassINC poll was based on landline and cell
phone interviews with 501 registered
Massachusetts voters between May 22 and May 26,
the group said.
Voters might not get a chance to weigh in on
either ballot question in November. The Supreme
Judicial Court is due to rule any day on the
income surtax's ballot eligibility and the sales
tax question has been part of behind-the-scenes
talks about the Legislature taking action to
avoid the question going to the ballot. |
| |
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
|
