CITIZENS
for
Limited Taxation & Government
18 Tremont Street #608 Boston, Massachusetts
02108 (617) 248-0022
E-Mail: cltg@cltg.org Web-page: http://cltg.org
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, July 21, 1998
What's wrong with that tax cut
By Barbara Anderson and Chip Ford
One reason that life seems so
complicated today is that black and white, right and wrong, get lost in sundry shades of
gray. Life is simpler for those who recognize that without basic standards done in black
and white, the compromising softness of gray cannot exist.
We simple activists don't weigh options
and advantages while our damp index fingers catch cold up there in the wind. [Although
we recognize the situational ethics and pragmatism of today's politics,] Somebody has
to keep focused on right, wrong, truth and beauty. It's a tough job but we'll do it
because, what the heck, legislators are mad at us anyhow since we tried to cut their pay.
The simple truth is, the Legislature
does not deserve a medal for passing "The Biggest Tax Cut in State History."
Setting aside that it doesn't take much
to be the biggest tax cut in the history of a state long known as Taxachusetts, "The
Biggest Tax Cut in State History" is less than half the size of The Biggest Tax
Increase in State History.
Never mind that most of that record tax
increase -- the income tax rate hike -- was sold to us as "temporary." [The
promise was obviously a situational and pragmatic lie;] Guess we'd have to be
simpletons to expect the Legislature to keep its word.
Even though the legislative decision to
keep the "temporary" rate at 5.95 percent tells the governor that hell will
freeze over before he gets even one one-hundredth of one percent of the income tax rate
reduction he has been demanding, the governor will naturally settle for what he can get
and declare victory. This is what politicians do. This is why they are so highly regarded
by everyone we know.
No, the problem with "The Biggest
Tax Cut in State History" is that it takes away a tax cut to which we are already
entitled. The BTCISH doubles the personal exemption for a tax cut of $443 million when
fully implemented. At the same time, it raises the cap on the state "rainy day"
fund to prevent $475 million of this year's surplus from coming back to taxpayers as an
increase in that same personal exemption. Do the simple math and taxpayers lose.
Granted, the first item might be a
"permanent" tax cut, while the second occurs only when there is a budget
surplus. But this year's surplus roughly equals the dollars collected annually from the
"temporary" income tax increase, now apparently with us forever. The least they
can do is return the excess money when they have no rational need for it!
[Note too that Beacon Hill gives us
tax cuts in dollars and tax increases in percentages. This means that inflation diminishes
the value of the personal exemption each year, while the "rainy day" fund eats
up more and more of the state surplus. Nice trick, for those who deal in complexity so
that simple taxpayers don't know what is being done to them.]
It might still be worth celebrating the
BTCISH for another of its provisions, the reduction in the 12 percent tax on savings and
investment income to 5.95 percent -- were it not for the fact that thousands of
Massachusetts voters signed a petition to place this long-overdue cut on the November
ballot. We can vote it into law ourselves!
So let's see: the Legislature gives us a
tax cut we can do ourselves, a personal exemption increase that is less than the one we
already had coming to us and which will be diminished by inflation, a slap in the face
instead of keeping its promise to cut the "temporary" tax rate, and a few other
small items that are too complicated for this simple column.
Hey, pragmatic people take what they can
get, and we don't blame Governor Cellucci and his legislative allies for compromising:
There's nothing wrong with the color gray.
But if two simple activists like us
point out that the excess money being played with actually belongs to the taxpayers, and
Treasurer Joe Malone asks for a gubernatorial veto unless the surplus is returned, and one
lone legislator, Sen. Bob Hedlund (R-Weymouth), votes against the BTCISH because it raises
taxes and he wants to honor his "no new taxes" pledge, is that so bad?
It's not as if anyone in that gray,
pragmatic, political world up there is listening to the people anyhow.
Note: Words in [brackets]
were in our original submission but edited out by The Boston Herald for publication.
Return
to CLT&G Update (July 21, 1998)
Go
to CLT&G Update page
|