BROCKTON -- Supporters of the Question 4 tax rollback on the
November ballot see themselves ahead in the polls, but opponents say the trend is going their way.
"On the surface, it looks good because it's a tax cut," said
Peter Derouen, president of the Plymouth-Bristol Central Labor Council based in West Bridgewater. "But when people see
who benefits and what it costs, they have second thoughts."
Question 4, which would cut the state income tax back to 5
percent, would drain $1.2 billion a year from state revenues when it fully takes effect in 2003. With the proposed tax
credits for tolls and excise taxes in Question 6, Derouen said there would be $2 billion less each year for
important needs like education, health care reform and improving roads and
infrastructure in the state.
Derouen and opponents say the wealthiest 1 percent in the
state, with average incomes of $1.3 million a year, would receive 18 percent of the Question 4 tax cut, while 60 percent
of state residents at the lower end of the scale receive a total of 16 percent of the tax cuts.
"This is not fair," he said. "If we're going to have a tax
cut, let's get it to those who need it most."
The figures are based on a study done by the Institute for
Taxation and Economic Policy in Washington D.C. for the campaign.
Derouen said the regional labor council, the building trades
organizations, the Brockton Interfaith Council and others are organizing literature drops in Brockton and surrounding
communities in the coming two weekends, and plan on getting more signs up to inform people
about the ballot question.
Derouen said there is no organized support in the region for
passage of Question 4.
Taunton City Councilor Jordan Fiore, who supports passage,
said there are people in Taunton planning to combat what he calls the message of the special interest groups.
Supporters like Fiore point to the almost $1 billion surplus
in the state budget in the past fiscal year.
"There is a manageable surplus because taxes were held at a
higher level than they should have been, after a tax increase passed 11 years ago that was supposed to be temporary," said
Fiore.
"The money is the people's," Fiore said. "If the state is
taking too much, it should be returned."
Fiore said there are two views of the surplus. He said the
view of the special interests "is to spend it because it is there." The other view, and currently the more popular view, is
that "it is there because they took too much."
Under the provisions of Question 4, the current income tax
rate of 5.85 percent would drop to 5.6 percent in 2001, 5.3 percent in 2002 and 5 percent in 2003.
The battle over the tax rollback question echoes back to
1990, when there was also a bitterly fought battle over reducing the state income tax. In 1990, the tax rate would have
actually gone from 5.75 percent down to 4.85 percent temporarily, before going back up to 5 percent. The
1990 ballot question was defeated by a 60-40 margin.
The two chief proponents of a "yes" vote on Question 4 are
the Tax Rollback Committee, the ballot committee formed by Gov. Paul Cellucci, and A Promise to Keep: 5 Percent, the ballot
committee of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
The opposition is being led by the Campaign for
Massachusetts' Future, a ballot committee formed by a coalition that includes the Tax Equity Alliance of Massachusetts, labor
and community groups and elected officials.
The supporters of Question 4 are confident this ballot
initiative will pass.
Eleven years ago, when the state had a fiscal crisis, the
Legislature promised the increase to what was then 5.75 percent would be temporary and the income tax would quickly return to 5
percent, say the Tax Rollback Committee and supporters.
"People have had more than enough of broken legislative
promises," said Barbara Anderson, co-director of A Promise to Keep: 5 percent, and CLT's executive director. "That's the
issue, more than the money. People are also aware of the huge state surpluses, and the Legislature is
not keeping its promise in spite of the surpluses."
Anderson said the state budget has increased from $12.3
billion in fiscal year 1989, to $21.6 billion for fiscal year 2001.
"The legislators can't keep spending another $1 billion a
year," said Anderson. "The only way to control it, is to take the money away. They simply can't control a feeding frenzy when
the money is there."
"A middle-income family with income of $50,000 a year would
save about 58 cents a day -- you can't buy a can of Coke for that." said James St. George, executive director of the Tax
Equity Alliance of Massachusetts.
Derouen said he tells people that the middle-income families
would receive about $4 a week, or "a sub sandwich without the chips."
Jack McCarthy, a spokesman for the Campaign for
Massachusetts' Future, said the median family in the state is $50,000. The estimated tax savings on the median level annually
amounts to $211, he said.
He said the average income is in the $75,000 range, driven
up by the incomes of the very wealthy, so average savings based on this amount are higher. He said his group estimates
savings based on taxable income, after all deductions, and not on gross income. That, he said,
explains the variation in the estimates between the two camps.
The Tax Rollback Committee says that based on U.S. Census
Bureau and state Department of Revenue figures, the average family of four in the state would receive an annual $451 tax
break.
Last year, the Legislature passed a bill that rolled back
the income tax rate from 5.95 percent to 5.85 percent for this year. The rate would then drop to 5.8 percent in 2001 and 5.75
percent in 2002, the rate of 1989, under the current law.
In 1990, the income tax rate climbed to 6.25 percent for a
two-year period, said Bobby Matthews, spokesperson for the Tax Rollback Committee. He said then Gov. William Weld
fought an effort to extend the 6.25 percent rate beyond that period, and
the Legislature reduced the rate to 5.95 percent in 1992, where it had remained until last year.
If Question 4 passes, the Legislature would have to vote to
repeal the ballot law by a two-thirds majority, to override the governor's veto and to stop it from taking effect.
Derouen said it would be bad fiscal policy to make the cuts
when the stock market is shaky, and then have to raise taxes again when state debt starts to climb again.
Fiore believes the state Legislature should be forced to
justify any future tax increases, after the rate is dropped to 5 percent.