A PROMISE TO KEEP: 5%
A Ballot Committee of Citizens for Limited Taxation

 

The Boston Globe
Wednesday, October 25, 2000

Group boosts tax cut effects
Details are few in new report

By Tina Cassidy
Globe Staff


Massachusetts can afford a $1.2 billion income tax rollback and still expand services, even in a recession, according to a report by the Beacon Hill Institute, a conservative think tank.

The group issued a study yesterday disputing what some other think tanks have said in opposing ballot Question 4, which would lower the state's income tax rate from 5.85 percent to 5 percent.

The report from the Beacon Hill Institute does not provide details on how state revenues would continue to grow despite the reduction, but it puts forth the general notion that lower taxes stimulate dynamic economic growth.

"Massachusetts can have this tax cut and the substantial economic benefits it will confer and still generously expand state services and programs," said David Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute.

"Not a single service or program will have to be cut, not even if there is a recession," Tuerck said.

With the tax cut, the state could increase its spending by 6.5 percent a year over the next 5 years, he said. Without the tax cut, state spending is expected to rise by 8.1 percent a year, the report said.

If the tax cut is followed by a recession, spending growth would drop to 6.2 percent, just slightly less than if the economy continues to be strong.

The report did not explain why a recession would have little impact on spending.

More important, the study suggests, are the broader economic benefits the tax cut could generate, including nearly 80,000 new jobs, $800 million in new business capital, and more than $6 billion in new salaries.

A yes vote on Question 4 would decrease the state's income tax rate to 5 percent.

A no vote would make no change in the income tax rate, now at 5.85 percent and scheduled to drop to 5.75 percent next year.

The Campaign For Massachusetts' Future, which opposes Question 4, says the state should instead spend the $1.2 billion on education, health care, and reducing the state's debt.


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