![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Reason #4 to Vote No on Question 1
Oct. 16th, 2008 12:11 amI'm pissed at Gov. Deval Patrick's speech tonight in which he said that "no cuts would be made to education." [source] If that's really what he said (I didn't see a full text of his speech nor watch it), he's a lying sack of shit because every last institution of public higher education in the state is receiving cuts of around 5%. And if you think that's bad, the Suicide Prevention and Intervention Program is receiving a cut of 12% and Family Health Services by 23%. Suicide Prevention! Explain to me how that is "limit[ing] the impact on the state's most vulnerable citizens"?!?!
But my point.
The state is already facing severe budget cuts even without losing 37% of the state's revenue by removing the income tax. Vote no.
But my point.
The state is already facing severe budget cuts even without losing 37% of the state's revenue by removing the income tax. Vote no.
Reason #3 to Vote No on Question 1
Oct. 5th, 2008 08:51 amI've been telling everyone that should the income tax be repealed, that we'd lose critical services like police and firefighters, as well as massive K-12 teacher layoffs. I'm kinda surprised and disappointed that no one has challenged me on it. Surprised b/c the state doesn't directly pay for any of these, the towns/cities/districts do, and disappointed b/c I now have a perfect comeback.
This interactive map, created by the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) shows the predicted result of a 37% statewide budget cut on all the towns in the state, both the overall state budget, and the school budgets. The state legislature won't be able to just make a 37% cut across the board with all the line items in the state budget, since some items are mandatory, and it wouldn't even make sense to do so, since some items receive federal matching funds reducing those would be shooting yourself in the foot twice. Well that map takes all that into account.
Most towns would actually lose 65% of their state funding, not the mere 37% of the income tax cut. And school districts will lose anywhere from 10% (New Ashford) to 91% (Middletown). Yikes. Hover over the map to see how much your town would lose, and click on your town for more details.
This interactive map, created by the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) shows the predicted result of a 37% statewide budget cut on all the towns in the state, both the overall state budget, and the school budgets. The state legislature won't be able to just make a 37% cut across the board with all the line items in the state budget, since some items are mandatory, and it wouldn't even make sense to do so, since some items receive federal matching funds reducing those would be shooting yourself in the foot twice. Well that map takes all that into account.
Most towns would actually lose 65% of their state funding, not the mere 37% of the income tax cut. And school districts will lose anywhere from 10% (New Ashford) to 91% (Middletown). Yikes. Hover over the map to see how much your town would lose, and click on your town for more details.
Reason #2 to Vote No on Question 1
Oct. 3rd, 2008 03:16 pmWhat this is all about
Reason #2: Tax cuts may actually increase government spending!
Thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
seekingferret for the link. I haven't read through it entirely, but I'm fascinated by the possibility - it seems entirely illogical that tax cuts would NOT reduce government spending. The point here is if people want to reduce government expenditures, cutting taxes may not do the trick.
Reason #2: Tax cuts may actually increase government spending!
"[T]his paper examines the behavior of government expenditures following legislated tax changes that narrative sources suggest are largely uncorrelated with other factors affecting spending. The results provide no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, they suggest that tax cuts may actually increase spending." --Dr. Christina Roma, UC Berkeley Professor of Economics
Thanks to
seekingferret for the link. I haven't read through it entirely, but I'm fascinated by the possibility - it seems entirely illogical that tax cuts would NOT reduce government spending. The point here is if people want to reduce government expenditures, cutting taxes may not do the trick.Reasons to Vote No on Question 1
Oct. 2nd, 2008 12:25 pmIn November, Massachusetts ballots will have the question "should we repeal the state income tax." The supporters say it will give each citizen back an average of $3,600. For everyone else, consider that the income tax represents 37% of the state budget, or $12 billion. I urge all Massachusetts citizens to vote NO on this question (Question 1, and it will be on the back of the ballot with the presidents on the front). To this end, I'm going to post some reasons why you should vote against Question 1.
The reason of the day:
The reason of the day:
"The state could fire all 67,000 state employees - every prison guard and college teacher - and still have to find another $7 billion." --The Boston Globe
