MA Ballot Question #1 proposes the complete elimination of the income tax here in Massachussetts.
This would reduce the 23 Billion dollar state budget by 9 Billion, or about 40%.
Yesterday, Mass voters nearly passed this question with 45% voting in favor!
Why did this happen?
[ul]
As always with ballot questions, both positions were laid out pro and con. The issue was very simple. There was no trickery here. Here are the ballot instructions.
This issue recieved very little press from the media who were against it. What little press it did recieve was very negative.
Not a single member of the legislature was in favor of it Yes, even the Republicans.
The bill was sponsored by Libertarian governor candidate Carla Howell, who recieved 1% of the vote. She and her party had very limited means to advertise this question.
Mass is one of the most liberal states in the country. Most voters here are democrats.
[/ul]
I have read many times on this board that there are those who believe the American voters are against lowering taxes. This question, which had so many factors against it, is a clear sign that voters are in favor of lower taxes. Remember, this was for the ** complete elimination ** of the state income tax. Imagine how many would have voted in favor if it was just a reduction.
Based on my conversations with Mass residents (mostly my family) I don’t think most voters really understand that social programs are payed for with tax dollars. These people are almost universally for lower taxes but more social spending. When asked where the government will get their money, they reply “They’re the government - they have money!”
They may not accurately represent the voting public. But then again, they may…
Don’t overlook the “send 'em a message” crowd, too. Do not underestimate the antipathy that exists, or can be drummed up, toward “the crowd on Beacon Hill”. Say hello to Governor-Elect Romney for the same reason, btw.
The legislature can override referenda here (remember the Clean Elections Law? How about Question 3 this time?), so it was safer to vote for this measure than it would have been in some other states.
Exactly. Even if this passed, it wouldn’t have actually been implemented. But, I still think it speaks volumes for the will of the voters being against taxes.
Ballot questions like this let people vote for the desired result without dealing with the consequences. I doubt it said that x, y, and z social programs would be cut, or that sales tax would be increased. Who wouldn’t vote for lowered taxes if there were no repercussions?
No problem, Tennessee has the answer. If the income tax is abolished, just crank up the state sales tax to 9.25%. And forget about the exceptions for food or clothing, we’re taxing everything, buddy.
Of course, you’ll have to be willing to give up a few things, like quality of education, state parks and recreational facilities, and other services. But don’t worry, you’ve got a lottery, so at least some of your lost income can be made up by soaking your poorest residents.
I’m simply astonished that more than half of the voters failed to take the opportunity to vote themselves a bigger paycheck as well as force Beacon Hill to start a new budget from scratch. I realize that the legislature would have killed the measure had it passed, but that’s not the point. Unfortunately, because it failed, Finneran et al will interpret the results as an endorsement of higher taxes.
No- Debaser- the resukts show that 55% of the voters are AGAINST getting rid of the income tax. For every “factor against it” there are as many factors in it’s favor.
However, here in CA, the results can be interpreted to show that the voters wanted HIGHER taxes- just about every bond measure passed.
Of course, what dudes really want is lower taxes AND higher spending- as Beelz mentioned.
As mentioned before, this question got almost NO press at all. It’s like the people who opposed it considered it so absurd that it didn’t warrant a huge campaign.
The actual ballot did not contain the full arguments as provided in the info sheet linked above. It simply said (more or less) do you want to elminitate income tax, yes or no? This question was sort of shoved off to the side of the ballot (MA ballots are truly bizarre in their use of space)
There has been much talk over the last few years about the tax “rollback” that was promised 10 years ago. There was a ballot question about this in the last election.
Ballot question 3 was blown all out of proportion by its opponents who linked it to other laws that it had no affect on.
So my theory is that the factors listed above combined to the point that many voters became confused about the intent of the question and may have thought of it related to the long promised tax rollback, and was not nearly as foolish as it actually was.
An incorrect interpretation this would be. Bond measures don’t automatically result in increased taxation. What has to be measured is the amount of debt being retired in a given year, as well as the increased income resulting from population increases, taxable transaction increases, etc. And one can always reduce spending on other programs to free up money that can be spent on the payments to bond holders.
Which is not to say that one can issue all the bonds one would like without some future impact on revenue neeeds…
Everything being equal- more spending= higher taxes.
I guess it is possible that if a lot of bonds were retired- they could reduce the tax burden- rather than selling more bonds. But really, the lack of a reduction is “higher taxes”. The money for bonds has to come from somewhere.
My theory is that if your #1 and #2 are true, the question, no matter what it is, will be defeated. The question on the NH ballot concerning the courts system was defeated yesterday, and both of those things held true- I didn’t heard a single word about it before I read the ballot, and it was briefly and poorly worded on the actual ballot. After I read it a couple of times I sort of got the idea of what they were asking, and voted yes. Many people have commented that there was very little press on the question http://www4.fosters.com/election_2002/results/wire/nh_ballot_court_1106a.asp Thus far I’ve talked to a whole one persons who knew about it in advance.
As to why the question will be defeated if no one is informed, I think it’s because voting “yes” nearly always is voting for a change. People don’t take changes lightly, so they’d rather vote no, and keep things the way they are, than vote in a change they’re poorly informed on.
I am one of those. I consider “no” to be the default. Voting “yes” is making some significant change. So, if I have not already been convinced of the merits of the bill before going into the voting booth, I am voting “no” every time.
People support lower taxes AND more services…in a ballot question they don’t see the trade-off. To someone in the legislature, on the other hand, it quickly becomes clear that if you please some constituents by lowering their taxes, you’ll displease others by cutting services they use/rely on. The large number of votes that this initiative received is probably due to voters’ desire to send a one finger (two finger, if you’re across the Pond) salute to the Legislature.
Voter registration in Massachusetts is (approximately)
50% Unaffiliated (Independent)
35% Democrat
15% Republican
So Democrats don’t make up an absolute majority.
Also, Mass isn’t as liberal as its reputation…its large Catholic population tends to be socially conservative. The very large majority that Democrats hold in the state legislature means that Republicans (in the legislature) have very little power. However, there are several Democrats in the legislature (most notably House Speaker Thomas Finneran) who are basically closet Republicans - their positions on social and fiscal issues are basically those of the (national) Republican party. Because they would have almost zero influence as members of the small opposition party, they prefer to run as Democrats and exert their influence from within.
My boyfriend voted in favor of Question #1 “on principle”: Basically, he knew it wasn’t going to pass (he assumed by a much larger margin) so he wanted to send the message that he thinks taxes should be lower by voting for it.
I think some people may also have thought “Hey, New Hampshire gets away with it,” without thinking about all the differences between Mass. and NH. But this was probably not a huge impetus, just an example that a lot of Mass. voters would have been familiar with.
