Eliminating The State Income Tax. Is This Really A Good Idea?

[Rick Lunt]

Voters will have many choices to make when going to the polls. McCain or Obama , here in Attleboro besides the Presidential election, it will be Ross or Bowles;however, there are also ballot questions this year as well. The most important question that we will be facing is Question 1 which would eliminate the state income tax by 2010. Carla Howell who is the Chairwoman of The Committee For Small Government and chief supporter of Question 1 says that a yes vote will cut our income taxes by 50% beginning in January, and eliminate the remaining 50% on January 1 of 2010. Those in favor also say that this proposal will roll back state spending by 27% and will not raise our property taxes, while at the same time eliminate government waste. Voting yes on question 1 will give back $3,700 each to the 3,400,000 who are employed in the bay state.. This is great news for taxpayers right? More money in our wallets in order to for pay the high cost of gasoline at the pump, and more money to pay for the high cost of fuel to heat your home as well as more money to keep up with the rising prices at the grocery store for essential items, this is all good news right? I am in favor of lowering taxes and smaller government;however is Question 1 too drastic? The opponents of the measure such as Peter Meade, Chairman of The Coalition For Our Communities and former WBZ Radio talk show host and commentator who is the chief author of vote no on Question 1, says that elimating the state income tax would force dramatic cuts in state aid,thereby reducing local aid for public schools. Mr.Meade also says that voting yes on Question 1 would cut funds for police, fire, and emergency medical services and could also lead to raising other taxes. Is eliminating the state income tax really a good idea? To borrow a line from FoxNews commentator and host Bill O'Reilly...... What Say You?

[Henry Carlton]

This question should have been laughed out of the room long before it came to to the polling booths. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cutting back on the grossly inflated salaries of police officers, however it's a shame that in this case medical care, education and many other establishments would also be affected in a negative way.

Unfortunately this question is a scary one. Most polls affect us indirectly, wheras this affects our income directly. Most people will (I believe) opt to have their personal income bolstered rather than keep contributing to income tax. Taxes are, after all, what keeps this city, state and country functioning (even if a lot of it is going towards a useless war)

There are many other ways to eliminate the wasting of tax payers money, but abolishing the income tax is probably the worst imaginable option.

(Nice topic Rick, I hope we get some good discussion on this one)

[Henry Carlton]

Here's a good story by Mike Kirby regarding Question 1:

Area may lose $18M from Question 1

[Eric B]

Fisrt off I am for keeping more of he money i work hard for. I have conservative views and therefore will vote yes on Q1.

Henry,
I am a little disturbed that you believe "This question should have been laughed out of the room long before it came to to the polling booths." I see no logic in not keeping what is rightfully yours, but rather, have it squandered on complete nonsense. I wonder have you ever taken a look at the state budget? Do you know where all the money is allocated? Its an absolute tragedy.

Please sir i implore you to better inform yourself. Politicians and money are like drug addicts: As long as there is money it will be be spent. The more there is, the more shall be spent. Just as a drug user would use more and more drugs if he was supplied with them.

If, after you research, you still feel that you would vote no on Q1, please, I ask, you to vote yes. You can voluntarily give your money back to the state that you recieve from the cut (see the tax form). I sir, however, wish to keep my money. The state will even have a surplus of money, after the cut, if they spent it wisely and with fiscal soundness. Imagine the state as a corporation, no business would stay in business if they acted as the state does.

I would like to know one reason that someone wouldn't vote yes on Q1 when the could simply return the money back to the state if they so desire. Thus keeping themselves happy as well as the people that really do want to keep their own money. OR WOULD YOU DISCOVER THAT, HEY THIS IS MY MONEY, I EARNED IT I AM KEEPING IT.

Why would you feel that you must be forced to give the government money and not volunteer it.

If a drug user had no drugs to take, there would be no drug abuse. If politicians have less money, there will be less abuse in spending it.

Please don't respond as to you disdain towards the replublican party and how bad George bush is. I feel that since I prefaced this message with " I am a replublican", that I may get such a response in return.
It would be off topic, illogical and completely emotional.

Thanks
Eric

[Rick Lunt]

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your comments, and like you, I too am a conservative republican and have voted for George W. Bush in the last two elections. I also voted for Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan too. To be honest, I have heard from some in the republican circles, especially those in our state government that voting yes on Question 1 would be too drastic at this time; however, after considerable soul searching on this issue, I have come to the conclusion that voting Yes on Question 1 will be a good idea. If the question passes, I would keep more money in my wallet, and more importantly, the state legislature on beacon hill would be forced to cut out wasteful out of control spending.

[Eric B]

HI Rick,

Unfortunatley, 70% of people in Mass didn't agree with you and me..haha. The only solace I take in that vote is that a majority of people used to believe the world was flat. Look how far we have come... sigh

[Dick Stuart]

What was that short-lived expression back in the 1970s . . . "You bet your bibby!"

It's still TAXachusetts; and until Beacon Hill is only 70% Democrats tops, then it will always be so. Look at the
re-election rate for the 200 seats there. Isn't it about 96% get re-elected? Then, what motivation do they have
to change the "same ol' TAX and SPEND"?

All those yo-yos are now forever yapping about how the Commonwealth needs more money. BALONEY. It is
the tax-paying residents that need to be able to keep more of their own money! Dems stink!