Income tax question debated at SHS forum
Published on October 29th, 2008
STONEHAM. MA - Both sides of the debate over a ballot initiative to eliminate the state income tax sparred over the issue during a forum at the Stoneham High School auditorium on Monday night.
While an opponent of the measure insisted that the proposal would wreak havoc upon local municipalities and businesses, two proponents of the initiative insisted that an affirmative vote would force Beacon Hill to slash wasteful spending in the state budget.
The debate, moderated by Finance Board Chair John Warren, featured appearances by Tom Gosnell, representing the Coalition for our Communities, and Kamal Jain and Rich Aucoin, both Question 1 supporters and members of the Committee for Small Government.
Question 1 is one of three binding initiative petitions that voters will consider during next Tuesday's election on Nov. 4. A "yes" vote would force the state to completely eliminate the state's 5.3 percent income tax over the next two years.
If the measure passes, the income tax would be slashed to 2.65 percent on Jan. 1, 2009, and then completely eliminated on Jan. 1, 2010.
At the outset of the debate, the panelists argued over the size of the state budget, and how the estimated $12.6 billion in lost tax revenues would impact government services.
According to Jain, while state officials claim that this year's budget includes $28 billion worth of expenditures, records show that the state plans to spend $47 billion during the current fiscal year.
The Question 1 proponent insisted that the true budget figures were being kept in the dark in order to hide glaring examples of government waste. Jain further argued that despite the stance of the opposition, there is no need to slash state aid to local communities, if state officials target unnecessary spending.
"Total government spending will exceed $47 billion. Why is the state hiding 40 percent of that by saying the budget is $28 billion?" challenged Jain.
"It is our opposition that is claiming there will be cuts to [the local aid] that represents 9 percent of our budget. We ask them, why are we throwing out the baby instead of the bath water?"
In response, Gosnell reputed the figures cited by Jain and insisted that the state would have no choice but to axe state aid allotments that are pivotal for maintaining public safety and education programs in municipalities.
According to the Question 1 opponent, the loss of $12.6 billion in revenues would be so severe, even local businesses were backing the Coalition for Our Communities, which is largely represented by union leaders.
"The claim that the budget is in the $40 billions, nobody accepts that," said Gosnell, who is the president for the Mass. Federation of Teachers union. "If every state employee were laid-off, that would still not meet the $12 billion cut."
According to Gosnell, local businesses were lining up against the ballot initiative because they realized that the reduction of the income tax would cripple the economy.
Challenging the opposition to name a single local Chamber of Commerce that supported the measure, the union leader also predicted that Massa_chusetts citizens would likely have to pay additional property taxes in order to maintain essential government services.
If that was to happen, Gosnell warned, senior citizens and others on a fixed income would suffer, as property taxes don't reflect a person's ability to pay.
"I think there is a fundamental difference in the approach to Question 1. I don't support waste. Who wants waste? Who wouldn't want to get rid of waste," said Gosnell, who claimed that a program that some consider necessary could be deemed as waste by those who neither need or benefit from it.
"If the town wants to maintain services, it's going to require an increase in property taxes. It will effect senior citizens in a most substantial way," he later added.
Aucoin later claimed that Question 1 would inject a necessary boost to the economy, as the average citizen would receive $3,700 in income that was previously collected by the state.
The ballot question supporter further dismissed the idea that waste was a subjective term. Rolling out a print-out of the 543 departments in the state, Aucoin argued that government, by its nature, spends money on unnecessary expenditures.
"People say, well if [state officials] won't open-up the books, how do you know there's waste in there? Well, you don't have to see a skunk to know it's outside your window," Aucoin quipped.
"Question 1 is not just to send a message. It's very serious and it's very necessary. Mass. government is growing so fast that it's going to hit a wall eventually. It's unsustainable."
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!