-- Programs and Services -- Contact InformationHomepage
From the Director
Question One will cause harm
By Robert P. DeanI have been asked repeatedly about the potential impact of the passage of Question One, which is on the November ballot this election day. Question One seeks to eliminate the state personal income tax, which may seem like a good idea, but isn’t. Here’s why: The personal income tax generates more than $12 billion dollars in revenue for essential programs and services here in Massachusetts. If the personal income tax is eliminated, so is the revenue for those programs and services. Even without Question One, the state’s revenues have been so sufficiently reduced over the past few months that the Governor has been forced to make cuts to the state budget by using his so-called 9C powers. (Under Massachusetts law, the Governor is required to reduce the state’s operating budget when state revenues — the money coming in through the state personal income tax and other sources — are not sufficient to meet the state’s budgeted expenditures.) As the result of reduced state revenues, the Governor must reduce the current state budget by approximately one billion dollars.
As we go to press, we are just beginning to learn how the Governor’s 9C cuts will impact essential services across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. If our Commonwealth’s current fiscal prognosis requires the Governor to cut one billion dollars in services to balance the budget, do we really want to further un-balance the budget by reducing state revenues an additional 40%, which is what the passage of Question One would do. Eliminating one billion dollars in services will cause harm enough. Do we really want to eliminate an additional $12 billion dollars in services, which represents more than 40% of the annual state operating budget of $28 billion? Question One means significant cuts to vital programs that serve three of our most vulnerable populations — children, individuals with disabilities, and seniors. Over 15,000 seniors across the state could lose their home care services, which provide assistance with such basic activities as getting dressed and ready for the day, and assistance in the bathroom. More than 400 Berkshire seniors could have these vital services reduced or could lose them entirely — placing their independence and their ability to continue to live at home at risk. Many of these seniors could also be at risk of losing their Meals on Wheels — a lifeline that provides hot nutritious noon-time meals each Monday through Friday and a wellness check to frail homebound seniors. The Governor’s 9C approach is that of a scalpel, trying to minimize harm as much as possible — the Question One approach is that of a battle-axe, wreaking havoc and harm indiscriminately.
Question One means fewer services. Just about everyone who relies on state services will be hurt - some much more than others. By way of perspective, even if the state were to do the unimaginable and lay off all 68,000 state employees the total savings would “only “be $5.3 billion dollars, less than half of what we would need to cut were Question One to pass. Question One means fewer policemen policing and fewer firemen putting out fires. It means fewer teachers in our classrooms, and more potholes in our roads. It means bridges and highways without repair. Question One means job layoffs — those who provide direct care services will be hit the hardest. Question One means less service at a higher cost.
Proponents of Question One suggest that if the personal state income tax is eliminated, the average taxpayer would save $3,700. While this might be technically correct, it is important to recognize that this savings would be heavily skewed to favor the wealthy. According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (MTF), a nationally recognized, nonprofi t research organization working to promote the most effective use of state tax dollars, high-income taxpayers would gain most of the benefi t from repealing the personal income tax, while those earning $50,000 a year or less would gain very little. The MTF has calculated that the average savings for those earning more than $100,000 (14% of all taxpayers) would be $16,295, compared to $850 for those earning less than $50,000 (65% of all taxpayers). In addition, the MTF states that large cuts in local aid would lead to higher property taxes, which for many individuals would more than offset their income tax savings. Higher property taxes would be particularly harmful to many seniors, who are “house rich” but “cash poor”. We can also expect a higher sales tax as the state struggles to recover some of the lost revenue. Even those who may benefit most in the short term — high-income taxpayers — will suffer in the long run because of reduced police, fire, and teaching services. In the meantime, middle and low-income taxpayers will lose on both ends - realizing little or no tax savings and losing essential services.
Now is not the time to turn our backs on those in need - children, seniors, or individuals with disabilities. Now is the time to deliver on our promise as a Commonwealth to stand for the common good. I urge each of you to inform yourselves regarding the consequences and potential impact of Ballot Question One.
Editor’s Note: For a complete copy of the text of Question One, see page four, for a related article see page one).