Question 3

On question 3 I would vote YES, to reduce the state sales tax to 3%. At first glance, I initially thought this was a great idea and decided I would definitely vote yes. After I thought about it more I began to realize if this tax was reduced to 3% then the state legislature would most likely raise the income tax. I personally, would rather see a higher sales tax than income tax because sales tax taxes everyone the same. After thinking it over awhile I decided that I would still vote yes because I still believe in lower taxes no matter what the tax is.

                While reading about Charlie Baker’s proposals if he were to be elected governor I found that he opposes lowering the tax to 3% but is in favor of lowering it to 5% and lowering the state income tax to 5%. I think this is a better option and a better compromise. However, I don’t believe this would pass through the state legislature so, this did not change my decision to vote yes on question 3.

                I would vote yes for a variety of reasons. Mainly, rolling back this tax to 3% would promote business throughout the state especially near the New Hampshire border, where retailers would now be more competitive with their NH counterparts. It would also increase sales on the southern border because we would now be attracting shoppers from NY, Conn., and RI. Rhode Island shoppers spending money it Massachusetts would likely increase the most because they face a 7% sales tax. According to the Alliance to Roll Back Taxes, rolling back to 3% would produce 32,929 productive and sustainable jobs. Creating jobs that are productive and sustainable is never a bad thing. This rollback would also give back roughly $700 dollars to each taxpayer in the Commonwealth. This extra money put back into the people’s pockets would most likely be spent on Massachusetts businesses which would furthermore strengthen the state’s economy. Lastly, the tax cut would reduce government spending by 5% and would force the state government to spend more wisely and responsible. This would reduce government waste, bureaucracy, and full pensions for government workers at age 54. In my opinion, voting YES on question 3 is the best option we have right now.  

40b is a Scam

With regards to Initiative #2 I would vote YES which would repeal the state law allowing the issuance of a single comprehensive permit to build housing that includes low-or moderate income units. I would vote yes on this proposal for a variety of reasons. One reason I agree with the initiative is because it would force developers to go through the proper channels to receive the appropriate permits to build. Often times these houses are being build on land that would otherwise not be built on because of zoning laws. These developers are building without any regard to local regulations or the environment. Another reason I am for this proposal is because this law is enabling developers to get rich while not actually solving Massachusetts housing problem. Most of the time developers will apply for 40b housing, but only build a few units as 40b and the rest as regular units. In these cases the developers are making a huge profit off of the normal units but still only need the one permit to build because some of the units are 40b. An interesting statistic that I found from the 2009 Massachusetts Housing Report Card is that in the last seven years 40b projects have produced more total units that the previous 37 years (since 40b went into effect) combined, but have produced less affordable units when compared to other programs. Massachusetts Inspector General Gregory Sullivan has called the 40b law a “pig fest” for developers and has also said it “represents one of the biggest business abuses in state history”. In conclusion I would vote yes to end this misuse of taxpayer’s money that is making the developers rich while Massachusetts still ranks 49^th out of 52^nd (this includes District of Columbia and Guam) when it comes to affordable housing.

Rep. Brad Hill - Discussing his oppositon to the recent alcohol tax.

YES on 1; Repeal the Alcohol Tax

               If I were eligible to vote on November 2, I would vote yes on question 1. A yes vote would repeal the 6.25 % alcohol tax that was implemented in the Commonwealth just over a year ago. Before the bill was signed into law there was no sales tax on alcohol, although there was an excise tax. My main justification for voting yes on this initiative is because I believe it would stimulate business in liquor and convenience stores especially those abutting the New Hampshire border. New Hampshire, “land of the free”, does not have a sales tax on any goods. According to Massachusetts State Representative and Minority Whip Brad Hill of Ipswich, businesses in his district have experienced between a 20%-40% decline in sales since the tax was implemented. This is not a statistic that anyone wants to see when we are trying to build the economy back up. What is remarkable about this is that Rep. Hill does not represent any border towns which mean the decline in business for border stores is even greater. Another point I would like to bring up is that alcohol in the Commonwealth is already taxed. There is a “hidden” excise tax put on alcohol in this state before it even reaches the shelves. I believe that the sales tax on alcohol is an unfair double tax and should definitely be repealed.

                 Opponents of this initiative would argue that repealing the sales tax on alcohol would cause an increase in alcohol abuse in the state. I don’t believe this will happen. Before we had this special tax on alcohol Massachusetts did not have any serious alcohol abuse problem so there is no reason to believe that this would happen if the tax was repealed. And for those citizens of Massachusetts who do have alcohol abuse problems, I believe that they will continue to buy the alcohol no matter how high the tax is, so repealing it would not be an issue. Other opponents are fearful of a decline in aid for schools, towns, fire departments, police departments, etc. My opinion is that these public necessities will always be funded and that a decrease in state revenue would force the state legislature to be more fiscally responsible. For example, instead of spending $3.5 million on the Pioneer Valley bike paths (those must be really nice bike paths) like the state did in 2008 they would take that money as well as monies usually allocated for other wasteful earmarks and put it back into the schools and towns.

                In conclusion, Massachusetts should definitely vote YES on Question 1. If you believe in thriving small businesses and a booming economy you should most certainly vote YES on Question 1.