An Open Query to Deval Patrick
by Barbara Anderson, October 17th, 2006 at 06:08pm
This article was authored by Barbara Anderson, a Marblehead resident and executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
Dear Deval:
My quarterly property tax of $864 is due on November 1. My total annual property tax on my five room house is $3,456.
If you become governor, what will my property tax be next year at this time?
You say you do not support the voter-mandated income tax rollback because you want to “cut the property tax” instead. Please tell us how you are going to do this. We haven’t heard, and cannot find on your website, any specific plan.
As the organization that created Proposition 2½, we are second to none in our concern about property taxes. Though Prop 2½ limits their annual growth to 2½ percent a year, we agree that they are still too high. Do you plan to lower the annual increase to 2 percent? Or to discourage overrides by cutting local aid if property taxes increase?
I’ve been using my share of the voter-mandated income tax cut to pay my property tax increases. If the income tax rate is cut to 5%, as the voters ordered, I will apply my share of that – $111.00 – to my property tax bill.
If the rate is not cut to 5%, despite the voter mandate, if you are elected will your plan cut my property tax by $111.00 next year?
We did find a plan on your website to expand education efforts so that elderly homeowners know about existing property tax relief that is available to them. This is based on an assumption that they haven’t yet figured this out or that their community doesn’t already tell them?
You also mention wanting to expand “the circuit breaker property tax credit.” In fact, the “circuit breaker” is not a property tax credit, it is an income tax credit. And it is, as we said when it passed, very difficult to understand. But if you don’t know even know what tax it cuts, how are you going to “educate” seniors about it?
You suggest a “rational revenue structure, sensible tax policy and fair distribution of state resources to cities and towns — so that property taxes can be lowered and kept low.”
Please tell us exactly how this would work. By how much will our taxes be lowered?
All we can find that is specific is your plan for “New Revenue” (i.e., new taxes). You want “to raise additional revenue from such sources as a reasonable local meals tax.”
So let’s make sure we understand. The seniors, who are going to be “educated” about existing tax abatements, and who await your actual plan to actually cut their property taxes, will have to pay more taxes when they meet their friends for breakfast at the local coffee shop.
All things considered, we think it best if you just respect and honor the voters and rollback the income tax rate to 5 percent. In return, we can promise to apply that tax relief to our property tax bill or rent.
Sincerely,
Barbara Anderson
Cc. Massachusetts media
Entry Filed under: Economy
6 Comments
1. pete | October 18th, 2006 at 12:13 am
He won’t respond because he has no plan. HIS is the fiscal shell game, not Kerry Healey’s. At least she’s up front with what she will do. Patrick makes vague, number-less and empty promises.
2. Jack Donahue | October 18th, 2006 at 1:29 am
While it sounds all peachy that voters voted to reduce the income tax 0.3% 6 years ago and we should do it because of that, a lot has happened since then and you can’t use that as a justification anymore. In 2000 the economy was doing quite well and hadn’t cooled down yet from the 90s and security concerns like 9/11 had not yet occurred. If you want to lower the income tax, just say so, but there needs to be better justification and reasoning than simply people voted on it awhile ago.
Also, by my calculations, if 0.3% of your income is equal to $111, then you have an income of less than $4500 a year. Sounds suspicious.
As for pete’s comment: the most Kerry Healey has gone into her plan is a 50-page slideshow which provides an unorganized list of things she wants to do but shallow justifications and even shallower detail as to how any of it would be paid for or implemented (is making sure teens don’t drive with cell phones going to be more important than boosting small businesses? I guess we won’t know until she’s elected).
3. anthony | October 18th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Directly from Deval Patrick’s website:
Cut the Property Tax by Reinvesting in Cities and Towns. Today there is too much reliance on local property taxes as a source of revenue for essential services. As Governor, restoring local aid to pre-2000 levels will be one of my highest budget priorities. Once restored, we should commit a fixed percentage of annual state tax receipts to direct support of local services by cities and towns. Furthermore, the state must uncap lottery disbursements to cities and towns.
Seems as specific to me as one can be before they actually have income projections in front of them and no less specific than anything the Healey campaign has offered.
4. Thomas Shawn | October 18th, 2006 at 8:59 am
“but there needs to be better justification and reasoning than simply people voted on it awhile ago.”
Spoken like a true Stalinist.
5. anthony | October 18th, 2006 at 10:27 am
“”but there needs to be better justification and reasoning than simply people voted on it awhile ago.”
Spoken like a true Stalinist.”
Spoken like someone who either has no understanding of the principles of our representative democracy or someone who chooses to ingnore them for the purpose of a good sound bite. There has NEVER in the entire history of our Constitutional democracy been an accepted principle that citizens can dictate tax legislation through a popular vote. In fact, our system, by design, limits the impact of the popular vote as it relates directly to issues or legislation precisely because it can be capricious and counterproductive. So we can avoid things like “let’s reduce the tax rate by an amount that would be insignificant to all but the poorest among us while our streets and brigdes are crumbling.”
6. Weebs | October 18th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Also, by my calculations, if 0.3% of your income is equal to $111, then you have an income of less than $4500 a year. Sounds suspicious.
The only thing suspicious is your math. If. 0.3% of your income is $111, your annual income would be $37,000.