FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL: ROLLBACK THE ROLLBACK RHETORIC

THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY ELECTION IS ON SEPTEMBER 19TH

Rather than calling for a potentially harmful reduction in the very reasonable income tax rate Deval Patrick has called for local aid increases conditioned on better planning, including cuts to property taxes and local fees. His proposal may not be so sexy as a fraction of a percent dropped from income taxes, but it presents far less of a gamble and is potentially far more effective. At the least Patrick is guaranteeing that cities and towns are getting the dollars they need and not consistently voting for budget overrides just to stay open for business.

Then again, property tax cuts may actually be sexy, because they allow for tangible reductions in the exorbitant cost of Massachusetts living, and would help to bring in businesses and residents. A 5% income tax rate – pretty average among most states – that drains the treasury and/or only happens gradually doesn’t have the draw of a coordinated effort to lower cost of living and doing business town by town.

The rollback stands to save the average family between $200 and $300 per year, so about $4.50 a week. The property tax for the average family has gone up $910 in the last six years. So the rollback will be great for helping those families pay off a quarter of their property taxes. Bear in mind also that property taxes hit the elderly and people on fixed incomes hardest. These are the people most likely to need public assistance if the cost of living keeps rising, putting a further toll on state and local budgets. Still Going the Wrong Direction. Not too many Results to be had.

And Patrick’s plan may be the only way that taxes get cut at all. Again, rolling back the income tax is simply going to short us on necessary budget items. The money will have to come from somewhere, meaning it is likely to get shifted to - wait for it - local property taxes.

So we have two options:

Cut 2 Taxes: Fund cities and towns -> get schools, roads, and safety we need -> cut property taxes and fees -> lower the cost of living -> attract jobs and residents -> boost the economy -> rollback income tax(?) OR…

Cut 1 Tax: Make immediate or gradual cuts to the income tax -> drain the treasury and Rainy Day Fund to pay for them -> further deplete local aid -> raise property taxes and local fees

So yes, Mr. Reilly, Patrick really is “for it all.” For helping cities and towns. For relieving the pressure on property taxes and local fees. For lowering the cost of living. For attracting jobs and people to Massachusetts.

Not merely for a politically expedient rollback.

The first election I ever voted in was when Jim Gilmore ran on the No Car Tax platform and became Governor of Virginia in ‘97. He drove us, no pun intended, straight into economic oblivion, and only managed to shift around the car tax burden – it is now paid through 30% municipal taxes, with the remaining 70% subsidized by state taxes. Don’t believe the hype, and when the general rolls around, don’t let Healey and her gimmickry kick us around on taxes.