Voters in historically liberal Massachusetts will have the opportunity to make the fundamentally libertarian choice to abolish the state income tax when they vote on Question 1 Nov. 4.
The Committee for Small Government, headed by Libertarian politicians Michael Cloud and Carla Howell, gathered more than 100,000 signatures to get the Small Government Act to End the Income Tax, commonly referred to as Question 1, on the state ballot.
A similar proposition was almost approved in 2002, and received enough votes to surprise lawmakers, who were caught off guard by the number of voters willing to consider the move. The double-digit percentage of voters who cast a ‘yes’ vote heartened supporters enough to try again in 2008.
In a sign of how seriously income tax proponents have taken this threat to the state’s revenue base, groups like Coalition for Our Communities have launched a massive campaign to dissuade voters, canvassing door-to-door, calling potential voters and mailing state residents to tell them about the dire ramifications of approving Question 1.
‘We’ve been working hard to make sure people understand what they are voting for,’ Coalition spokesman Stephen Crawford said. ‘I think that message is starting to get through.’
Question 1 proponents say they are hopeful they will succeed. The repeal of the income tax, which accounts for about 40 percent of the state’s income, would provide economic relief to Massachusetts residents and force the state government to cut back on excessive spending, Committee for Small Government spokesman Kamal Jain said.
‘I believe this is the best thing for the people of Massachusetts,’ he said. ‘It would take money out of the government’s hands and give it back to the people.’
Jain said more than 3 million taxpayers in the Commonwealth would save about $3,700 a year if the income tax were repealed.
‘For a lot of people, that’s a big difference,’ he said. ‘Unlike the government, a family doesn’t waste money on things they can’t afford.’
Almost every state legislator, including Gov. Deval Patrick and most government officials, oppose the proposition, however.
Opponents of Question 1 say many state services would be impossible to fund without an income tax base. Rep. Tom Conroy (D-Wayland) called the proposal ‘reckless and cruel and ultimately foolish.’
‘The folks who are proposing it haven’t done their homework,’ he said.
Funding to schools, police, emergency services and programs that assist the deaf, blind and the poor would all face serious cuts, Conroy said.
‘We, as public servants, need to do a better job of educating people about what government really does . . . and about the ramifications of less government,’ he said.
The income tax is such an important part of the state’s budget that legislators would probably be forced to use other methods to raise money if it were abolished, Boston College economics professor Rich McGowan said.
‘One way or another, they’re going to get the money,’ she said, though she added, ‘To lose the income tax . . . would put a real damper on us.’
The state could be forced to resort to less equitable methods such as raising property taxes, which disproportionately hurt lower income homeowners, McGowan said.
‘Obviously the richer are going to benefit from this,’ he said. ‘It might even be ruled unconstitutional . . . because it’s so inequitable.’