Voters veto repeal of income tax

Local News

Discussion

PLEASE NOTE CHANGES IN POLICY: Commenters are required to have a username with a valid and verified email address. Gloucestertimes.com reserves the right to ban the IP address of any commenter (person) found using multiple aliases under multiple e-mail addresses in a deceptive manner. Posts that do not meet site standards, which can be found here, will be removed.

If you are experiencing problems logging in or posting comments, please contact Disqus' help center by clicking here.

comments powered by Disqus

November 5, 2008

By Amanda Flitter The Gloucester Daily Times Wed Nov 05, 2008, 05:35 AM EST

GLOUCESTER — State and municipal officials are breathing a sigh of relief.

Voters across the state rejected Question 1 yesterday, keeping the 5.3 percent state income tax and preventing what local officials said could have been drastic state-aid cuts if the income tax had been repealed.

Mayor Carolyn Kirk said that, while she was "relieved" that Question 1 did not pass, its presence on the ballot sent a lasting message about government reform.

"I think the state has definitely dodged a bullet, and the state needs to look at serious reforms," she said.

Statewide, 69 percent of voters rejected the measure. Gloucester followed a similar trend, with voters going against it at a rate of more than 2 to 1.

Question 1 proposed cutting the state's 5.3 percent income tax in half beginning in January 2009 and completely eliminating it in 2010. Critics, including state and town officials, said the drastic cuts would be destructive to state services and spark increases in property taxes.

Selectmen from Rockport, Essex and Manchester, the Manchester Essex Regional School Committee and all of Gloucester's 16 elected city and school officials came out opposing Question 1 in the weeks leading to the election. A letter from Gloucester city and school officials said state-aid cuts for the city would approach $9 million if the question were to pass. However, supporters argued that the best way to cut wasteful government spending was to cut tax revenues by about $12.5 billion.

Kirk said Gloucester's budget problems have already forced the city to address budget reform, which she thinks was part of the idea behind Question 1. She said that, while Question 1 had the message of reform, there was no companion reform that went along with it.

"It would have been pretty irresponsible to have the measure pass and have everything remain the same," she said.

Greg Verga, chairman of the Gloucester School Committee, said while he understood people's position that too many taxes are being paid, Question 1 was "too drastic."

"I think unfortunately the message that was trying to be sent was to Beacon Hill, and the collateral damage would have been the cities and towns," Verga said, noting that local aid had clearly been pegged as one of the key cutting areas.

Gloucester voters exiting the polls yesterday shared similar concerns about Question 1's effects on services and programs.

Kristen Nicastro, who cast her vote early in the morning at the Our Lady of Good Voyage Church youth center, called Question 1 a "foolish proposition."

"I voted against it because essential services will be cut and our property taxes would have to be increased to cover the difference," she said.

While the idea of lower taxes seemed nice to resident Carlo Favazza, the reality of possible cuts pushed him to vote no.

"As nice as it would be to lower taxes, you can't lower or eliminate taxes without cutting programs," he said.

Mother Brittney Shepherd said she voted no to help nonprofit organizations like her daughter's day care, which she feared would face funding cuts if Question 1 passed.

But for others, a yes vote still seemed like the clear thing to do, in spite of the dire warnings.

"How can you not?" said Steven Maniaci after after casting his vote at McPherson Park.

"You'd bring a little more home in your paycheck every week."

Maniaci said that extra money could be useful to many people.

Gov. Deval Patrick and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate never explained how they would have coped with the lost revenue.

According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, personal income tax accounts for 60 percent of total state tax revenues and 40 percent of total state spending. The Foundation also estimated.

Associated Press material is included in this report.Amanda flitter can be reached at gt_reporter@gloucestertimes.com

Text Only | Photo Reprints

Local News

Search Results

Discussion

Voters veto repeal of income tax

Site Map

Contact Us