To the editor:

The case for eliminating the state income tax depends in large part on five myths:

1. Required cuts would be "only" 40 percent. The business-funded Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (MTF) suggests that five large state programs cannot be cut: debt service and the MBTA's share of the sales tax are statutorily protected, the portion of state school aid needed to support the foundation budget is required by state Supreme Court decisions, and federal support of the Medicaid program requires that the core program, amounting to $6.3 billion, be left in place.

Taking these off the table, MTF calculates that we'd be left with $5.6 billion of revenue to support what is now $19.3 billion in spending. The average cut in the rest of state government — including colleges, jails, courts, state parks, and support for people with mental retardation — would be 71 percent!

2. The extra money in taxpayers' pockets would create jobs. State income taxpayers would save $12.5 billion. But laid-off state employees and people working for firms providing services to the state, such as construction workers on state highways and social workers at group homes for the mentally ill, would lose $12.5 billion in wages.

On balance, retail sales would be roughly unchanged. But some 100,000 to 150,000 people would lose their jobs, and we'd be without the services they are currently providing.

3. Cutting taxes promotes economic growth. During the eight years of the Clinton presidency, the United States gained 4.5 times as many jobs as during the Bush years (22 million versus 5 million) — even though Clinton raised taxes at the beginning of his term (mainly on the wealthy, as Obama now proposes) and Bush cut them.

Under Govs. Weld and Cellucci, Massachusetts cut taxes, but employment growth here still lags well behind the rest of the country. Constant repetition by political candidates does not make this myth true.

4. We can save local services by using some of our income tax cut to raise local property taxes. The average tax cut would be $3,700, but this figure is misleading.

The MTF points out that the 14 percent of taxpayers whose income exceeds $100,000 would actually save an average of $16,300, while more typical taxpayers (earning between $25,000 and $50,000) would save only $1,800. Taxpayers earning less than $25,000 would have savings of about $550.

In a city like Gloucester, with a large working-class population, the average tax savings would not be large, and it is therefore very unlikely that there would be political support — or available extra income — to support the Proposition 2 over-rides necessary to compensate for the inevitable steep declines in state aid.

5. Other states get along well without an income tax. Nine states do not have an income tax. The MTF points out that Alaska, Texas, and Wyoming receive large amounts of money from oil and other mining. Florida and Nevada collect large amounts of sales tax revenue from out-of-state tourists. Tennessee and Washington have sales taxes with higher rates and broader bases than Massachusetts; New Hampshire's per-capita property taxes are 25 percent higher than those here.

Bottom line: Since we're unlikely to close the jails and lay off all our judges, elimination of the income tax would almost certainly mean an end to maintenance at state parks and beaches and financial support for what have until now been our state colleges and state university.

With severely reduced revenue, we'd have to end all state construction, including repair of the 500 structurally deficient bridges in the state, and we'd have virtually no funds available those who, like battered children and people with mental retardation, are totally dependent on the state.

If you do not support such very deep cuts, you shouldn't be voting for Question 1. Don't be misled by the false claims of Question 1 supporters.

Ed Moscovitch

Gloucester