Whether we’re talking the old state tax or the new healthcare tax, we’ve been had. Yet again. Barbara Anderson of Cititzens for Limited Taxation lays out the story in the Eagle-Tribune, although I find that for the first time I might not completely agree with her.
The Legislature’s Revenue Committee held a hearing this week on a bill to roll back the income tax rate. This bill falls into the category of “Never, ever give up.”
The “temporary” Dukakis income tax increase is 18 years old this summer. It was only 11 when the voters, tired of waiting for the income tax rate to be returned to its traditional 5 percent, phased it down themselves on the 2000 ballot. Two years later, the Legislature froze the rate at 5.3 percent – “temporarily.”
Last fall, Deval Patrick, when asked about the “temporary tax” and the “will of the voters,” said that he thought voters would prefer a property tax cut instead of an income tax cut and pledged to deliver one.
He’s been governor for half a year: The income tax rate is still 5.3 percent. Has the property tax been cut when I wasn’t looking? Let’s see: My January and May quarterly payments were each $740.98. My August bill is for $803.16. Looks like an increase to me!
Some of it is the annual increase allowed by Proposition 2 1/2. Some of it is for overrides that the majority of Marblehead voters decided I should pay “my share” of, for things that they want. Nowhere on the bill is there a “reduction due to Gov. Patrick’s property tax cut.”
He’s still running around the state, trying to raise the local meals tax though, insisting the money will be used for “property tax relief.” No, governor: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Not that I was fooled, but a lot of people were.
Actually, voters are generally so foolish here when choosing elected officials that politicians could just as well tell the truth: “Yes, we promised that the income tax hike would be temporary. We lied in order to get it passed. Yes, you told us to roll it back to 5 percent: We didn’t. We told you we’ll cut your property tax instead: We won’t. So what are you going to do about it, pal?”
The new state budget does increase spending by more than a billion dollars, or 4.2 percent. It increases local aid that does not have to be used for property tax relief but can be used to further increase local “fixed costs” with pay and benefit levels for city and town employees. There is an attempt to address public employee health insurance and pension costs, but much more has to be done, because the present benefit levels are not sustainable.
…
Responsible citizens’ health insurance costs are increasing again, too, but this year there’s a new twist: People who don’t have insurance are now expected to pay their share of the overall burden. Some of them are just waking up to this fact and protesting the “new tax.” I don’t see how being required to take some responsibility for one’s own health care is a tax.
Here’s where I have the problem. If I am young and healthy, or middle age and healthy, and I choose not to invest in healthcare insurance, then I shouldn’t have to pay into the system. I should be on a “pay as I go” basis. If I need medical care, I’ll pay for it then. If I can’t pay for it, then I shouldn’t receive it. Much like car insurance. If I opt out of car insurance, I would have to foot the full bill of any accidents I cause.
I don’t want the federal government running all the minutia of my life. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?!?!
