Libertarian in drive against Massachusetts income tax

The Epoch Times reports:

Massachusetts residents are considering repealing the state’s 5.3 percent income tax in November. A proposal that residents will vote on, Question 1, will allow them to join other states who live income tax free—including Florida, Nevada, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming, Washington, and Texas.

Many Massachusetts state officials warn that this binding referendum will take more than $12 billion—nearly 40 percent—out of the state budget, driving up local property taxes and leading to drastic cuts in services.

Also amazing news, considering we’re talking about liberal Massachusetts:

A poll by the State House News Service Poll found that 46 percent of Massachusetts residents oppose Question 1, while 45 percent support it, a statistical dead heat. A poll by the Citizens for Limited Taxation found that on average, the typical Massachusetts resident thinks that 41 percent of tax revenue received by the Massachusetts state government is wasted.

“We don’t believe you. We don’t trust you,” reads an open ended statement to the Massachusetts state government by Question 1 supporter Mr. Michael Cloud, a Libertarian Party activist.

26 Responses to “Libertarian in drive against Massachusetts income tax”

  1. ken Says:

    The most effective Libertarian action is working via these referenda. properly done it builds the mailing list, supporters and public office prospects, and results.

    Plus they can’t claim a Libertarian position is not mainstream when a large portion of the population is voting for it.

  2. ken Says:

    The most effective Libertarian action is working via these referenda. Properly done they build the mailing list, supporters and public office prospects, and results.

    Plus they can’t claim a Libertarian position is not mainstream when a large portion of the population is voting for it.

  3. Richgriffin Says:

    I live in Massachusetts and I am voting AGAINST it. Libertarians don’t understand that we need these funds for our safety net. While I agree that the commonwealth needs to make CHANGES in their spending habits, and more importantly, in their disgraceful “bottling up” of effective legislation in committees, this initiative is not the answer. Libertarians don’t realize that their policy positions have the very real potential of killing people who need a safety net – the fantasy that others will step up to the plate and help others is just not the way it would work in the real world. VOTE NO ON 1! (more importantly: VOTE YES ON 3!)

  4. Ross Says:

    Wow, ballot initiatives being used to further the Libertarian cause? I agree with you, ken.

    www.ni4d.us

  5. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Hey, Rich, ever heard of how government safety nets cause unemployment? It’s because they can’t ever get out of them!

    As for Question 1:

    It’s really simple, so I’ll type slowly for you. Roll back the personal income tax and people get more take-home pay, which gives them more disposable income. They then use that extra cash to pay off debts, save some, or even buy stuff, and they can do things like get their car’s oil changed at the local mechanic or take their family to the local attractions to actually have FUN! That money invested in their local economy creates jobs—the only way to get people off welfare—and more business tax revenue for the government as well. Those private sector jobs are the true safety nets that you claim government should provide.

    So Question 1 actually creates jobs and creates a better safety net for people than the state government could ever provide. In a recession, that’s even more important!

    It all comes back to the labor and investment of the people, rich, not government being Big Taxachusetts Mommy.

    Here in InsanityLand called California, we can only dream of a Question 1. MA voters should be thankful they can vote on it and pass it.

    It’s not about MA government: IT’S THE PEOPLE, STUPID!

  6. Freelancer Says:

    This almost passed in MA the last time this was put up for a vote. It was defeated by only 5%. This of course shocked the officeholders who didn’t pay much attention to it the last time.

  7. JustAHoax Says:

    A libertarian who is for the income tax and also is in favor of using government to END all greyhound racing in a state? Right.

  8. George Phillies Says:

    The marijuana decriminalization referendum is 2. Please do vote Yes on 1 and 2.

  9. Richgriffin Says:

    I think the last time this question was on the ballot it was 55-45%? I will be aggressively working towards the defeat of this atrocious bill. I’m not willing to gamble on some idiotic Libertarian b.s. that it will trickle down to poor people, not all of whom should work. Fortunately, I get to vote in Massachusetts and will definitely vote against it. I don’t care for patronizing attitudes by people who don’t understand the need for a secure safety net. Trickle down economics/policies don’t work. Period.

    I’m actually working on the vote yes on 3 campaign, so I hope while we defeat this crazy ballot question #1 we can also pass (we lost by 2% in 2000. We will WIN this year) question 3.

  10. William Says:

    Wow, that would be great for the people of MA if they could ease their tax burden! To people who think that the poor will be adversely affected by this, why don’t you go volunteer to help them? Donate to charities and faith-based institutions that extensively work with the poor. Why not donate clothes you don’t need? There is absolutely nothing wrong with charity. There IS something wrong with stealing from one group to give to another, regardless of your “bleeding heart.” Theft is theft. Period. Do you really think the poor in Massachussetts are any better off than the poor in states where there is no state income tax?

  11. disinter Says:

    Ballot initiatives: far more productive than the LP will ever be.

  12. Derrick Says:

    Richgriffin, if the state wants to help poor people, the best thing it can do is to stop creating so many of them. Drop an extra $3200 in the pocket of every MA taxpayer, and it will lift the general level of prosperity in the state. You’ll simultaneously have a lot fewer poor people who need help, and a lot more people who are in a position to help them.

  13. Richgriffin Says:

    This is why Libertarians are so scary! They have $$$ and have no idea what it’s like not to have it. It’s a very dangerous ideology. The arrogance and fantasy thinking are easy to understand when you realize they live in an entirely insulated worldview. Even if this were to pass there is no way it would actually happen anyway because there are safeguards and it would be overturned legislatively. We certainly have the votes in our legislature! It’s an idiotic proposal.

  14. Clark Says:

    ...richgriffin appears yet another republicrat ignoramu$ working his cake chute about some illion-DOLLAR ‘safety net’...when the brainwashed republicrat dummy appears worse than ignorant as to the origin, nature, etc., of even one ‘DOLLAR’..

    ..of course, i believe you’ll find that most/all proponents of this proposed illion-DOLLAR ‘tax cut’ in mass. are fundamentally ignorant of the origin, nature, etc., of even one ‘DOLLAR’ too..

    ...massive mass.hole ooga booga..(but i’d love the opportunity to vote YES!!)...it’d give me a reason to ‘vote!’..as in my state only republicrap will ‘make the ballot’..

  15. Richgriffin Says:

    We are talking about $12 billion and 40% of the commonwealth’s budget! Even if it were to pass, it would be completely irresponsible for the State Legislature to do anything else but to overturn it immediately. (And believe me: that will happen!) Voters get easily seduced by the less taxes mantra. I definitely believe that tax laws ought to be changed in a progressive manner. But Libertarian insanity is not the answer. I will work aggressively towards the defeat of this bill. VOTE NO ON 1! VOTE YES ON 3!

  16. Andy Says:

    “Richgriffin Says:

    September 29th, 2008 at 9:43 am
    I live in Massachusetts and I am voting AGAINST it. Libertarians don’t understand that we need these funds for our safety net. While I agree that the commonwealth needs to make CHANGES in their spending habits, and more importantly, in their disgraceful “bottling up” of effective legislation in committees, this initiative is not the answer. Libertarians don’t realize that their policy positions have the very real potential of killing people who need a safety net – the fantasy that others will step up to the plate and help others is just not the way it would work in the real world. VOTE NO ON 1! (more importantly: VOTE YES ON 3!)”

    I believe that people should be able to keep all of the money that they earn so they can provide their own safety nets.

  17. Richgriffin Says:

    I have several friends who are disabled and do not earn any money. Exactly what safety net if any should they have? How will they pay for their expensive drug therapies? Your beliefs are selfish, greedy, and unworkable.

  18. William Says:

    Richgriffin, I think the flaw of your argument is that you seem to believe that ONLY the government is capable of doing good works, that ONLY the government is capable of caring for those in need. If the general public on a personal level can’t be trusted to do the right thing and help those in need, then what makes you think that big government, with its elected officials from that SAME body of people who can’t be trusted, will do the right thing? If the flaws of selfishness are found in each individual, how much more amplified are they on a massive scale when we’re talking about the government? I’m not saying that you have to be a libertarian or anything either—you can believe whatever you want to believe, it’s your decision—I’m just saying, to generalize that all of us who desire for freedom are nothing more than rich (which I most certainly am not—my take-home pay is less than $18,000 per year), spoiled, selfish people, is a bit unfair to say the least.

    You say that libertarian philosophy could kill millions of people, but I would say that aggressive regulations on the environment (which I’m sure you favor) would potentially send the third world countries back into the stone age, and kill millions of people. What is more dangerous? Freedom, or the regulations that attempt to curtail it?

  19. George Phillies Says:

    Richgriffin has an excellent point. I mean, what would the people of Massachusetts do without their State Golf Courses? What would the bureaucrats of Massachusetts, those whose duties do not seem to include exploring our unpaved woodland roads, do without their four wheel drive SUVs? You know, the ones that were seized a recent time the state was sued successfully? [Disclaimer: I urged that our campus police where I work should have at least one 4 wheel drive vehicle, and it really has paid off.]

    Remember, it is not that many years since our state budget was 40% lower than it is now.

  20. Brian Holtz Says:

    http://knowinghumans.net/2008/03/libertarian-safety-net.html

  21. Richgriffin Says:

    Actually, deregulation of environmental protections could very well kill everybody on the planet! The selfishness of your arguments is mind-boggling! I’m certain if this were to pass the legislature would do the right thing and overturn it immediately.

  22. Clark Says:

    ...why would anyone with any brains care what republicrat richgriffin or any other republicrat dummies—including some/many ‘LP republicrats’ too—think about ANY issue involving ‘dollars?’

    ...it seems obvious to me you republicrat dummies TRULY don’t even know/understand the origin, nature, etc. of even one fucking ‘dollar!’ (more accurately described as a ‘federal reserve token’)

    ...just the facts, republicrats!.. ;o)

  23. JustAHoax Says:

    Richgriffin Says:

    “If it weren’t for the government everyone would be killed. If a majority of the people voted to end the income tax, the corrupt state legislature would overturn it, finally killing the idea that citizens have any say in how the state is run.”

    This seems remarkably similar to the excuse that congress should pass the bailout because the citizens who are against it don’t know what is best for them. I may be selfish, but you are a fascist.

  24. Nancy Says:

    While I certainly disagree with Richgriffin on the Mass. proposition 1, I still don’t understand why being a libertarian has to equal hurting the environment. I’m all for lower taxes and lean government, but I also live in Los Angeles and see daily the effect we’ve had on the air quality, native specieis, people’s quality of life. It’s easy for people in less populated states to be skeptic. You don’t see this crap – literally in the air, the water and on the ground, each and every day. You guys think we are just supposed to suck it up?

  25. Michael Seebeck Says:

    On behalf of the five retired racing greyhounds that I own and have owned, I hope Question 3 fails. Too many tracks are already closing and that is putting the breed in danger.

    And Nancy is right. Here in SoCal it is mess, created by liberal policies and utter stupidity. The latest one was MSN of pets in LAC that went into effect today. How fast the stray populations increase remains to be seen.

  26. Clark Says:

    ..as any decent libertarian i know understands, ‘pollution’ is a form of ‘trespass’..

    ...of course, true crimes like trespass will receive much less attention when court, etc., re$ource$ are diverted in prosecuting their fucking, miserable, republicrat drug war, fucking state marriages, divorces, ‘tax’ violations, etc. ad goddamned nauseam…

    ...you republicrats appear some awful stoooooooooooooopod fucks at times!...

    ...but have a good day!..

Leave a Reply