Question 1 works against renters too
State Personal Income Tax
Decriminalization of Marijuana
Banning Greyhound Dog Racing
Not surprising, I have strong opinions on all three. Who would of thunk it? Obviously, as the parent of teenagers, I'm all for the decriminalization of small amounts of pot, 1 ounce or less. Offenders under 18 would have to fork over their pot, pay a $100 penalty, and attend a drug awareness program. Offenders over 18 would not be subject to the drug awareness program. Currently, pot is treated as a felony and if a minor is arrested for possession and convicted s/he would be unable to get any college loans according to the incredibly stupid and invasive Patriot Act. Yes, it's true. Students would also be denied public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment insurance, the right to operate a motor vehicle and the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. Tell me how stupid THAT is.
I'm also for the banning of dog racing, a cruel sport that currently confines dogs for 20 hours or more in crates. In addition, more than 800 MA racing greyhounds have been injured since 2002, including hip injuries, broken legs, paralysis and even death from cardiac arrest. Greyhounds in the state have also died from drug abuse and have tested positive for cocaine.
The first question would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.6% for all categories of taxable income for the year 2009 and would eliminate in total income tax beginning in 2010. In this economy to take away personal income tax would simply move the tax base to property tax in order to pay for the services provided by the state. In the past week the state has already been subjected to severe and deep cuts across the state budget. We have had continual cuts for the past 9 years, starting with Mitt Romney (may he rot in hell) and now forced to continue by Deval Patrick due to this delightful economy. Our state is hurting, we have no money for simple items like street repair, state aid to city and towns, and would reduce funding for vital local services like police, fire, and school department employees.
So you're wondering, if the personal income tax was removed and the property taxes were raised, how would that affect renters? They don't own property so they would appear to be exempt from any tax raise.
But you would be wrong. Because in MA, it is not only legal, but customary for landlords to pass on any tax increases to their tenants. Yet another example of the rich getting richer while the poor, the people unable to afford their own homes, pay the piper. In MA, rents are very high as it is. Most of the apartments in this state are in 2 and 3 family homes, and are not subject to any tenant rules regarding rental increases. Most of the multi-family homes have been owned for years and years by the same families, where the owner lives in the upstairs unit, and rent out the first floor apartments. With the way rents have increases, tenants not only pay the entire mortgage and living costs for the landlords, they also pay the taxes. Tenants pay upwards of $20,000 a year to live in a 1200 sq ft apartment while landlords live above them for free. Landlords in 2 and 3 family homes don't have to keep up their properties, and are ensured of them always having tenants because we have such a low occupancy availability with all those students in the city.
So renters bear the brunt of this removal of state personal income tax, and this is why I am completely opposed to Question 1 and will vote No. Stumble It! JBlog Me