Patrick's proposals and problems: a fiscal roundup

EYE ON CORPORATE TAXES
IN REFERENCE to "Patrick eyes corporate tax changes" (Page A1, Feb. 16), this businessman applauds the effort to close corporate tax loopholes in Massachusetts.

Doing so would benefit our state's business community by leveling the playing field among businesses. The beneficiaries of these loopholes are typically larger companies that take advantage of them by engaging in tax-avoidance strategies. These maneuvers shift the responsibility more heavily onto small businesses, in-state businesses, low- and moderate-income families, and others. By closing these loopholes, the collective responsibility would be more fairly distributed.

The state budget defines what we want to achieve collectively as a commonwealth. The taxes we pay are the contribution we make to ensure that we have an effective government, strong economy, and functioning society. As a businessman, I would rather see the state invest our economic development dollars in proven strategies such as strengthening public education and workforce training and protecting vital services, than in paying for ineffective tax loopholes. We don't have any room for inefficiency in this year's budget.

ARNOLD HIATT
Weston
The writer is former chief executive of the Stride Rite Corporation.

GOVERNORS HAVE gotten wise to a corporate shell game that hurts individual taxpayers and encourages businesses to game the system. We would all benefit if Governor Patrick joins the growing number of states -- 18 so far -- that have stood up to put an end to all-too-common tax avoidance schemes. Combined reporting requires businesses to report all their income nationally to assess the proper amount of taxes owed in each of the states in which they operate. Companies must not be free to shift around their profits to the state with the best tax loophole in order to avoid paying their proper share .

Take, for example, the scheme uncovered through WorldCom's recent bankruptcy filings. State taxes were avoided by creating a shell company in Mississippi -- really a P.O. box whose only asset was the "business foresight" of CEO, Bernie Ebbers. WorldCom erased its reportable profits by paying the shell company for use of the CEO's business foresight.

DEIRDRE CUMMINGS
Consumer program director MASSPIRG
Boston

Extravagance
GOVERNOR PATRICK'S decision to do public business in a $46,000 luxury automobile is another example of how he just does not seem to get it. I administer a state-supported shelter for homeless men. We have been level funded for the last four years. The governor wants all state agencies to find 5 to 10 percent to cut from the next fiscal budget, without any promise to protect programs that help the poor and homeless. Why should the men who lack access to basic necessities face cuts while the governor, with no apparent sense of shame or irony, is entitled to perks and privileges with no credible justification?

JIM STEWART
First Church Shelter
Cambridge

THERE ARE about 2.5 million households in Massachusetts. The total cost of Deval Patrick's Cadillac would be less than 2 cents per household. I'm pleased the governor had the good sense to defuse this potential issue ("Patrick to repay taxpayers for decor," Page A1, Feb. 21), but disappointed that the Globe, between covering Anna Nicole Smith's death and Tom Brady's paternity, can't find something more socially responsible and newsworthy to cover.

PETER DAVIS
Arlington

THE CROWD that's attacking Governor Patrick for his extravagance and poor judgment is the same crowd that used to belittle Mike Dukakis as he rode the Green Line and carried his lunch in a paper bag. Any issue is an excuse to try to damage the person's reputation and diminish his political clout. This crowd is on the attack 24/7, and Deval had better start using better judgment. Otherwise, his effectiveness will be diminished.

LEE DeSORGHER
Holliston

THE CITIES AND TOWNS
WERE IT not for the earnestness with which Deval Patrick's proposal to allow towns to impose meals and other consumer taxes is being put forth, the appropriate response would be laughter ("Patrick seeks tax freedom for cities, towns," Page A1, Feb. 14).

In Westwood, residents are being asked to approve a nearly $3 million override this year simply to avoid further compromises in the quality of education we provide to our children. The town has a few restaurants, a couple of Dunkin' Donuts, and a Starbucks. Can the Patrick administration really believe that allowing the town to require these businesses to collect a 2 percent meals tax will have any meaningful impact on revenues?

Instead of adopting the do-it-yourself approach to the fiscal problems of this state, the administration should take a hard look at the state aid formulas and other factors that require towns to repeatedly seek overrides just to maintain basic services.

JOHN T. HARDING
Westwood

THE PROPONENTS of higher taxes are back, and this time, they are armed with a 200-page report that supports giving municipalities greater flexibility to raise revenue. Governor Patrick appears supportive of the effort. As the governor has already shown an appetite to engage in quid pro quo politics, I have a deal for him and the Legislature. In exchange for granting municipalities increased flexibility to raise revenues, the state should reduce the income tax rate to 5.0 percent.

As a resident of the town of Randolph, I would gladly trade paying slightly higher taxes at the local level, where I have an ability to affect the decision-making processes, for paying less taxes to the state government, where I have less impact.

One can already hear the argument that the state has too many unmet needs to reduce the state income tax. Those who support increased revenue-raising flexibility at the local level will remain silent. And, in the end, the citizen-taxpayer will be screwed again.

Governor Patrick has called for greater civic engagement. Citizens: Heed the call of your governor! Speak up and let your voices be heard on this matter.

RON MARLOW
Randolph