Mayors fear tax repeal's effect
Revere Mayor Thomas G. Ambrosino says if state voters approve a ballot question to eliminate the state income tax this fall, it would deal a severe blow to municipalities.
"Cities and towns would probably lose 40 to 50 percent of their revenues from the state, which would mean you'd probably have to put a padlock on the doors of cities and towns all over the Commonwealth, and just shut down services," he said.
Beverly Mayor William F. Scanlon Jr. is equally dire in assessing the impact.
"It would bring government to its knees," he said.
Across the region, the proposed tax repeal - Question 1 on the November ballot - is drawing a chorus of sharp opposition from municipal leaders. In interviews, they said the approximately $12 billion reduction in state revenues caused by the repeal would likely mean massive cuts in state aid, causing havoc at the local level.
"The state doesn't have enough resources to provide the type of local aid we all would like to have now," said Salem Mayor Kimberley L. Driscoll. "If the question were to pass, there would be much less revenue available. I think it would be devastating not only to the Commonwealth but to all cities and towns."
But the ballot question, which would result in a $3,600 annual savings for the average taxpayer, also has its public local supporters. Among them is Barbara C. Anderson of Marblehead, director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
"Voters told the Legislature and the governor to take the income tax rate down to 5 percent, and they refuse to do it. So if they refuse to do it, try repeal," Anderson said, referring to the 2000 ballot vote calling for a phased rollback of the tax rate to 5 percent - lawmakers in 2002 froze the rate at 5.3 percent while providing for further gradual reductions if economic conditions allowed.
William R. DiScipio Sr., a Libertarian who has unsuccessfully run for selectman in Wakefield the past two years, is also a backer of the repeal.
"It's a natural-born right - what we earn, we should keep," said DiScipio, who believes people should help one another "freely and willingly," not because the government requires it.
DiScipio said he does not believe a reduction in state aid should be devastating to municipalities, noting that like private businesses, "government has to downsize."
What is moving the issue toward the front burner for local officials is not only concern for the potential impacts of the repeal, but worry that it stands a good chance of passing. Six years ago, the same measure failed narrowly on the ballot, picking up 45 percent of the vote.
"I think it's irresponsible, but it's on the radar screen," said Lynn Mayor Edward J. "Chip" Clancy Jr. "It was a battle last time, and with economics being what they are now - the price of gas, people out of work - no one is happy." He said mayors and other local officials have to make the case that repealing the income tax is not the answer.
"The state gets the bulk of its revenues through the income tax and most of the poorer communities get the bulk of their education money from the state," Clancy said. "If they don't get any money, we don't get any money."
"Income taxes are actually much fairer than property taxes," he added. "They are based on how much money you are earning. That is what a society or Commonwealth is all about."
Newburyport Mayor John Moak also fears that the economic downturn could result in passage of the repeal. But he observed, "In poorer economic times, people look to government to provide them with services." He said he is hopeful that might prompt voters to turn against a tax cut that would cause a loss of those services.
Carla Howell, chairwoman of the group leading the ballot effort - the Committee For Small Government - is optimistic about the measure's chances.
"Our opponents think we can win. That's why they've organized against us," she said.
"We think what is best for 3 million workers and taxpayers is for them to get back $3,600 on average every year that they can spend, save, or give away as they see fit," Howell said. "Whatever they do with that money in the private sector, it will create new jobs in Massachusetts."
Repealing the tax will also "force the Legislature to get rid of the failed programs that don't work and to streamline and cut the waste from the state government," Howell said.
Chelsea City Manager Jay Ash said he appreciates "the spirit in which people have offered" the tax repeal proposal.
"There are many folks who are simply concerned about the high cost of everything, including the cost of running government. But . . . government needs some revenue in order to support services, and the best way to make sure money is spent appropriately is to elect or hire the right people, not to cut off the revenue stream, which ultimately hurts everyone."
"None of us likes paying taxes, but the reality is if we want services, they have to be paid for in some way," said Peabody Mayor Michael J. Bonfanti. He said without the income tax, cities and towns would have no other recourse than to increase property taxes, levying fees, or cutting services. "People have to think of those ramifications."
Melrose Mayor Robert J. Dolan said people are frustrated that government is not making the same kinds of economic sacrifices they are may feel tempted to "make a statement" by voting for the repeal. But he hopes that does not happen.
"I don't know how anyone logically can make an argument that we can operate as a society in Massachusetts with no income tax," he said. "The argument would be that we don't need all these things - we don't need after-school programs, senior centers, theater and cultural events, roads, sidewalks."
Essex Selectman Mark Lynch says, "I don't think there is a full understanding of the implications if this does pass. It's a significant revenue source for the state that would need to be replaced."
