By
Cat Viglienzoni - July 7, 2010
Massachusetts voters will likely face four proposals when
they stop in at the polls this November, and one in particular could have major
financial repercussions. The Sales Tax Relief Act would cut the sales tax by
more than half, from 6.25 percent down to 3 percent. The reduction would cost
the state up to $2.4 billion in annual revenue.
Critics - including the four gubernatorial candidates -
say the state cannot absorb the revenue loss without major cuts, including
local aid to cities and towns. All four candidates say they oppose the measure,
though Republican candidate Charlie Baker and Independent candidate Tim Cahill have
said they are in favor of rolling it back to 5 percent.
But chair of the Alliance to Roll Back Taxes Carla Howell,
a former libertarian candidate for governor, said in an interview with WERS she
does not think the sales tax cut would negatively impact the state.
"Shoppers will stop fleeing to New Hampshire or going
online to buy things when they can buy them from a retailer in Massachusetts,"
she said.
Howell also said the measure will increase jobs in the
state. She said they based their numbers on a Beacon Hill Institute study that
showed raising the sales tax would cost jobs. The reverse, she said, will have the
opposite effect.
"The biggest effect
of rolling back the sales tax to 3 percent is that it will create almost 33,000
private-sector jobs, desperately-needed jobs," she said, "by putting the money
back in the hands of the taxpayers who earned it. Every dollar creates twice as
many jobs in the private sector as it creates spent by government." The proposal has already received nearly 14,000 signatures.
In addition to the sales tax reduction proposal, three
others are expected to end up in voter's hands on November 2. One would repeal
the sales tax on alcohol enacted last year, which the Senate voted against
repealing on July 1.
Another would repeal the affordable housing law 40B,
which enables local Zoning Boards of Appeals to approve affordable housing
developments under flexible rules if at least 20-25 percent of the units have
long-term affordability restriction. Critics say it helps developers but does
not benefit communities as much, but supporters say it plays a critical role in
creating affordable housing.
On an environmental note, another proposal would require
waste-to-energy and biomass renewable energy sources that rely on burning fuel
to limit themselves to no more than 250 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour
to be considered "alternative energy developments." The measure is
sponsored by EcoLaw. They say the incinerators burn trees and are wrongly
receiving green tax credits.
The petitions have all been submitted and have to be counted.
The official announcement of the ballot initiatives is not expected until the
end of the week.
(Photo
courtesy: AP Images)
