[statecom-discuss] Draft 2008 Public Policy Question Campaign

[Mike Heichman]

Hi Nat,

An interesting idea Nat.

Any ballot question that we create should be brief and have simple 
language. We would also create literature which would allow us to 
provide more information and a deeper analysis.

One of the strengths of your proposal is that it could at a local level 
counter the reactionary propaganda of the proposed statewide initiative 
that would be devastating to our Commonwealth.

For me the weakness is that it just reshuffles the current tax burden, 
which is a good thing, but it doesn't provide any additional resources 
that is desperately needed. One of the characteristics of any single 
statewide questions (even on at a local level) is that it must identify 
the GRP as a party that is substantially different.

I also think that the major focus of the media and public this year will 
be on national and international issues. In 2006, the  major focus in MA 
was on the statewide campaign for Governor and on statewide issues.

At this point in time I would like us to focus on the national picture 
and how it connects to our state and local economies. However, this is 
just my opinion. I urge you to develop your idea and present it again.

Thanks,

Mike Heichman





Nat Fortune wrote:

>>On Dec 16, 2007, at 4:06 PM, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>Equally important is that there may well be a ballot question  
>>attempting to
>>eliminate income tax - moving us ever more regressively on  
>>taxation, crippling
>>what is left of our state economy, and hurting those the most (both  
>>in terms
>>of shifted tax burden and cuts in services) who can least afford it.
>>
>>If we are going to mount a statewide ballot campaign, what about  
>>actually
>>doing organizing and voter registration with a broad-based message  
>>that really
>>empowers people around taxes and voting (using their initiative as  
>>the target)?
>> And reaches the people no one else is willing to take the time to  
>>reach?
>>    
>>
>
>
>Grace is right: paying attention to the questions already on the  
>ballot and posing an alternative that focuses on what the state  
>legislature could do is a very good idea. It would show how the GRP  
>would govern differently and could do it in a way that would have  
>direct appeal to voters already confronted with questions about taxes.
>
>Here's one possibility but there are many others (for example a  
>carbon tax)
>
>Let's start with the assumption that our goal is an honest sharing of  
>burdens and benefits, so that everyone can afford to live in  
>communities worth living in. Instead, we have a tax system that  
>steals from the poor to give to the rich. What we ultimately need is  
>a progressive tax system, but that requires a constitutional  
>amendment that wouldn't be on the ballot this time, and the average  
>voter seems to mistakenly believe that they would pay more taxes  
>under such a system.
>
>So how about an advisory question that makes the existing system more  
>progressive, spells out how the average voter would benefit in a way  
>that is easier to understand, and builds the base needed to actually  
>pass a progressive tax system amendment (which has been repeatedly  
>defeated).
>
>Here's my idea, but it needs work to make it easier to follow.
>
>(1) Exempt anyone earning less than a living wage from paying any  
>state income taxes. Give the same size exemption to every additional  
>member of a family.
>
>Example: if living wage is $10/hour (just to pick a round number) and  
>you work full time 50 weeks a year with two weeks off, then you earn  
>$10/hour x 40 hours/week x 50 weeks/year = $20,000 year. So if you  
>are single, the first $20,000 is exempt. If you are a couple, the  
>first $40,000 is exempt. If you have two kids as well, the first  
>$80,000 is exempt.  Likewise, f the living wage is $12/hour, then the  
>first $24,000 is exempt, etc. etc.
>
>
>(2) change  the tax rate on what you earn over and above a living  
>wage so that  If you earn twice the living wage , then you pay the  
>same as you did before (or less)  in taxes and if you earn less than  
>double the living wage then you pay less than you do now. If you earn  
>more than that, then the poor have been paying your way for a very  
>long time and you can afford to start pulling your weight!
>
>Example: Assume a living wage of $10/hour like before. So if you are  
>a couple with two kids earning $160,000/year, then you pay the same  
>as before.
>
>
>
>The official living wage for Brookline MA was $10.30 as of July  
>2006   and for Boston was $11.95 as of June 2006.
><http://www.livingwagecampaign.org/index.php?id=1958 >
>
>Nat
>
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>  
>