Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/denebolasandbox/denebola_2009/wp-includes/ms-load.php on line 113
Denebola » Opposing Viewpoints: Question three is a solution to big government » Print

- Denebola - http://www.denebolaonline.net -

Opposing Viewpoints: Question three is a solution to big government

Posted By James Palmer On October 28, 2010 @ 6:06 am In Editorials and Opinions | Comments Disabled

In addition to congressional elections, Massachusetts voters have the option to vote for a reduction of the state sales tax from 6.25 percent down to three percent on November 2, 2010. The rate, raised from 5% in 2009, now may be sliced in half. Although opponents of this proposal may argue that this would dangerously cut government funding for necessary services, this reduction would overall be very beneficial for the state of Massachusetts. The decrease in sales tax would force a reduction of unneeded government spending, leave more money in the hands of taxpayers, and as helping the economy of the state.
Those against the proposal will immediately attack the reduction as a huge blow for state-funded services such as public education, and the police and fire departments and those who work for them. The fact is that the bill would cut $2.5 billion annually from tax revenue, but who says this needs to be a bad thing? Who says that the money needs to be taken from these essential services when the government already wastes money that could be put to better use in the private sector?
Inherently, government spending produces significantly more waste than private companies. According to Rollbacktaxes.com, the reduction would reduce state government spending by 5 percent, back to the 2009 level. This significant decrease in funding could be the impetus needed to force significant cuts of wasteful spending. As it is, government jobs provide significant benefits and salaries are generally much higher than those of the private sector. Additionally government employees retire an average of 13 years earlier those working in the private sector. According to the website, a higher salary means that “In many cases, we’re paying the cost of two government employees when only one is actually doing a job.
The Boston Herald editorial staff endorsed the proposal, putting forth similar arguments: “Count us in the Yes on Question 3 camp ¦ The state spends too much!¦Taxpayers and voters are just fed up with lawmakers who listen more to special interests, more to public employee unions, more to advocates than to those paying the bills. If the money were reinvested in the private sector, it could be put to more effective use, while the government reevaluates the efficiency of its spending.
In the private sector the $2.5 billion could be put to better use. If the proposal passes, the average family will save $900 annually. This money may be used to buy other consumer goods, helping to invigorate the economy or to simply pay the bills. The fact is that this money would be much more useful in the hands of the taxpayers than in the government. The more people are taxed, the less economic growth there is. In fact according to Rollbacktaxes.com, if the $2.5 billion were reinvested in the private sector, 33,000 jobs could be created, far more than the reduction in spending would cost.
Additionally, especially around the state borders, the reduction of state taxes would also mean a significant increase in business. Of course all consumers would be more likely to spend with extra cash in their pocket, but the lower sales tax might also promote in-state sales even more positively.
Rather than traveling across the border to New Hampshire, Massachusetts consumers would be far less tempted by our northern neighbor’s non-existent sale tax. A reduce in the sales tax might also draw shoppers from New York, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, hoping to save by stocking up on goods in the Bay State.
In addition to these economic benefits, this proposal is a chance for the voters to take control. Whether you support or are opposed to the proposal, this is a chance for voters to choose whether the government continues to spend as it does at the moment, or force it to reevaluate and restructure, reducing wasted money that could be used to reinvigorate the economy. Right now, taxpayers are looking for ways to save, not spend money. Let’s face it, if it is left to the Massachusetts state government, the people can only expect more increases of taxes, like the 2009 increase of the sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25percent. As the Boston Herald’s editorial puts it, “Sometimes voters have to shout to be heard. This is one of those times.

Read more


Article printed from Denebola: http://www.denebolaonline.net

URL to article: http://www.denebolaonline.net/2010/10/28/opposing-viewpoints-question-three-is-a-solution-to-big-government/

URLs in this post:

[1] Opposing Viewpoints: Question three is going to deplete state resources: http://www.denebolaonline.net/2010/10/28/opposing-viewpoints-question-three-is-going-to-deplete-state-resources/

[2] Q1 eliminates income tax: http://www.denebolaonline.net/2008/10/29/q1-eliminates-income-tax/

[3] In with the income tax: http://www.denebolaonline.net/2008/10/29/in-with-the-income-tax/

[4] A tale of two ballot questions: http://www.denebolaonline.net/2008/11/26/a-tale-of-two-ballot-questions/

[5] Opposing Viewpoints: Extinguish ballot question 2? Con-Burn up question 2: http://www.denebolaonline.net/2008/10/29/opposing-viewpoints-extinguish-ballot-question-2-con-burn-up-question-2/

Copyright © Denebola - The Official School Newspaper of Newton South High School