The Small Government Act

A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL: "Income tax evasions"

September 7, 2002

CARLA HOWELL contends that Question 1 on the November ballot would produce a $3,000 windfall for Massachusetts taxpayers, but that is not true. Her proposal to abolish the income tax would further enrich the wealthy, gut state government, and provide few of the economic benefits she claims for it.

Howell, the Libertarian Party candidate for governor, wants to eliminate a tax that generates $9 billion for state government annually. She has been running newspaper ads to make her case. Ballot Question 1 will "give back $3,000 each to 3,000,000 Massachusetts workers," the ads say. Not quite. In 1999, the last year for which the Revenue Department has reliable figures, the median income tax bill was $1,170.

As Howell acknowledges in the fine print, those with higher incomes get much of the benefit. A taxpayer would have to earn $56,604 in adjusted gross income to get $3,000. If the taxpayer earned $100,000, the windfall would be $5,300; if $1 million, the taxpayer would gain $53,000. Question 1 will "create 300,000 to 500,000 new jobs in Massachusetts," Howell contends. This comes from the dubious calculation of the Beacon Hill Institute, not known for great powers of prediction. Its director supported cutting the income tax to 5 percent two years ago on the grounds that "not a single service or program will have to be cut, not even if there is a recession.

In fact, the job market in Massachusetts depends on national and regional forces, few of them under the control of state government. Abolition of the income tax would threaten the jobs of thousands of state workers and employees of nursing homes, mental health clinics, and other workplaces that depend on state support.

Howell contends that abolishing the income tax would "dramatically increase donations to Massachusets churches and charities." That is wishful thinking. A bit of the money would trickle down to philanthropic purposes, but much more would be frittered away on cars, home improvements, and vacations.

Howell says abolition would force the Legislature to cut waste from the state budget. Whatever waste exists is worth far less than $9 billion. Legislators would be forced to trim billions of dollars in school aid and spending on health care to make up the difference.

Howell contrasts this year's $23 billion budget with former governor Michael Dukakis's last budget in fiscal year 1991. Rather than the $10 billion figure she cites, the Dukakis budget was $13.4 billion. Howell's inaccuracy here epitomizes the truth-shading in the rest of the ad. Question 1, which would effect a radical change in Massachusetts government, ought to be debated with facts, not self-serving misinformation.