Small Government Act to End the Income Tax Qualifies for Ballot (In Massachusetts)

http://www.smallgovernmentact.org/ (by way of a Carla Howell Email) ^ | 11/9/2001 | LPMA

[Fixit]

Small Government Act to End the Income Tax Qualifies for Ballot

57,100 Signatures Required
75,516 Certified Signatures Filed

On Tuesday, December 4th at 11am, Carla Howell filed 75,516 certified petition signatures and held a News Conference at the Secretary of State's Election Division Office in the McCormack Building.

---

The Small Government Act to End the Income Tax

Summary (as appeared on petition sheets circulated Fall 2001):

The proposed law would provide that no income or other gain realized on or after July 1, 2003, would be subject to the state personal income tax. That tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of “S corporations” as defined under federal tax law. The proposed law would not affect the taxes due on income or gain realized before July 1, 2003.

The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

Full text:

An Initiative Petition for a Law Known as The Small Government Act to End the Income Tax

Be it enacted by the people, and by their authority:

SECTION 1. This law, to be known as The Small Government Act to End the Income Tax, is enacted upon the following findings and declarations: The government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts today is Big Government, and

1. Massachusetts Big Government programs do not work; all too often, they do not achieve their stated objectives; all too often they fail in their duties;
2. Massachusetts Big Government programs make things worse;
3. Massachusetts Big Government programs create new problems;
4. Massachusetts Big Government programs squander and waste; and
5. Massachusetts Big Government programs divert money and energy from positive and productive uses in the private sector.

Big Government has a harmful impact on those who rely upon it, and

1. Big Government promotes irresponsibility;
2. Big Government makes people weak and dependent; and
3. Big Government saps personal initiative and undermines the work ethic.

Big Government cannot work. It is inherently flawed and unreformable. High taxes feed and increase the size and scope of Massachusetts Big Government. High taxes reduce our standard of living and drive jobs out of Massachusetts. Government spending rises to meet government income. To dramatically shrink government spending, we must dramatically shrink government income. Ending the personal income tax is intended to dramatically shrink the revenue of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Ending the personal income tax is designed to be a bold step in making Massachusetts’ government small. Small government leaves us free and unburdened to fashion our own lives, and

1. Small government is simple, cheap, and good;
2. Small government is thrifty and effective;
3. Small government is accountable and responsible;
4. There’s no place to hide waste and corruption in a small government budget; and
5. Small government leaves us with the responsibility and the resources to manage our own lives, educate our children, protect our families, care for our neighbors, and assist the elderly.

SECTION 2. Chapter sixty-two of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2000 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting at the beginning of Section 3 of said Chapter sixty-two a new paragraph to read: “No income or other gain realized on or after July 1, 2003 shall be taxable, or subject to tax, under the provisions of this Chapter.” Said Chapter sixty-two is hereby further amended by inserting the words “Subject to the introductory paragraph at the beginning of Section 3 of this chapter”, followed by a comma, at the beginnings of each of Subsections (f), (g) and (h) of Section 2 of Chapter sixty-two.”

SECTION 3. Section 4 of Chapter sixty-two B of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2000 Official Edition, is hereby repealed, effective July 1, 2003.

SECTION 4. Chapter sixty-two C of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2000 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting at the beginning of Section 6 of said Chapter sixty-two C a new paragraph to read: “The term ‘taxable year’ as used in this Section or Section 7 of this Chapter, and applied to a natural person or to a partnership consisting only of natural persons, shall not include any period beginning on or after July 1, 2003.”

SECTION 5. This law is not intended to impair the operation of G.L. Chapter sixty-two E. Therefore, Section 2 of G.L. Chapter sixty-two E, as appearing in the 2000 Official Edition, is hereby amended by excising from the first sentence thereof the phrase “required to deduct and withhold taxes upon wages under the provisions of chapter sixty-two B” and the phrase “and any identification number such employer is required to include on a withholding tax return filed pursuant to said chapter sixty-two B”.

SECTION 6. Notwithstanding the provision of Sections 2, 3 and 4 hereof, this law shall not be construed to impair the collection of moneys due the Commonwealth for income or other gain realized before July 1, 2003, nor shall it be construed to affect the responsibility of any person to comply with the requirements of G.L. Chapters sixty-two B or sixty-two C as either pertains to income or other gain realized before July 1, 2003.

SECTION 7. The provisions of this law are severable, and if any clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this chapter, or an application thereof, shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section or application adjudged invalid.

[Little Bill]

Notified

[Little Bill]

Do you have any talk radio people in Western Mass, who might be interested? The antiTax thing in Tenn. was organized and the activists kept upto date using talk radio hosts.

[bimmer]

Good afternoon LB. In western Mass ... hmm. WHMP maybe? in Northampton.

[ppaul]

Taxachusetts voters routinely elect Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, et al, ad nauseaum.
They love BIG government.
They support government schools which sponsor some of the most perverse instruction in sexual deviancy to children, ala Fistgate.

I am afraid this noble initiative will fail at the ballot box.

[Wm Bach]

I live next door in Connecticut and will that EVER be a rallying cry to abolish OUR income tax given to us by ole Lowell Weicker. "If Taxachusetts can do it, SO CAN WE!!!"

Don't worry. John Rowland promised to abolosh the state income tax once elected governor. Of course, he was elected several years ago, but I'm sure he's working on it ever so hard...

...ly.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

So please trust me when I tell you that the reason you've heard nothing about the "Small Government Act" is becuse it has about as much chance of becoming law as Osama Bin Laden has of winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Moving to Cow Hampshire must've turned you into a pessimist. We passed an income tax rollback last year and probably would've passed a revokation (sp?) of the excise tax last as well had the proposal not been tied to the Pike toll question.

I give this a 55% chance in MA, esp. since Carla Howell's political star is on the rise---heard she might even make a run for governor in aught two.....

[alpowolf]

Both parties love BIG government, they just fight over who will sit in the chief seats.

Ain't THAT the truth! They both love playing Santa Claus with other people's money.

[Loopy]

I e-mailed your post to Jay Severin.

[Little Bill]

I have been in exile in this Peoples Republic for the last 40 years, you never know what we will do on a State wide Ballot. Except for the Fat Drunk, the only reason that most of these communist jerks are in office is because of Gerrymandering.

I live in Essex County, 6th, District ( the original home of the Gerrymander) and the AFL-CIO and the rest of the socalist establihment spent 8 Million dollars to defeat a RINO.

[bimmer]

i agree with you!

[bimmer]

i agree with you!

[Little Bill]

I am a life long Republican and I contributed to this and volunteered some of my time to collect signatures. I didn't notice you saying that you would help when I posted , to the Mass Locale, that the libertarians needed help and a phone number to the contact person running the campaign.

[andy58-in-nh]

Moving to Cow Hampshire must've turned you into a pessimist.

Not at all, actually. I'm quite optimistic about the prospects for the Granite State, as long as we can keep the Southern Hordes at bay (or at the Bay State border)...;}

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"it won't be covered in the mainstream media so as not to encourage supporters to vote."

Exactly. The liberal media up here won't cover it so as to make the ballot initiative supporters do all the work in getting the word out to the people. I for one plan to scream "bloody murder!" to get people to vote it into law.
However, in this Commonwealth, it doesn't matter if the people want it to be law or not. If the pukes on Beacon hill don't like it, they find a way to get rid of it.
They did the same thing with the seat belt law. The people overwhwelmingly voted to repeal it and it was, for about a year until lawmakers introduced legislation to get it back on the books, putting the ball squarely back in the petitioners court to "Go ahead, do it again, I dare ya."

[bimmer]

I think Patriot is just pointing out the realities of dealing with the RINOs in office in Marxachusetts. Don't let that discourage you from launching a grassroots campaign. Think Barbara Anderson!!

[Little Bill]

I suggested to a Rep one time, at a meeting. I suggested that we move the Hooker statue down to the Common, from next to the stairs at the Capitol and erect, a gallows. We should then top off a legislator at random every now and then, as an example to the others. The proposal was not well recieved.

[pt17]

I give this a 55% chance in MA

Evidence to the contrary:
1. Noam Chomsky and fans.
2. Senator-for-life Teddy Kennedy
3. Barney Frank
4. Elitist John Kerry
5. The Big (gest ripoff in the history of the US) Dig
6. The Boston Globe
7. Harvard and the Peoples' Republic of Cambridge
8. Colleges Against The War
9. One-party democratic state
10. Massport (one of the worst security records in the country)
11. Inbred patronage system.

Someone else can carry on from here.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Gee, why not? I think it's a splendid idea.
Probably not well received because they all qualify.