I would, but I can't. I can't see the keyboard any longer...the tears are stinging my eyes.
Posted on 12/10/2001 10:12:58 AM PST by 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
Big Government has a harmful impact on those who rely upon it, and
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
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.
I would, but I can't. I can't see the keyboard any longer...the tears are stinging my eyes.
When I posted on the Mass Locale that the Libertarians were organizing this effort the only reply that I got was from Morque21. What people did on their own I don't know. I am a Hard Right Republican, both Big R and Small r, as my family has been since the Revolution, RINOs in Mass are not Republicans by my definition.
We have a problem in this State and only we can solve it, you can be a nay sayer, Patriot76 is a nay sayer, I like to build bridges on the right side of the isle let us defeat the foe and then fight out the small things, later.
For those not familiar with prop 2-1/2 here is my edited version of a Mass.newspaper column
Twenty years later: Property taxes still too high, but think where they'd be without Prop 2½ by Barbara Anderson
The Salem Evening News Friday, June 29, 2001 Once upon a time there was no Proposition 2½.
Property taxes in what was then known as "Taxachusetts" were 81 percent above the national average and went up 5-6 percent, and once even 12 percent, a year.
Politicians had long ago instituted a state income tax to replace some of the property tax burden. Then they said that if the taxpayers would allow a sales tax, they could cut the property tax. Then they instituted a state lottery to reduce the property tax, so by 1980 we had an income tax, a 5 percent sales tax, a state lottery, and the third highest property taxes in the nation.
Finally the voters took matters into their own hands, putting Prop 2½ on the 1980 ballot and passing it by 59-41-percent margin.
The following July 1, the beginning of all communities' fiscal year, the levy limit went into effect. Property taxes in communities whose rate was higher than 2.5 percent of fair market value were cut 15 percent a year until they reached that maximum-allowable rate.
For the rest of the communities, the Prop 2½ limit was the same as it is now: The annual levy -- the total amount collected in property taxes -- cannot increase more than 2½ percent a year, after factoring in new growth, unless the voters choose to override or allow a debt exclusion.
Proposition 2½ contains an override provision that allows local voters to raise their community's taxes more than the levy limit provides. This is good for democracy, but hard on taxpayers who can't afford the extra increases.
Property taxes are still too high in Massachusetts. But they are not as high as they were, and certainly not as high as they were heading before the implementation of the initiative petition known as Proposition 2½ 20 years ago
Tom here-So it could happen again with a modification of the state income tax.
ps Barbara Anderson was a Marblehead house wife who lead the battle for prop 2-1/2
. Determined people can get things done when the sheeple are made aware of what is being done to them. She was a lone voice that ultimately triumphed. -Tom
This is in your backyard. Is it true that all the Massachusetts media have failed to report this story? Qualifying for the ballot is a big deal. The issue, of making the income tax illegal, is even bigger. Recall that the US Constitution made the income tax illegal, which is why it took a constitutional amendment to install that tax nationwide.
This is going to be a bloody battle. The "public service" unions are going to go apesh*t on this issue. Expect stories about the elderly being forced to eat cat food, children shivering in their cold homes because their schools are closed, no more firemen, no more police. you get the idea.
Plus, the whereas clauses in this Initiative make much more interesting reading than in most such efforts.
Enjoy. And share the news with the audience in radioland. You can remind them that 22 states have the initiative process in their own constitutions, so if they don't want any more state income taxes, they can vote on it. In the other 28 states, they have to demand that the initiative be PUT INTO their Constitutions.
This is another subject that you might share with the Radio Talk Show Hosts Association.
Congressman Billybob
Click and bookmark for yer Congresscritter's daily 7:30 a.m. EST commentary.
BTW, I voted for Carla Howell in the last election and hope to get the opportunity to vote for her again. I will certainly be voting for this ballot initiative as well.
Me too! (...but then who would pay for all the freebies for the illegal aliens?)
It is ironic that our one of the very issues that started the Revolution is now so loved by the same people's ancestors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.