Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It still hasn't been explained to me how 100000 people paying taxes in another state helps New Hampshire "leech" off Massachusetts. Yes New Hampshire residents have Massachusetts jobs, but that's the way cities work--people commute toward them. Does Norfolk County leech off Suffolk County because people there commute into Boston?
I'm always perplexed when Massachusetts residents complain about people who pay taxes here but only use a limited amount of services because they live elsewhere. It's a general rule that people go where the jobs are--if we suddenly stopped people living in New Hampshire from working in Massachusetts they'd all just move here. It would be even more crowded and expensive. It's a bit like when road commuters complain about Mass Transit--killing the MBTA is going to make traffic much worse.
Maybe I was being a harsh when I used the word "leech" but I'm constantly bombarded with this NH propaganda that convinces everyone how "independent" they are. NH is a very wealthy, even slightly wealthier than Mass. And yes, NH workers in Mass pay Mass income tax; but but they pay NH property tax, buy NH gasoline and purchase products and NH stores which helps their economy. If southeastern NH wasn't so close to metro Boston, it wouldn't have that influx of jobs that helps fuel it's own economy. Basically it would be no different from VT or ME. Basically it's a form of "trickle north" economics.
For your second point: if the NH residents who work in Mass were to suddenly move to Mass, it would actually help the state. Cities and towns in Mass would get denser, but a less extensive highways system wouldn't be needed (or widened) and the extra money could go towards better transit.
Edit: I forgot about your first point. To a certain extent, many of the surrounding suburbs leech off of Boston and it's success by deciding to be independent while at the same dime benefiting from the capital city's great wealth without suffering from its areas of poverty. Look how close Brookline is to Roxbury yet all of their property taxes go to Brookline, not Boston, yet Brookline benefits completely from the city of Boston.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,794 posts, read 2,696,474 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
There are plenty of well educated people in Central and Western Mass. It has nothing to do with Tanglewood, which is way out in a remote area, The Berkshires, at the extreme far end of the state. Western Mass is what I know best and in the area that is generally known as" western MA", there are Smith College, Amherst College, Mt Holyoke College, UMass Amherst, Hampshire College, Springfield College, Western New England University, to name the ones of the top of my head. There's Deerfield Academy where foreign royalty come to be educated. Nearby is the city of Greenfield which also has potential.
<snip>
Sure, the area lacks a vibrant city with the urban amenities, but that's exactly what we are trying to say. Why pour everything into ONE city? Springfield has possibilities, Worcester probably does too. They could become great cities, given a chance. The potential is there.
I am aware of the colleges you cited. While these are wonderful places to get a great education, they're not quite the same as full blown research universities that generate research dollars and spin off corporations. Ok, I guess Monster came out of UMass Amherst. Other examples?
Rensselaer Polytechnic comes to mind, but that's in NY.
I don't dispute that these cities have potential. I do question what existing economic justification there is to throw big dollars at transit systems (and convention centers, AtkinsonDan?! Really?) in Worcester, Manchester, Springfield. Can you make a strong business case that there will be a positive Return On Investment? Or is such spending going to be another Bridge to Nowhere? The MBTA, the convention center, the Big Dig, are all examples of putting infrastructure in place to handle the people and economic activity that are already there. The Big Dig was long overdue; the highway was clogged and non-functioning. Got that problem in Springfield? You can bring up the mismanagement of the Big Dig project, and you'd be right. Boston Happens.
Look, I live in Providence. I feel the same as you do about revitalizing the other cities in New England. Boston is too crowded and too expensive, so I left. I really hate driving in and around that city. The MBTA is poorly run when you compare it with transit systems in other places nationwide. I like the smaller cities and I think Providence is the best of them. I also think mass transit is important in these cities. But the cold hard reality is that you've got to make a better business case than we've got educated people and potential, or nobody is going to take you seriously. Given a chance? Are there people working hard in those cities to make them vibrant? I know there are in Providence...
I'll go further. The time to put the infrastructure in place is before it gets to the point that it becomes a huge economic impediment to getting it done, as was the case with the Big Dig. How are you going to make the business case for it???
But after all that is said, yep, I still think money needs to go to Boston to fund Mass Transit, because its potential is realized.
Maybe I was being a harsh when I used the word "leech" but I'm constantly bombarded with this NH propaganda that convinces everyone how "independent" they are. NH is a very wealthy, even slightly wealthier than Mass. And yes, NH workers in Mass pay Mass income tax; but but they pay NH property tax, buy NH gasoline and purchase products and NH stores which helps their economy. If southeastern NH wasn't so close to metro Boston, it wouldn't have that influx of jobs that helps fuel it's own economy. Basically it would be no different from VT or ME. Basically it's a form of "trickle north" economics.
For your second point: if the NH residents who work in Mass were to suddenly move to Mass, it would actually help the state. Cities and towns in Mass would get denser, but a less extensive highways system wouldn't be needed (or widened) and the extra money could go towards better transit.
Edit: I forgot about your first point. To a certain extent, many of the surrounding suburbs leech off of Boston and it's success by deciding to be independent while at the same dime benefiting from the capital city's great wealth without suffering from its areas of poverty. Look how close Brookline is to Roxbury yet all of their property taxes go to Brookline, not Boston, yet Brookline benefits completely from the city of Boston.
NH commuters almost certainly bring in more in taxes than they use in services. If they lived here they would probably still contribute more than they use, but the net would probably be smaller.
As to your second point, I don't think cities and towns would necessarily get denser--people that already choose to live in New Hampshire probably aren't that interested in living in dense urban areas. The suburbs would probably just get built out more in directions that aren't north. The Constitution prohibits these kinds of internal restrictions so it's a moot point, but I don't think it would be a net positive to restrict where people live.
Boston and Cambridge residential property taxes are significantly lower than the corresponding property taxes in primarily suburban communities. Businesses already pay a significant amount of money to these communities, if they don't also bring along expenses associated with having people actually live in the city I don't see how that's a bad thing. In some sense, the suburbs use the cities for work and the cities use the suburbs for housing.
"Massachusetts jobs don't have that big of an impact on New Hampshire's tax policies and structure. NH state government is bare bones compared to Massachusetts. Most services are left up to the individual cities and towns and the services offered within each town vary significantly. The New Hampshire system works because the culture for the most part still promotes self reliance. Many NH citizens think nothing of taking their trash to a centralized transfer station or driving on dirt roads. I know that sounds abhorrent to some people in Massachusetts but it works fine for many people."
Considering that the vast majority of NH lives within a half hour to forty five minutes from the boarder NH is clearly dependent on Mass and potentially southern Maine for most of the economy. With respect to VT southern VT is closer to Greenfield then Keene and Burlington isn't really dependent on NH. Montpelier is fine but the size of it is so small it would be hard to argue.
If there is an issue on Mass state roads it hurts NH. Much of the roads in NH could shut down with little ramifications on Mass.
Taking trash to a dump might be fine for some people but for most people in the USA they would like to just take it to the curb. It is hard to argue that you want to be different and then argue that somehow there is utility to others within it. I went to Concord a few years ago and frankly I was not impressed. Endless boxstores that I could find any any street corner in the USA. No local flavor, no real sense of location other then roads signs. Very little intrinsically different to validate going. Sure you have the whole "no income tax" and "no sales tax" but frankly who is going to trek all the way there factoring in time and money just to save on that...unless you are cheap.
I understand libertarianism for a federal and to a point state level. But NH has just declined so much to the point where it is not funny. By cheapening everything and lowering the quality of life it led to a decline. The vast majority of NH is white to the point where Vermont might be more diverse pretty soon. Running a state like a Building 19 is not a good long term plan. Here's an example. A rest stop in VT practically has light music, granite countertops (irony eh!), clean bathrooms and everything is well maintained. NH is practically a bucket on the side of a highway.
75% of infrastructure spending right now is with the government (federal and state). If the NH state government doesn't want to build that's fine but that simply means they are more dependent on the feds. Pre 2008 maybe I could "get" NH but how many corporate sponsors in NH do anything else? NH is hardly self reliant when it depends on other states for jobs and then tries to siphon off the taxes of such.
23% of Mass's budget comes from the Feds
nearly 32% of NH budget comes from the Feds!
42% of Mass's budget comes from a general fund
25% of NH's budget comes from a general fund
NH is clearly more dependent on the Feds for it's budget in line with these two facts.
the corporate income tax in NH has declined 18% from 2009 to 2013.
But Mass has a ton of debt right? Yes infact it does. However the bond rating had a update making it higher then NH.
A do it yourself mentality is fine as long as you actually do it.
If you want to see an interesting example of it look at Springfield Ma using google maps street view. Now on the upper left corner drag it to 2007. You can go back in time. Some have 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013. Why do I say this? Because of the 2011 tornado. You can go to street by street, block by block and see what businesses choose to stay and what ones ultimately shuttered. In some cases it was well beyond just a repair I saw an entire block be condemned. You start to look at the other things. 2009 they put in new streetlights. The old ones looked like highway lights. Ok but frankly boring. New ones have more of a style are closer to the ground and have more of an impact looking like a community rather then a highway. After Hurricane Katrina I remember one storefront that had a sign saying "If you don't eat here we BOTH will starve" If NH was hit by some natural disaster how many would step up to the plate and rebuild?
People should work from home if they can. And people's places of work should encourage that.
Except many workplaces aren't interested. And then there are many jobs that have to be done on site.
What a ****ing mess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
re
