W Mass vs E Mass benefit from taxes paid (Boston: college, costs)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by robr2

The MBTA is not the only transit system in the state. Western MA gets the benefit - and state support - of the:

Berkshire Regional Transit Authority
Franklin Regional Transit Authority
Pioneer Valley Transit Authority
Montachusett Regional Transit Authority
Worcester Regional Transit Authority.

None of them gets the sheer dollars that the MBTA does but they carry far fewer passengers.

But the MBTA receives a designated portion of the sales tax paid by everyone in the state. Someone in Chelsea purchases a TV for $300, $3 of that goes to the MBTA which they benefit directly from. Someone in Chicopee buys that same TV for $300, $3 of that still goes to the MBTA. Sure those other transit authorities get a few crumbs of what the state gives to the RTAs, but you cannot say there is anything fair about that formula.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Where do you get that "Boston" is not "helping out"? Because Western MA is less dense, services cost more per capita to deliver, and the state totally subsidizes this (roads, infrastructure, services, everything...). The state invests in start ups, accelerators, infrastructure, education, etc in Western MA disproportionally to the population and the return.

Western MA would be better off with lower taxes and less spending on education and municipal government. The current formula works well for an advanced economy like Boston, but not so much for rural areas. Much of what the state spending is doing out there, is "educating" the local students to move away for better opportunity. They would benefit from better infrastructure, but what the state spends there is peanuts.

[bolehboleh]

Okay, so this conversation is devolving into what should and shouldn't be done with our tax dollars. That's fine, but it's not the topic of this thread. From the evidence provided (not the anecdotal evidence), it seems like W. Mass isn't really getting screwed by the state. Is that a fair statement? If not, prove me wrong (using real evidence, not anecdotal)

[mdovell]

"Most people wouldn't take a house in Springfield if it were given to them. "
https://www.zillow.com/springfield-ma/home-values/
Prices don't go up 8% in one year just for the heck of it.

Days on market to sell is 27 days which is actually better than the state average. It wasn't always this way but that's a huge improvement
Springfield, MA Housing Market, Trends, and Schools - realtor.com®

Housing is pretty much going up everywhere. The fastest selling markets are all urban areas. Everett and even Lawrence are going up. Average rent in Brockton for a one bedroom is $1250.

"But Hampden Cty numbers are skewed downwards by the dead city of Springfield where many people these days are probably illegals working under the table and not paying taxes, something like Lawrence. "

Uh no. While the city does receive the bulk of its revenue from the state the same goes with most other gateway cities. Infact I know suburban affluent white suburbs where 33% of their towns revenue came from the state. Public education in mass generally is at least 11K per student. Now ask yourself would anyone pay 11K in property taxes? Probably not. But that's where the state comes in with state aid (chapter 70 and with special ed circuit breaker (extremely complicated to say the least)


In all due respect, I get the whole "Springfield haters" mentality but for the most part it is like an armchair general. If anyone wants to come down I'll gladly ask you to point out what's wrong and I can show you in person what is going right.

"The Springfield median household income is $34.7K. 69.2% of children live in single parent households which is 16th worst in the country. 11 of the 20 poorest schools in Massachusetts are in Springfield and Holyoke. It might not be a dead city but it's in the ICU and the priest is giving last rights."

But...the median income for boston is *ALSO* 35K
https://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...n-35000-a-year

Out of the people in Boston working only 38% of them are actually from Boston. Boston isn't nearly as rich as what others think it is. If it wasn't for 128 and the subway system it would be much poorer. Much of Massachusetts focused on job growth in cities. CT on the other hand used towns and that really screwed things up. It's almost the opposite problem.

I'm not sure what you mean by poorest schools? Do you have DESE data to back that up? Poverty at home sure but SPS spends a fair amount per student by any means of it. If you mean actual testing performance and graduation it is pretty much the same as Boston Public Schools. Again Boston isn't nearly as rich as what people think it is.

I think it was Maine that took one county and pretty much said ok no sales or income taxes. Franklin County I think is going to gradually hurt more due to the closing of Yankee.

Getting back to topic though I think it depends on really the long term goals. Can you make more in eastern mass? Sure but you pay more as well. This is why this friction of the earlier thread about transit upsets some. There are real estate developers that will stop at nothing to prevent any information about lowering the values of properties in eastern Mass. Remember the higher the house cost the fewer people will be able to buy it and the fewer sales you'll make. I am not saying that the government should set the price of homes by any means. However, the government does set limits on financing. Any mortage of more than 729K generally goes to a jumbo ARM. ARM's are great when interest rates are going down. But if they are going up no one in their right mind should have one.

"Western MA would be better off with lower taxes and less spending on education and municipal government. The current formula works well for an advanced economy like Boston, but not so much for rural areas. Much of what the state spending is doing out there, is "educating" the local students to move away for better opportunity. They would benefit from better infrastructure, but what the state spends there is peanuts."

Some of it is growing pains that's for sure. You can't always blame people for what they were born into. If their parents and grandparents dropped out and ended up on the system you might not become a Rhode Scholar or at least be encouraged to do so. Poverty traps exist. If you make more benefits are cut and then provides less incentive to work. At the same point if people make more why pay them the full amounts ?

Having said this though there is funding for things like Valley Venture Mentors Valley Venture Mentors There are startups and shark tank like grillings. It's actually pretty fun to participate. Gradually as prices go up non profits will end up selling out and moving somewhere else. The difference they use for more operating expenses. I see this in urban areas all across the country. Online shopping and self driving cars are going to make a huge impact. If food becomes nearly on demand and so is transit it changes everything. I give it ten to fifteen years tops.

[Brave Stranger]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber4

Our town manager recently announced after a meeting on Beacon Hill that 40% of the state budget is for Mass Health. It would be interesting to see the cost per county on that.

This number is not sustainable.

[tysmith95]

137k medium listing price. Christ.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by bolehboleh

From the evidence provided (not the anecdotal evidence), it seems like W. Mass isn't really getting screwed by the state. Is that a fair statement? If not, prove me wrong (using real evidence, not anecdotal)

I already did with the MBTA example. Then you have state government. That is another $5 billion which is disproportionately benefitting Boston (naturally as the state capitol). Those two expenditures alone exceed all Chapter 70 and Unrestricted Aid $$$ STATEWIDE.




And oh yeah...


"The Big Dig -- America's Greatest Highway Robbery"

[bolehboleh]

Originally Posted by massnative71

I already did with the MBTA example.

Did you see what I posted earlier? I posted a comparison between the MBTA and PVTA. Please go back a page or two.

Originally Posted by massnative71

Then you have state government. That is another $5 billion which is disproportionately benefitting Boston (naturally as the state capitol). Those two expenditures alone exceed all Chapter 70 and Unrestricted Aid $$$ STATEWIDE.

Please provide evidence that backs up your claim that the eastern part of the state disproportionately receives more money than the western. "Because I said so" just doesn't hold up.

Originally Posted by massnative71

And oh yeah...


"The Big Dig -- America's Greatest Highway Robbery"

I'm pretty certain a website called bigdighighwayrobbery.com isn't going to be "fair and balanced." That being said, it's not controversial that the big dig did go way over budget. I'm glad it was done, but its cost controls were awful.

That being said, it really doesn't prove that Western Mass is getting the shaft. It's only one project, not current government policy. You have to look at aggregate expenditures by the state in order to determine whether or not one region is being treated fairly or not.

And look at this: Interstate 91 Viaduct Rehabilitation Project

The Springfield area is getting some major work done on its main highway through the city. It's not on the scale of the Big Dig, but then again, Springfield isn't on the scale of Boston. It's a highway that many Eastern Mass residents would rarely use, and that's okay. It's work that needs to be done, so the state and federal government appropriated funds for it.

[WillRunForBeer]

In what world are the Berkshires not part of Western Mass? I keep seeing that in various posts and it makes no sense; I have never heard of Western Mass only being comprised of Franklin, Hampshire and Hampden counties...

[in_newengland]

Originally Posted by WillRunForBeer

In what world are the Berkshires not part of Western Mass? I keep seeing that in various posts and it makes no sense; I have never heard of Western Mass only being comprised of Franklin, Hampshire and Hampden counties...

Never mind then. But most people from WMass consider WMass to be Hampden, Hampshire, Franklin Counties--more or less the Pioneer Valley region of the state. Berkshire County is technically/geographically in the western section of the state but it's an area unto itself and probably relates more to NY state than to MA. Apparently some people in the Berkshires call themselves residents of western Mass and that is geographically correct, of course. But mostly when we say "WMass" we are referring to the three counties that run north and south, parallel to the Ct River and along I-91. Yes, some Bostonians have assumed that I was from the Berkshires when I said I was from WMass but that's THEIR perspective, not that of a WMass resident.