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.
In all fairness, the T fares should be increased automatically every year also.
You're confusing equality with fairness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu
And the higher the gas tax, the more the areas outside of Boston get hurt in terms of real estate values.
There are different reasons why people live in Boston, versus living in the suburbs, versus living in Western Mass. Higher transportation costs is a natural ramification of living further away from the things you need to travel to.
In all fairness, the T fares should be increased automatically every year also. And the higher the gas tax, the more the areas outside of Boston get hurt in terms of real estate values. Massachusetts should not be so Boston-centric.
Certainly agree about the T. As far as gas tax revenue, there needs to be assurance that it will be spread fairly around the state. 1% out of the 6.25% sales tax goes towards the T, which is completely unfair to someone living on the Cape or in Pittsfield.
I renew my caution against considering fairness synonymous with equality. Besides how various actions have secondary ramifications, as outlined above, it is important to remember the dispersion of population density around the state:
And residential population density isn't the whole story. The concentration of density around the urban centers gets even more extreme when considering where people work in Massachusetts, and even further concentrated when evaluating where state GDP is generated. Each of those have impact on the considerations.
I support raising the gas tax as well. Sorry phantom - I think you're in the minority.
What makes you think he's in the minority?
Pegging the gasoline tax to the COL allows all current and future legislators to avoid the stigma of a yes vote for future gas tax hikes. It's cowardice.
I renew my caution against considering fairness synonymous with equality. Besides how various actions have secondary ramifications, as outlined above, it is important to remember the dispersion of population density around the state:
And residential population density isn't the whole story. The concentration of density around the urban centers gets even more extreme when considering where people work in Massachusetts, and even further concentrated when evaluating where state GDP is generated. Each of those have impact on the considerations.
But 1% of the sales tax is STRICTLY dedicated towards the MBTA, whether you live in it's service area or not. Despite the lower population of W MA, there is no way of justifying them having to pay this 1% tax that goes right down the Pike never to return (similar to the western tolls that are going back up).
Of course the GDP and economic health is concentrated in Boston (wasn't always so if you know the history of MA), because the state has thrown all it's eggs into one basket (Greater Boston) effectively killing the rest of the state. The rest have been forced into dependency mode, and to beg and accept whatever scrap they are thrown.
While I am generally against tax increases in an already overtaxed state, I actually agree with this (now as long as the revenue is used solidly for its intended purpose).
It is being used on MBTA workers who retired at the age of 41 with a pension of 60,000/year and a lifetime of healthcare.
But 1% of the sales tax is STRICTLY dedicated towards the MBTA
I know but that doesn't mean that that's not a good thing. It actually tells us nothing about whether or not that's a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
Despite the lower population of W MA, there is no way of justifying
That's false. I already alluded to several such vectors for such justification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
them having to pay this 1% tax that goes right down the Pike never to return
That's an open question. How much of North Adams is fostered by things done in Boston? If you say "nothing" then you're just lying to yourself. The point is that you're making broad-brushed generalizations that have no validity. To make the assertions you're trying to make, you actually have to do a lot more work - probably far more work than you're willing or perhaps even able to do, given the other things going on in your life. As it is, despite your claims, we remain no closer to knowing whether or not what you're complaining about is a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing without qualitative bias. Even though it may be distinctly negative from your own personal point of view.
Furthermore (as if that weren't enough), we have access to some really good numbers for where money comes from and goes, nationally. It shows that, generally speaking, states along the coasts kick in more money to the public interest than states in between, and states in between benefit more, financially, from what the federal government provides than states on the coast do. Does this rationalize reducing what the states in between get? Of course not. The assessment of what is in the public interest isn't simplistically trivial, such that equality is fairness. Fairness is more nuanced, more sophisticated - a reflection of the fact that we're human beings not machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
(similar to the western tolls that are going back up).
Because people who live in Western MA never use the roads that they're complaining about paying tolls on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
Of course the GDP and economic health is concentrated in Boston (wasn't always so if you know the history of MA)
I used to live in Salem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
because the state has thrown all it's eggs into one basket (Greater Boston) effectively killing the rest of the state.
That's an exceedingly biased way of looking at things. Regardless, please name three other geographical entities that have pursued a policy in recent years of investing in rural areas, instead of in urban and suburban areas, where evidence clearly shows that such an approach leads to significantly positive measures of success across all residents of the geographical entity, not just those in the rural area. I doubt you can find one. There's a reason for that.
I mentioned before that people move to rural areas specifically because they're away from the big cities. There is a benefit that cannot be counted in dollars. Given that, it is irrational to try to draw some dollar-based sense of fairness. Take a look at the third map on this page:
Mapping Incident-Based Data
(2000 crime data collected by the Massachusetts Crime Reporting Unit to show violent crime rates at the city level)
If you really want to talk about what's fair, what are you going to do to make up for the inequity implicit in the fact that some of those areas are white while other areas are orange and red?
I know but that doesn't mean that that's not a good thing. It actually tells us nothing about whether or not that's a good thing.
OK, so if you live in Springfield you pay a 1% sales tax that goes 100% towards the MBTA (eastern MA). The PVTA (which serves the greater Springfield area) gets 0%. Nada, nil, zilch. I don't see that as a good thing, but of course we're entitled to our own opinions and you can vote however you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
That's false. I already alluded to several such vectors for such justification.
OK, my bad. It can be justified by spinning the usual empty rhetoric ("Boston is the economic engine of the whole region so we must bleed the rest of the state dry because while the rest of us need Boston, Boston doesn't need us!").
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
That's an open question. How much of North Adams is fostered by things done in Boston? If you say "nothing" then you're just lying to yourself. The point is that you're making broad-brushed generalizations that have no validity. To make the assertions you're trying to make, you actually have to do a lot more work - probably far more work than you're willing or perhaps even able to do, given the other things going on in your life. As it is, despite your claims, we remain no closer to knowing whether or not what you're complaining about is a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing without qualitative bias. Even though it may be distinctly negative from your own personal point of view.
Well isn't that what we're all doing here on these forums?
As for the Berkshires, their economy is driven far more by them being a playground for wealthy NYers than anything coming from Boston. Sure Boston sends it education aid, but that's the least of what areas like that need. It is Beacon Hill's one-size-fits-all economic policies that prevent the North Adamses from every really rebuilding themselves (beyond a dinky feel good art museum).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Furthermore (as if that weren't enough), we have access to some really good numbers for where money comes from and goes, nationally. It shows that, generally speaking, states along the coasts kick in more money to the public interest than states in between, and states in between benefit more, financially, from what the federal government provides than states on the coast do. Does this rationalize reducing what the states in between get? Of course not. The assessment of what is in the public interest isn't simplistically trivial, such that equality is fairness. Fairness is more nuanced, more sophisticated - a reflection of the fact that we're human beings not machines.
Apples and oranges comparison for the most part. But for the sake of this conversation, I would say that some of the money received by the states in between can be justified while some cannot. States with huge national parks, military presence, economic deprivation; it is totally rational that they receive more from Uncle Sam than let's say Massachusetts. But agricultural subsidies for corn/soybeans or even farmers to not grow food (and oil companies), is very hard to justify to this simpleton out here. If it can be justified, the feds have a lot more convincing to do.
I think a more valid comparison would be if they were to impose a 1% national sales tax which would strictly fund the NYC transit system. Wall St. drives our economy, so it is a Californian's best interest to pay NYers to have a nice subway to ride around on. Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Because people who live in Western MA never use the roads that they're complaining about paying tolls on?
Some of them do, but those who live on the N and S Shores get to ride on theirs for free! The Pike is just as much a piece of garbage as all the free roads (it would be one thing if the western tolls were actually used to improve that particular stretch of road to a standard that exceeds the roads elsewhere). The money will go to support fat pigs and the mess they created in Boston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
That's an exceedingly biased way of looking at things. Regardless, please name three other geographical entities that have pursued a policy in recent years of investing in rural areas, instead of in urban and suburban areas, where evidence clearly shows that such an approach leads to significantly positive measures of success across all residents of the geographical entity, not just those in the rural area. I doubt you can find one. There's a reason for that.
Liberals cannot get past the idea that not everything is simply a matter of aimlessly throwing more money at a problem. A dense metro area like Boston would benefit from better mass transit, but public transit is the last thing the Cape or Berkshires needs to thrive. This is not a one-sized-fits-all approach. The Berkshires would benefit from lower taxes, a better business climate and more targeted workforce development combined with an active pursuing of appropriate employers.
Massachusetts's welfare system also lures the wrong people into the state, effectively harming the gene pool in the more "affordable" areas.
One state seems to be doing it right for both urban AND rural areas:
North Carolina has transformed it's former textile cities into progressive high tech centers. Why can't Springfield be Greensboro?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
If you really want to talk about what's fair, what are you going to do to make up for the inequity implicit in the fact that some of those areas are white while other areas are orange and red?
I'm totally there with you. Like I said above, you can justify spending on programs in Nevada that wouldn't be feasible in Rhode Island. Eastern MA needs a good mass transit system, but that is the last thing Berkshire County needs.
I get into arguments with liberals about "equality" and their attempt to bury undeniable things like "gender" and "right and wrong", as much as it may leave some people without the warm and fuzzy feeling the narcissistic society of today demands. Just like you say, "we're human beings not machines".
Last edited by massnative71; 10-20-2013 at 02:19 PM..
I recently read that Maine is going to make some of their last populated areas sales tax and income tax free, why not do do the same with Franklin County?
It has at most 70k people so it would not be a huge loss. It would attract more shoppers, businesses and development.
It is quite hard to try to balance all regions if a state. If we think that Mass has it bad California could easily be broken up into for our more parts.
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.
).
