Please Help Us Repeal The Automatic Yearly Increase In Gas Tax (Boston: inspection, sales tax)

[Koby]

Wow, this has been an eye opening read to say the least. Those of you on this site who are supporting higher taxes, feel free to write a nice big check to DOR anytime you want it.

Not me brother! I work day and night, upwards of 80 hours a week sometimes, to provide for my family. It has been my experience that government, at all levels, spends our tax dollars neither wisely nor carefully. Until politicians start being as careful with our tax dollars as I am with my family's finances, no way in hell I'll support any tax increase, period.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by massnative71

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.

Precisely my point, and the determination of whether it actually is a good thing is made by all of us together, through the processes furnished by our democratic republic. And as you know, that determination has been positive.

Originally Posted by massnative71

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!").

If it was empty rhetoric, you'd have been able to provide non-empty rhetoric in response - rhetoric that factors in utility of various approaches across all residents of the state. The problem you have is that you keep trying to use the perceptions of a very small number of people as rationalization for what you're supporting, and the reality is that there are simply too many other people, who's perception of what you're proposing is 180 degrees from what you support. In important matters, i.e., civil rights, there would be an issue you could raise with regard to the rights of minorities, but we're not talking civil rights here, just something much more petty - money.

Originally Posted by massnative71

Well isn't that what we're all doing here on these forums?

With respect, I get the impression though that you won't be satisfied with anything other that your own preference prevailing, or a survey of 100% of people in the state, with your preference scoring less than 10% support, or some such. And as I said, we're no closer to that. The reason why we employ a democratic republic is because a direct democracy is simply too costly. You're going to have to come to grips with the fact that, like it or not.

Originally Posted by massnative71

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.

Boston does more than that. You mentioned that the Berkshires are a playground for wealthy NYers - Where do you think the decisions are made regarding promoting tourism to the state? Where do you think the planning is done for state highway maintenance that fosters that tourism? But again, from your rhetoric I fear that you won't be satisfied unless you had total control in your own hands.

Originally Posted by massnative71

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).

My guess is that you wouldn't be happy unless North Adams got everything it gets from Boston (most of which you'd deny) on Boston's dime, on top of what North Adams decided itself to do with ALL the tax money raised from North Adams - the proverbial having one's cake and eating it too. You'll deny this, I'm sure. But the real point is that you'll deny the government's place in making the determination of what is a fair administration of the state. There's really no discussion to be had, because you're not going to acknowledge anything you disagree with. :shrug:

Originally Posted by massnative71

Apples and oranges comparison for the most part.

Not at all, but I respect your right to dupe yourself into believing that, to protect your personal preference.

Originally Posted by massnative71

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'll repeat what I wrote that you were responding to:

Fairness is more nuanced, more sophisticated - a reflection of the fact that we're human beings not machines.

For whatever reason, it seems to serve your purpose to trivialize the matter, but the matter isn't trivial.

Originally Posted by massnative71

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?

You're clearly missing the point. It isn't a matter of NYers having a nice subway to ride around on. It's a matter of furnishing the infrastructure so NYers can support California's best interest. If there was a call for funding it through an earmarked tax, that would be okay, I suppose. The point is that there is nothing about such earmarking worthy of your criticism. The need is real. The public interest served by the need is real. The benefit is broad.

Perhaps the best analogy is the amount of money our nation spends on the District of Columbia. Money from every state goes to keep that city running. Why? Because that's where all the things around the nation are planned and managed.

Originally Posted by massnative71

Some of them do, but those who live on the N and S Shores get to ride on theirs for free!

You mean you don't get to ride on Rt 2 or US 6 for free? Stop being silly, please.

Originally Posted by massnative71

Liberals cannot get past the idea that not everything is simply a matter of aimlessly throwing more money at a problem.

Right-wingers are eternally blinded by egoistic avarice and callous disregard for others.

I "win".



Your inane generalization just used up your remaining credibility. Your remaining comments are not even worth reading much less replying to.

Originally Posted by Koby

Those of you on this site who are supporting higher taxes, feel free to write a nice big check to DOR anytime you want it.

Society isn't a solo enterprise. It's a group venture. By definition.

Don't like it? Leave. Find a place where there is no society, no reason for people to come together into communities.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by massnative71

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.

It isn't unfair at all as they benefit from the expenditure.

[mdovell]

It is hard to argue that they totally benefit from the T when there are regional transportation systems in most other cities in the state. Yes there is the commuter rail but that is run by the MBCR not the MBTA.

Besides sales tax revenue dropped with online shopping. Although the Patrick administration made a deal with Amazon to start taxing on 11/1/2013 the fact of the matter remains is it can be hard to collect sales taxes going forward.

I think it can be said that for the most part that Boston cannot be a default to go to for business and employment. Even though the Big dig is long finished the traffic is still pretty high especially in Boston and the 128 belt. I used to work near concord and going from the south shore gave me two options. 95 or 93. I did 93 once...never again as it backs up near the Braintree split.

I think that we need to be a bit honest in that not *EVERYTHING* has to be done in boston. The patriots don't play in boston, the revs don't play in boston, comcast center is not in boston, most of the beaches and shoreline of the state is not in boston. The largest UMass campus is in Amherst, not boston, UMass Boston doesn't even have dorms (that's been in "planning" for nearly 15 years now not that it is a bad place by far).

The majority of people that work in boston probably do not live there. Yes there is a residency requirement for city employees but city employees comprise of just 3% of the city's working population. Clearly Boston media dominates the state and even the region but network tv has declined over the past few decades. Newspapers have fallen even more just ask the NYT how much they lost with the Globe.

Sometimes there's this misconception by some in Boston as if majority of people from the north and south shore go into Boston a few times a week. That's false. After you finished your education and if you don't need specific medical care frankly people can go months if not years. There's fair amounts of bars and clubs and the best sports scene in the country but honestly there's only so long someone can do that stuff. The internet and GPS's have made it much easier for people to have gatherings without having to go to a larger city. Factor in some apps and frankly people don't have to drive aimlessly or read some obscure journal about restaurant reviews etc.

[timberline742]

Boston is the economic engine of the State. It is nearly impossible to debate that. The academic institutions, financial, governmental, start ups, medical, etc. Even if you never go into Boston itself, and lots of people don't, you benefit from and need Boston economically if you live anywhere in the Commonwealth. A weak Boston would cripple this state.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by timberline742

It isn't unfair at all as they benefit from the expenditure.

As though Boston (the capital city) doesn't benefit from investment elsewhere in the state? Come on guys...

NH seems to be doing just fine without Boston (and the MBTA).

Originally Posted by bUU

If it was empty rhetoric, you'd have been able to provide non-empty rhetoric in response - rhetoric that factors in utility of various approaches across all residents of the state. The problem you have is that you keep trying to use the perceptions of a very small number of people as rationalization for what you're supporting, and the reality is that there are simply too many other people, who's perception of what you're proposing is 180 degrees from what you support. In important matters, i.e., civil rights, there would be an issue you could raise with regard to the rights of minorities, but we're not talking civil rights here, just something much more petty - money..

So in other words, mob rule.

Originally Posted by bUU

Where do you think the planning is done for state highway maintenance that fosters that tourism?
.

And a fine job they are doing with that.

Originally Posted by bUU

There's really no discussion to be had, because you're not going to acknowledge anything you disagree with. :shrug:

Who does, really? You seem to be discussing quite a bit of this "non conversation".

Originally Posted by bUU

Perhaps the best analogy is the amount of money our nation spends on the District of Columbia. Money from every state goes to keep that city running. Why? Because that's where all the things around the nation are planned and managed.

D.C. gets no representation in Congress! Would you have it that Boston got no representation on Beacon Hill (It would enormously change the political landscape of the state, probably not to your liking)?

Originally Posted by bUU

You mean you don't get to ride on Rt 2 or US 6 for free? Stop being silly, please.

The Pike is the main interstate serving that region. I suppose you would be for tolls on 128 and 93?

Originally Posted by bUU

Right-wingers are eternally blinded by egoistic avarice and callous disregard for others.

I "win".

Are you saying you're a right winger, because you are displaying both of those attributes very well.

Originally Posted by bUU

Your inane generalization just used up your remaining credibility. Your remaining comments are not even worth reading much less replying to.

I find it utterly amusing that you call my credibility into question, yet you have failed to make one factual argument for your cause (that a statewide 1% sales tax to benefit the MBTA is justifiable) while you continue to attack me. In fact, your argument is such a lost cause that you must desperately resort to the "as long as it is done by a democratic form of government, it must be good policy" (that school of thought was loved in Nazi Germany). I don't know where you come from originally, but you also show very little understanding of Massachusetts and how things roll here. Either that or you're name is Deval Patrick (another carpetbagger), or Robert DeLeo.

[bUU]

There is a big problem with many people in our nation: They are irrationally in love with money, and that irrational attitude precludes them from differentiating between what's fair and what is not. There's no talking to such people.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by massnative71

As though Boston (the capital city) doesn't benefit from investment elsewhere in the state? Come on guys...

NH seems to be doing just fine without Boston (and the MBTA).

Did I say that? No. But Boston is the largest economic engine in the region and needs to have its infrastructure maintained to keep running. Public transit is basic infrastructure in a large city.

NH definitely benefits from Boston too, and the North Shore of Mass. Hard to deny that. The hordes of people coming over at rush hour is a testament to that. And hard to deny that NH does not have has the economic clout of MA.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Did I say that? No. But Boston is the largest economic engine in the region and needs to have its infrastructure maintained to keep running. Public transit is basic infrastructure in a large city.

It would be fine if they implemented a 1% sales tax WITHIN the MBTA service area to be used for that purpose (many areas of the country have done such). That would be in E Mass's best interest. If other regions want to do the same for their own local transit authorities or to meet other localized needs, they should have that option as well.

My point is that for regions such as W MA, there are ways of spending money (or reducing taxes) that would benefit them much greater than propping up the MBTA (while their own transit systems are left with nothing).

[timberline742]

How very divisive. It is one state, with one significant economic engine. It would be nice if Worcester, Springfield, etc could be come as economically prominent and as important as Boston, but that is unlikely to happen in my lifetime.