Why is the MBTA so incompetent? (Boston, Worcester: 2013, countertops, home)

[bolehboleh]

For people who want to privatize the MBTA, you have some good points. Hong Kong and Singapore have privately run transit systems and they don't have the types of problems Boston does. However, the only way we can privatize the MBTA is if we also privatize the highways and major roadways. It's the only way to make it fair. If the MBTA is privatized and the roads are not, then the price of train ride will be so expensive that people will start driving again, clogging up the roadways and defeating the entire purpose of having public transit in the first place.

[bolehboleh]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

I realize that this is the Boston subforum but the public transport is for people who live in the Boston area. Maybe the towns that have access to the T should pay something towards it if lack of money, not mis-management, is the problem.

The rest of the population, people who live nowhere near Boston, don't work there, and never go there shouldn't have to pay anything for it. Charge the people who use it and the people who COULD use it if they wanted to. But also make sure the management is competent even if they have to put in a short term group of professionals and give them a time frame in which to get things up to par. This entire mess is disgraceful. No one should be putting up with this.

Then the argument remains: What about the people in eastern mass who will never (or rarely) use state roads in the Berkshires. Should people who live east of Worcester NOT have to pay taxes that might be used in a part of the state that they'll rarely visit?

[bolehboleh]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

What makes you think they don't already do? I have yet to see a detailed accounting of where money comes from and where money goes. It's clear that Boston and Cambridge use a lot of transportation resources but they also generate a great deal of the state's revenues.

If you want a Super-Libertarian form of government where everything is based on user-paid fees that's understandable, but if you just don't want to pay for stuff you don't use while you're perfectly happy to have others pay for stuff you do use that just seems unfair.



Let's do this. Metro Boston won't take a cent from the rest of the state and the rest of the state won't get a cent from Metro Boston. I'm not actually sure who would fare better, but it would at least be more transparently equitable.

We could go the way of NY and have a lower state income and sales tax and let the county or city tax make up for the loss. I'm not sure how effective it will be since NY is insanely expensive with very high taxes, but it could solve this Eastern Mass vs Western Mass controversy. Then the people in W. Mass can stop complaining about E. Mass "getting all the stuff."

Sorry for the multiple posts. I'm just going through this thread now and finding arguments to agree or disagree with. Cheers.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by bolehboleh

We could go the way of NY and have a lower state income and sales tax and let the county or city tax make up for the loss. I'm not sure how effective it will be since NY is insanely expensive with very high taxes, but it could solve this Eastern Mass vs Western Mass controversy. Then the people in W. Mass can stop complaining about E. Mass "getting all the stuff."

I like the city and county tax with lower state tax idea. Since each city or county has somewhat unique needs, each locality can set its own tax rates and use the taxes collected for what is most pressing in the local area. Clearly Boston has different needs than the Berkshires.

[Dm84]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

I like the city and county tax with lower state tax idea. Since each city or county has somewhat unique needs, each locality can set its own tax rates and use the taxes collected for what is most pressing in the local area. Clearly Boston has different needs than the Berkshires.

It's actually a more complicated system than it was presented as.

Basically, NYC and Yonkers residents have a "city income tax" which is collected by the state on the state income tax form.

Separately most cities and counties add a very hefty amount to the state sales tax (which by MA standards is low). So the state sales tax is 4%, but cities and counties can add a surcharge on top of that which makes the total sales tax max out at 8.875% (it can be lower). It varies widely so you never really know what the tax is outside of NYC. Seeing as many people in MA think the taxes we have are too high, I have no idea how you would implement the NY system. We've done it on a very limited basis with the 0.75% added meals tax option for local governments.

[bolehboleh]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

I like the city and county tax with lower state tax idea. Since each city or county has somewhat unique needs, each locality can set its own tax rates and use the taxes collected for what is most pressing in the local area. Clearly Boston has different needs than the Berkshires.

I suggested the idea but I know full-well that there would be a number of problems. First and foremost, Mass doesn't have counties anymore so we'd have to create new governments, which could be costly in and of itself. Also, the Boston area consists of many counties so the solution for that could be to have regional governments. For example, one region could be metro Boston, another could be W. Mass (the four western counties), one could be Worcester Co, etc.

The biggest problem could be the dying off of W. Mass. I still can't find the data, but I'm willing to bet that people in metro-Boston are currently propping up many of the Western counties. Now that they'd have to have greater control over themselves, they'd have to raise their taxes so that the aggregate of state and local taxes could be higher than what it is now. As long as E. Mass has all the jobs, they may be able to lower their income and sales taxes when new people arrive. A good example that I could use now is property tax in Boston, Somerville and Cambridge is among the lowest in the state because there are so many other ways to get income from its citizens.

[bolehboleh]

Originally Posted by Dm84

It's actually a more complicated system than it was presented as.

Basically, NYC and Yonkers residents have a "city income tax" which is collected by the state on the state income tax form.

Separately most cities and counties add a very hefty amount to the state sales tax (which by MA standards is low). So the state sales tax is 4%, but cities and counties can add a surcharge on top of that which makes the total sales tax max out at 8.875% (it can be lower). It varies widely so you never really know what the tax is outside of NYC. Seeing as many people in MA think the taxes we have are too high, I have no idea how you would implement the NY system. We've done it on a very limited basis with the 0.75% added meals tax option for local governments.

I was just throwing the idea out there for W. Mass people to consider. I lived in Queens for a year and I remember how damn high my taxes were. For a center-left person like myself, even I was begging for my lower rates back in Mass. Overall, though, Mass's tax rates are roughly on par or lower than most other states in the Northeast. NH is very much the outlier in the region but that's because they can leach off of Mass jobs.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by bolehboleh

NH is very much the outlier in the region but that's because they can leach off of Mass jobs.

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.

[bolehboleh]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

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.

Every year, 60,000-100,000 NH people file Massachusetts tax returns; this is a state of just over a million. That doesn't scream to me "self-reliance." Also, SE NH is lucky that it borders the part of Massachusetts with the most jobs and people and so many people can cross the border to take advantage of our (my former) state. (hence more jobs). If NH were an island or it didn't border a highly populated and prosperous portion of a highly prosperous state, I can assure their taxes would be higher.



Edit: http://taxfoundation.org/article/201...-climate-index

Just found this after I posted (scroll down to the chart). Apparently, Mass has a lower corporate tax rate than NH. So, once again, corporations are more willing to move to Mass and people in NH are willing to cross the border and take advantage of the lower rates. Maybe you guys take your trash to the dump, but you need Mass jobs in order prosper southern NH.

Final edit: I should have written "leech" not "leach"

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by bolehboleh

Every year, 60,000-100,000 NH people file Massachusetts tax returns; this is a state of just over a million. That doesn't scream to me "self-reliance." Also, SE NH is lucky that it borders the part of Massachusetts with the most jobs and people and so many people can cross the border to take advantage of our (my former) state. (hence more jobs). If NH were an island or it didn't border a highly populated and prosperous portion of a highly prosperous state, I can assure their taxes would be higher.



Edit: 2015 State Business Tax Climate Index | Tax Foundation

Just found this after I posted (scroll down to the chart). Apparently, Mass has a lower corporate tax rate than NH. So, once again, corporations are more willing to move to Mass and people in NH are willing to cross the border and take advantage of the lower rates. Maybe you guys take your trash to the dump, but you need Mass jobs in order prosper southern NH.

Final edit: I should have written "leech" not "leach"

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.