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.
I don’t really understand. In the 1980s Massachusetts was out here expanding the Red Line, rebuilding the Orange line and building out the Commuter Rail. Now, as a significantly wealthier state we can’t afford like basic upkeep? With the trajectory this state is one I don’t see how the growth in normal income tax shouldn’t be able to plug holes in the state budget.
I do think that most millionaires beyond 495 are probably general contractors and car dealership owners. Who are in fact geographically constrained anyway. But I do think a high tax burden would prevent Boston’s prosperity from spilling west.
Again I do think that’s Upstate NY’s root cause of its general malaise
We changed the funding structure for the MBTA in the late 90s because we were trying to be more attractive to businesses and republicans and well- yea. It worked but it had its downsides. IT immediately became an issue with the T.
Whats funny is you mention Springfield, but the Springfield City Council endorses Question 1.
On an income of 2.7M...
Your income after income tax is $2,497,000 instead of $2,565,000 currently. Is that actually gonna stop wealth from migrating west? Highly unlikely. IF anything itd have the oppsoite effect. Relocating to where RE is cheaper. The big issue in MA is Housing costs not tax burden. If this tax goes towards the electrification of the CR then that will alleviate housing costs. If to spread prosperity into RI NH CT then MA will still be an absolute jugggernaut but that too may alleviate housing costs.
The tax is structured to affect .5% of MA households for a reason- thats the .5% that can easily weather a tax increase.
Worcester's still considered up and coming and continues to see major public and private investment across the city. As questionable a decision as Polar Park might have been (I think the public commitment for that was way too much), it's not going to be the death of the city and it's hard to visit that area and argue that it's not drastically improved. If the people who Polar Park was built for are "tapped out," it surely isn't reflected in the data. The WooSox ranked 6th out of 120 teams in terms of attendance this year. And judging by how hard it is to get a seat in a local bar or at the Public Market on a gameday, the gamegoers have some money to spend. There's plenty about Question 1 (and government stewardship of taxpayer money) to take issue with, but you're connecting dots that don't exist.
I think that you’ve missed my point, which is that prop 1 is part of a larger problem in MA, where lawmakers are not making good spending decisions and are then raising taxes to compensate for having not spent taxpayer dollars wisely.
I think that Polar Park is a good example of why MA lawmakers are proposing the millionaire’s tax: instead of spending $$ on schools and infrastructure, Worcester lawmakers built a $160 million sports complex to “generate revenue,” which is coming mostly from local residents. So, Worcester residents are supposed to fund this behemoth through property taxes AND through spending money on parking and concessions?! I see it as a drain on the Worcester economy that will—like Boston—lead to people getting priced out:
I see Boston in a similar situation. As another poster asked, where has all of the money that was supposed to go into schools and infrastructure—which is the justification for the millionaire’s tax—gone all these years? Why does a state like Taxachusetts need to ask any of its residents to pay even more $$ in taxes?
I think that you’ve missed my point, which is that prop 1 is part of a larger problem in MA, where lawmakers are not making good spending decisions and are then raising taxes to compensate for having not spent taxpayer dollars wisely.
I think that Polar Park is a good example of why MA lawmakers are proposing the millionaire’s tax: instead of spending $$ on schools and infrastructure, Worcester lawmakers built a $160 million sports complex to “generate revenue,” which is coming mostly from local residents. So, Worcester residents are supposed to fund this behemoth through property taxes AND through spending money on parking and concessions?! I see it as a drain on the Worcester economy that will—like Boston—lead to people getting priced out:
I see Boston in a similar situation. As another poster asked, where has all of the money that was supposed to go into schools and infrastructure—which is the justification for the millionaire’s tax—gone all these years? Why does a state like Taxachusetts need to ask any of its residents to pay even more $$ in taxes?
I understood what you were saying, I just think you're oversimplifying some things and conflating others. Polar Park and the Millionaire's Tax have nothing to do with one another. Financing a ballpark and funding infrastructure/schools are completely different animals. There's a risk to the taxpayers if the city and team fall short of revenue projections in the long run, but Worcester residents' tax dollars are not going to the stadium now and shouldn't go to the stadium at all so long as it is able to generate the predicted revenue. I have also yet to see anything indicating that the stadium project has somehow prohibited the city from making improvements to schools or infrastructure (in fact, a lot of infrastructure improvements have been made as part of and adjacent to the stadium project). If you have proof to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
Also, do you have a source for who is attending WooSox games? They're a regional draw (I've been to several games myself), and I doubt it's mostly Worcester residents in attendance. It was intended to draw people into the city from around the region and based on attendance data and development around the park, it appears to be doing just that. Nobody has to go to a game or pay to park at the stadium if they don't want to. So how exactly is it "draining the economy and pricing people out?" Polar Park is undeniably a risk in the long run (though the jury is still far from out), but it has nothing to do with a statewide millionaires tax to fund transportation and infrastructure. Your argument is a strawman.
I understood what you were saying, I just think you're oversimplifying some things and conflating others. Polar Park and the Millionaire's Tax have nothing to do with one another. Financing a ballpark and funding infrastructure/schools are completely different animals. There's a risk to the taxpayers if the city and team fall short of revenue projections in the long run, but Worcester residents' tax dollars are not going to the stadium now and shouldn't go to the stadium at all so long as it is able to generate the predicted revenue. I have also yet to see anything indicating that the stadium project has somehow prohibited the city from making improvements to schools or infrastructure (in fact, a lot of infrastructure improvements have been made as part of and adjacent to the stadium project). If you have proof to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
Also, do you have a source for who is attending WooSox games? They're a regional draw (I've been to several games myself), and I doubt it's mostly Worcester residents in attendance. It was intended to draw people into the city from around the region and based on attendance data and development around the park, it appears to be doing just that. Nobody has to go to a game or pay to park at the stadium if they don't want to. So how exactly is it "draining the economy and pricing people out?" Polar Park is undeniably a risk in the long run (though the jury is still far from out), but it has nothing to do with a statewide millionaires tax to fund transportation and infrastructure. Your argument is a strawman.
Did you read Bill Shaner’s article, which I included in my last post? It explains a lot of what I am talking about.
And, as I have stated twice now, the millionaire’s tax is a result of poor spending choices by MA lawmakers. Polar Park is a prime example: the city spent $160 million on Polar Park even though it needs $76 million to improve Worcester’s outdated infrastructure (enter the millionaire’s tax):
I would like Worcester Public Schools to be renovated and for students to be offered more resources. Most schools have incredible teachers who deserve better supplies. Some examples of things to improve are outdated computers, projectors, and textbooks. The potential of Worcester Public schools is very high; the funds need to match. I am happy my parents chose to send me to public schooling because it exposes students to diversity. I never felt like I wasn’t welcome because of my ethnicity; everyone was different and most people embraced their differences. In my opinion private school would not have been an opportunity to grow. My high school had a wide variety of classes and people; I am beyond grateful for the experience.
Did you read Bill Shaner’s article, which I included in my last post? It explains a lot of what I am talking about.
Yes I did (I've seen it before, it's very popular among the anti-park crowd). Bill Shaner's opinion piece was a politically-driven rant about worst case scenarios and what might happen in case of x/y/z (complete with fear mongering about Joe Biden criminalizing dissent and defunding the police). While it's a fun read, it's very much an opinion piece and there's no proof of anything you're arguing in there.
No, they're not. From the article you linked re: the first year shortfall: However, the city didn’t need to dip into its general fund to cover the shortfall, thanks to the planned Churchill James development, Dunn said. The developer needed a property the city originally obtained for the stadium, and bought it on Dec. 1 for $3 million, which was put into a fund to offset the first-year ballpark revenue shortfall, and any future shortfalls in stadium debt obligations.
Quote:
And, as I have stated twice now, the millionaire’s tax is a result of poor spending choices by MA lawmakers. Polar Park is a prime example: the city spent $160 million on Polar Park even though it needs $76 million to improve Worcester’s outdated infrastructure (enter the millionaire’s tax):
I would like Worcester Public Schools to be renovated and for students to be offered more resources. Most schools have incredible teachers who deserve better supplies. Some examples of things to improve are outdated computers, projectors, and textbooks. The potential of Worcester Public schools is very high; the funds need to match. I am happy my parents chose to send me to public schooling because it exposes students to diversity. I never felt like I wasn’t welcome because of my ethnicity; everyone was different and most people embraced their differences. In my opinion private school would not have been an opportunity to grow. My high school had a wide variety of classes and people; I am beyond grateful for the experience.
I know you've repeated it twice, but that's exactly what I'm pointing to as both oversimplification and conflation. If you repeat it a third time, it'll still be an oversimplification and conflation. For starters, not only is the jury out on whether or not the city of Worcester's bet on the ballpark will pay off (if they're right and it does pay for itself and then some - it's not exactly "poor spending," is it?), the City of Worcester won't be managing the statewide tax revenue generated from Prop 1. So even if it's an utter failure (which again, won't be known for a long time), it is in no way connected to Prop 1. You're either conflating separate issues or you're intentionally using the ballpark as a strawman.
Second, you're implying that the $160 million that the city secured for Polar Park could just as easily have been spent on infrastructure repairs or school improvements. It's extremely unlikely that that would the case. The ballpark is revenue generating which A) makes it easier to secure financing from a lender because of the promise of a direct ROI, and B) involves a different approval process. Since public schools or infrastructure don't generate revenue to repay the loans like a ballpark does, the city would be on the hook for whatever isn't covered by state/federal funding. In short, without a revenue source to pay off the loan, a $160m loan for schools/infrastructure would fall squarely on the taxpayers. I never said Worcester's schools or infrastructure were well-funded or in the best shape. I am simply saying that $160m for a stadium is a completely different animal and it should, in no way, limit the city's ability to pay for schools and infrastructure. The two things are mutually exclusive and your conflating them.
Finally, there are certainly numerous examples of poor fiscal management in Massachusetts. I even said earlier in this thread that it's completely reasonable for people to have questions about the state's ability to be good stewards of the new revenue. But reducing shortcomings on the school and infrastructure fronts to simply "poor spending choices by MA lawmakers" is a big oversimplification. The MBTA has been woefully underfunded for some time. Infrastructure in general costs exponentially more in MA than it should due to a complex contracting process; a lengthy legislative process (and often subsequent litigation) due to the structure of our state government which concentrates a disproportionate amount of influence and power into 351 individual cities and towns rather than counties, districts; powerful unions (true for schools too), etc. We certainly need to address the absurd costs associated with education and infrastructure, but addressing cost issues does not have to come at the expense of continued commitment to investing in infrastructure and education.
I would like Worcester Public Schools to be renovated and for students to be offered more resources. Most schools have incredible teachers who deserve better supplies. Some examples of things to improve are outdated computers, projectors, and textbooks. The potential of Worcester Public schools is very high; the funds need to match. I am happy my parents chose to send me to public schooling because it exposes students to diversity. I never felt like I wasn’t welcome because of my ethnicity; everyone was different and most people embraced their differences. In my opinion private school would not have been an opportunity to grow. My high school had a wide variety of classes and people; I am beyond grateful for the experience.
What I just read was an articulate and well-educated student explaining how he or she is grateful for Worcester Public Schools and what they could do with more funding.
This looks like the perfect example of why you should vote yes on Question 1. For students like this.
I look at this question and think, to me, that the middle class dual income with kids family isnt impacted by this, and rich people are - so Im voting yes.
I look at this question and think, to me, that the middle class dual income with kids family isnt impacted by this, and rich people are - so Im voting yes.
So you're voting yes just to "stick it" to people not you??? Awesome.
I look at this question and think, to me, that the middle class dual income with kids family isnt impacted by this, and rich people are - so Im voting yes.
...and guess who will end up on the hook for it when there's a shortfall but whatever politburo planned to get is already allocated to all sorts of "community leaders," "consultants" and "facilitators?"
So you're voting yes just to "stick it" to people not you??? Awesome.
Honestly, I guess so. Rich people can afford to pay more.
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.
