Democrats lead charge to strip bargaining rights (MA)

[Still a Democrat]

House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.

The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.

Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.

“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/arti...alth_care/

[Julie]

Ok, I think I have lived too long. I can't believe what I am reading.

Julie--the disheartened

[Still a Democrat]

(04-27-2011 06:35 AM)Julie Wrote:  Ok, I think I have lived too long. I can't believe what I am reading.

Julie--the disheartened

Remember the Wisconsin 14. Most Democrats are fighting the good fight across the country - exceptions aside.

[Julie]

(04-27-2011 06:44 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 06:35 AM)Julie Wrote:  Ok, I think I have lived too long. I can't believe what I am reading.

Julie--the disheartened

Remember the Wisconsin 14. Most Democrats are fighting the good fight across the country - exceptions aside.

Yes, of course you are right StillADem. And of course I know here in MI our Dems would NOT turn their back on labor, they wouldn't dare!

I sure would love to send some of the UAW people I know to chat with these MA Dems. I suspect within about 20 these Dems would have a sudden change of heart. haha

I appreciate your encouraging reminder. You always know just what to say.

Julie

[Arkana]

(04-27-2011 06:34 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.

The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.

Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.

“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/arti...alth_care/

Oh, great...my state has decided to follow Scott fucking Walker's lead. Disgusting.

[Still a Democrat]

(04-27-2011 06:36 AM)Arkana Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 06:34 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.

The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.

Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.

“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/arti...alth_care/

Oh, great...my state has decided to follow Scott fucking Walker's lead. Disgusting.

What the heck is going on there, Arkana?

[Arkana]

(04-27-2011 06:45 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 06:36 AM)Arkana Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 06:34 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.

The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.

Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.

“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/arti...alth_care/

Oh, great...my state has decided to follow Scott fucking Walker's lead. Disgusting.

What the heck is going on there, Arkana?

Normally, Democrats would not touch union bargaining rights with a ten foot pole, and the smart money says that what happened in Wisconsin won't happen here.

HOWEVER...

This outfit called GIC (stands for Group Insurance Commission) has been instituted for all public workers...apparently, it's the health plan offered to anyone with a government, public safety, or public school job. It used to be fucking amazing--nearly no premium, copays were near nonexistent, and prescription drug coverage spanned nearly the entire cost. Now, it sucks dog balls because they added all kinds of hidden costs and "tiers" that increased premiums. We can thank Mayor Menino for foisting it on us first.

I cannot for the life of me fathom WHY state Democrats would do this. My only hope is that Patrick won't sign it, but I won't get my hopes up.

[TheNewMe]

(04-27-2011 06:54 AM)Arkana Wrote:  Normally, Democrats would not touch union bargaining rights with a ten foot pole, and the smart money says that what happened in Wisconsin won't happen here.

HOWEVER...

This outfit called GIC (stands for Group Insurance Commission) has been instituted for all public workers...apparently, it's the health plan offered to anyone with a government, public safety, or public school job. It used to be fucking amazing--nearly no premium, copays were near nonexistent, and prescription drug coverage spanned nearly the entire cost. Now, it sucks dog balls because they added all kinds of hidden costs and "tiers" that increased premiums. We can thank Mayor Menino for foisting it on us first.

I cannot for the life of me fathom WHY state Democrats would do this. My only hope is that Patrick won't sign it, but I won't get my hopes up.

I remembered reading an article in Boston.com last year, about the municipalities having problems with health care costs. I went back and found the article, which reads as very anti-union, now that I'm reading it again..

Quote:Unions safeguard health benefits
Strapped towns seek law change
By Sean P. Murphy
Globe Staff / March 1, 2010

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massach...?page=full

The Legislature responded by crafting a bill to allow cities and towns to shift their employees and retirees from locally managed health care plans to the state’s much larger, more flexible one, called the Group Insurance Commission. Consolidating all municipal plans into the state GIC would save more than $1 billion a year by 2018, according to estimates by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, two nonpartisan business-backed watchdog groups.

So it looks like the state has known about the municipalities having healthcare cost issues for a while, and their response was to try to get everyone on to the GIC. Here is the graphic of GIC copayments at that time. It looks like a definite downgrade, and the copayment levels normally seen for private sector employees:


This is rather disturbing in the update today:

Quote:http://www.boston.com/news/local/massach...alth_care/

House votes to restrict unions
Measure would curb bargaining on health care
By Michael Levenson
Globe Staff / April 27, 2011

The timing of the vote was significant. Union leaders plan today to unleash a major lobbying blitz with police officers, firefighters, and other workers flooding the State House. Taking the vote last night at 11:30 allowed lawmakers to avoid a potentially tense confrontation with those workers, and vote when the marble halls of the House were all but empty.

They did the vote late at night, so union people could not protest. This sounds too Wisconsin-like.

[There Is No Spoon]

Quote:Taking the vote last night at 11:30 allowed lawmakers to avoid a potentially tense confrontation with those workers, and vote when the marble halls of the House were all but empty.

Scumbags. I'm ashamed of these "Democrats". Instead of doing something more substantial to deal with health care costs, they decide to strip workers of their good health care coverage. Make no mistake about it - the savings to cities and towns will come at the expense of health coverage to municipal employees. This is a stupid reactionary way to deal with the healthcare crisis. Stop attacking workers and start kicking the damned insurance companies and hospitals asses for destroying our country. Health care costs aren't going up - the greed of hospitals and insurance companies has gone through the roof. Unless someone can show me that there's an epidemic of "sickness" among the population? I didn't think so.

[RoyGBiv]

Okay, that's all I can take for the day.

[Born_A_Truman]

Skyrocketing health insurance costs aren't the fault of labor/employees!

[Still a Democrat]

"Gov. Deval Patrick, a supporter of collective bargaining, adopted a similar plan in his budget but gave unions some time to bargain before officials can impose the changes."

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politi...ue_budget/

Doesn't sound much better.

[Ikonoklast]

There is a definite trend against blue-collar workers in many corners of the Democratic Party, without whom the party will cease to be.

[nofurylike]

By Steve LeBlanc
April 27, 2011

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2...ic_53.html

BOSTON — Gov. Deval Patrick urged both sides to "dial down the rhetoric" in an increasingly bitter debate over whether to sharply limit the collective bargaining power of public employees over their health insurance benefits.

Patrick said Wednesday it's important to pass legislation to ease the soaring health care burden on local city and town budgets while also guaranteeing union leaders a seat at the negotiating table.

-snip-

"I'm not going to sign a Wisconsin-type bill," Patrick said. "We're going to have a meaningful role for labor and we are going to deliver on the savings for municipalities."

-snip-

The modified plan would add a 30-day negotiating window between city and town leaders and unions to work out disagreements. If no agreement is reached, municipalities would be allowed to impose changes in co-payments, deductibles and other aspects of health care plans.

-snip-

###

[nofurylike]

being convinced by MSM and its baiting, deceptive headlines, is the same as taking MSM criticism of President Obama as gospel.

our Governor attended and publicly asked us to attend rallies in support of Wisconsin workers. our state legislators spoke at those rallies.
this does not compare, at all, with what repub's are doing in many states around the country. but Mass MSM knows how to bait with the best - well, worst - of 'em, and knows that a certain percentage more of Democrats can be alienated by exploiting the recent events in other states in this way.

there are also more steps to be taken on this issue.

please look further into this misleading story, and also see what happens in later steps.

thank you.

[Still a Democrat]

(04-28-2011 04:52 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  being convinced by MSM and its baiting, deceptive headlines, is the same as taking MSM criticism of President Obama as gospel.

our Governor attended and publicly asked us to attend rallies in support of Wisconsin workers. our state legislators spoke at those rallies.
this does not compare, at all, with what repub's are doing in many states around the country. but Mass MSM knows how to bait with the best - well, worst - of 'em, and knows that a certain percentage more of Democrats can be alienated by exploiting the recent events in other states in this way.

there are also more steps to be taken on this issue.

please look further into this misleading story, and also see what happens in later steps.

thank you.

"If no agreement is reached, municipalities would be allowed to impose changes...".

That doesn't sound too promising. Also, the comments of the union official in the OP indicate he is more than a little displeased with the Democrats. This is more than a MSM distortion, IMO.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-28-2011 06:18 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  

(04-28-2011 04:52 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  being convinced by MSM and its baiting, deceptive headlines, is the same as taking MSM criticism of President Obama as gospel.

our Governor attended and publicly asked us to attend rallies in support of Wisconsin workers. our state legislators spoke at those rallies.
this does not compare, at all, with what repub's are doing in many states around the country. but Mass MSM knows how to bait with the best - well, worst - of 'em, and knows that a certain percentage more of Democrats can be alienated by exploiting the recent events in other states in this way.

there are also more steps to be taken on this issue.

please look further into this misleading story, and also see what happens in later steps.

thank you.

"If no agreement is reached, municipalities would be allowed to impose changes...".

That doesn't sound too promising. Also, the comments of the union official in the OP indicate he is more than a little displeased with the Democrats. This is more than a MSM distortion, IMO.

Agreed.

[nofurylike]

(04-28-2011 06:18 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  

(04-28-2011 04:52 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  being convinced by MSM and its baiting, deceptive headlines, is the same as taking MSM criticism of President Obama as gospel.

our Governor attended and publicly asked us to attend rallies in support of Wisconsin workers. our state legislators spoke at those rallies.
this does not compare, at all, with what repub's are doing in many states around the country. but Mass MSM knows how to bait with the best - well, worst - of 'em, and knows that a certain percentage more of Democrats can be alienated by exploiting the recent events in other states in this way.

there are also more steps to be taken on this issue.

please look further into this misleading story, and also see what happens in later steps.

thank you.

"If no agreement is reached, municipalities would be allowed to impose changes...".

That doesn't sound too promising. Also, the comments of the union official in the OP indicate he is more than a little displeased with the Democrats. This is more than a MSM distortion, IMO.

first thing, unions have been participating in these negotiations for ages. they will know how to reach agreement. and they are not unyielding, as they tried to say they were not in Wisconsin, too. the difference is, as you read in Governor Patrick's words, he wants unions to succeed, where walker always wanted to destroy them completely.

i did not say that the governor doesn't need unions to stand up to this. he does, and they do. but i stand out with those same union folk at rallies here, and i know that they recognize that that is how you get a progressive governor's back: carry the pitchforks - you know, the same pitchforks the PL forgets we are supposed to be carrying for when President Obama tells the oligarchs we are carrying and ready to use them.

i just know, from experience here in MA, to exert whatever influence i can with my legislators, and to watch and see how it pans out.
i have also learned to listen to how Governor Patrick lays it out, not how MSM does.

thank you for replying!

[Still a Democrat]

(04-28-2011 12:32 PM)nofurylike Wrote:  

(04-28-2011 06:18 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  

(04-28-2011 04:52 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  being convinced by MSM and its baiting, deceptive headlines, is the same as taking MSM criticism of President Obama as gospel.

our Governor attended and publicly asked us to attend rallies in support of Wisconsin workers. our state legislators spoke at those rallies.
this does not compare, at all, with what repub's are doing in many states around the country. but Mass MSM knows how to bait with the best - well, worst - of 'em, and knows that a certain percentage more of Democrats can be alienated by exploiting the recent events in other states in this way.

there are also more steps to be taken on this issue.

please look further into this misleading story, and also see what happens in later steps.

thank you.

"If no agreement is reached, municipalities would be allowed to impose changes...".

That doesn't sound too promising. Also, the comments of the union official in the OP indicate he is more than a little displeased with the Democrats. This is more than a MSM distortion, IMO.

first thing, unions have been participating in these negotiations for ages. they will know how to reach agreement. and they are not unyielding, as they tried to say they were not in Wisconsin, too. the difference is, as you read in Governor Patrick's words, he wants unions to succeed, where walker always wanted to destroy them completely.

i did not say that the governor doesn't need unions to stand up to this. he does, and they do. but i stand out with those same union folk at rallies here, and i know that they recognize that that is how you get a progressive governor's back: carry the pitchforks - you know, the same pitchforks the PL forgets we are supposed to be carrying for when President Obama tells the oligarchs we are carrying and ready to use them.

i just know, from experience here in MA, to exert whatever influence i can with my legislators, and to watch and see how it pans out.
i have also learned to listen to how Governor Patrick lays it out, not how MSM does.

thank you for replying!

Thanks for the insight. It's encouraging to see someone closer to the situation be more optimistic about it.

The part that was most troubling to me was the comments by the union official toward Democrats in the House. Are they less supportive of unions than the governor? Are the unions upset with Patrick?

[nofurylike]

(04-29-2011 08:09 AM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  Thanks for the insight. It's encouraging to see someone closer to the situation be more optimistic about it.

The part that was most troubling to me was the comments by the union official toward Democrats in the House. Are they less supportive of unions than the governor? Are the unions upset with Patrick?

thank you, Still a Democrat.
i found the official's comments troubling too.
one things is that this bill is just through the house, and there is no way to know what the end result will be, yet.

a new thread on this adds more, from an article with added comments by Massachusetts AFL-CIO President Robert Haynes :

http://democratsforprogress.com/forum/sh...p?tid=5290

Quote:"In Massachusetts we are engaged in a public debate about addressing the rising cost of health insurance, broadly, and doing so without taking away collective bargaining.
"Labor and Governor Deval Patrick agree on the principles necessary for municipal health care reform: that municipalities see cost savings, and that labor maintain a meaningful role in that process through collective bargaining.

"Our governor actually filed a bill that incorporates and respects the role of unions in municipal health insurance reform.

....

"Further, our governor is an outspoken and clear supporter of unions and collective bargaining. He signed legislation in 2007 enhancing the ability of employees to organize unions and bargain collectively.
....

[Born_A_Truman]

(04-28-2011 04:52 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  being convinced by MSM and its baiting, deceptive headlines, is the same as taking MSM criticism of President Obama as gospel.

our Governor attended and publicly asked us to attend rallies in support of Wisconsin workers. our state legislators spoke at those rallies.
this does not compare, at all, with what repub's are doing in many states around the country. but Mass MSM knows how to bait with the best - well, worst - of 'em, and knows that a certain percentage more of Democrats can be alienated by exploiting the recent events in other states in this way.

there are also more steps to be taken on this issue.

please look further into this misleading story, and also see what happens in later steps.

thank you.

Glad to hear from someone who is on the ground there!

[nofurylike]

(04-28-2011 05:46 PM)Born_A_Truman Wrote:  Glad to hear from someone who is on the ground there!

thank you, Pat!

[The Capitol Punisher]

This may be part of the problem:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html

Apparently, Massachusetts - of all states - has a flat tax. I have to say I'm fairly shocked by that.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-28-2011 02:41 PM)The Capitol Punisher Wrote:  This may be part of the problem:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html

Apparently, Massachusetts - of all states - has a flat tax. I have to say I'm fairly shocked by that.

Been a 5.x% tax in Mass since forever - doesn't tell you much of anything about the state.

[nofurylike]

(04-28-2011 02:41 PM)The Capitol Punisher Wrote:  This may be part of the problem:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html

Apparently, Massachusetts - of all states - has a flat tax. I have to say I'm fairly shocked by that.

can you say more what you mean? the correlation? implications?

btw, might be me, but i didn't get to information at that link. should i have gone to another level there?

thank you for replying, The Capitol Punisher.

[RoyGBiv]

(04-29-2011 12:04 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  

(04-28-2011 02:41 PM)The Capitol Punisher Wrote:  This may be part of the problem:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html

Apparently, Massachusetts - of all states - has a flat tax. I have to say I'm fairly shocked by that.

can you say more what you mean? the correlation? implications?

A flat tax is incredibly regressive.

If you make $14,000 in a year, 5.3% of your income means a helluva lot more to you than it does to someone who makes $500,000 a year.

Quote:btw, might be me, but i didn't get to information at that link. should i have gone to another level there?

Look at the rates. Massachusetts has one, 5.3% starting at $0. Look at Maryland above in the list. It has several marginal rates with multiple brackets. To reach the rate all income levels pay in Massachusetts, you have to make $500,000 in Maryland.

[nofurylike]

(04-29-2011 12:11 AM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 12:04 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  

(04-28-2011 02:41 PM)The Capitol Punisher Wrote:  This may be part of the problem:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/228.html

Apparently, Massachusetts - of all states - has a flat tax. I have to say I'm fairly shocked by that.

can you say more what you mean? the correlation? implications?

A flat tax is incredibly regressive.

If you make $14,000 in a year, 5.3% of your income means a helluva lot more to you than it does to someone who makes $500,000 a year.

Quote:btw, might be me, but i didn't get to information at that link. should i have gone to another level there?

Look at the rates. Massachusetts has one, 5.3% starting at $0. Look at Maryland above in the list. It has several marginal rates with multiple brackets. To reach the rate all income levels pay in Massachusetts, you have to make $500,000 in Maryland.

thank you very much for explaining that, RoyGBiv. i see it at the link now too. i have to put some thought into it, before i can comment on it, you made it very clear.

do you see, can you explain to me, the connection (cause-and-effect?) The Capitol Punisher refers to, between that regressive rate and the topic of this thread?

do you think it is to say that taxing another way might mean less need to "save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns"?

thank you, again!

[RoyGBiv]

(04-29-2011 12:57 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  do you see, can you explain to me, the connection (cause-and-effect?) The Capitol Punisher refers to, between that regressive rate and the topic of this thread?

I can't speak for what Capitol Punisher means.

I would simply suggest that the assumptions we make about various states we perceive as traditionally liberal should be discarded. Just because it's Massachusetts and just because Democrats are generally dominant doesn't mean that economic liberals are always dominant or that it is always going to do the correct thing.

Whatever the case, Massachusetts got its (possibly unfair) moniker of Taxachusetts a long time ago because of its relatively high rates. Having a single bracket isn't all that surprising to me. As TINS said, it's had somewhere around that rate forever. What the rate doesn't tell you by itself is what the residents get for that rate in terms of services, which is quite a lot. Some of these services offset the regressive nature of the tax code to some degree.

[nofurylike]

(04-29-2011 01:30 AM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 12:57 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  do you see, can you explain to me, the connection (cause-and-effect?) The Capitol Punisher refers to, between that regressive rate and the topic of this thread?

I can't speak for what Capitol Punisher means.

I would simply suggest that the assumptions we make about various states we perceive as traditionally liberal should be discarded. Just because it's Massachusetts and just because Democrats are generally dominant doesn't mean that economic liberals are always dominant or that it is always going to do the correct thing.

Whatever the case, Massachusetts got its (possibly unfair) moniker of Taxachusetts a long time ago because of its relatively high rates. Having a single bracket isn't all that surprising to me. As TINS said, it's had somewhere around that rate forever. What the rate doesn't tell you by itself is what the residents get for that rate in terms of services, which is quite a lot. Some of these services offset the regressive nature of the tax code to some degree.

thanks, RoyGBiv.
it is true that the broad liberalism doesn't reach down into a lot of the local governments. and even where it does, the liberalism is in an endless struggle with the good ol' bigot privileged classes here.

i see, in what you have said, the debate points of the tax rate, definitely. and, i think this: "Some of these services offset the regressive nature of the tax code to some degree," might clear up some of my puzzlement about it. i'll be thinking about it ...

[The Capitol Punisher]

(04-29-2011 12:57 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  thank you very much for explaining that, RoyGBiv. i see it at the link now too. i have to put some thought into it, before i can comment on it, you made it very clear.

do you see, can you explain to me, the connection (cause-and-effect?) The Capitol Punisher refers to, between that regressive rate and the topic of this thread?

do you think it is to say that taxing another way might mean less need to "save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns"?

thank you, again!

Sorry I didn't respond yesterday - but for the most part, yes, I do mean that. Tax the upper echelon more instead of trying to scrape the money away from the working class.

The other comments made later by other about making assumptions about places is spot on as well.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-29-2011 09:06 AM)The Capitol Punisher Wrote:  Sorry I didn't respond yesterday - but for the most part, yes, I do mean that. Tax the upper echelon more instead of trying to scrape the money away from the working class.

The other comments made later by other about making assumptions about places is spot on as well.

I think it's time for a bit of an education on "advertised rates" and "effective rates"

Quote:Facts At A Glance: The Income Tax

Massachusetts has an income tax rate of 5.3 percent. The income tax is the single-largest source of revenue for the state, totaling $11.4 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2009. Forty-three states have an income tax, with rates as high as 9.5 percent. Of the states with an income tax, Massachusetts is one of only seven states which does not have a higher income tax rate for higher income earners.

Is the Income Tax Progressive or Regressive?

Unlike in many states and at the federal level, the Massachusetts Constitution prohibits a graduated income tax, which taxes higher income earners at higher levels than low income earners. Still, elements of the state’s tax system make the income tax progressive in its administration.

As the chart below indicates, lower income people pay a smaller share of their income in income taxes than higher income people do. This is primarily because of four state policies that lessen the impact of the income tax on lower income families and individuals.

• No Tax Status: State law exempts those earning below certain amounts from paying the state income tax. In 2008, the No Tax Status threshold for joint-filing married couples was $16,400; this amount increases by $1,000 for each dependent child.
• Limited Income Credit: Residents who do not qualify for No Tax Status can still qualify for the Limited Income Credit, which reduces their income tax bill. For a married couple, filing jointly, the maximum income that qualifies for the Limited Income Credit is $28,700; as with No Tax Status, this amount increases by $1,000 for each dependent child.
• Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): The state provides a tax credit, based on eligibility for the federal EITC, to encourage work for low-income earners. The state credit is available to married families with two children who earn up to $41,646. The state’s maximum credit is $723.60.
• Personal exemption: Massachusetts allows all residents to reduce their taxable income by a flat amount of $4,400 for individuals and $8,800 for joint-filing married couples. Because the personal exemption is larger proportionally for low-income earners, it helps to make the income tax more progressive.
  

...

http://www.massbudget.org/documentsearch...doc_id=659

So, things aren't always as they seem on their face.

The site you linked to also shows NH having a fixed 5% income tax, where we have no income tax at all.

I grew up in Mass, so I know through having my income grow over the years while living there that the system is not as regressive as one might think by simply looking at the fixed rate in a table.

[TheNewMe]

TINS, thanks for the info!

[nofurylike]

TINS, thank you very much for that.
i had been trying to find information like that. i knew something was askew in the figures, but not what. that clears up a lot.

i have much more to learn to understand the reasoning of it all, but that made a difference.

[nofurylike]

(04-29-2011 09:06 AM)The Capitol Punisher Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 12:57 AM)nofurylike Wrote:  thank you very much for explaining that, RoyGBiv. i see it at the link now too. i have to put some thought into it, before i can comment on it, you made it very clear.

do you see, can you explain to me, the connection (cause-and-effect?) The Capitol Punisher refers to, between that regressive rate and the topic of this thread?

do you think it is to say that taxing another way might mean less need to "save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns"?

thank you, again!

Sorry I didn't respond yesterday - but for the most part, yes, I do mean that. Tax the upper echelon more instead of trying to scrape the money away from the working class.

The other comments made later by other about making assumptions about places is spot on as well.

thank you for getting back to me, The Capitol Punisher. no worry the time. i also knew i'd missed your being on here.

thank you for clarifying what you'd meant.
i see there is added info on taxes in this thread. i haven't read that yet.

in general, i feel that we are fighting that same battle in every state, trying to get the wealthiest to pay their fair share.

[nofurylike]

By Glen Johnson
May 1, 2011

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massach..._on_labor/

-snip-

Offering tidbits of the personal story outlined in the memoir he is now selling, as well as a preview of the pro-Obama speech he will deliver over the next year as a surrogate campaign for the president, Patrick was scalding as he mirrored President Obama in casting the 2012 election as one less about policy than values.

-snip-

“The same folks who say we can’t afford to invest in our infrastructure at home were building schools in the last administration in Iraq. The same folks who say government should stay out of private lives want to tell women whether to keep a pregnancy they want or don’t want, and whom you or I can marry.’’

He concluded: “Republicans have abandoned any sense of responsibility for our common future in order to win power at all costs. And when you call them out on it, all they do is turn to bullying and belittling.’’

-snip-

“With a state Senate and governor consistently on the record in favor of municipal health care relief and collective bargaining, we are confident that we will ultimately pass legislation that provides for municipal health care reform and insures that collective bargaining will remain strong for the working families of Massachusetts,’’ said [Robert Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO].

###