Where We Stand
Content:
Government
Goal:
A state and local tax structure that will have an equitable
impact on taxpayers and adequately support state services with
consideration of the effect on the state and local economies;
distribution of state aid in a manner that will equalize municipal
resources; a comprehensive state budget system that will provide a basis
for the evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of current state
programs and long-range capital expenditures; up-to-date, uniform and
accurate property valuation; and efficient management of the revenue
collection systems. (1969-1979, 1992-1993)
The Fiscal Relationship between the State
and Local governments (2008) …
The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts
believes that the Fiscal Relationship between the state and local
government should incorporate and balance the following principles:
Tax structure
Proposals for new local non property taxes by state wide mandate or
local option will be evaluated based on principles” in Fiscal Relationship
section.
The League supports:
The League opposes:
League action
When the League developed its fiscal policy positions in the
late 1960s and early 1970s, the state relied heavily on property taxes to fund
essential municipal services. The League’s principal concerns were that property
taxes be reduced by a greater reliance on state taxes, and that the reduction
takes place in a way in which municipalities with the poorest local tax bases
would receive the most aid.
During the late 1970s and 1980s many of the League’s original goals were met. Property taxes have substantially declined as a share of total state and local taxes, while reliance on income and sales taxes has increased. This shift has occurred because of the ceiling imposed on property taxes in 1980 by Proposition 2 1/2 and the subsequent increase in state financial aid to cities and towns, and because of the economic prosperity of the state during the late 1970s and early 1980s, which caused substantial growth in state personal income and sales tax revenue.
Some aspects of the state’s tax system do not meet the League’s criteria
of equitability:
Some cities and towns are not
receiving the state aid that their circumstances warrant, principally because of
the change to a needs-based formula with high save-harmless floors and minimum
per capita increases.
Based on consensus reached in 1992 on modification to the estate tax,
the League was able to take immediate action by supporting legislation that
would modify the estate tax in two areas that correspond to the League's new
position.
The League supported the new provision for a full marital exemption for the surviving spouse (enacted 1992, became effective July 1, 1994) because it was cost effective, allowed for the retention of the graduated rate structure, and enabled the Legislature to retain its authority over the terms of the tax.
Earmarking Revenues
The League opposes:
If an earmarking measure were proposed, the League would support:
The League opposes:
Tax and spending limits should:
League Action
Although League members do not favor limits in general, it was agreed that
determining criteria by which to judge them gave flexibility to the League. Such
action could prevent the adoption, through referendum, of strict limits with
potential crippling effects on state and local government. League members oppose
setting tax and spending limits through constitutional amendment. The
constitution should continue to be a broad framework for legislative action and
is not a suitable vehicle through which to set tax or spending limits.
The statute known as Proposition 2 1/2 (1980 ballot) failed to meet
League criteria and the League vigorously but unsuccessfully opposed it.
Proposition 2 1/2 allows overrides at the local level when funding for local
needs is insufficient. Local League boards are encouraged to study any override
proposal and determine whether to take a position.
Proposition 2 1/2 limits the property tax levy in two ways: 1) The
maximum levy allowed is 2 1/2 percent of the total market value of real and
personal property; and 2) the levy cannot increase in any year more than 2 1/2
percent of the previous year’s levy plus an allowance for new growth from new
construction or new accounts.
Proposition 2 1/2 also cut the motor vehicle excise rate from $66/1000
value to $25/1000. This caused a significant drop in the second largest local
tax revenue account.
In the early 1980s, the Massachusetts economy was healthy and
expanding. Increased state tax collections allowed for increases in local aid to
offset some of the loss of local tax revenue under Proposition 2 1/2. By the
late 1980s state revenue growth had slowed, school enrollment was climbing, the
annual inflation rate was at 5 to 6 percent, and the fixed costs of operating
municipal government had increased dramatically. State aid, which had been
increasing annually, became an uncertain source of local revenue. More
communities were faced with the choice of cutting services or trying to override
Proposition 2 1/2.
Many local Leagues, concerned by substantial cuts in essential services
such as education and fire and police protection, examined override proposals
and took action in support of them. Others opted to undertake voter service
projects to inform voters about the choices.
The League supported legislation designed to relieve the burden of Proposition 2 1/2 on local governments, such as the proposal to tie the tax limit to the Consumer Price Index rather than the arbitrary and unreasonable 2 1/2 percent.
State mandates (1979)
The League supports:
The League opposes:
absolute prohibition of state-mandated programs
League Action
During the League’s 1977-79 Financing Government Study, members
examined the issue of state mandates and agreed that, in most cases, the state
should not require cities and towns to perform functions that require the use of
local tax dollars. Members also agreed, however, that the state has a legitimate
interest in setting standards for many areas (education, safety, fire and
police, for example) within local administration, and that state mandates are
the only way such essential services will be provided throughout the state.
Agreement was reached that fiscal notes should be enacted with any legislation
that would have an impact on a local budget, that passage of major unfunded
state-mandated programs should require a greater-than-majority vote of the
Legislature, and that adequate levels of state funding for state-mandated
programs should be provided. Proposition 2 1/2 requires full funding of all new
state-mandated programs, unless voted by unanimous vote.
Distribution of state aid (1971)
The League supports:
League Action
As the League has supported increased state aid to cities
and towns to decrease reliance on the property tax, it has, at the same time,
supported the concept that all state aid should work towards equalizing the
ability of cities and towns to finance schools and other municipal services.
Only by such equalizing distributions will the large discrepancies in the
ability of cities and towns to raise property tax revenue, and thus adequately
support both education and municipal services, be mitigated.
Since the enactment of Proposition 2 1/2, increasing amounts of state
aid have been distributed to cities and towns, but the League remains concerned
about distribution methods. No single formula has been proposed that meets
League criteria. The League believes that state aid should be allocated by two
separate formulas that function independently and are funded separately—one for
education and another for municipal services. These two formulas would be used
to determine all aid for education and for municipal services, not just the new
increment that is added each year. Only in this way will state aid serve an
equalizing purpose.
For aid to education, the League supported the use of the revised
(1978) Ch. 70 formula. Increased state funding up to 50 percent on a statewide
average is a goal yet to be reached. The League has filed a bill to make a
change in the Ch. 70 formula to invert the fraction local equalized valuation
per capita over state equalized valuation per capita. Because this change would
give every community some increased aid when funding is increased, the League
believes it would help eliminate the need for any save-harmless provision. The
change would also make the formula simpler and easier to understand.
In 1971, the League developed the Equalizing Municipal Grant formula,
for the distribution of municipal aid. This formula is used by the state to
distribute lottery funds. The League would support the use of this formula for
the distribution of local aid in conjunction with a revised Ch. 70 formula.
Property tax administration
The League supports:
League Action
Classification: The expected shift in the tax
burden as a result of the implementation of the 1974 Sudbury decision, which
required all communities to assess all classes of property at 100 percent
valuation, led to the passage, in 1978, of the classification amendment. The
League could not take a position on the initiative but did hold information
meetings.
In 1980, as part of its study on tax limits, League members agreed that
different tax burdens could be imposed on different classes of property as long
as there was local flexibility. Local Leagues are encouraged to monitor
classification hearings and keep the public informed.
Assessment: Because property taxes are based on assessment, local
assessment procedures must be fair and equitable. The requirement that cities
and towns revalue every three years, in addition to the training and
certification of assessors and the efforts of the state Department of Revenue
and the State Assessors Association, has advanced the quality of property tax
administration. The League supports these programs and cooperative efforts to
enable small towns to hire professional assessors, as well as improvements to
the equalized valuation procedure by the Department of Revenue and a
computer-assisted mass appraisal system at the state level.
State budgetary procedures
The League supports
(2008) …
*A transparent state budget would be clearly written,
unambiguous and understandable for the general public. In addition, a
transparent budget process would allow the general public to see how the budget
is created. ** For example, timeliness would encourage the state to provide firm
information on state aid to municipalities earlier in the budget cycle.”
The League supports (1969):
League Action
Tax expenditures are special provisions in the tax code, such as
deductions, credits, incentives or loopholes, or any provision that varies from
the normal structure of the tax. They result in a loss of revenue to the state.
A tax expenditure budget lists these special provisions for each tax and
estimates the amount of revenue lost. It is an extremely useful tool to evaluate
tax decisions and policies.
Background
There was a strong consensus in support of an increase of no-tax
status. Most League specifically recommended an increase to $600,000; a few
mentioned a lower level ($350,000-$400,000), "periodic review" or use of an
"adjustment factor."
Study of the taxes on capital gains reaffirmed our position supporting
the graduated income tax. Most Leagues agreed that if all income were lumped
together and taxed at graduated rates, higher income people would pay a higher
rate of capital gains than lower income people who also report capital gains.
However, the Leagues reporting agreed that preferential treatment should be
given to long term capital gains for income tax purposes and to the gain
received from the sale of a primary residence.
LWVMA supports maintaining the flexibility of revenues by limiting the
dedication of specific taxes and fees for specific purposes. The League believes
that the Legislature should set program priorities though the budgetary process
and that any program worthy of funding should be able to withstand the annual
appropriation process.
Members expressed concern about the degree to which the concept of
earmarking undermines a thoughtful, deliberative public policy decision process,
particularly if it is constitutional rather than statutory. Rather than making
the Legislature and executive branch more responsible to public concerns,
earmarking may remove them from true accountability for budgetary decisions. The
proliferation of dedicated revenues ties legislators to past decisions,
jeopardizing funding of emerging needs.
The strongest argument for earmarking is the political one that it may
appear to be the only way to raise needed new revenue. However, League members
recognized that there is no assurance that new revenues will actually lead to
the increased spending desired in the earmarked category, since even earmarked
revenues are subject to approbation by the Legislature.
In year two of the study, the Leagues reporting expressed concern that
new, local non-property taxes would increase the existing fiscal disparities
among the cities and towns. In addition, Leagues were concerned about the
difficulties and costs of administering additional local taxes and about the
border problems that these taxes could cause.
Local Leagues reaffirmed their support for existing LWVMA positions
calling for a greater reliance on state-collected taxes to reduce the burdens of
the property tax, and for a distribution of state aid to cities and towns in a
manner that will equalize municipal resources. Leagues also expressed support
for changes in Proposition 2 1/2 that would make this measure more flexible,
such as indexing the allowable annual increase to an inflation factor.
In supporting the extension of the sales tax to selected services,
League stated that those services that must consumed by people of modest means
should not be taxed, while those principally consumed by the wealthy (e.g.,
entertainment events, landscaping, and decorating) might be acceptable for
taxation.
Leagues also expressed concern about the impact of sales taxes on
services sold to businesses. They feared that businesses would simply pass the
costs of such a tax on to consumers and that the competitiveness of
Massachusetts suppliers of services would be lessened. On the other hand, some
Leagues expressed interest in a regional (e.g., new England states) approach to
sales tax on services sold to businesses as this would keep Massachusetts
competitive in New England.
Previous Page:
Executive Branch
Back to Where We Stand Contents
Next Page: Home Rule