Comments
-CalicoKitty- t1_iubdpub wrote
This guy sounds like a friggin’ crybaby.
Chippopotanuse t1_iucre10 wrote
I would call him a crybaby conservative. But I would be repeating myself.
0tanod t1_iud980w wrote
Sounds a lot like a slumlord to me...
powsandwich t1_iubwclb wrote
My favorite part about the vote no on 1 commercials is how they whine about it being unfair because it will affect “tens of thousands” of people. So…. you’re saying 6.95 million people won’t be affected? Lol sounds good to me. The way we’ve warped this idea of individual liberty these days is fucking exhausting
escapefromelba t1_iuc3mj8 wrote
The "tens of thousands" is from a misleading ad anyway that claimed that figure for people selling their house for $1m+. In reality, less than 1% of homes sold in Massachusetts meet that threshold
powsandwich t1_iud6eu5 wrote
Yup, and they say it will “double” your taxes but if you sell for $1,000,001 you’re only paying 9% on that $1 and the existing flat 5% on the rest. The dishonesty in these ads is incredible
[deleted] t1_iuddl8g wrote
[deleted]
tacknosaddle t1_iudgjjp wrote
You get to deduct the sales price, but there's also another deduction that is $500k for a couple (the linked article explains). Basically you'd most likely have to be selling a $2m home to even pay the higher rate on just small percentage of the home sale price.
PavlovaoftheParallel t1_iue2i2b wrote
And all the major repairs and improvements are deductible as well.
They have literally just jumped on the house thing because they have nothing else to sell the “no” vote on.
MrRMNB t1_iuhw5q6 wrote
But that's assuming the seller made $0 other income for the year, i.e. they'd pay a lot more in taxes for their regular job that year.
seriousnotshirley t1_iud0onv wrote
And you’d have to have a net profit of $1 million, not just a home sale of 1 million.
tacknosaddle t1_iudg44f wrote
>for people selling their house for $1m+
The article actually demonstrates how once you subtract the purchase price of the home and the $500k exemption for a couple most home sales wouldn't trigger it anyway.
They gave an example of someone selling a home for over $2m that the tax calculation dropped to $1.2m in taxable income. But since the tax is only for amounts over a million it would only be the $200k that gets taxed at the higher rate and would result in an increased tax bill of $8,000.
So cry me a fucking river that in a situation where you're pocketing $1.2m you have to pay an extra 0.7% in tax on that total amount (yes, zero-point-seven, it is less than a 1% increase in the total tax bill in that situation).
[deleted] t1_iudztlf wrote
[deleted]
Twerks4Jesus t1_iubnl9h wrote
Why don't we just eat the cranberry farmer?
escapefromelba t1_iuc41bz wrote
I voted yes already but I would have preferred instead introducing a graduated state income tax and get rid of the regressive flat 5% tax rate for all income levels altogether.
LocalSalesRep t1_iub8yb6 wrote
Tax the rich. Doesn’t matter why…just tax em
AutoModerator t1_iuav9jd wrote
The linked source has opted to use a paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a Boston Public Library card can often view unrestricted articles here.
Boston Globe articles are still permissible as it's a soft-paywall. Please refrain from reporting as a Rule 5 violation. Please also note that copying and posting the entire article text as comments is not permissible.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_iudexrf wrote
[removed]
tacknosaddle t1_iudhcen wrote
>The reason the T is broken is because people were retiring at 38 with a full pension.
That's anti-union propaganda you're parroting. I'd have to dig and find it now, but there was a detailed report commissioned by the state comparing the finances of the T with the subway systems in municipalities in other parts of the country. The conclusion showed that pensions had essentially nothing to do with the budgetary problems of the T.
The information is available, but it is ignored by conservative politicians because it doesn't fit the agenda so you get to hear it stated as an undeniable truth that it is the pensions (i.e. unions) that are the root cause of all the problems. In fact if you hear Baker say that you can tell him to stuff a sock in it because it was his financial shell game in the 1990s that tied Big Dig debt to the T's budget and carries far more blame than anything having to do with the T's pensions.
alohadave t1_iudla4i wrote
> The reason the T is broken is because
It's broken because the state legislature has chronically underfunded it for 40+ years.
Add to it Baker's financial scheme of dumping Big Dig debt onto the agency.
Workers retiring early are the least of the T's problems.
Bluestrues t1_iudn2vk wrote
Do the math
alohadave t1_iudnm0u wrote
You are making the claim, support it. I’m not making your argument for you.
Bluestrues t1_iudy9jx wrote
There it is 😉
Bluestrues t1_iuds10x wrote
Myths and Reality about MBTA Pensions by Iliya Atanasov For the past few years, officials from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the MBTA Retirement Fund (MBTARF) have promoted the narrative that the T’s pension system has been reformed so that benefits are “fair” and it holds no risk for taxpayers. The truth is that MBTA pension reform has been too little too late; more radical measures are needed in order to ensure that current MBTA employees’ POLICY BRIEF pensions will be there when they retire. The purpose of this policy brief is to debunk the misconceptions around pension reform at the T and map out a simple, legal and fair path for change. All comparisons hereafter are based on the pension rules for the most recent cohorts of MBTA and state employees, who started working after 6 December and 2 April 2012, respectively. Specifically, the comparison is between the MBTA Retirement Plan (MBTARP), the T’s largest pension plan with an unfunded liability of $726 million as of yearend 2011, and Group 1 (Option A, where applicable) under the state retirement system, which is the largest group of Massachusetts employees with diverse job requirements eligible for a uniformly determined public pension. Myth 1: MBTA pensions are commensurate with other Massachusetts public employees’ Contrary to the myth, MBTA employees receive much higher allowances per year of pensionable service than other public employees. At the T, effective provisions to prevent spiking (short-term raises or cashing in unused vacation days that would dramatically increase pension benefits with about the same level of overall contributions) have simply not been implemented. Under the current pension contract, MBTARP retirees receive a membership service allowance equal to 2.46 percent of the average compensation in those three (3) years in which the employee had maximum compensation, multiplied by the number of years of membership service...1
Bluestrues t1_iuds4p7 wrote
Myth 2: Early retirement handouts have been eliminated The T’s much higher service allowance rate and easier to manipulate average pensionable salary base8 are only the tip of the iceberg. One of the motivations for MBTA pension “reform” was the notorious “23 and out” rule, whereby T employees could retire after just 23 years of service without penalty to their service allowance rate. Massachusetts taxpayers are largely unaware that this misguided practice was replaced with a similar provision, which grants a full pension as early as age 55 after just 25 years of service.
anurodhp t1_iublty3 wrote
Drives me nuts when people say this will give more money to something. If you read the question there is nothing in it that says funding will increase for school or transport just that this money will go to it. You may actually have a decrease in funding if revenues from this tax are insufficient and politicians allocate money that would have gone here to other projects
Epicritical t1_iud9y8r wrote
I’m all good with this tax providing a minimum baseline for transit and education.
davewritescode t1_iuhhk11 wrote
We have a fuckton of deferred maintenance everywhere, this money should help that.
keegan1015 t1_iud8s5f wrote
Why are people so interested in taxing their neighbors this will not be a tax for the wealthy they will be covered! this is a tax on small investors, your parents, Friends and family who cash out for retirement and/or want to leave a nest egg for the family.
[deleted] t1_iuddxvv wrote
[deleted]
plopst t1_iudcng6 wrote
Well then perhaps the ability to do so shouldn't be only allowed for people who are already rich then. No poor or middle class people are going to be able to compete with people who make money off of money, they will work their entire lives for a subsistence and no more. This is literally only a tax on the wealthy.
keegan1015 t1_iuddpl8 wrote
No you’re talking about people who has put that blood sweat and tears into small businesses in Massachusetts bought homes in Massachusetts that are their primary investments and the only thing they know, I know multiple trades people that own investment properties that were bought for their retirement and their children’s future that is what question 1 affects not the rich, Who is money will be in investments the state cannot touch.
KarateFriendship t1_iudem31 wrote
Won’t someone think of the poor children who stand to inherit million dollar homes!?!?
tacknosaddle t1_iudi4lt wrote
The article shows how you'd need to sell a house for over $2m to have to pay the extra 4% tax on just $200k ($8,000 total).
The bigger problem in my eyes with bills like this is that it sets a dollar amount rather than something that will adjust with future changes in the value of money.
So I'd rather see something more complicated where they take the income of everyone in the state, determine what some predetermined percentage is (e.g. the 98% threshold) and the following year any income above that gets the higher rate.
Since a million dollars a couple of decades ago was a lot different in purchasing power or value than it is now it only makes sense that the level the tax takes effect should be moving up in the same sort of way or those subject to it will grow in ways that is not part of the ballot question.
alohadave t1_iudlius wrote
> The bigger problem in my eyes with bills like this is that it sets a dollar amount rather than something that will adjust with future changes in the value of money.
The amount is tied to inflation, so it will adjust periodically.
tacknosaddle t1_iue04v7 wrote
Thanks, I hadn't seen that yet.
tschris t1_iudovgz wrote
I got some bad news for you. If you own investment rental properties that are worth over a million dollars, then you are rich. Just because someone got rich working in a blue collar industry, doesn't mean that they aren't rich.
NotnotNeo t1_iudvbby wrote
as a first gen college student and someone who started a real estate business with literal blood and sweat, and makes FAR less than 1mil, another 4% right now or at any point would mean literally nothing to me.
davewritescode t1_iuhhxp5 wrote
This is a tax on anyone that makes more than a million dollars a year which is exactly 0 of my family, probably a very small percentage of neighbor and perhaps 1 or 2 acquaintances based on their standard of living.
In short, progressive taxation is fair even at the state level.
petepont OP t1_iuavlof wrote
> Harwich Cranberry farmer Leo Cakounes has become the face of opposition to Question 1, the ballot measure that would raise taxes on the state’s highest earners – up from 5 to 9 percent for any income exceeding a million dollars.
>...
>“Question 1 isn’t just a tax on annual salary,” he says. “So when farmers like me sell our family farms or homes, Question 1 would nearly double our taxes, punishing us for our years of hard work”
You may have seen his face on TV or posters. He's been the main person railing against the proposed tax increase on the rich. But....
>But Cakounes is going to do just fine in retirement, whether or not Question 1 passes. A search of Registry of Deeds records across the state reveals the Republican former local politician, sometime radio and podcast host, tour operator, and farmer is sitting on property worth millions, including rental properties in Harwich and Belchertown. He estimates his home and the land on which it sits are worth $3 million.
Color me not surprised at all. The article is also full of fun quotes like
>“Don’t portray me like I’m a friggin’ crybaby because I don’t want to spend 40 grand on a million dollars,” he said. “I couldn’t give a s**t about 40 grand, but this tax is not good for the Commonwealth.”
and
>“I’m not a goddamned slumlord,” he said, then cautioned me. “Don’t blow that off.”
Seems like a nice guy, and exactly the sort of person this tax is supposed to effect