Connect with us

Massachusetts

CLINE: If You Live in Massachusetts (Or New York or California), Every Day is Tax Day – NH Journal

Published

on

CLINE: If You Live in Massachusetts (Or New York or California), Every Day is Tax Day – NH Journal


Since 2021, half of U.S. states have cut personal income taxes. Only three states—Massachusetts, New York, and California—raised them. Guess how those three states are doing now?

All are shedding population and tax revenue.

In Massachusetts, state revenues fell for seven straight months through February. In January, Gov. Maura Healey announced $375 million in budget cuts to begin covering a projected $1 billion revenue shortfall. And don’t forget the historic population decline as residents flee to lower-cost states.

In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul’s proposed budget fills a $4.3 billion deficit even as it projects deficits of $9.9 billion over the next four years. She proposes a $6 billion, 4.5 percent spending increase, and still projects future deficits. Last year, New York lost 112,000 residents.

Advertisement

California is even worse off. Facing a stunning $73 billion budget deficit, lawmakers last week voted to trim spending by $17 million, just for a start. California lost 75,000 residents last year after losing about half a million from April 2020 to July 2022.

Yet advocates of an aggressive and lavishly funded welfare state regularly hold up those states as ideals of good governance.

New Hampshire, we’re regularly told, is falling behind more enlightened states like Massachusetts, New York, and California because our taxes and spending are far too low.

The opposite is true, though. New Hampshire’s economy and people are thriving precisely because of our low-tax, low-spending culture that values self-reliance and personal responsibility over government dependency.

For starters, New Hampshire’s tax revenue this fiscal year is up, not down. State revenue through March is up $130 million over the same period during the last fiscal year.

Advertisement

Business tax revenues are down by $27 million compared to the same period last year. But that’s not because of business tax cuts, as some have suggested. (Business tax revenues have surged throughout the years of state business tax cuts.)

Businesses have to pay taxes quarterly, and those payments are based on what they estimate they’ll owe by the end of the year. If a business winds up overpaying, it used to be able to claim the entire overpayment as a credit toward the next year’s tax bill. Starting in 2023, legislators capped overpayment credits at 500 percent of the year’s tax bill. Anything over that would have to be refunded to the business.

Those overpayment refunds account for 46.4 percent of all business tax refunds so far this fiscal year, or $60.3 million. That’s more than double the $27 million by which business tax revenues have fallen below the previous year.

So it’s likely that the forced refunds are the cause of this year’s drop in business tax revenues. Those revenues are $27 million below the prior year but only $5.6 million below this year’s budget. Legislators clearly anticipated a drop in business tax revenue caused by the forced rebates.

New Hampshire’s revenues are very stable compared to New York’s, Massachusetts’, and California’s. That’s by design. Instead of relying heavily on personal income taxes and consumption taxes, New Hampshire relies on tax collections from business, property, insurance, real estate transactions, and alcohol and tobacco.

Advertisement

Our tax structure keeps spending relatively constrained and forces state government to operate more efficiently, which is why the state ranks as No. 1 in the nation for taxpayer return on investment (ROI) and has for years, in WalletHub’s annual survey. The site also ranks New Hampshire sixth in overall government services.

For government services, effectiveness, and value—not total spending—are the metrics that ought to matter. Keeping taxes low forces the state to do more with less.

Progressives don’t understand that the better measure of success for a government program is not how much it spends, but how well it spends. New Hampshire spends its money very well, at least relative to other states, because it has to get more out of every taxpayer dollar.

This doesn’t mean that New Hampshire doesn’t spend. Revenues for the current two-year state budget were projected to be $868.7 million, higher than the previous state budget. That fueled record state spending. The 2024-25 budget is 16 percent bigger than the 2023-24 budget. New Hampshire lawmakers definitely know how to spend when they have money sitting around.

The difference between New Hampshire and the profligate states of Massachusetts, New York, and California is that New Hampshire lawmakers lack the revenue-raising tools their counterparts in those big-spending states have. Without an income tax, New Hampshire legislators can’t simply “raise taxes on the rich” whenever they want to spend more money. Without a sales tax, they can’t raise hundreds of millions of additional dollars by nudging the consumption tax rate up a bit (for the children, of course).

Advertisement

All four states in this discussion are required by their constitutions to have balanced budgets. But only New Hampshire regularly avoids the drama of huge spending binges followed by huge budget cuts because only New Hampshire has a tax system designed to minimize government revenue and maximize economic growth.

In contrast with many other states, New Hampshire’s tax structure is well-suited to promote economic growth. It incorporates many features recommended by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for generating economic growth, including low corporate and personal income taxes.

Though progressives say otherwise, tax increases do reduce GDP.

Former Gov. Mel Thomson’s famous saying that low taxes are the result of low spending is true, generally speaking. But it’s also true that keeping taxes low discourages overspending. New Hampshire does this pretty well.

One question to ask yourself on Tax Day is whether you’d rather live in a state that overtaxes you to build a lavish welfare state and wastes billions of dollars in the process or whether you’d rather live in a state that taxes you less but wastes relatively little and provides high-quality government services in exchange for what it takes.

Advertisement

That ought to be an easy answer.



Source link

Massachusetts

Farm Bill provision threatens Massachusetts animal welfare rules – AOL

Published

on

Farm Bill provision threatens Massachusetts animal welfare rules – AOL


The Farm Bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives April 30 could undermine a Massachusetts law aimed at preventing animal cruelty.

The sweeping agricultural bill includes a section called the “Save Our Bacon Act,” which prohibits state and local governments from having farm animal welfare protections that extend to products originating in other states.

The measure specifically targets Massachusetts and California state laws that prohibit certain farm animals from being held in extreme confinement.

Massachusetts Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, both Democrats, released a statement opposing the inclusion of the measure in the Farm Bill.

Advertisement

“This is a highly controversial and poisonous policy that ignores the will of the people. These state laws were overwhelmingly supported by a popular vote — they shouldn’t be overridden because of big-dollar lobbying,” the senators said in their statement. “We have significant concerns about the House-passed Farm Bill, including this overreaching and harmful provision that should not be in the Farm Bill and needs to be removed.”

What is Massachusetts’s Question 3?

In 2016, Massachusetts voters passed Question 3, or an Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals, with 78% of the vote.

The measure banned the sale of eggs, veal or pork from animals that were “confined in a cruel manner.” It eliminated enclosures that prevented an animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs or turning around freely.

All of these products sold in Massachusetts must be compliant, regardless of whether the animals were raised on farms in or outside Massachusetts. Therefore, out-of-state farms must comply with Question 3 in order to sell their products in Massachusetts.

Town Line cares for 50 cows, reserving some each year for meat to sell at its farm store.

Advertisement

The law is similar to California’s Proposition 12, which also lays out specific freedom of movement and minimum floor space requirements for how veal calves, breeding pigs and egg-laying hens are kept. It also doesn’t allow the sale of any products from animals confined in ways that don’t meet their standards, including those produced in other states.

What is the Save Our Bacon Act?

The Save Our Bacon Act seeks to block California’s and Massachusetts’s laws on out-of-state producers by saying that no state “may enact or enforce, directly or indirectly, a condition or standard on the production of covered livestock other than for covered livestock physically raised in such State or subdivision.”

The legislation would apply to any domestic animal raised for the purpose of human consumption or milk production, but not animals raised primarily for egg production.

Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, originally introduced the Save Our Bacon Act in July 2025. 

“California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3 pose a major threat to family farms and food security — both in Iowa and across the country,” she said in a press release at the time. “The Save Our Bacon Act reaffirms livestock producers’ right to sell their products across state lines, without interference from arbitrary mandates.”

Advertisement

The act was added as a section in the Farm Bill, which was then passed by the House on a vote of 224-200. The bill next heads to the Senate, where its fate is unclear as lawmakers both across and within party lines have butted heads on several provisions.

This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Farm Bill provision threatens Massachusetts animal welfare rules



Source link

Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Smoke from North Attleborough fire visible for miles

Published

on

Smoke from North Attleborough fire visible for miles


Fire broke out at an apartment building in North Attleborough, Massachusetts, on Monday afternoon, sending a column of smoke high into the air.

NBC affiliate WJAR-TV reports the smoke was visible from miles away from the building on Juniper Road.

More details were not immediately available.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Life Care Center of Raynham earns deficiency‑free state inspection

Published

on

Life Care Center of Raynham earns deficiency‑free state inspection


Life Care Center of Raynham has received a deficiency‑free inspection result from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, a distinction awarded to a small share of the state’s licensed nursing homes, according to a community announcement.

The inspection was conducted as part of the state’s routine, unannounced nursing home survey process overseen by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. These comprehensive, multi‑day inspections evaluate multiple aspects of facility operations, including staffing levels, quality of care, medication management, cleanliness, food service and resident rights.

State survey records show that Life Care Center of Raynham met required standards during its most recent standard survey, with no deficiencies cited, based on publicly available state data.

Advertisement

The announcement states that fewer than 8% of Massachusetts nursing homes achieve deficiency‑free survey results. That figure could not be independently verified through state or federal data and is attributed to the announcement.

In addition to the state survey outcome, the facility is listed as a five‑star provider for quality measures on the federal Medicare Care Compare website. The five‑star quality measure rating reflects above‑average performance compared with other nursing homes nationwide, according to federal rating methodology.

Officials said the inspection results reflect ongoing compliance with state and federal standards designed to protect resident health and safety. According to the announcement, the outcome is attributed to staff performance and internal quality practices.

This story was created by Dave DeMille, ddemille@gannett.com, with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Journalists were involved in every step of the information gathering, review, editing and publishing process. Learn more at cm.usatoday.com/ethical-conduct.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending