Romney is going to lose big in New Hampshire. U.S. Army Retired |
Posted on 01/03/2008 2:16:16 AM PST by tiger-one
SOON AFTER becoming Massachusetts governor, Willard Mitt Romney retroactively imposed new taxes on non-residents, including Granite State citizens who work, conduct business, and/or invest in the Bay State. Romney's higher taxes reached into New Hampshire and helped vacuum at least $95 million in marginal income back across the border.
According to Massachusetts Department of Revenue figures, the total amount that New Hampshire taxpayers surrendered to Massachusetts grew from $213.6 million in 2002 to $248.9 million in 2006, a 16.5 percent increase. (Data for 2006 are preliminary.)
Had 2002's tax baseline remained flat, New Hampshire taxpayers would have kept $95 million in cumulative payments to Massachusetts since 2003. Higher revenues often are a supply-side effect of tax cuts. This is not so when taxes increase.
Massachusetts tax revenues from New Hampshire residents increased even as the number of New Hampshire residents who paid Massachusetts taxes fell 2.3 percent -- from 89,304 in 2002 to 87,320 in 2006. The checks shrank in number, but swelled in value. The average tax payment from New Hampshire expanded $458 -- from $2,392 in 2002 to $2,850 in 2006 -- up 19.2 percent.
"That's even more remarkable when you consider that the number of New Hampshire taxpayers who pay (as opposed to simply file) didn't change in what appears to be any statistically significant way during this period, yet the average tax payment went up substantially," says Cato Institute scholar Stephen Slivinski.
These higher payments perfectly coincide with legislation Romney signed on March 5, 2003, retroactive to that Jan. 1. Under Romney's law, "gross income derived from. . . any trade or business, including any employment," would be taxable, "regardless of the taxpayer's residence or domicile in the year it is received."
These rules now cover "gain from the sale of a business or of an interest in a business, distributive share income, separation, sick or vacation pay, deferred compensation and [state-taxable] nonqualified pension income." On Aug. 9, 2004 Romney also taxed non-residents' shares of income from real-estate partnerships.
"Romney created these taxes new," says Robert Roughsedge, a Hampton attorney who works in Boston. "He taxed more people and companies than before. This is what a dying state must do to keep the tax base. This is not a pro-growth, Reagan-type answer to the problem. . . . Romney chose to tax the people who left, increase the people outside of the state subject to taxation, and probably remove the incentive to leave by increasing the cost."
"This research confirms what I said when Mitt Romney started attacking Rudy Giuliani on the commuter-tax issue in New York," says former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci, who supports Giuliani.
"That was an existing tax. Mayor Giuliani had other priorities in terms of tax cutting. He provided broad-based tax relief for New York residents and businesses, something Mitt Romney could not do in Massachusetts. It's ironic that Mayor Giuliani did not raise taxes on commuters, yet he gets criticized by a guy who did raise taxes on commuters, in particular people in New Hampshire who work in Massachusetts."
Had Romney's spokesmen commented, as requested, they might have observed that he sped a $275 million capital gains tax rebate, scored property-tax relief for seniors and secured a two-day, tax-free shopping holiday.
Nonetheless, Merrimack's Bob Bevill, chairman of the conservative New Hampshire Eagle Forum, is among those who condemn Romney for $283 million in business "loophole closures" and $501.5 million in increased fees on marriage licenses, gun registrations, gasoline deliveries, property-deed certificates, and more.
"New Hampshire taxpayers should be concerned that Mr. Romney will continue his semantically challenged shell-game of raising taxes, through increased users fees and special tariffs, while publicly stating that he has not raised taxes," Bevill says. "A vote for Romney is a vote for higher taxes -- no matter what they are called."
New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
Has anyone posted a side-by-side analysis of the total per-capita tax burden, before and after, in the three locales of Arkansas, Massachusetts and New York City during the reigns of Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani? That would be the way to compare them, not an endless listing of individual taxes.
What was the total tax burden as a percentage of income (per capita) at the start and end of each of their respective times in office?
Show me the snapshot!
Well, then, maybe they should work in NH. What? No place to work? Oh. But it's a great place to take MA paychecks and spend them, all the while polluting NH's politics, while enjoying NH's lower taxes.
People who want things both ways, or something for nothing should not get too much sympathy.
I almost ignored your cynical comments but then I see you live in the land of RomneyCare socialized med care, poor drivers and liars Teddy Kennedy, Kerry, riders of the chocolate hwy, B. Frank etc. I understand your frustration, but I think you may want to apply these thoughts before you trash us north of you.
There was a time when, NY and CA, [California, thought you might need that, did not want you confused with Canada] wanted to place state income tax on retirees, whose corporate HQs were located in those states no matter what states these retirees lived.
If Mitt was still Gov. he would most likely promote, and sign into law [like RomneyCare, no public vote allowed] Non Resident Retiree Income Tax, for those who worked for a company in Mass. but lived all their lives, in another state.
I am not trashing anyone, if anything I am sympathizing with you for the "Masshole" invasion. The very people who poison your state's politics are the ones squealing because it might cost them something to work in a high wage and tax area, then creep across the border with bulging pockets to live somewhere with lower taxes and a better quality of life.
We have NO TAX Delaware shopping. The states bordering Delaware use the malls daily in search of no tax shopping. Nobody holds it against Joe Biden or the Democrats. The business community along the border and across the bridge suffer more than a little. I blame the Pennsylvania politicians for helping create this issue. They could keep shoppers at home by having the same thing. It will never happen.
But, Mitt says he LOWERED taxes.
This means he did not tell the truth.
| Romney is going to lose big in New Hampshire. U.S. Army Retired |
I apologize for my misunderstanding of your post. You are correct in your assessment. Move up here an join the fight.
I apologize for my misunderstanding of your post. You are correct in your assessment. Move up here an join the fight.
And we NH should increase tolls for those with Massachusetts license plates.
Yes, it is a shame, the Mitt kissers will now have to call him a liar, which they all knew but would not admit.
Willards a great conservative.
( sounds of crickets, here )
conservativemyarse.
We already DO have NH LTC's...it's a good start. (They have reciprocity, and we have a camper.)
And a solid Rudy Giuliani supporter, whose writings on anything having to do with the election always defend Rudy and attack the other candidates.
In general, when people earn money in a state, that state imposes taxes on what is earned in their state, and then the home state doesn't tax that amount.
So the question is whether New Hampshire insisted on taxing it's citizens on money that they made and were taxed on in Massachusetts -- if not, this was a money transfer between the states based on which state was providing the jobs for the citizens (in this case, apparently Massachusetts).
NH could impose the same tax on out-of-state workers, and if NH could offer a better job environment than Massachusetts, and they would come out ahead as people from the Bay state commuted to New Hampshire for the better jobs.
But if I'm understanding things, New Hampshire doesn't have an income tax, so there's no real reciprocity right now.
I remember there being a similar situation with my dad living in Connecticutt and working in New York.
This attack is meant to counter Giuliani's fight to prevent the repeal of a special New York City commuter tax. But this is apples-to-oranges. The New York City commuter tax was actually an EXTRA tax paid by New York residents if they drove into New York City to work. It wasn't a case of the state losing money to the city, it was an EXTRA tax, and the state was trying to eliminate the tax, not take the money from New York City and use it for state purposes.
In fact, it's been on Rudy's campaign web site since October, so it's not even news: Rudy For President, and it's clear the Union Leader is simply trying to help McCain by using Rudy's campaign material against Romney, and Murdock is helping.
The question that needs to be asked is, how does Romney get credit for a bill that was worked on and written before he became Governor, simply because he was the one in office at the time he signed it?
He was the one in office at that the time it came to his desk, he signed it when it could have Vetoed it.
Remember these words from Mitt's own mouth. I love the veto, I have vetoed many bills as Governor.
Mitt was accountable for making it law.
I’m certain if we tried to claim credit for this, the mitt-bashers would scream that he had nothing to do with it.
I say that because when it was revealed that the “AWB” that Mitt Romney signed was in fact NOT a new ban, that instead it was hailed as a victory for GOAL and the NRA, people immediately said that Romney was falsely claiming credit for something that really was the work of GOAL with the legislature, and that he “just signed it”.
When he could have vetoed it, then the Mitt lovers say he signed it because he knew the veto would have overridden. SO WHAT?
As I said, I asked because in another context, we were told Romney was lying when he took credit for signing something, because they claimed other people actually did the work on the bill.
Your argument is that since he didn’t veto that other bill, he should get credit for it. I agree, and think that argument holds here as well.
If you weren’t in that other thread, I’ve probably just confused the heck out of you, and I apologize.
I wasn’t trying to say Mitt shouldn’t get credit for this bill, I was asking if it was OK to claim credit for it.
This is a downside of being a Governor of one state, you sometimes will take actions that are good for your state, but not so good for other states, and then you have to win votes from people in those states.
We have our share of rivalries with our neighboring state, which could be used against a candidate from our state trying to get votes in another state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.