Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Any Massachusetts people? (Referendum)Follow

#1 Nov 04 2008 at 5:23 AM Rating: Good
I know there's a few people from Massachusetts here, so I was curious about how you were gonna vote on the referendum questions.

Question 1: Abolish the state income tax?

Question 2: Decriminalize an ounce or less of weed?

Question 3: Prohibit dog racing?



For me, Question 2 is easy...of course yes. I don't see any reason why someone's record should be tarnished over a little bit of weed. Weed is no worse than alcohol or tobacco.

Question 1..I dunno. I'm tempted to vote yes because it SOUNDS like you'd get more money in your check, but they'll just end up raising other taxes, probably. Also, I find the "but the fire dept and police, etc will suffer"...maybe, or maybe people like diane wilkerson and the bodybuilding firefighter need to use our tax dollars more wisely.

And Question 3..I say instead of banning dog racing, they just make laws that force the people who run it to treat the dogs more humanely.

Edited, Nov 4th 2008 8:24am by DaimenKain
#2 Nov 04 2008 at 5:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
I'll link over to Smash's post for you.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#3 Nov 04 2008 at 6:06 AM Rating: Good
Question 1: No. It's not called "Taxachusetts" for nothing. It won't make much a difference, it will simply act as a placebo. They'll make up the taxes elsewhere, of course.

Question 2: Yes. I've always thought it was absolutely absurd that we waste are time turning casual smokers into criminals over an ounce of weed. I mean...really. Big yes on this one.

Question 3: No. I don't see an option to ban horse racing. Why are we banning dog racing? Because the people that raise/care for the dogs are douches. No no no no, same as what Daimen said above.
#4 Nov 04 2008 at 6:09 AM Rating: Decent
Ryneguy wrote:
Question 1: No. It's not called "Taxachusetts" for nothing. It won't make much a difference, it will simply act as a placebo. They'll make up the taxes elsewhere, of course.

Question 2: Yes. I've always thought it was absolutely absurd that we waste are time turning casual smokers into criminals over an ounce of weed. I mean...really. Big yes on this one.

Question 3: No. I don't see an option to ban horse racing. Why are we banning dog racing? Because the people that raise/care for the dogs are douches. No no no no, same as what Daimen said above.


Yeah, I mean why don't they just change the laws for how the dogs are treated? You don't see people looking to ban horse racing.

Great avatar btw, ryne.
#5 Nov 04 2008 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
***
1,596 posts
1: I was kinda against this at first but I'm gonna vote yes just to see how it pans out.

2: Definitely yes. Money saved + More revenue from fines + Nobody's records tarnished for a minor reason = win

3: Sure, why not. The dog racing industry is on a decline anyway.
#6 Nov 04 2008 at 8:13 AM Rating: Good
I'm not in Mass, but I am in Tennessee. We have no state income tax.

Our sales tax is 9.25%.

Just thought I'd let you know. Smiley: frown
#7 Nov 04 2008 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I'm not in Mass, but I am in Tennessee. We have no state income tax.

Our sales tax is 9.25%.

Just thought I'd let you know. Smiley: frown


Our income tax in Massachusetts is 5.3%. Our sales tax is 5%. The we have property taxes. Then we have excise taxes on boats, cars, snowmobiles etc...

All of these taxes and the Massachusetts Gov't still can't get it ******* right.
#8 Nov 04 2008 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Tossing a yes to all.

I doubt #1 has the remote possibility of passing, and It's the one I'm most on the fence about.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#9 Nov 04 2008 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
shadomen wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I'm not in Mass, but I am in Tennessee. We have no state income tax.

Our sales tax is 9.25%.

Just thought I'd let you know. Smiley: frown


Our income tax in Massachusetts is 5.3%. Our sales tax is 5%. The we have property taxes. Then we have excise taxes on boats, cars, snowmobiles etc...

All of these taxes and the Massachusetts Gov't still can't get it @#%^ing right.


None of you have a damn thing to whine about, haha.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#10 Nov 04 2008 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Yeah, well, that's just because we've learned the fine art of tax evasion.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#11 Nov 04 2008 at 8:41 AM Rating: Good
Nexa wrote:
None of you have a damn thing to whine about, haha.


Well that's only one side of the coin. And Massachusetts isn't the worst, either. However, when you consider average income, cost of living expenses, etc., adjusting that chart accordingly would be the only way for it to be accurate. I chose to live in MA over CT because of the difference in Auto Insurance between states, and some generally lower cost of living elements (Gas, Housing, etc). Thank god I obtained my SDEP rating prior to the auto insurance change in MA.
#12 Nov 04 2008 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Question 1: Abolish the state income tax? GOD NO! We can't afford it as a state. We're already having to make huge cuts.

Question 2: Decriminalize an ounce or less of weed? Yes.

Question 3: Prohibit dog racing? Yeah, I think the dogs are treated pretty badly, but I don't feel strongly about it.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#13 Nov 04 2008 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Question 1: Abolish the state income tax? GOD NO! We can't afford it as a state. We're already having to make huge cuts.


The taxes wouldn't go away, they'd be shifted elsewhere.

My view on this is that they should tax ownership and spending more, rather than take it directly out of someone's paycheck.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#14 Nov 04 2008 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
***
2,813 posts
1) No, the money's gotta come from somewhere and income taxes seem like a more fair way to spread the burden than, say, raising property taxes or charging $10 to drive on the Pike.

2) Yes.

3) No, but I don't care all that much either way.

After standing in a line that wrapped around the block for 10 minutes this morning and realizing that it was going to take 2 hours to get into the voting booth, I gave up and went into work. Not looking forward to standing in it again tonight ><.
#15 Nov 04 2008 at 9:52 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Question 1: Abolish the state income tax? GOD NO! We can't afford it as a state. We're already having to make huge cuts.


The taxes wouldn't go away, they'd be shifted elsewhere.

My view on this is that they should tax ownership and spending more, rather than take it directly out of someone's paycheck.


No,it's actually be too much of a budgetary difference to overcome. It'd cut out like 40% of the state budget. You can't raise property taxes that much, especially during a time in a recession and given all the changing values on property here.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#16 Nov 04 2008 at 10:18 AM Rating: Decent
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. There are certain programs that are necessary in Massachusetts BUT there are others that are totally ******* useless. The patronage jobs in Mass are also out of control. These "vote yes on #1" folks are trying to stop gov't waste and in Mass, there is quite a lot.

Eliminating the state income tax is too risky a way to accomplish their goal but something needs to be done.
#17 Nov 04 2008 at 10:21 AM Rating: Decent
Commander Annabella wrote:
You can't raise property taxes that much, especially during a time in a recession and given all the changing values on property here.


The town were I live did not raise property taxes. They just reassessed the home values up. Yes, I did say up.

In a time were home values are plummeting, they raised home values up. There was a huge uproar about this.
#18 Nov 04 2008 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
shadomen wrote:
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. There are certain programs that are necessary in Massachusetts BUT there are others that are totally @#%^ing useless. The patronage jobs in Mass are also out of control. These "vote yes on #1" folks are trying to stop gov't waste and in Mass, there is quite a lot.

Eliminating the state income tax is too risky a way to accomplish their goal but something needs to be done.


There is a problem with patronage jobs but trying working with state moneys. Basically, those are the jobs that get protected. Everyone else gets screwed. Secondly, it is too much of the budget to account for just waste. They could have lowered it more conservatively in a better economic environment and if they introduced some safeguards, it may have been protected.

Edited, Nov 4th 2008 1:30pm by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#19 Nov 04 2008 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
In an era of enlightened medical knowledge, I'm surprised each of you are encouraging smoking. When many states are limiting smoking by marginalizing it from public spaces and taxing it to oblivion, making MJ more accesible seems to be counterproductive. Note that I am not commenting on the ethical/moral issues surrounding drug use, but just from a health standpoint.

Would you advocate dropping seat belt laws or immunizations as well? Oh, sorry, Ambrya already has. Nevermind.

Totem
#20 Nov 04 2008 at 11:14 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Totem wrote:
In an era of enlightened medical knowledge, I'm surprised each of you are encouraging smoking. When many states are limiting smoking by marginalizing it from public spaces and taxing it to oblivion, making MJ more accesible seems to be counterproductive. Note that I am not commenting on the ethical/moral issues surrounding drug use, but just from a health standpoint.

Would you advocate dropping seat belt laws or immunizations as well? Oh, sorry, Ambrya already has. Nevermind.

Totem
Well first off, as a women I am affronted that you would think this. While mariJuana may indeed be bad for your health if used excessively. With proper warnings, education and regulation the production, trade and use of the good will spur the economy, create gazillions of new jobs, inspire agricultural technology and just generally mellow everyone out, eh.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#21 Nov 04 2008 at 12:06 PM Rating: Good
**
329 posts
Voted today in MA.

1. Voted to keep income tax as is.
2. Voted yes.
3. Voted yes...free the doggies.

Polls were busy, but not especially crowded.
#22 Nov 04 2008 at 12:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
In an era of enlightened medical knowledge, I'm surprised each of you are encouraging smoking. When many states are limiting smoking by marginalizing it from public spaces and taxing it to oblivion, making MJ more accesible seems to be counterproductive. Note that I am not commenting on the ethical/moral issues surrounding drug use, but just from a health standpoint.

Would you advocate dropping seat belt laws or immunizations as well? Oh, sorry, Ambrya already has. Nevermind.

Totem


I can only speak for myself, but I'm all for having restrictions on situations where it is acceptable to use, but dislike outright bans. I feel outright bans step on freedoms in ways that regulations do not. In situations where use of it would not be able to harm others, I don't feel that it should be outright banned.

Similar to my stance on gun control.

(I don't drink/smoke/etc but I'm of the opinion that that shouldn't get in the way of other people's usage, unless it becomes abusive)

The medical ill effects of smoking MJ, as far as research material I've read, are less hazardous than smoking commercial tobacco, so unless you are advocating the banning of substances such as tobacco and alcohol, I don't think it is right to have a double standard about a substance with lesser ill effects.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#23 Nov 04 2008 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
It also isn't legalizing marijuana but rather, you have a fine as opposed to a prison sentence or extended probation.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#24 Nov 04 2008 at 1:02 PM Rating: Good
***
2,813 posts
Quote:
In an era of enlightened medical knowledge, I'm surprised each of you are encouraging smoking. When many states are limiting smoking by marginalizing it from public spaces and taxing it to oblivion, making MJ more accesible seems to be counterproductive. Note that I am not commenting on the ethical/moral issues surrounding drug use, but just from a health standpoint.

If marijuana were legalized, I'd be all for putting the same restrictions on its public use that currently exist for cigarettes. I don't see how that's an inconsistent position.
#25 Nov 04 2008 at 1:10 PM Rating: Decent
kylen wrote:
If marijuana were legalized, I'd be all for putting the same restrictions on its public use that currently exist for cigarettes. I don't see how that's an inconsistent position.


Restrictions? What like label packaging?

MJ can cause birth defects and an uncontrollable urge to eat Doritos.

It doesn't work like that. MJ is a drug and should be illegal. I just don't think that the stupid 18 yr old kid that gets caught with a joint needs to have a "major" crime on their permanent record.
#26 Nov 04 2008 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
shadomen wrote:
kylen wrote:
If marijuana were legalized, I'd be all for putting the same restrictions on its public use that currently exist for cigarettes. I don't see how that's an inconsistent position.


Restrictions? What like label packaging?

MJ can cause birth defects and an uncontrollable urge to eat Doritos.

It doesn't work like that. MJ is a drug and should be illegal. I just don't think that the stupid 18 yr old kid that gets caught with a joint needs to have a "major" crime on their permanent record.
If cigarettes and alcohol were a brand new product coming out today, they'd also be illegal drugs.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 236 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (236)