If you're gonna dismiss the holy-grail of libertarianism, we deserve an explanation.

I found an article on it... which suggests that this proposition would eliminate the personal income tax, which accounts for about 40% of MA's budget. That's a drastic move (which is a reason to oppose it), but not quite cataclysmic, especially since there are alternative taxes that could be raised to compensate for the funding that would be lost.

The article lists the following remaining sources of revenue for MA;

corporate income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, meals taxes, hotel taxes, excise taxes, workers' compensation taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, wine and liquor taxes, motor vehicle taxes, and real estate transfer taxes, not to mention the taxes ("license fees") imposed on a vast array of professions and occupations. 

 Many of those seem to be preferable to a personal income tax.

As you say, it's drastic; a 40% reduction in the budget would really shake up where resources are allocated. I'd worry taht in the rush to deal with the short-fall you'd get some suboptimal choices (or perhaps some bad debt, since no one wants to vote against the popular constituent services if they can just push the cost into the future).

I think I don't agree with cutting-taxes-first as a strategy to reduce budgets and waste. It's a kind of backdoor way of cutting as many programs as possible, rather than approaching it from the prospective of policy (i.e. which spending should we cut, which taxes can be safely increased to compensate, etc.)

I also wish financial conservatives would talk about what programs they wish to cut instead of talking about cutting taxes, but brutal honesty about the opportunity costs of your policy is an hardly effective marketing tactic in a marketing dominated political system. Financial conservatives, including the DFC but most notably the "Fair Tax" movement, seem to gravitate toward these kinds of structural constraints on the means of revenue collection as a general wedge against government expansion, by making it more difficult for the government to raise revenue in general, as well as constraining the ability of the government to manipulate markets through special deductions and writeoffs. Should a libertarian support these constraints because they make people more free?

Well, this sort of fiscal conservativism carries broad support in both Libertarian and Republican circles. When libertarians align themselves with the Republican party, they are sacrificing civil liberties in order to pursue economic liberty. The idea of the libertarian Democrat reflects a certain frustration with that - a belief that civil liberties must not be sacrificed in order to achieve smaller overall government - a belief that the rate of taxation, particularly in a state like the United States of America, which has a low rate of taxation relative to the western world, is not the primary factor effecting one's individual liberty.

Indeed, there are examples of modern states such as Singapore which have vibrant capitalist economies and low rates of taxation coupled with a government whose democratic legitimacy has been questioned and which enforces strict punishments for objectively minor infractions. The fact that Singapore is a nice place to live reinforces the threat that it represents to libertarian ideas, If you don't have to be free to be successful and comfortable, than what is the value of freedom? This is a challenge that the world will demand an answer to.

Nevertheless, simple constraints upon the size of the state do not themselves translate directly into individual liberty. Even the most radical free market capitalists are loath to list police forces under discretionary spending. So constraints on spending by themselves cannot end up protecting all of the sorts of freedoms that libertarians care about. This train of thought leads at least as far as the conclusion that libertarians can, to some extent, safely sacrifice their interest in strict, laissez faire capitalism in aligning themselves with the Democratic party. They might do so because within the Democratic party arguments about individual civil liberties at least stand some chance of winning the day. Often, they are rejected, but not without consideration and respect. In the Republican party they are barely up for consideration. The minds that are open to them are a very tiny niche.

But do we reach a point where it makes sense for libertarians to not just sacrifice an interest in constraining tax collection for political expedience, but to proactively join in directly opposing constraints on tax collection? Is this the liberal counterpart to Republicans who oppose the doctrine of incorporation and call themselves libertarian? I'm not sure it is.

Just as one can imagine a state which taxes little but refuses to recognize civil liberties, one can also imagine a state which taxes little, but does so progressively. A state that taxes little, and taxes progressively, might, in fact, be exactly what we desire. That state might need some sort of structural constraint on taxation, but perhaps the right sort of constraint isn't ONLY a constraint on taxation. As constraints on taxation do not protect individual liberties, if those liberties are to be protected structurally, they must be protected with a different sort of structure than tax policy. Perhaps that structure, whatever it is, could ultimately limit taxation as well.

The politics of compassion have overcome the politics of fear.

On election day, Michigan became the thirteenth state to legalize the physician supervised possession and use of cannabis. According to early returns, more than 60 percent of Michigan voters decided in favor of Proposal 1, which establishes a state-regulated system regarding the use and cultivation of medical marijuana by qualified patients.

Voters endorsed the measure despite a high profile, deceptive, and despicable ad campaign by Prop. 1 opponents -- who falsely claimed that the initiative would allow for the open sale of marijuana "in every neighborhood, just blocks from schools."
---------------------------------------------
Reeta
massachusetts drug rehab

great article

Why would you vote against lowering income tax?

as to what this will lead?online slot machines

Personal Income Tax Regulations. The proposed amendments eliminate unnecessary provisions of the regulations regarding the setting of fees for corporation franchise tax searches, bulk orders of forms, and a publication containing certain forms and instructions.

So what's the conclusion here? People who work and have an average profit will have to pay taxes they can't afford while rich tycoons will barely feel the taxes?
___________
Samuel Stanislas, part of the Traduceri Autorizate team.

Even if taxes are higher for rich people, it generally does not affect them as the average people.

The reduction in personal income tax could be easily compensated by other taxes, and I agree than this reduction should not be used as a strategy to reduce budgets and waste.

Regards,
Tom from Economic Calendar