There's been a lot of talk about CA Prop 8 (NO!), but not a lot of buzz about other state ballot questions.
MA has three:
- Abolish Income Tax
- Decriminalize Marijuana Possession
- Abolish Greyhound Racing
My votes: No, Yes, Yes.
- Abolish Income Tax Summary:
This proposed law would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. The personal income tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of "S corporations" as defined under federal tax law. The proposed law would not affect the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before January 1, 2009. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
The only foreseeable consequences of this measure passing are negative: higher property taxes, higher sales taxes, reduction in funding for schools, fire and police departments, and other necessary services. Brought to you by selfish idiots. Vote NO!
- Decriminalize Marijuana Possession Summary (in brief):
This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty
.
Most police are in favor of this question passing. It's not legalization, but rather a way to prevent first-time or casual users from long-term consequences of a minor offense. Paying a fine and confiscation makes a lot more sense than jail time or a felony conviction for minor possession. Vote YES!
- Prohibition of Dog Racing Summary:
This proposed law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. The State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission. The penalty would be used for the Commission's administrative purposes, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature. All existing parts of the chapter of the state's General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs. These changes would take effect January 1, 2010. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect
I oppose dog racing on humane grounds. Racing dogs are penned for most of their day, not getting the social and physical exercise they need for good health. Though some are rescued at the end of their "careers" and adopted into loving families, many are simply destroyed.
There's been a very emotional ad airing claiming dogs are treated humanely and the employees who would be put out of work by this question passing "have done nothing wrong." Plenty of people being laid off in many industries have also done nothing wrong. But their industries fail either because of poor management or because public sentiment is against what they do. While I don't oppose gambling (if people choose to waste their money that way), I do oppose the exploitation of dogs for a human vice. Vote YES!