Massachusetts Ballot Questions: No, Yes, Yes, Yes

[cos]

This year I think the ballot questions are easy. I can see room for disagreement on Question 3 but I think the others are as close to slam-dunk as a ballot question can be.

Question 1 - Cut the Gas Tax: No

Current law will adjust the gas tax automatically for inflation. In other words, the real inflation-adjusted value of the gas tax will stay the same, so the absolute number of cents per gallon will increase a little bit as inflation goes. This question wants to repeal that. This repeal is ridiculously stupid from any logical point of view; it only makes sense if you hate taxes on principle and want any way to cut them down. Because that's what this question would actually do: slowly cut the gas tax down from its current value, while sales taxes and income taxes continue keeping up with inflation because they're percentages of things that go up over time (retail prices, and salaries).

Question 2 - Eliminate Loopholes in the Bottle Bill: Yes

The existing bottle bill works really well. About 80% of deposit bottles are recycled, while fewer than 1/4 of non-deposit bottles are recycled. But many popular bottled drinks, such as water and juice, aren't covered by the existing law. You sell soda, it gets a deposit; you sell water in the same bottle, it doesn't. This loophole doesn't make sense. Question 2 would rectify it, bringing bottle deposits to juice, water, and sports drink bottles.

If you hate recycling, you'd vote against this. If you hate the idea of the government taxing anyone to encourage any behavior - even a very small tax where everyone who pays it has a way to get their money back, you'd vote against it. If you don't fit into either of those categories, you vote yes.

Question 2's oppenents have been spreading outright lies in their ads because lying about it is the only way to get reasonable voters to vote no. Unfortunately polls say it may be working; too many people are hearing these lies and believing them. So this is one where you should post to social media and tell your friends.

[ Edit: Yes, we know lots of people have recycling bins. Despite that fact, a large majority of deposit bottles currently get recycled and a large majority of non-deposit bottles currently do no. For whatever reason - a majority of MA doesn't have curbside recycling; lots of people buy bottles away from home and there aren't recycling bins nearby, etc. - the stats are clear. Pointing out that we have recycle bins doesn't change that reality. Bottle deposits are extremely effective. ]

Question 3 - Repeal the Casino Law: Yes

Big casinos are basically the equivalent of toxic sludge factories polluting their region with crime and poverty and lost jobs, while extracting money for a large corporation usually based far away. But what do they produce? Something you can already get in other forms or go elsewhere to get. There are already enough of avenues for gambling for people who really want it, that it's hard to argue it's worth the cost of doing so much damage in Massachusetts just to create a few more. The damage won't be limited just to people who want casinos and are willing to take the cost; it'll hit plenty of people who either don't care or don't want casinos, and don't deserve to be struck by the toxic effects on their surroundings.

Question 4 - Earned Sick Time for Employees: Yes

Companies with 11 or more employees would be required to offer at least 5 paid sick days a year. Currently, they can offer zero sick days. 5 isn't a lot. Also since a lot of the businesses that don't offer sick days are food service, passing this question would reduce the likelihood that when you eat out, you're eating food prepared by someone who has the flu but couldn't afford to take a day off out of fear of losing their job so they pretended to be well.

Others also recommending No-Yes-Yes-Yes:

• Blue Mass Group's endorsements: No, Yes, Yes, Yes


• The Boston Globe: No on 1, Yes on 2, Yes on 3, Yes on 4.


• Progressive Mass: No, Yes, Yes, Yes.


• League of Women Voters MA: No, Yes, Yes. They haven't taken a position on question 4.


• mangosteen says No, Yes, Yes, Yes. As does l33tminion.


• Progressive Democrats of Somerville founder Rebekah Gewirtz's Summer into Fall 2014 Newsletter recommends No, Yes, Yes Yes.


• College Democrats of Massachusetts voter guide says No, Yes, Yes, Yes

Comments

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

I've only one question re: 2, which is, who gets the money from the deposits that aren't redeemed?

[cos]

Currently, the money goes into the general fund, along with all other taxes. A side effect of Question 2 would be to separate that money into a fund specifically for environmental protection.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on all of this, for all the same reasons.

[wotw]

[cutting the gas tax] only makes sense if you hate taxes on principle and want any way to cut them down....

Or, of course, if you think that gas is currently overtaxed relative to other things.

You, presumably, don't believe that, which is fine. Your blindness to the very possibility that someone might believe it is much less fine.

Similar comments apply to the other parts of your post, but rather than elaborate in detail, let me just suggest that if you start by pretending that everybody agrees with your assumptions and then infer that they're stupid if they don't agree with your conclusions, you're a) never going to convince anybody of anything and b) never going to learn anything. You are free, of course, not to care.

[cos]

I think I directly stated that this question, masquerading as a way to stop increases, is actually a gas tax cut, but it's weird one that doesn't actually say it's a cut. People who actually want to cut the gas tax might vote for it, though an honest straightforward cut would be preferable, but I think that's implied by my post. As a gas tax cut, though, this question is still inherently stupid, and it is that way specifically because it wants to pretend to be something other than what it is because its proponents didn't think they could cut the gas tax at the ballot honestly.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Federal gas tax hasn't gone up since 1993 and currently pays for only 2/3 of road costs. So it's definitely undertaxed given its stated purpose.

MA tax has barely gone up in the same period, and our infrastructure (which it pays for) isn't exactly shining.

And a higher tax is the most effective way of slowing down fossil fuel use, so unless you're a global warming denier that's a good thing too.

[paradoox.livejournal.com]

I'd be in favor of the bottle bill initiative if it didn't have mandatory indexing for inflation. .06 etc. deposits are going to be a PITA.

If MA doesn't have casinos, people are just going to go to other states. It will also bring jobs to MA. I'm annoyed that Suffolk Downs lost to Wynn, but I think that voting Yes on that basis would be cutting off my nose to spite my face.

I'm with you on the other two.

[cos]

Indexing for inflation means it won't go up faster than inflation, so I don't see the problem. Having deposits eventually reduce in value such that they don't motivate people anymore would be a problem, so this solves that. If it weren't in this bill, it would eventually happen by legislation anyway, and it makes sense. I can't understand why you'd support the bottle bill but don't because of this very sensible and straightforward provision. What's the PITA?

As for casinos, no, they will destroy jobs. That is very very clear. Everywhere that has added casinos since the first two (Las Vegas and Atlantic City) saw a net loss of jobs due to them within a fairly short time. The first two worked out differently only because they were the only ones in the country so they drew a national audience, something that's not going to happen here. People already go to other states, and that's just fine; we don't need to damage our economy and vastly increase our costs to government, just to get those people to gamble here instead, when it's a net loss to us.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Also, Las Vegas and Atlantic City are dying. LV is trying to reinvent itself to focus on things OTHER than gambling; AC is just folding up into a sad mess. Because gambling isn't very profitable any more.

[cos]

I neglected to mention that, but yes, casinos are no longer paying off in those places either, very likely because so many more casinos have opened elsewhere. The more casinos open, the worse it'll be for every one, both the existing ones and the new ones.

[paradoox.livejournal.com]

IMO, Atlantic City is dying because PA and CT have taken the business away from it.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

And yet PA and CT aren't doing significantly better, either.

This is NOT an argument in favor of getting ourselves to be part of this mess. There's no significant upside.

[goljerp]

Perhaps paradoox was thinking that adding 6 cents to the price of a drink would be a pain; I disagree. As it is, things rarely cost even amounts anyhow, what with sales taxes of fractions of a percent. (I'm assuming MA no longer is a straight 5% sales tax. NYC is something like 8.135% now.)

[cos]

Massachusetts sales tax is 6.25%.

Retailers in some fields adjust prices such that the final amount, including all taxes, comes to a whole amount. But for bottled drinks most retailers seem to favor prices that end in x9 cents in the final digit. I bet they'd keep doing that regardless of the deposit amount.

[paradoox.livejournal.com]

There is no sales tax on alcohol (or soft drinks or IIRC any of the drinks in question) in MA. It is convenient knowing that a six pack has .30 deposit and a case has 1.20 deposit. And what happens when someone buys a can with a .06 deposit and then the deposit is .07 when they go to return it? This just seems like a complication. Heck, I'd even be OK with saying the deposit gets rounded to the nearest .05. Leave the deposit at .05 or round it to the nearest .05 and stamp the item with the correct deposit, but indexing to the CPI is going to be a PITA.

[cos]

It only gets changed every five years, with a lot of advance notice. I don't understand what's so "convenient" about one number vs. some other number; you'd quickly learn what it is and know it just as well. It sounds like you're inventing complications for something that is really quite simple, and I can't figure out why, unless you really don't like the bottle bill for other reasons you're not saying.

[goljerp]

As far as what happens when someone buys a can with a .06 deposit and then the deposit is .07 when they go to return it? Same thing that happens when you buy a can with a 5 cent deposit in MA and then return it in CA for 10 cents. (Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode about that?) (Answer: it all seems to work, somehow.)

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Are casinos a net income or net cost to the states in which they reside? They make money for the operators, but they are usually a net cost for the larger community.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Here's a way to think about casinos.

It's like bringing the Olympics to a city.

Only it's an ONGOING cost, instead of a SINGLE disastrous financial burden.

[cos]

Well, and it also doesn't come with any glory or spectacle or pride or international attention, to make up for the mess.

[paradoox.livejournal.com]

I disagree. The people in PA, especially the Poconos, seem very happy for the Casino. At the very least it is no different than any big development (like say Assembly Row).

[cos]

It's quite different from other big developments. Lots of examples exist and research and stats collected. We know that casinos drain the local economy, reduce the number of jobs, lower average wages, increase crime and gambling addiction, and cost tax money.

[paradoox.livejournal.com]

It's pretty clear that no one is convincing anyone of anything here.

[cos]

I don't think that's clear. You don't know who's reading and what all of them think. Neither do I. I am somewhat astonished at the arguments you make against the bottle bill, since they really do not make any shred of sense that I can discern, but my replies aren't solely to convince you. The very fact that you made those arguments suggests that it may be hard to convince you, because I can't imagine such arguments coming from someone who doesn't have some deeper unstated reason to be biased against it, but it's still useful to lay it all out for anyone who comes along and reads. (Voting against expanding recycling because a possibility of a future 6 cent deposit feels inconvenient somehow? Really? I hope you don't expect me to think anyone would seriously entertain that notion and be considered sensible.)

When it comes to casinos, it just sounds like you have some false information in your head, and possibly do honestly believe that they don't destroy jobs and impose expenses on the area they're in. Whether you want to stick with those ideas is up to you, but I don't want others who don't have that information in their heads already to see it here and assume it's true.

[dpolicar]

That's not true. Listening to y'all debate these questions is helping me make up my mind.

[miekec]

Ditto

[truthspeaker.livejournal.com]

For a long time now, I've been in favor of repealing the bottle bill and no longer collecting a deposit on bottles. However, you have provided me with the first piece of evidence I've seen that the bottle bill does encourage recycling in this day of curbside collections. My argument against was that the deposit law doesn't encourage recycling, but if that argument isn't valid, then I will flip my vote to a YES.

If 80% of bottles with deposits are recycled, while only 25% of bottles without deposits are recycled, that does imply that deposits encourage recycling (or, logically, there is a specific property of the bottles without deposit that make them inherently less likely to be recycled -- correlation, rather than causation -- though I can't see what that property would be).

How does it encourage recycling? Is it because some areas don't have curbside recycling, and this is the only way to get people to recycle there? Is there some other reason?

[cos]

I'm not sure anyone has done the research to determine exactly why it encourages recycling so effectively, they've just collected stats on what bottles end up at recycling facilities, relative numbers of bottles on the ground and in public trashcans (by random sampling), etc. So we know the outcomes, but I don't think we know the causes for sure.

One theory I hold is that a significant part of the difference comes from motivating very poor people who cannot find paid employment to spend part of their time picking up bottles on streets, in parks, and from trash bins on trash day, to turn them in for recycling as a bit of income. But I think that's just part of it. I certainly know plenty of people who hoard deposit bottles at home until they have a chance, once a month, to go turn them in, even though they *do* have curbside recycling, where it would be much more convenient to place the bottles. If the deposits are motivating for them, they are probably at least as motivating for people who don't have curbside recycling, and less than 50% of MA has it. So that's possibly also a significant part of it.

[truthspeaker.livejournal.com]

Well, even though I have a prior bias against deposits, I will have to go with the data (just like I'd want other people to do with other issues). If the question passes, I expect that there will eventually be statistics available on how recycling rates change. So, I guess you've changed one vote at least...

[miekec]

Thanks for doing the research - it helps at least me. I agree with 1, 2, and 4. Unsure about the casino issue. It would seem to bring jobs, but then again, I haven't done the research to support my thoughts. I can see that it would increase crime and addiction, but not how it would be toxic. They still have to hire people to run the place, and that would *bring* jobs, no? From what I understand, they are creating jobs where there currently aren't any.

[mytheria.livejournal.com]

Casinos actually really hurt local businesses. Basically because people tend to come to the casino, stay in the casino, and then get back on the highway. So going to the local restaurant now means dealing with all the casino traffic and people instead go away from the area for their errands.

Even the developers agree.

According to a federal reserve bank report: Steve Wynn, a major casino operator, expressed this point to local businessmen in Bridgeport which also considered a casino, in the 1990s: “There is no reason on earth for any of you to expect for more than a second that just because there are people here, they’re going to run into your restaurants and stores just because we build this building [casino] here.”

Also, for the Everett one, it has a lot of poorly planned aspects. Infrastructure hasn't kept up with all the recent development of stuff in the Wellington area.

[miekec]

Thanks!

[pryder]

Here in the US, a casino near a city that is a tourist attraction pretty much hasn't been tried. Las Vegas was a desert before the casinos arrived. Atlantic City was a dying beach resort at a time when the entire Jersey Shore was failing. Most other casinos are on remote tribal land; a few are located near minor cities that nobody wanted to visit anyway.

The Suffolk Downs proposal would have been something new: a casino with transit access to a major tourist city. It might have led (and I say MIGHT because it hasn't been tried anywhere) to a new kind of casino visit: people who come to the casino, but who also travel into the city to enjoy other attractions or have a meal. It also would have led to city residents traveling to the casino for its attractions: not just gambling, but also restaurants and performances. And it would have provided jobs that urban residents could get to without automobiles.

The location chosen in Everett lacks those advantages. It has no transit access; Wynn has proposed a water taxi service, but water taxis are unreliable because they can't run in bad weather. It is also difficult to drive to, unlike Suffolk Downs which is located on a highway.

I wanted a casino in the Boston area. But I wanted it at Suffolk Downs, where it could have helped our city. Since the powers that be have decided that we can't have that, I am now inclined to vote against casinos.

[tartarylamb.livejournal.com]

I agree that having a casino right outside Boston would be really weird. We don't need a casino to attract more tourists to Boston, though of course Everett has never been a tourist destination before and wants its shot at getting them.

But I suspect that people who go to casinos will tend to drive there. They don't strike me as T riders or bikers (as in bicyclists). And if they're driving to Everett, besides mucking up the traffic locally, they'll most likely be adding to the traffic on routes 93 and 128 as well.

My husband's from a state with lots of casinos, on tribal land that's sometimes near cities like Everett, but NOT near a city like Boston. They're already kind of sad places, and the casinos just make them sadder. From the clientele out there, I even wondered if casinos might be dying out along with the older generation -- it's a kind of "entertainment" that an older generation likes/liked, but doesn't really interest younger people. (and this is putting aside the whole issue of gambling addiction and crime and running Mom & Pop places out of business).

I'm voting to Repeal the Deal because our whole state can do better than this. And Everett is bound to get its moment in the sun soon; it can become the next Somerville, if not the next Malden...

[cos]

The simplest way to put it I think is that corporate casinos extract money from people that they would otherwise have spent on other things, and send that money to faraway wealth executives. People who would've spent that money on movies, eating out, new furniture, etc., gamble it away, and local businesses suffer. While at the same time, casinos promote much higher rates of gambling addiction and crime, creating an expensive burden for local government, families, friends, and bystanders.

[persis.livejournal.com]

Thank you for a clear explanation of the questions.