In advance of tomorrow's statewide elections, Massachusetts voters are mulling over two ballot questions relating to state taxes.
Question 1 calls for a complete repeal of the state alcohol tax created in May 2009, while Question 3 would decrease the general state sales tax from 6.25 percent to 3 percent. While both questions could potentially reduce prices on goods statewide, opponents argue they would deal a significant blow to state services.
A "yes" vote on Question 1 could potentially benefit retail alcohol stores and consumers, but many people, especially Democrats, are concerned about the full effects of such a move, according to Tufts Democrats President Seth Rau. The revenue from the tax currently goes toward substance abuse treatment and prevention programs.
"If we were to eliminate the tax, people would buy more alcohol, there would be more substance abuse problems," Rau, a junior, said. "And we would be cutting funding for substance abuse prevention and treatment programs. It's counterintuitive."
Rau helped inform local voters on the ballot questions for the Massachusetts Coordinated Campaign, a group sponsored by the Massachusetts Democratic Party that opens offices for candidates throughout the state. He said he supports a "no" vote on both questions.
Rachel Anderson (LA '10), who last year served as president of the Tufts Republicans and is now a research staff member on Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker's campaign, voted "yes" for Question 1 in early voting because she felt the tax repeal would benefit small businesses in the liquor industry.
The alcohol tax, she said, has made it considerably difficult for Massachusetts liquor stores to compete with those in nearby New Hampshire, which does not have a sales tax.
"It's especially hurting a lot of businesses along the New Hampshire border," Anderson said.
Terry Devlin, managing owner of Hillside Wine and Spirits on Boston Avenue, said he is voting "yes" on Question 1 because he has directly felt the negative effects of the alcohol tax on Massachusetts liquor vendors.
"It's costing jobs to people inside the state," Devlin told the Daily. "Our sales are … heading toward New Hampshire as people are going to the border to buy alcohol."
Devlin believes his store's distance from the border to New Hampshire helps mitigate the tax's effect on his sales, but said it has not eliminated the impact altogether.
"We have been affected, but probably not as heavily as stores closer to the border," Devlin said. "Those stores might not survive. Guys from those stores have told me, ‘We've had to let people go.' They have not hired the same [number], costing a lot of jobs."
Rau believes that alcohol stores close to college campuses like Tufts may benefit from steadier business.
"They have a pretty strong market of college students," Rau said. "Haven't seen a single liquor store around here closed."
Devlin said liquor stores across the state have experienced similar hardships. "It's a universal thing," he said. "We're running with less people."
Though the repeal may support local alcohol vendors, it would adversely affect state-funded alcohol treatment and prevention programs. College students, he said, might easily miss the full scope of the issue.
"Many students are thinking, ‘Of course I don't want to pay a sales tax, it would save us money,'" Rau said. "But for the people who really need prevention-treatment programs, that would be devastating."
Anderson recognized that these programs could be impacted but felt there are ways to solve the problem while still repealing the alcohol tax.
"I know that it makes the state's revenue smaller, and we need to find a way to compensate for that," Anderson told the Daily. "There should be another way to support those programs that are essential."
Another debate concerns Question 3, which seeks to cut the state's sales tax by more than half, from the current 6.25 percent to 3 percent.
Rau, who is also the campaign manager for Mass. State Rep. Carl Sciortino (D-Medford/Somerville, LA '00), said the budget is already tight. Implementation of Question 3, he said, would deal significant blows to the state's coffers and services.
"You would be cutting the state budget by over 10 percent," Rau said. "Question 3 would take off $2.5 billion of the state budget. I don't know how you would cut $2.5 billion without cutting essential social services."
"We can't afford to cut back," Rau said. "People turn to the government when they have nowhere else to turn to."
Republicans are divided on Question 3, with Baker opposing it.
Some Republicans may see the sales tax reduction as too steep for the state to manage. Anderson voted "no" on Question 3; Rau plans to vote "no," too.
"People who believe in lowering taxes in general might vote ‘yes' to stimulate job growth," Anderson said. "But a 3 percent reduction is too much, too fast. That drastic change creates too many problems, when we already have some with this government."
Making a $2.5 billion deficit in the state budget would require more time to plan for smaller revenue and reconfigure the budget, according to Anderson. In the interim, she said, public education could suffer if Massachusetts residents pass Question 3.
"We've already had more cuts to public higher education than any other state in the past two years," she said.
A third ballot initiative, Question 2, pertains not to taxes but to the issue of affordable housing.
Voters will decide whether to repeal Massachusetts state law statue Chapter 40B, which allows low- and moderate-income housing developers to build with a single housing permit. It allows those developers to circumvent traditional zoning restrictions in order to build housing units for lower- and moderate-income tenants.
