Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SandyBouattick t1_j2soi1t wrote

Reply to comment by GyantSpyder in Healey should give rural Massachusetts a seat at the table - The Boston Globe by GlobeOpinion

That makes sense. Obviously rural MA has the same representation as everyone else, but I see some merit in the complaints that seem to come up over and over here. Rural MA gets outvoted by greater Boston on funding infrastructure for greater Boston, so they have to pay for it but never get to use it. The city response to this is that it is both available for everyone's use and Boston is the economic hub of the state and attracts all the good jobs that generate lots of tax money. I think the only real merit argument for the rural crowd is that there is terrible public transportation from rural MA to Boston. Commuting to Boston from rural MA is pretty unrealistic for most people, and we are trying to reduce the number of cars on the roads, not increase it. Decent commuter rail lines that actually serve western / rural MA would make this much more fair. Rural folks could actually access the jobs and hospitals and culture of the city, and city folks could also enjoy the rural events and sights and activities while bringing some revenue to small towns that need it.

16

wgc123 t1_j2tpl81 wrote

I’m not convinced Boston really does get outsized investment in infrastructure. Of course it gets most, since most of the people are there, most of the taxable income is there, and maybe that will always seem unfair. But does the metro area really get the most funding per capita, or per taxable income?

Infrastructure in rural areas benefits a lot fewer people who bring in a lot less tax income. Maybe your rickety town bridge that only serves a dozen cars a day is relatively more expensive than the Zakim bridge serving tens of thousands

8

SandyBouattick t1_j2tq1pr wrote

Yeah, it's a tough situation to figure out. Having the best hospital in Boston makes sense because the most people are served by it, but then if you pay taxes and have no hospital nearby you don't feel like you're getting much return on your investment. The same with public transportation. Paying a ton to keep the T going in Boston makes sense, but it sucks to pay for it and not even have a train station within a 45 minute drive. It's a classic problem.

5

GreatAndPowerfulNixy t1_j2v5xbz wrote

The furthest west MBTA train stop is in Fitchburg, which is decidedly central MA.

5

wgc123 t1_j31wn6m wrote

But it’s only useful to commute into Boston: are there really people willing to commute farther than that?

Personally I’d like to see high speed trains from Boston to Worcester and Springfield, and wonder if they are big enough to support the beginnings of a train system. While that wouldn’t directly support rural areas, it would be supporting a much higher percentage of residents plus putting transit in reach of more people

2

g_rich t1_j2wcaxu wrote

Greater Boston is the economic driver for the state and generates a majority of income for the state in terms of taxes so it’s actually the other way around.

Greater Boston is the one paying for the infrastructure in rural Mass, so a town 2 hours outside Boston of a few thousand is not paying to maintain the roads in the city of Boston or fund the T; they are actually receiving more for the $1 in taxes they contribute than someone living in Boston, Worcester or Springfield.

They should actually be championing for more investment in the infrastructure of greater Boston, because that investment improves the economic output of the state which generates more taxes which results in more funding for them.

2

SandyBouattick t1_j2wqdor wrote

Do you have a source for this? I'd like to see how the towns break down on local funding vs redistribution from Boston as you say.

1

g_rich t1_j2wwjk6 wrote

If I recall correctly tax sources are roughly 1/3 property tax, 1/3 income tax and the other 1/3 are things like sales tax, corporate taxes, and excise taxes. Massachusetts has a population of a little over 7 million and about 2/3 of those live in the greater Boston metropolitan area. We can remove property taxes from the equation due to those taxes going directly to the cities and towns to fund services such as education, police and fire. That leaves us with the other 2/3 that comprise mostly of income, sales and corporate taxes. Considering that 2/3’s of the population and a large portion of the major corporations being located in the Boston metro it’s safe to say that a majority of income, sales and corporate taxes are coming from the Boston Metro area.

1

SandyBouattick t1_j2xgrb9 wrote

I agree that is safe to say, but it is also safe to say that a majority of MA tax money is spent on the greater Boston metro as well, so that doesn't tell us how much leaves greater Boston and goes to all the rural towns like you said. Do you have a source for your claim? I'd like to verify that and see how much towns are getting from Boston.

2

Red7395 t1_j4dzo5l wrote

All Massachusetts residents pay sales tax. A penny of that goes to the T....whether residents have access to it or not.

1