Respecting the rights of all means that I respect your right not to eat meat or to eat meat from a supermarket and not to hunt. I expect the same respect.
Democrats' health bills depend on forcing individuals to buy insurance or face severe fines or imprisonment.
More Columns >>>
- > Charles M. Arlinghaus: The new health care bureaucracy (18)
- > Kathy Sulivan: Don't read too much into recent election results (18)
- > Joe McQuaid: Not to be outdone, the Granite State must have a fossil to call its own (8)
- > Two stories for the book on hunting (7)
- > Fergus Cullen: Is Lamontagne too good for politics? (6)
- > Garth Corriveau: Time to deliver better government for Manchester (19)
- > Douglas J. Wenners: Congress' proposed reforms will raise health insurance rates (35)
- > Charles M. Arlinghaus: City's revenue sharing loss was inevitable (12)
- > Deroy Murdock: Pelosi's health care bill is the nanny state run amok (31)
- > Joe McQuaid: Contemplating a misplaced grandkid, Kathleen Parker's visit
- > John Clayton: Dad takes on 'Naked Baby Syndrome' (14)
- > John Harrigan: We can't let this go without a challenge (21)
- > Greg Moore: Tuesday's message from voters: Butt out, party bosses (8)
- > Kathleen Parker: Saving the news (11)
- > Grace Mattern: Domestic violence is a bigger problem than many realize (9)
Deroy Murdock: Romney raised taxes on NH commuters
By DEROY MURDOCK
Thursday, Jan. 3, 2008
SOON AFTER becoming Massachusetts governor, Willard Mitt Romney retroactively imposed new taxes on non-residents, including Granite State citizens who work, conduct business, and/or invest in the Bay State. Romney's higher taxes reached into New Hampshire and helped vacuum at least $95 million in marginal income back across the border.
According to Massachusetts Department of Revenue figures, the total amount that New Hampshire taxpayers surrendered to Massachusetts grew from $213.6 million in 2002 to $248.9 million in 2006, a 16.5 percent increase. (Data for 2006 are preliminary.)
Had 2002's tax baseline remained flat, New Hampshire taxpayers would have kept $95 million in cumulative payments to Massachusetts since 2003. Higher revenues often are a supply-side effect of tax cuts. This is not so when taxes increase.
Massachusetts tax revenues from New Hampshire residents increased even as the number of New Hampshire residents who paid Massachusetts taxes fell 2.3 percent -- from 89,304 in 2002 to 87,320 in 2006. The checks shrank in number, but swelled in value. The average tax payment from New Hampshire expanded $458 -- from $2,392 in 2002 to $2,850 in 2006 -- up 19.2 percent.
"That's even more remarkable when you consider that the number of New Hampshire taxpayers who pay (as opposed to simply file) didn't change in what appears to be any statistically significant way during this period, yet the average tax payment went up substantially," says Cato Institute scholar Stephen Slivinski.
These higher payments perfectly coincide with legislation Romney signed on March 5, 2003, retroactive to that Jan. 1. Under Romney's law, "gross income derived from. . . any trade or business, including any employment," would be taxable, "regardless of the taxpayer's residence or domicile in the year it is received."
"Romney created these taxes new," says Robert Roughsedge, a Hampton attorney who works in Boston. "He taxed more people and companies than before. This is what a dying state must do to keep the tax base. This is not a pro-growth, Reagan-type answer to the problem. . . . Romney chose to tax the people who left, increase the people outside of the state subject to taxation, and probably remove the incentive to leave by increasing the cost."
"This research confirms what I said when Mitt Romney started attacking Rudy Giuliani on the commuter-tax issue in New York," says former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci, who supports Giuliani.
"That was an existing tax. Mayor Giuliani had other priorities in terms of tax cutting. He provided broad-based tax relief for New York residents and businesses, something Mitt Romney could not do in Massachusetts. It's ironic that Mayor Giuliani did not raise taxes on commuters, yet he gets criticized by a guy who did raise taxes on commuters, in particular people in New Hampshire who work in Massachusetts."
Had Romney's spokesmen commented, as requested, they might have observed that he sped a $275 million capital gains tax rebate, scored property-tax relief for seniors and secured a two-day, tax-free shopping holiday.
Nonetheless, Merrimack's Bob Bevill, chairman of the conservative New Hampshire Eagle Forum, is among those who condemn Romney for $283 million in business "loophole closures" and $501.5 million in increased fees on marriage licenses, gun registrations, gasoline deliveries, property-deed certificates, and more.
"New Hampshire taxpayers should be concerned that Mr. Romney will continue his semantically challenged shell-game of raising taxes, through increased users fees and special tariffs, while publicly stating that he has not raised taxes," Bevill says. "A vote for Romney is a vote for higher taxes -- no matter what they are called."
New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

.jpg)




Andrew Cline has been editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader since October of 2001. His writing has appeared in more than 100 newspapers and magazines, including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and National Review.
Print
Email
Mobile
Reader comments
YOUR COMMENTS
I read with interest Deroy Murdock's analysis of the former Gov's decision to tax NH commuters that work in MA. What the writer fails to tell you is that the salaries in MA are higher than in NH, however, the cost of living in NH is quite a bit lower than in MA. Some MA residents register their car in NH and actually live in MA. MA is working on that currently. POINT: The former Gov. is a good business man. As the residents were looking for a loophole to work but not have to support their "working" state; Mitt closed a loophole for lost potential revenue; he was protecting HIS state. If anyone should be upset it's the good folks of MA that live, work, educate their children and support their state with proportional taxes and didn't take advantage on that loophole. It's not personal, it's good business. Of course, the writer being from CA gives you the "bad" news rather that the "whys" of an action that created balanced budgets year after year. I wish Mr. Murdock's name, title and location were printed at the beginning of the article, I would have skipped to the next letter!
- Judy Krahulec, Laconia NH
NOTE: If you have visited this page before, newer comments may be hidden. Press F5, or hold down the Ctrl key while reloading or refreshing the page. (Another option for Firefox users is the Clear Cache add-on.)