Andover Townsman, Andover, MA

Opinion

Discussion

Welcome to our online comments feature. To join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address. Once you do, your comments will post automatically. We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean. We reserve the right to remove comments that are obscene, racist or abusive and statements that are false or unverifiable. Repeat offenders will be blocked. You may flag objectionable comments for review by a moderator.

comments powered by Disqus
March 4, 2010

Letter: In fairness, public pensions should be taxed

Editor, Townsman:
Doing my annual tax return brought to mind a long standing concern – why does the State of Massachusetts continue to not apply the income tax to state, county, municipal and federal retirees’ pensions? Purely on the grounds of equity and fairness this seems wrong. These retirees use the same state supported highways and law enforcement that I do, their towns benefit from the same revenue-sharing and education support that I do, their needy get the same state funding, and they ride the same state-subsidized transportation that I do.
I am not trying to gore someone else’s ox here as I have a half dozen public employees in my immediate family. When state budgets aren’t sustainable, where spending is the problem but won’t be tackled by the legislature, why do we go for more revenue from the same folks we already tax, and miss the elephant in the room of untaxed public pensions?
I do not intend to belittle public employees in any way, but they must also do their share. I don’t want to hear that they worked for less, that they don’t get Social Security, and that their untaxed pension are much deserved rewards for this. All this is already balanced by job security and the scarity of layoffs unheard of in the private sector where a series a career layoffs decimate acrued savings.
The current “Great Recession” so far is one almost exclusively of the private sector. Private sector pensions are much much lower for the same set of salary and years of work than public pensions, if such private sector pensions exist at all. Private pensions almost never have cost of living increases, public pensions almost always do. Many private sector retirees get no health insurance, most public sector retirees get health insurance for life. Until a few years ago, teachers with 30 years of work, got 80 percent of their working salary, all without state taxation – effectively having 86 percent of their working salary to live on in retirement. Such a deal in the private sector is “the impossible dream.” Each of us must weigh the benefits of employment in both sectors and make our choices for employment. The private sector however, should not be taxed to support public benefits so disparate from what they see in their own working experience.
It is a free county, but it should not be a free ride for public sector retirees in Massachusetts. This should be an easy legislative fix and a significant new income source for the state, with widespread public support. We overthrew the privileded classes at Lexington and Concord many years ago. Fairness and equity require a change. Call or write your local legislator and tell them to make this change, and oh, by the way, tell them to also require state taxation on their retired members also. Tell them to not knock on our door for anymore revenue until everyone in this state is paying for the services they receive from the taxpayer.
Robert R. McCumber
23 Arundel St.
A shorter, edited version of this letter appeared in the March 4, 2010 print edition.

Text Only | Photo Reprints
Opinion

Question of the Week
Pictures of the Week
Stocks