To the Editor: Death and taxes: these are the two things so often said to be inevitable in life. But while, as citizens, we can’t avoid taxes, we often have the opportunity to control them. As expressed in a Commentary article by Chris Kent last week, Massachusetts voters will be voting on two ballot measures next month regarding the state sales tax on alcohol and on reducing the state sales tax. I am writing to implore all those voting in Massachusetts to vote NO on Questions 1 and 3. As presented in the aforementioned article, Question 1 is a proposal to eliminate the state sales tax on alcohol. The current sales tax on alcohol stands at 6.25 percent. At the register, this amounts to 62.5 cents on a $10 bottle of wine, or around 50 cents on a six-pack of beer. The fact of the matter is that this is a sin tax. It is a tax on something that is not a necessity and that has proven to be harmful to human health. In addition to providing about $110 million per year in revenue, the sales tax on alcohol serves as a deterrent to those for whom a few cents is a lot but otherwise, should not adversely affect purchasing of alcohol by consumers. And while I find it difficult to believe that liquor stores would be able to “give back to their communities” with a repeal of the tax, it is true that revenue generated from a state sales tax on liquor helps to treat over 100,000 people in Massachusetts suffering with addiction. With regards to Question 3, a reduction of the state sales tax from 6.25 percent to 3 percent, I find even more issue. As mentioned in the article, the tax does not affect necessities like prescription medication, grocery items or clothing. However, the 6.25 pecent sales tax brings in $2.5 billion of revenue per year, which provides for public education, health care and public safety. Massachusetts can pride itself on the fact that it has the lowest percentage of citizens without health care of all the 50 states and that it has one of the most competitive public school programs in the nation. These are not things that should be jeopardized by further cutting our revenue in the midst of an economic crisis where difficult budget cuts are already being made. As far as “ridiculous scare tactics” like teacher layoffs, streetlight shutdowns and curtailing of emergency services go, Massachusetts teachers have been laid off, my street was a little darker this summer as a result of streetlight shutdowns and I personally watched three structure fires burn in Lawrence, unable to be adequately controlled by a fire department that lost 24 firefighters to budget cuts. These are not scare tactics. This is public wellbeing that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is responsible for protecting. I will not deny that there are unnecessary government expenditures or that there is a need for accountability on Beacon Hill, but I do reject that cutting taxes is the correct way to implement reform. Taxes are an inherent part of a liberal democracy. They allow us to take care of the sick, educate our children and secure public safety. The heart of the issue is that Mr. Kent believes that citizens know how to better spend their money than the government. The truth is that, as admirable as a $30,000 donation to Haiti or Darfur on behalf of Phillips Academy students would be, it is wishful thinking to believe that this is where the money would otherwise go. In the event that Question 3 is passed, I challenge Mr. Kent to make a donation of $32.50, the amount he claims the average Andover student might save, to a soup kitchen or Lazarus house. And until every student, until every citizen of Massachusetts, is prepared to do the same, I propose that we keep the state sales tax at its current level to provide for our children, our poor, our sick and for our public good. Regards, Ryan Ferguson ‘07
