It is Election day. We all know the debate: Obama and change OR Mccain and the same but lets not forget about these 3 ballot questions...
The 1st question is the one that most people are torn on. More money in your pocket but then the government will tax you somewhere else? I'M VOTING NO
The 2nd question is a little bit easier. Decriminalizing a plant? I say Legalize it and tax that sonofabitch!!! I'M VOTING YES
The 3rd question is a moral question. Some believe that the dogs are treated unfairly. I know some people are animal lovers and think its inhumane to race the dogs but as you can see From 2000 to 2007, these tracks paid over $40 million to the commonwealth in commissions and fees
, if you get rid of the track then thats almost 6 million a year that the state is no longer receiving...I'M VOTING NO
Ballot Question 1: State Personal Income Tax
This proposed law would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65 percent for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2010.
The personal income tax applies to income received, or gain realized, by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of “S corporations” as defined under federal tax law. The proposed law would not affect the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before Jan. 1, 2009.
The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
A “YES” vote would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65 percent for the tax year beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2010.
A “NO” vote would make no change in state income tax laws.
Ballot Question 2: Possession of Marijuana
This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state’s criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.
Offenders under 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be notified of the offense and the option for the offender to complete a drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth Services. Such programs would include 10 hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs and emphasizing early detection and prevention of substance abuse.
The penalty for offenders under 18 who fail to complete such a program within one year could be increased to as much as $1,000, unless the offender showed an inability to pay or an inability to participate in such a program, or the unavailability of such a program. Such an offender’s parents could also be held liable for the increased penalty. Failure by an offender under 17 to complete such a program could also be a basis for a delinquency proceeding.
The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol (“THC”), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one’s body.
Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing any other penalty, sanction, or disqualification, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana.
The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.
A “YES” vote would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.
A “NO” vote would make no change in state criminal laws concerning possession of marijuana.
Ballot Question 3: Dog Racing
This proposed law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs.
The State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing.
Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission. The penalty would be used for the Commission’s administrative purposes, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature. All existing parts of the chapter of the state’s General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs.
These changes would take effect Jan. 1, 2010. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
A “YES” vote would prohibit dog races on which betting or wagering occurs, effective Jan. 1, 2010.
A “NO” vote would make no change in the laws governing dog racing.
About 1,000 people will lose badly needed jobs if the proposal is enacted. The commonwealth, Revere and Raynham will lose badly needed revenue. From 2000 to 2007, these tracks paid over $40 million to the commonwealth in commissions and fees, as well as other taxes related to their racing activities. Finally enactment will likely subject the commonwealth to suits by the tracks for taking their property.
I'm voting for Richard Prior 'None of the Above'!
Post a Comment