2016 Op-Ed: Income Inequality

I believe that Cambridge should be a welcoming and inclusive city for people from all backgrounds; and that everyone should be able to make a good life for themselves in this wonderful community.

I’m particularly proud of an op-ed that I wrote in January of 2016 for Wicked Local Cambridge, and I wanted to share it here.

We are currently facing a crisis of inequality, and I do not want Cambridge to become a city of the haves and the have nots. We will need bold and creative solutions to ensure that people from all walks of life can thrive here.

Please read the op-ed here and let me know what you think – I am always available to hear from you.

Disparity in tax rates is morally unacceptable

Boston recently earned the dubious distinction of being named the American city with the widest gap between its top 5 percent and bottom 20 percent of earners. The Boston metro area, which encompasses the eastern part of our state, ranked sixth in the nation in income inequality in the same study.

The gap between the rich and the poor in Massachusetts is nearing crisis levels, and manifests itself in many ways — public school achievement gaps, transportation access disparities, and the wider erosion of the middle class. This inequality is only compounded by the growing divide between the effective tax rates paid by the bottom 20 percent of earners versus the top 5 percent. As it stands now, those making more than $860,000 per year pay, on average, an effective state and local tax rate that is 38 percent lower than that of those making less than $22,000 per year. Given that our state is grappling with problems like backlogged road and bridge repairs, failing and inadequate public transportation infrastructure, and a scholastic achievement gap between children of rich and poor families that only continues to widen, this disparity in tax rates is not just unfair, it is morally unacceptable.

I believe that the Fair Share Tax proposal — a constitutional amendment that would create a 4 percent marginal tax on incomes over $1 million — is the best chance that we have had in a generation to address these problems. If passed, this amendment would quickly bring the effective tax rates paid by residents at both ends of the income spectrum in line with each other. And by raising an estimated $1.9 billion to finance public education, roads and bridges, and public transportation, it would provide the state with the means to make long-overdue investments.

Critics of this proposal may point to national rankings that show the Massachusetts public school system outperforming most states in test scores. It’s indisputable that Massachusetts has some highly skilled students with impeccable academic achievements. So, too, is the fact that we have one of the nation’s highest income-based school achievement gaps.

Unfortunately, our public education system is currently not an even playing field. The quality of public schools, in terms of amenities and infrastructure, varies dramatically from community to community with household income being a determining factor to high school graduation rates and future college attendance.

One of the reasons for this is that we don’t have universal access to early education, which means that children from low-income households are at a disadvantage before they even enter elementary school. Only 48 percent of children from low-income families are ready for school at the age of 5 as compared to 75 percent of children from higher-income families.

Massachusetts is the nation’s education pioneer. We’re home to the first public schools and were the first state to establish a State Board of Education because we believed then, like we believe today, that education is our primary social equalizer. Our constitution requires our governing bodies to set standards that ensure all children a high-quality education regardless of class. The Fair Share Tax proposal would give us a greater opportunity to uphold these values.

On the other hand, it would be difficult for anyone to argue that our transportation system does not desperately need substantial investment in both its state of good repair backlog and in key system upgrades. Anyone who has waited for two full Red Line trains to leave a station before barely squeezing on to a third can tell you that capacity problems are only growing worse.

And as the repair and replacement needs of the T’s equipment continue to be put off in order to close budget deficits, on-time performance and reliability suffer. As rising housing costs push our region’s poor and working-class residents further and further from the urban core, their access to reliable public transit diminishes, and yet their reliance on it remains the same.

For these reasons, investment in transit is both a pressing moral and economic issue —without it, the gap between rich and poor will only continue to broaden.

In the Parable of the Faithful Servant, Jesus says, “To whom much is given much will be required” — a phrase I have heard repeated often in recent weeks. While it is true that much of the wealth in this commonwealth has been earned through skill, perseverance, and hard work, without the things that we choose to provide as public goods — chief among them the education of future workers and the infrastructure that allows for the exchange of goods and services — much of that wealth would be impossible.

The Fair Share Tax will require more of our state’s wealthiest residents — that much is true — but no more than what we already require of the poorest. This is hardly a biblical standard to meet, and we would be foolish not to strive for it.

Tim Toomey is state representative for the 26th Middlesex District, which includes Somerville and Cambridge. He is also a Cambridge city councilor.

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *