Tuesday, April 24, 2018 16:21

Economic Trash Talking

As the majority of  Massachusetts towns go, Clinton doesn’t follow…because we’re smarter, or so BOS candidate Mike Dziokonski thinks.  At the recent candidates night, Board of Selectmen candidates talked about an important economic policy, that was the annual setting of the residential-commercial/industrial tax rate split. Dziokonski said, “I think we’re smarter than 89 percent of the towns,” referring to Champagne’s figures*. “I don’t think it’s a deterrent to business,” he said, adding the actual rate and actual tax bills were attractive. “I’m fairly happy with the split.

*Mr. Champagne was referring to the fact that 89% of cities-towns have lower rate splits (309 out of 348) and 241 have no split (69%)..

How presumptuous to say such a thing. Clinton is most likely in a worse financial mess than 89% of the cities and towns in Massachusetts, not smarter. That’s not to say we don’t have smart people here, but the failed economic policies of the past are why we’re in the fiscal morass we’re in.  Dziokonski doesn’t think it’s a deterrent to businesses, to which I say he should go talk to our small business owners and ask them what they think.  I have and they are hurting from it. Look no further than your small neighborhood market or garage, how does this almost doubled property tax effect them? Look at larger businesses like Nypro and Weetabix. They pay astronomical tax bills, if they didn’t maybe they’d have the ability to hire more employees. Mr. Dziokonski also said “I think businesses in this country are presently taxed at the lowest rate since just after World War II”. This is a misleading statement, in general the largest of our corporations such as GE for instance, do take advantage of loopholes in federal tax laws, not the small to medium businesses that are located in Clinton. This was a really disingenuous comparison of federal taxation vs local property taxes and is pre-election rhetoric to enable Mr. Dziokonski to justify the lopsided rate split Clinton uses.  But then again he thinks we’re smarter than 89% of the communities in Massachusetts!

Mr. LeBlanc said “he was against changing it in favor of businesses, saying a change would not help attract business; availability of space was a bigger issue”. That too is a fallacy as Clinton has many empty factory buildings and storefronts. I guess he’s trying to cover his posterior since as Chairman of the BOS he’s let the position of Director of Community and Economic Development languish. Empty since September 2010, previously manned by someone who was totally inept and did nothing for a year and vacant for a long time prior to the inept office holder.  So just about 2 1/2 years of no Economic Development activity in Clinton. This was also on their sponsor, MaryRose Dickhauts watch.

So as you can clearly see there is a connection in that they are all anti-business, they don’t realize that a thriving business community is the key to increased tax revenue and a better Clinton.

2 Responses to “Economic Trash Talking”

  1. Terry says:

    I didn’t get the point when I watched it but now that you’ve explained this subject I do. Why would these candidates want to overtax businesses? I was out of work for a long time , now working thankfully. It would have been nice to have been able to get a job locally but I can see why businesses won’t come here. I work in Auburn and I think they have a split but it’s a lot lower than Clinton. I think its 1.30 or around there. A lot of businesses are going there because Worcester has a high split rate.

    terry

  2. LETTER: Candidate urges ‘no’ vote on override

    http://www.telegram.com/article/20110603/COULTER01/106039972/1189

    This year Worcester City Manager Michael V. O’Brien made a courageous and principled stand. He told all Worcester municipal employees, including teachers, that if they did not agree to higher health insurance premium payment shares, co-payments, and deductibles, 129 Worcester municipal employees would be laid off. There the idea of a Proposition 2 ½ override was not even floated.

    In Clinton, on the other hand, the Board of Selectmen, the School Committee, and the school superintendent failed to display any such political or moral courage. They did not attempt to save property-owning taxpayers any money by forcing Clinton municipal employees to accept higher health insurance premium payment shares, deductibles, and co-payments at levels common to private sector employees and taxpayers who are paying the freight. They expect property-owning Clinton taxpayers to pay for their political and moral cowardice by swallowing a Proposition 2 ½ override — and higher property taxes — instead.

    Clinton voters should know that this is definitely not “about the children.” It’s all about unionized public employees maintaining their gold-plated benefits at taxpayer expense. Vote “no” on the Proposition 2 ½ override June 13.

    Clifford Blake

    Candidate for selectman

    Clinton

Leave a Reply