January 7, 2008

Excuse Me? NH Workers/Voters Fleeced by Objectively Unfit Massachusetts Mitt …. And Now He Wants Their Vote?

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 1:06 pm

This ought to be in Ripley’s Believe It or Not. But unfortunately, it’s an ugly reality:

SOON AFTER becoming Massachusetts governor, Willard Mitt Romney retroactively imposed new taxes on non-residents, including Granite State citizens who work, conduct business, and/or invest in the Bay State. Romney’s higher taxes reached into New Hampshire and helped vacuum at least $95 million in marginal income back across the border.

According to Massachusetts Department of Revenue figures, the total amount that New Hampshire taxpayers surrendered to Massachusetts grew from $213.6 million in 2002 to $248.9 million in 2006, a 16.5 percent increase. (Data for 2006 are preliminary.)


These rules now cover “gain from the sale of a business or of an interest in a business, distributive share income, separation, sick or vacation pay, deferred compensation and [state-taxable] nonqualified pension income.” On Aug. 9, 2004 Romney also taxed non-residents’ shares of income from real-estate partnerships.

“Romney created these taxes new,” says Robert Roughsedge, a Hampton attorney who works in Boston. “He taxed more people and companies than before. This is what a dying state must do to keep the tax base. This is not a pro-growth, Reagan-type answer to the problem. . . . Romney chose to tax the people who left, increase the people outside of the state subject to taxation, and probably remove the incentive to leave by increasing the cost.”

This fleecing of out-of-state workers is courtesy of the Commonwealth that, if I recall correctly, once had a Tea Party over “Taxation Without Representation.”

Now that they have a unique chance to have their say, why anyone from New Hampshire would support a governor from another state whose policies are now extracting a quarter-billion dollars from Granite State residents, and thus its economy, is a complete mystery to me.


UPDATE: Yeah, I know Ohio cities do the same to non-resident employees who work in their respective cities with their municipal income taxes. That’s a ridiculous outrage too, and always has been.



  1. To make me realize the extent to which the conservative movement is in trouble, all that was necessary was for me to listen to Rush Limbaugh and to read Bizzyblog on the same day today. A big fat chasm is opening up. Romney, Huck, and McCain represent three unworkable alternatives in terms of getting everybody to agree.

    I’m baffled by some of the issues that seem to get you so animated about Romney, but by the right combination of unforgiving standards, yep, all of them are losers.

    And while these internal battles play out, trend information suggests that the Democrats are sweeping up anyone independent or in the middle. In droves.

    I realize the party line is that “if conservatives act like rock-ribbed conservatives they’ll win”. Based on the street fight that is taking place about conservatism – that’s starting to seem like a very dangerous lie, and the type of thing people keep repeating to themselves long after the dynamic has completely changed.

    It’s also odd that you are so dead-set against the only guy with the courage to speak up in defense of businesses and the free market.

    Comment by Brendan — January 7, 2008 @ 5:41 pm

  2. #1, I acknowledge the potential problem you noted. But it’s Jan., for crying out loud.

    At least you’re acknowledging that Romney has a plethora of problems. Now it’s time for the next step, which is that there isn’t a principles-based bone in his body, even when it comes to capitalism.

    Perhaps you’ve missed this about his and Bain’s very disturbing Russian-Chinese-Iranian investments:


    Given the entanglements, I’m not even sure he would represent this country’s interests.

    Comment by TBlumer — January 7, 2008 @ 6:53 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.