BOSTON — In November, Massachusetts taxpayers will be asked if they want to vote themselves a tax cut of more than $3,000.

State lawmakers, including several on the North Shore, are worried the answer will be "Yes."

A ballot question would let voters abolish the state income tax. While the proposal has largely flown under the radar, Beacon Hill lawmakers and budget watchdogs are concerned the climate is right for it to pass — with disastrous consequences, in their view.

"Very simply, if that would pass, it would eliminate the income tax (and) $12 billion of revenue," said state Sen. Fred Berry, D-Peabody. "There would be a sign on all government that says: The last one out, shut the lights off. I don't know how we could survive."

The Coalition for Small Government, which is behind the ballot question, says ending the state's 5.3 percent income tax would be anything but bad. About 3 million taxpayers would save on average $3,600 a year, according to the question's sponsors. The state Department of Revenue uses a slightly lower figure — $3,180 — based on the "typical" taxpaying family of three that owns a home.

Carla Howell, the leader of the Coalition for Small Government and a one-time Libertarian candidate for governor, said the question isn't just about voting for a tax cut. It's about a fundamental overhaul of state government.

"It will take $11 billion out of the hands of Massachusetts big government and put it into the hands of men and women who earned it," Howell said.

Howell said the state would then be forced to spend its money wisely, meaning there'd be less waste and patronage. Moreover, putting money back into people's hands would create jobs.

"I think it is absolutely not the thing we should be doing," said state Rep. Mary Grant, D-Beverly. "I am concerned people don't understand what it means," which is a cut to about half of the state's revenues.

Beverly schools are running a shortfall and facing the closing of two schools and layoffs, and voters are facing a historic $2.5 million override vote of Proposition 21/2 amid a downturn in the economy. Grant said this is no time for the state to be cutting revenues, 40 percent of which are turned back to cities and towns.

"My concern is we don't get something for nothing," Grant said. "I am not of the opinion we spend a lot of time wasting their public funding."

Second time around

Abolishing the state income tax may seem like wishful thinking, but an identical ballot question backed by Howell received 45 percent of the vote in 2002.

"Forty-eight percent of the city of Beverly voted for this the last time around," Grant said. "That is a very high number."

While it narrowly failed in Beverly in 2002, the question passed in Boxford, Danvers, Manchester, Middleton, Peabody and Topsfield.

State Rep. Ted Speliotis, D-Danvers, said the income tax is a fair one because it hits those who make money rather than people on tight budgets or with fixed incomes, the way sales and property taxes do.

"Not only is it devastating to the commonwealth, it's the worst tax policy you could make," Speliotis said. "You make money, you pay tax; you don't make money, you don't pay tax."

Speliotis said while he does not favor its passage, he is not worried it will pass.

"The act is so draconian, so outrageous," he said, it would annihilate state government.

Howell likes her chances in 2008, and that has her opponents worried.

Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said voters may be in the mood to give themselves a pay raise.

The House recently voted to raise nearly $400 million in taxes. Gas prices are on the rise. Property values are falling, but property tax relief promised by Gov. Deval Patrick has not materialized.

"More and more, individuals are feeling squeezed," Widmer said. "And when they feel squeezed, they will vote themselves a tax cut and not contemplate the consequences."

State Rep. Brad Hill, R-Ipswich, doubted the Legislature would throw $11 billion in revenue out the window.

"I'm against it because of the unintended consequences that might come from it," said Hill, who worried about what might happen to the state's stellar, "double A" bond rating on Wall Street, which would harm the ability of the state to borrow money. Patrick has proposed borrowing more than $12 billion to pay for improvements to the state's roads, bridges and schools.

Howell says opponents are just trying to scare people.

Under her proposal, the state income tax — and the accompanying revenues — would not disappear overnight. The tax rate would be cut to 2.65 percent on Jan. 1, 2009, and then eliminated Jan. 1, 2010.

State lawmakers won't have to raise taxes to replace the lost income tax money, she said. The state would still have $17 billion in tax revenue from other sources, which combined with federal and other funds would allow the state to keep its obligations — as long as it eliminates the waste.

Such explanations are not good enough for Hill.

"We are not getting good answers from the group putting this forward," Hill said.

How the North Shore voted on 2002 tax repeal

Community Yes No

Beverly 6,779 7,361

Boxford 2,076 1,552

Danvers 4,722 4,712

Hamilton 1,652 1,698

Ipswich 2,543 2,997

Manchester 1,287 1,236

Marblehead 4,252 5,013

Middleton 1,441 1,164

Peabody 8,953 8,814

Salem 5,820 6,575

Swampscott 2,671 3,183

Topsfield 1,462 1,377

Wenham 795 882