To the editor:

Barbara Anderson's recent column regarding the repeal of the income tax was in sharp contrast to the reasoned and factual presentation sitting next to it on the same page from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. It was a perfect picture of polarizing rhetoric next to an analysis of facts from which one can use their intellect to form an opinion.

There are three major sources of revenue which cover the cost of infrastructure in our communities at large — the property tax, the sales tax, and the income tax. Our local communities collect property tax; our commonwealth collects sales and income tax. Of the three main sources of revenue, only the income tax is assessed according to our ability to pay.

We all expect our taxes to be spent wisely. We all expect those working for us to deliver services in an expedient manner. When we remove resources, we remove services from ourselves.

Our state income tax covers 40 percent of our state budget. After paying for the legally-mandated programs and debt service, the loss of income tax means a 70 percent cut in state services affecting education, local aid, jails, courts, transportation, public health, parks, etc.

It is also shocking to look at what the middle-income voter loses. For $850 a year, those with an income of $50,000 purchase public education, roads, transportation, libraries, parks, public safety, jails for criminals, and a system of justice. That payment cannot cover the cost of any of those services if paid for individually — not even close!

Our economy is struggling, therefore, we all are. Taxes are our way of pooling our resources to cover the cost of infrastructure and services in the cheapest way possible. When the economy falters, our public agencies and services are more heavily used. This economy needs us to exhibit a very steady hand.

Removal of the income tax is not a steady hand. It is an emotional response to a serious crisis. While it is absolutely correct that we expect each dollar to be carefully spent, we also must have the strength to steady the rocking boat.

Supporters of this question have never laid out a plan for what happens after passing the law. Recently a TV reporter stated, "Who cares what happens, we just need to send a message."

Democracy is serious business, this comment is not. It reflects emotion, not serious thought; and it is pressing a panic button, which brings everyone down. The only message sent lands on our own doorstep. It will send jobs elsewhere, as we are unable support infrastructure to attract business, sustain our economy or support a quality of life.

While I was presenting to a group in the Statehouse not long ago, a discussion of Question 1 ensued. One member of the group came up to me afterward saying that he was a New Hampshire resident (The Granite State has no income tax).

He asked: "Why would Massachusetts ever want to do this, don't they know it is a mess in New Hampshire?"

I thought: Why indeed would we send each other into chaos, especially in this climate? Taxes are the price of a civilized society that recognizes our connection to each other. It is a form of government that I believe in and feel privileged to live in. I think this is the wake up-call.

Mary Grant

State Representative, 6th Essex District

Beverly