34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
News
North dishes out tax
Top Headlines RTM approves .75 percent meals tax
NORTH ATTLEBORO - Eating out in North Attleboro will get a little more expensive come January.On Monday, Representative Town Meeting members voted 48 to 32 in favor of adopting a .75 percent meals tax, which will go into effect on the first day of next year. The state recently began allowing towns to charge the meals tax in order to boost revenue in tough financial times. It is estimated that North Attleboro will collect about $262,000 annually from the tax. The idea generated debate as RTM members weighed the concerns of business owners with the concerns about the town's budgetary needs. "In tough times, we need ways of getting funds, but we also need to think about where our jobs come from," said RTM member Bob Nerz of Precinct 7. "People are not going to stop going out to eat for 20 cents on a $20 bill. It doesn't seem like much," said RTM member Joe Lurie of Precinct 6. RTM member John Donohue of Precinct 7 said he had no problem assessing a tax on chain restaurants, but he feared for the impact on smaller, locally owned establishments. "I know it doesn't sound like a whole lot. It's basically a penny for every dollar. What concerns me are the mom and pop restaurants we have in the downtown. Their profit margins are small enough right now with fewer people going out to eat." RTM member Michelle DiRenzo of Precinct 8 said the small tax would not be a deciding factor if her family was deciding whether to dine out. "It's not going to stop us from going out to dinner. This is a luxury - eating out is not something you have to do. If it really is so bad that 20 cents is too much, then you don't have to do it," she said. North Attleboro joins Plainville and Norton as the only Attleboro area communities to adopt a meals tax. Each added .75 percent to the state tax of 6.25 percent. Franklin also has a meals tax. Another issue that generated some discussion on town meeting floor was the proposal to spend $20,000 to drill a well at the World War II Memorial Pool. RTM members ultimately approved the project. Since the pool's annual water and sewer bill is about $10,000, it is expected that the town will recoup the cost for drilling the well within three years. Some RTM members were opposed to the project, arguing that the water that comes out of the well will need treatment because town water is naturally high in iron and manganese. Park and Recreation Director Steve Carvalho said that his department has staff that deal with chemicals at the pool already that can handle the extra work, if it is needed. In other business, the RTM voted to: Add $50,000 to $250,000 already approved for the purchase of an ambulance. The additional funding will allow the fire department to buy two ambulances instead of one. Reject a proposal to sell a small "wedge" of land on Plain Street for at least $28,000 after hearing arguments that the figure was too low. The RTM had previously agreed to sell the land, which is 17,328 square feet, for not less than $65,000. Approve changes to the town's junk dealers and pawnbroker bylaw that will allow Savers, a national chain that sells second-hand items, to open a store on Route 1 at the former location of CompUSA.
View Comments » 36 comment(s)
« Hide Comments
|
Anna D wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:52 PM:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html "
Anna D wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:49 PM:
Anna D wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:46 PM:
Anna D wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:44 PM:
Anna D wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:39 PM:
Anna D wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:38 PM:
kevin h. wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:34 PM:
If that's eating good in the neighborhood...you've got to move. "
Common Sense Coordinator wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:27 PM:
I said that I understand the "its the principle of it" argument but it really has to have limits. If you choose Uno's over Applebees out of principle then fine, its only a couple miles down the road. But, what if you like Applebees better? Do you goes against your principles and eat at a place you like a little less. And, AnnaD was talking about driving to Foxboro instead of NA which is certainly more than a few miles.
Basically, I don't like the tax but at least some of the money goes to NA (not all of it as some have mentioned because the state still takes a cut). In the end, you can either afford to dine out or you can't. If you can afford it, just go to the restaurants you enjoy most. Why get a second rate meal for what amounts to $0.20 and your principle? "
gimmesum wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:24 PM:
I may not deserve to treat myself to a decent restaurant experience. But don't those hospitality workers deserve a chance to earn a living?
It IS the piling on.
Additionally, I do not trust the state government. There is a good chance the money will not come back to the towns. If it does, a new local aid formula will be concocted to make sure NO town benefits after enacting the local tax. IMO, it is a ruse. Classic bait and switch.
IT IS THE PILING ON! "
1-20-2013 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 3:38 PM:
For locales that approve this tax, how much will their local aid be reduced, because they have this "other income"...?.....or more likely, in true Bacon Hill fashion, how much will the ones who don't implement the tax, be punished with reduced local aid ?
Questions, questions.............. "
wxman wrote on Oct 20, 2009 3:28 PM:
Seriously. you mix two types of things in my opinion.. there's the necessities.. gas/water... most people have no choice about those... then there's the choices you said.. the booze/cigs/restaurants.. I'm sure if you can't afford the water bill, then you aren't out there watering your lawn 2x weekly.
to me, dining out is a choice we make. It's the lazy way out. It's just the way we've become. I'm only 41 yrs old, but as a kid, we never dined out as much as I do with my family now. We just couldnt afford it.. Vacations, HA.. I had maybe 3 that I could remember before I turned 18.
Everything costs money. You either afford it or not. I use the term "selectively poor" to describe the guy who complains how he can't save any money, yet get's a coffee from Dunkins every morning and gets lunch from the Cafe every day. Gimme a break. "
skeptic wrote on Oct 20, 2009 2:40 PM:
The problem is that our politicians seem to remember boom years and think of them as the norm. They think hard times like these are unusual. We should spend like we are always in a fiscal crisis and when things are good, save the money or better still lower the taxes. "
gimmesum wrote on Oct 20, 2009 2:39 PM:
BTW, has anyone else noticed the ever increasing prices and package shrinking that is going on in the grocery store? "
wxman wrote on Oct 20, 2009 2:15 PM:
you wrote "an additional tax that people who are just trying to make ends meet can't afford".. If you can't afford an extra 0.75% then you really can't afford to be going out to eat. Those who can't afford the 0.75% tax have the option not to pay it.. they just eat at home, like many of our families did when we were young.
Trust me.. I'm not saying I like the tax.. but I'd rather have this than Beacon Hill raising it 0.75% to go to the General Fund to distribute as they see fit. And additionally, I can afford it and in principle, it benefits my town.. "
AttleboroResident wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:52 PM:
The 99 in North and Unos in Attleboro are less than a mile apart. Ruby Tuesday in Attleboro is not that much further south. All serve similar items. For the chain restaurants, eating in Attleboro over North is a no-brainer for me based on the principal of the tax increase. I may drop in to some of the locally owned eateries since its not their fault RTM did this to them, but given an equal choice, with driving distance not a factor, I am going with the lower taxed areas. "
rabblerouser wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:51 PM:
rabblerouser wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:41 PM:
1)tax revenue is collected and spent locally. Nothing going to the hackarama on Beacon Hill.
Meals taxes are collected by the restaurant owner and quarterly have to be sent to the Mass. Dept. of Revenue.
The money I then believe is deposited into the General Fund to be spent as the hacks on Beacon Hill determine how to waste it best.
The problem with this additional tax is just that an additional tax that people who are just trying to make ends meet can't afford along with the additional 1.25 percent that was just added to all sales taxes.
The revenues statewide are down because of the high unemployment rate. Those jobs and revenue are never coming back as all the illegal migrants have taken most peoples jobs and are working under the table not contributing any tax revenue to the state.
If you want to be a sanctury state and allow illegal migrants to habitat in your state and tax the system with the free services you offer them then these are the consequences you have to live with. The job they take, may be your own. "
common sense coordinator wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:34 PM:
To AnnaD who will be driving to Foxboro to eat: THANK YOU! The very high taxes you pay on the extra gas you'll now be using to dine out will have a greater benefit to the state's tax coffers than the minimal amount added to the meal's tax in NA.
Common Sense People! And, I understand the whole "its the principle not the money" argument but it only goes so far. Its like people driving miles out of their way to buy gas a few cents cheaper. It cost more in the long run but hey, at least you have you "principle". "
kevin h. wrote on Oct 20, 2009 1:15 PM:
Anna D wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:58 PM:
Anna D wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:55 PM:
hardhearted wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:25 PM:
Paul Couturier wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:23 PM:
gimmesum wrote on Oct 20, 2009 11:58 AM:
I don't eat out nearly as much as I use to. I'm not going to name names. But most of the restaurants I use to enjoy are now terrible. These are not the chain restaurants. Actually, some of the chain restaurants have improved. I suspect my former favorites have cut down on quality rather than raise prices too dramatically.
Is it my imagination or more and more restaurants offering take out? I feel bad for the wait staff. I simply cannot afford the meal and to tip as generously as I would like. So I am one who will take out rather than dine out if I want a treat.
A word to the wise to all those towns that are weighing the pros and cons of the meals tax. Wait. If your town is the last one standing, you may be able to use it as a marketing tool to the mutual benefit of the town and the business community. "
Paul Couturier wrote on Oct 20, 2009 11:42 AM:
And for all you matt trowbridge worshippers, he voted FOR this tax! I guess he's practing to be a tax-and-spend dumocrat!
For the record, I'm an INDEPENDENT! "
Southern View wrote on Oct 20, 2009 10:41 AM:
And are the people of NA so gullible as to think that this tax will stay at .75?
Does anyone remember the famous "temporary" 3% sales tax that then Gov.Volpe signed into law?
Any new tax will not only become a permanent money grab, it will continue to increase as the pols take more and more money with subsequent loss of individual freedom from the citizens.
So glad not to be in a looney liberal state. When will you people wake up? "
skeptic wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:32 AM:
1-20-2013 wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:29 AM:
realist wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:27 AM:
wxman has a point about this tax being spent locally. I also agree with AttleboroResident that there is no trivial tax.
Anavoter is probably right that in a year it may jump to 1 or 1.5%.
Knowing many members of the RTM I know that this was not an easy choice.
I think the bigger issue is that we have to go through a bit of our town government and see where cuts could be made. I don't mean we need a mayor, I mean we need to eliminate a lot of jobs or make some full time jobs part time. "
AttleboroResident wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:09 AM:
anavoter wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:00 AM:
"In tough times we need ways to get money"...no in tough times we should be cutting back. Justy like the residents are doing to make ends meet.
Will it stop folks from dining out.. no but it is the fact that govnernment always grows. Tax and spend. What about consolidating some departments at town hall, combining clerical staff, doing away withg some assistant to assistant positions, etc. "
wxman wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:31 AM:
1) tax revenue is collected and spent locally. Nothing going to the hackarama on Beacon Hill.
2) dining out is a choice. Don't want to pay the tax, eat at home. Nobody is forcing you to dine out.
3) it's trivial in the cost of the meal. 75 cents on a $100 bill.. not enough to make me alter my ways. "
AttleboroResident wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:08 AM:
kevin h. wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:06 AM:
Government only creates more government.
They are tax addicts. "
do you get it? wrote on Oct 20, 2009 7:14 AM:
"RTM member John Donohue of Precinct 7 said he had no problem assessing a tax on chain restaurants, but he feared for the impact on smaller, locally owned establishments". The CUSTOMERS PAY THE TAX. EVERY LAST DIME OF TAX COLLECTED COMES FROM THE PEOPLE. When you tax anything it comes us, the tax payers. Businesses pass expenses to us. In this case the tax is directly to the customer. CUT SPENDING STUPID, we are out of money too! "
stp wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:42 AM: