Tax Gas, Help Mass.

A great deal of ink has been spent on the upcoming governor’s race between Charlie Baker and Martha Coakley, but this coming election in Massachusetts also offers voters a chance to decide several key ballot measures. One of the more contentious is Question 1, a referendum petition that seeks to overturn last year’s legislative vote that linking state gas taxes to inflation.

Question 1 looks to repeal last year’s decision—in other words, a “yes” vote will unlink gas taxes from inflation; a “no” vote will keep the status quo.

Proponents of Question 1 cite the concern that a linked gas tax will lead to a state of “taxation without representation”—a loaded claim for residents of Massachusetts. However, this argument does not stand the test of reason. Future changes to the gas tax will not be arbitrary. Tying the taxes to inflation makes sense, as inflation accounts for the rise of residents’ incomes, spending, and even other taxes. Income taxes, for example, depend upon a percentage of one’s income, and thus increase year-to-year based on how inflation affects one’s income.

The yearly change will also correlate with changes in maintenance costs, which the tax is supposed to fund. Statistics from the Federal Highway Administration show that over half the bridges in Massachusetts are structurally deficient, for example. Before the gas tax was linked to inflation last year, it had remained steady for 21 years. Thus, for over two decades, while the cost of road maintenance steadily increased, the tax revenue that was meant to support such maintenance was kept static.

Of course, linking the gas tax to inflation does not fix all of Massachusetts’s infrastructure woes. Concern has been raised that, as Mass. residents opt for newer hybrid and fuel-efficient cars, the state’s income from the gas tax will still not match maintenance costs. Further, since the tax is proportioned per gallon, it will weigh more heavily upon those who own older, cheaper, and less fuel-efficient cars—in other words, there is potential that the tax will disproportionately affect those with lower incomes.

But that is an argument for augmenting the gas tax with infrastructure spending, as well as working to support lower-income residents and mitigate any disproportionate effects. It is not an argument against inflation-indexing. A common-sense “no” on Question 1 will make Massachusetts a safer state.

Two less controversial petitions are worth highlighting, too. Question 2 seeks to heighten incentives for recycling by expanding the “deposit” on recyclable beverage containers to bottled water, juice, and sports drinks. The “deposit” is added to the cost of the beverage, but is returned if the consumer returns the bottles for recycling. Voting “yes” will further encourage Massachusetts residents to recycle, and unclaimed deposits will go toward funding environmental programs within the state.

If passed, Question 4 will require all Massachusetts employers with eleven or more employees to provide paid sick leave based on the number of hours employees work. Not only will such a provision lower the risk of disease transmission between customers and sick employees, it is also humane. Workers should not be force to choose between holding a job and caring for themselves or for a child when they are ill. While this regulation might have a slight negative effect on businesses, it is a cost that business-owners should bear.