By Peter Petrin

The Committee for Small Government obtained tens of thousands of signatures to put Question 1, the Massachusetts State Income Tax Repeal, on the upcoming ballot.

The initiative would end the state’s current 5.3 percent income tax on wages, interest, dividends and capital gains by 2010, according to the Small Government Act’s website.

If the measure passes, Massachusetts will join seven states: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming, in not taxing income, according to the site.

Language in the proposed law says it would reduce the state income tax to 2.65 percent beginning Jan. 1, 2009, and would completely eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2010.

The Committee for Small Government supported a similar measure on the ballot in 2002, called the End the Income Tax initiative, according to the website.

The proposal called for a complete repeal of the tax after July 1, 2003, as opposed to the phased rollback proposed on this year’s ballot, according to the website.

Not all voters said they believe the phased method will convince the population to approve the repeal.

“I don’t think that [the rollback] will keep [voters] from seeing that it’s not a responsible decision,” said Jason Palitsch, president of the Northeastern University College Democrats.

However, Palitsch said the vote for the measure will probably be “reasonably close.”

According to a State House News Service Poll in January, 46 percent opposed the repeal initiative and 45 percent supported it, with a margin of error of about five percent.

But economic conditions have changed significantly since the beginning of the year, and the concern about the struggling markets could impact voter perspective on the issue.

Question 1 supporter Charles Ormsby, a member of the School Committee in North Andover, Mass., and adjunct professor of mathematics at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, said the recent credit crunch and bailout will make citizens more aware of government waste.

“People will realize they can use income tax more efficiently than the government,” Ormsby said.

Ormsby said Department of Revenue reports show that the state spends $3 billion of its $47 billion budget on education, and an additional $1.3 billion on public safety and homeland security.

“If people keep the money they rightfully own, there will be another $12.7 billion back in the economy,” he said. “Then the Massachusetts economy will really take off.”

Carla Howell, chair of the Committee for Small Government, said in a statement that the average taxpayer will receive $3,700 back if the measure passes.

“Your ‘yes’ vote will not cut, nor require cuts, of any essential government services,” Howell said.

While the idea of an inflated paycheck may be appealing to some, organizations like the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation are working to make voters aware that the immense loss of state revenue will come at the expense of government programs, such as education, healthcare and infrastructure maintenance.

According to an Oct. 6 report from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, abolishing the state income tax would result in spending cuts of more than 70 percent to almost all state programs and a likely hike in property taxes that would offset savings from the income tax repeal.

The report cites the court system, public transportation and higher education as a few of the many programs and services that will notice the biggest impact and deficits from the passage of the repeal initiative.

On campus, students had mixed reactions about the proposed law.

“I think that any opportunity to save money in the short term would be taken in a welcoming manner,” said freshman business major Greg Skloot, originally from Armonk, N.Y. “We’re stretching pretty thin right now.”

Cutting certain programs, however, could hurt the state, Skloot said.

“The tax cut could take away from wasteful and useful spending,” Skloot said. “There wouldn’t be any way to differentiate.”

Jessie Contour, a freshman graphic design major from San Diego, said the law should go through a trial period before voters can decide to abolish income tax for good.

“If they [repealed the tax] halfway, just to see what works and what doesn’t, and then we could vote on it again, it would make a lot more sense,” Contour said.

Repealing the tax will likely curb some frivolous government spending, but also leave the government without necessary funds, Contour said.

“I think it would fall somewhere in the middle,” Contour said. “It would probably cut some wasteful spending, but it could also raise debt.”