Last modified: Sunday, October 19, 2008 2:58 AM EDT Vote no on Question 1 Question 1 on the Nov. 4 ballot looks awfully appealing. Vote "Yes" and you could help eliminate the state's 5.3 percent income tax. Essentially, taxpayers would be voting themselves a raise, a tempting offer in these days of rising prices and plummeting stock values. But like most things that seem too good to be true, this referendum would do far more harm than good to Massachusetts. We strongly urge a "no" vote on Question 1. The measure was placed on the ballot by the Committee for Small Government, led by Libertarian activist Carla Howell. Using high-profile cases of government waste - overspending on the Big Dig, police details and government workers going on disability, such as a Boston firefighter who trained for a body-building contest after claiming he had a bad back - Howell claims the state can easily lose the nearly $12 billion in revenue that would be lost by the elimination of the income tax. However, even fiscal conservatives such as Republican state Reps. John Lepper of Attleboro and Betty Poirier of North Attleboro are opposed to Question 1. They say there is no way to cut nearly 40 percent of state spending without cutting heavily into basic services. "I advocate for judicious cuts," Poirier said, " but not with reckless abandon." We agree. Yes, there are glaring examples of government waste we'd like to see eliminated. Besides the ones listed by Howell, bringing public workers' health insurance and retirement benefits in line with the private sector would top our list. But Question 1 just goes too far. The education of your children, the safety of the community where you live and the condition of the roads you drive would be greatly diminished if Massachusetts were to lose $12 billion a year in revenue. Here are some even scarier scenarios. Question 1 does nothing to prevent the Legislature from adopting an income tax to replace the one eliminated by taxpayers. The ballot question could, in fact, be giving the heavily-Democratic Legislature - one rightfully criticized for its tax-and-spend ways - a blank check to rewrite the tax laws. Another scenario would have the Legislature bumping up the state sales tax or overhauling or even eliminating the state law known as Proposition 2 1/2, which caps property taxes. Sales and property taxes are regressive and could force shoppers in our small state into spending in more tax-friendly states or push seniors on limited incomes out of their homes. Taxpayers of Massachusetts have every right to be upset about the way their money has been spent at times. However, Question 1 goes much too far in trying to correct the problem and should be rejected.