There are three catches. One, the tax increase last year was about half the increase in personal income, so the word "limit" scarcely applies.

Two, it is a milder alternative to Proposition 2 1/2; it looks almost like a free lunch--lower taxes, no loss of services. Who would oppose a question that begins: "The proposed law would limit local property taxes and state taxes and would provide for increased state aid for local educational purposes."?

Three, shifting another 20 per cent of the costs of local education to the state is subject to appropriation; the legislature can pay for exactly as much as it wants to. Proponents of the bill say the extra $500 million or so involved could be allocated from the growth in other taxes. Opponents say it's impossible to generate revenue from taxes that have been cut.

Question 3 may well be the teachers' alternative to Proposition 2 1/2. But no one seems quite sure what effect it will have.

Question 4

An $18,000 raise is nothing to sneeze at. But if you suddenly found out you were helping to pay for that raise, it might make you gasp.

In fact, a lot of Massachusetts taxpayers nearly choked early last November when the state legislature voted itself a whopping salary increase, virtually without public notice, and without even waiting until the term expired. Gov. Edward J. King got a 50-per-cent raise, from $40,000 to $60,000. The Senate president and House speaker got raises of nearly $18,000--quite a Halloween treat. And other legislators feasted nearly as well.

Question 4 on tomorrow's ballot lets voters ratify or repeal those raises. If they are rescinded. the legislature seems likely to give itself another pay increase; the only unknown would be its size.

Question 5

A lot of people believe both the state and federal constitution are sacrosanct. They should be immune to the whims of public opinion because amending them is so much more laborious than changing legislation.

That argument entails the main objection to Question 5 on tomorrow's ballot. The proposed amendment would ensure that any law imposing additional costs on two or more localities by regulating salaries and other benefits to municipal workers is first approved by the individual communities--unless the legislature passes such paws with a two-thirds majority or pays the costs itself.

The Massachusetts Municipal Association, a coalition of cities and towns, is working for the amendment because, as one spokesman says, it "will have a double-barreled effect: it will increase local control and promote government accountability."

But the measure has a handful of legislative opponents, who argue that it is more suitable for the General laws and would not affect much pending legislation.

Question 6

Question 6 on tomorrow's ballot boils down to whether an argument for governmental efficiency should take precedence over the public's right to know what the state legislators are doing.