Michigan transit tax Rejected [MI Prop 15-1]

**Jimaz** · May-06-15, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

...
2. You can fund roads by "taxing the rich" [[unconstitutional)....

How would that be unconstitutional? Where in the constitution does it say that the rich are exempt from taxation?

**BankruptcyGuy** · May-06-15, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by Jimaz

How would that be unconstitutional? Where in the constitution does it say that the rich are exempt from taxation?

Graduated income taxes are unconstitutional in Michigan.

§ 7 Income tax.Sec. 7.
No income tax graduated as to rate or base shall be imposed by the state or any of its subdivisions.

History: Const. 1963, Art. IX, § 7, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964

**softailrider** · May-06-15, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Gpwrangler

Don't lump people who vote no together and call them stupid. A lot of us have never had a tire or wheel damaged from roads. And if you think it's all from potholes I can show you quite a few curbs gouged all to hell from being hit by car rims.

I drive the roads around here about 30,000 miles a year, my vehicles are all a few years old, other then one blown tire from a huge pothole about 15 years ago no other damage. My 2011 Accord has 119,000 miles, 3rd set of tires, the tires wear perfect, never had a wheel alignment.

**Honky Tonk** · May-06-15, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

I agree as well. The government [[via the people) want something? Then pay for it. Have an honest discussion about cost and priorities. If it requires a vote of the people, so be it. That's not "shirking your duties" as a legislative body; it's understanding who you work for.

This holds true, IMHO, for schools, roads, prisons, pensions, health care, defense and everything else the government does. Just be honest about what it costs, and let people decide whether they want to pay for it or not.

The two most dishonest discussion points are:

1. You can fund roads by just cutting the budget elsewhere [[you can't).
2. You can fund roads by "taxing the rich" [[unconstitutional) or "taxing corporations" [[drive more business out of the state, why don't you?)

You have to have business come in before you can drive it out, and all these corporate tax cut incentives are not producing the desired results. Anytime a corporation like GE posts a $350 bil profit, [[2013, I believe), and pays nada, nietz, zero, goose egg, in taxes, somethings not right.

**shovelhead** · May-06-15, 10:22 PM

On the tire and wheel damage issue, a big part of the problem today is the large wheel and small aspect ratio of tires [[short sidewall), that combination is not able to absorb the striking of the pothole without damaging the wheel, less sidewall to deflect before the impact of the rim to the hole. I deal with it daily working in a GM dealership.

On the actual ballot issue, I was originally voting YES [[registered Republican!) as the original proposal made sense along with the reinstatement of the Earned Income Credit for low and moderate income families. When all the other unrelated IMO items were tagged along with it I realilzed that this was going to become a windfall for our state with a pittance going to highways.

And the laughable part about holding contractors responsible for defective road construction, why are we suddenly deciding to make them pay up if they screw up? This should have been a part of the bidding process years ago.........

And show me the justification for the license plate fees being tied to the MSRP of the vehicle when sold new after, say ten or twenty years? You still pay the same as you did when it was new. I lived in a Western state for many years and they had a sliding scale, after so many years a plate fee went to a fixed lower rate. The people driving a twenty year old car here are probably lower income persons, they could use a break on license fees.

**archfan** · May-07-15, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

I know we have EDRs in cars now. and leaving out the issues with privacy in general... if the state had unfettered access to them it's fairly easy for the state to then mine the data. What's stopping them from checking to see if I was speeding at any point and send along a few tickets with the road fee...

You're right, pull the EDRs from cars. We'll just track your phone.

**BankruptcyGuy** · May-07-15, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

[/B]

You have to have business come in before you can drive it out, and all these corporate tax cut incentives are not producing the desired results. Anytime a corporation like GE posts a $350 bil profit, [[2013, I believe), and pays nada, nietz, zero, goose egg, in taxes, somethings not right.

Certainly. But that's a reflection of the convoluted tax code that is easily manipulated by teams of lawyers, accountants and lobbyists. IIRC, GE's primary method for tax avoidance was their R&D work, which resulted in generous federal credits. That's why a flat corporate income tax, what we have now in the State of Michigan, is the fairest. You make money, you pay. If you're struggling, you get a break. The MBT was none of that.

**313WX** · May-07-15, 07:15 AM

Whether a flat vs. progressive is "fair" is merely a matter of opinion. I don't think the person who's making $8.10 per hour and uses far less of the government's infrastructure thinks it's fair that they're going to have far less disposable income after the tax man gets to their paycheck than the person making $100,000 who's paying the same tax rate.

What I will say is the healthier economies in the world [[within the country and throughout the world) generally have some form of a progressive tax. Texas is an exception, because of the oil boom.

I do think we can all agree that it's not fair for businesses to not have tax obligations on their income. If the courts and government consider them as people when it comes to lobbying for laws to be enacted, they should be treated like people when it comes to taxation.

Even if the MBT wasn't perfect [[no tax system will be), instead of doing away with the business tax altogether, it would have seem far less disingenuous if the state government replaced with an alternative business tax instead.

**BankruptcyGuy** · May-07-15, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Whether a flat vs. progressive is "fair" is merely a matter of opinion. I don't think the person who's making $8.10 per hour and uses far less of the governkent's infrastructure thinks it's fair that they're going to have far less disposable income after the tax man gets to their paycheck than the person making $100,000 who's paying the same tax rate.

What I will say is the healthier economies in the world [[within the country and throughout the world) generally have some form of a progressive tax. Texas is an exception, because of the oil boom.

I agree with you that there are different interpretations of "fair" when it comes to a tax code.

As far as progressive taxes on a state level, it's probably about 50-50. Many states have no income tax, and many more have only one income tax rate. Some have a graduated rate.

http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.pdf

It is an interesting discussion to have. It is rare that honest discussions about it are really had.

**sirrealone** · May-07-15, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

But it doesn't change the fact that Governors have been saying "we have to do something about the roads" for decades and they are worse now than ever.

Actually, under Engler they got the tax raised to bring in revenues for what was needed at the time. The problem is that they neglected to adjust it for inflation. Had they inserted the provision [[and if it had been done on the Federal level as well the last time they raised it over 20 years ago), the penny or two increase per year in prices would have been absorbed into household budgets with little fanfare, and we'd have much better roads as a result.

**bailey** · May-07-15, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by archfan

You're right, pull the EDRs from cars. We'll just track your phone.

Well, then I'd have the option of turning the phone off.... or leaving it at my home or office. Then how does one assess my user fees?

**Cincinnati_Kid** · May-08-15, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

[/B]

You have to have business come in before you can drive it out, and all these corporate tax cut incentives are not producing the desired results. Anytime a corporation like GE posts a $350 bil profit, [[2013, I believe), and pays nada, nietz, zero, goose egg, in taxes, somethings not right.

Big business and corporations run this country. Their political contributions help fund those new cushy office chairs, that our beloved politicians sit on their fat duffs in while not coming up with a viable solution to fix our sorry _ss roads, among other things. They're only concerns are getting re-elected.

**Cincinnati_Kid** · May-08-15, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by shovelhead

On the tire and wheel damage issue, a big part of the problem today is the large wheel and small aspect ratio of tires [[short sidewall), that combination is not able to absorb the striking of the pothole without damaging the wheel, less sidewall to deflect before the impact of the rim to the hole. I deal with it daily working in a GM dealership.

On the actual ballot issue, I was originally voting YES [[registered Republican!) as the original proposal made sense along with the reinstatement of the Earned Income Credit for low and moderate income families. When all the other unrelated IMO items were tagged along with it I realilzed that this was going to become a windfall for our state with a pittance going to highways.

And the laughable part about holding contractors responsible for defective road construction, why are we suddenly deciding to make them pay up if they screw up? This should have been a part of the bidding process years ago.........

And show me the justification for the license plate fees being tied to the MSRP of the vehicle when sold new after, say ten or twenty years? You still pay the same as you did when it was new. I lived in a Western state for many years and they had a sliding scale, after so many years a plate fee went to a fixed lower rate. The people driving a twenty year old car here are probably lower income persons, they could use a break on license fees.

Bingo !! A luxury car, for instance a Cadillac that is 13 years old, still pays the same $175.00 registration fee that was paid when the car was brand new, never mind that the car most likely looks like shit, is barely running and has over 200,000 miles on it This is ridiculous, and needs to change, as I was told it goes by the weight and what the car cost new. As the car gets older, the fee should decrease yearly.

**Honky Tonk** · May-08-15, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

Bingo !! A luxury car, for instance a Cadillac that is 13 years old, still pays the same $175.00 registration fee that was paid when the car was brand new, never mind that the car most likely looks like shit, is barely running and has over 200,000 miles on it This is ridiculous, and needs to change, as I was told it goes by the weight and what the car cost new. As the car gets older, the fee should decrease yearly.

In MI we do have a sliding scale, every year it slides a bit upwards.

**Dan Wesson** · May-08-15, 04:51 AM

Lest we forget or you never thought about....

The Road to Poverty Is Paved with Small Inflations

For all those that think a little bit here and a little bit there; Hey! It all adds up, duh!

Like Goldwater said, "A Billion here a Billion there, pretty soon your talking real money".

That was his time, which weren't that long ago. Thanks to inflation, it's now, A Trillion here a Trillion there.......

Most people have no idea what a trillion is.

**Dan Wesson** · May-08-15, 04:54 AM

Now that I'm thinking about this, you see that field of money next to the plane?

Stack that 17 high and you got the USA Federal Debt.

For you tin foil hatters out there. You don't think that there is a select few humanoids out there that want to keep the world populations in subjugation?

**softailrider** · May-08-15, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by sirrealone

Actually, under Engler they got the tax raised to bring in revenues for what was needed at the time. The problem is that they neglected to adjust it for inflation. Had they inserted the provision [[and if it had been done on the Federal level as well the last time they raised it over 20 years ago), the penny or two increase per year in prices would have been absorbed into household budgets with little fanfare, and we'd have much better roads as a result.

Not buying that at all. Repairs to roads in Michigan have been mismanaged for decades.The money would have gone elsewhere, been stolen or squandered in some way.