Michigan transit tax Rejected [MI Prop 15-1]

[Dan Wesson]

[QUOTE=Carcross;474630

So being fiscally conservative, I will vote yes on Prop 1 because even though there are parts about it I don't like, it passing would save me from paying even more in taxes down the road.[/QUOTE]

You are going to pay more taxes down the road an ever increasing amount... word.

You know it and I know it.

[Mikeg]

So being fiscally conservative, I will vote NO on Prop 1 even though there are parts about it I do like.

It's defeat in May 2015 still gives the legislature plenty of time to find a way to raise that same additional $400 Million to spend on roads by Sept. 30, 2016 without also amending the Constitution and raising an additional $1.3 Billion in taxes for non-road spending by Sept. 30, 2016.

As noted by Pam [[above), there are several "Plan B" proposals that can be dusted off and revisited by the legislature after the voters have spoken that can generate just as much new revenue for road spending in the next fiscal year.

[Gpwrangler]

Wrangler, I do not favor 'penalizing' average families with $175,000. However I see rich people getting 5 times the tax savings of an average family, and I see inequality being applied.

The inequality is even more pronounced when you consider that poorer families get ZERO credit.

I'm not gonna get hung up on the edges of the bell curve. There are also quite a few people who pay ZERO tax. Incentives drive the economy. We need people to keep buying houses and mortgage tax credits do that, and aren't going anywhere.

I guess you could impose a flat tax with no deductions for anyone if you really want to be fair. No stupid forms or IRS, just automatic 25% withholding for everyone. Sound good? Sure would be equal, wouldn't it?

[sumas]

I noted Lessenberry supports Prop #1 because it reinstates earned income credits for the truly poor. I support that too, still just don't like a patchwork proposal. Too hard to track the money spent.

[Mikeg]

I noted Lessenberry supports Prop #1 because it reinstates earned income credits for the truly poor. I support that too, still just don't like a patchwork proposal. Too hard to track the money spent.

The Earned Income Tax Credit [[EITC) was not eliminated, its funding was reduced by a total of $240 million per year.

If passed, Proposal 1 will increase the EITC funding by $260.8 million in the first year, $267.4 in the second year and $274.0 in the third year.

In my view, Proposal 1 would MORE THAN reinstate the EITC funding.

[Mikeg]

Proposal 1 is flawed in that it only removes the sales tax "on the sale or use of gasoline or diesel fuel used to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads or highways of this state.” This means that if Proposal 1 is passed, fuel purchased for boats, snowmobiles, and ORVs would still be subject to the increased sales tax, on top of the increased motor fuel tax. It is estimated that 2 percent of all gasoline sold in Michigan is used for those and other recreational uses and that does not include any of the fuel sold in Michigan that is used for agriculture and other non-road uses.

About the only good thing I can find in Proposal 1 is the fact that it would eliminate the abhorrent practice of charging a retail sales tax upon a motor fuel tax. Only in Michigan do consumers have to pay a tax on a tax.

[Flintoid]

I'll be happily voting yes. The idea that the 1% hike in the sales tax will have a dramatic life-altering impact for anyone whose income is above the qualifying level for the EITC is a bit disingenuous. What have we been saying for years that needed more investment? Schools, local governments, roads, and transit. Here we have it all in 1 ballot proposal. This will allow local units of government to stabilize their budgets, it will allow school districts to have more money per pupil, it will allow our transit to get the boost its needed for decades, and it will fix our god awful roads. Anyone on the left, as I am, who thinks they are sticking it to any conservative or this legislature in specific by voting against increased funding for roads, schools, transit, local gov. and the EITC is delusional. It's 1%. Vote YES.

[Mikeg]

I'll be happily voting yes. The idea that the 1% hike in the sales tax will have a dramatic life-altering impact for anyone whose income is above the qualifying level for the EITC is a bit disingenuous........ It's 1%. Vote YES.

Voting YES on Proposal 1 DOES NOT result in a 1% increase in the state sales tax.

If approved, Proposal 1 will increase the state sales tax by 16.67%. You are the one who is being disingenuous. Get your facts straight!

[Dan Wesson]

I have a question.

Why is it I have seen and heard of people referring to the EITC as the Unearned Income Tax Credit?

[Dan Wesson]

I'll be happily voting yes. The idea that the 1% hike in the sales tax will have a dramatic life-altering impact for anyone whose income is above the qualifying level for the EITC is a bit disingenuous. What have we been saying for years that needed more investment? Schools, local governments, roads, and transit. Here we have it all in 1 ballot proposal. This will allow local units of government to stabilize their budgets, it will allow school districts to have more money per pupil, it will allow our transit to get the boost its needed for decades, and it will fix our god awful roads. Anyone on the left, as I am, who thinks they are sticking it to any conservative or this legislature in specific by voting against increased funding for roads, schools, transit, local gov. and the EITC is delusional. It's 1%. Vote YES.

I find the trouble with this attitude is that this is another attempt at maintaining and enhancing the status quo. The glory days are over. Things are downsizing. There is a group of entities that depend on the way things were. They are out of touch with the new reality.

To keep inflating is going to end badly. It has already started
Wake up. Deflation is another way of paying down the debt. Remember in our system all our fiat currency [[US$) is borrowed into existence. Paying off debt is reducing the amount of currency floating around.

Where all all the citizens of Michigan going to get the money to pay for the new taxes. Are all the citizens going to pay or some citizens going to get an offset? Just who is going to be totally exempt.

The parasite is going to kill the host if this keeps up.

[Dan Wesson]

Voting YES on Proposal 1 DOES NOT result in a 1% increase in the state sales tax.

If approved, Proposal 1 will increase the state sales tax by 16.67%. You are the one who is being disingenuous. Get your facts straight!

Good catch. Thumbs up! I wish more Michigan citizens were just as astute.

[Jimaz]

Voting YES on Proposal 1 DOES NOT result in a 1% increase in the state sales tax.

If approved, Proposal 1 will increase the state sales tax by 16.67%....

In case anyone finds that confusing, the former refers to a change in percentage of the purchase price and the latter refers to a change in percentage of the existing tax rate on that purchase price.

Two different numbers that result in exactly the same impact to the wallet.

[emu steve]

Well, in 2017 we can use all the people involved in implementing
Affordable Care after it's repealed for starters since they may be looking for work. And all the DPS maintenance people who don't need to keep up its 100 vacant destroyed buildings. The DPW is already supposed to be patching roads, we can put them on it too. Deny all you want, I can put a crew together.

There may may be a few "crumbling" roads in Michigan but I drive everywhere and the vast majority are fine. I've been driving for 40 years plus and never lost a tire, rim or suspension component to Michigan's "dangerous roads". Then again, I actually watch the road when I'm driving, not kids in the back, my phone, or tablet. Yes, there are a few really bad spots but we don't need to create a "corps" of 30,000 people to fix them.

I'm not fooled by commercials made by liberals who want to get in my wallet or by the thousands of people nudging up to the trough. I don't care if the repairs are "permanent", just fill the craters and come up with a plan for gradually making proper repairs without creating traffic jams for the next 10 years. Quit making stupid commercials with people praying they survive on these "dangerous roads" and honestly assess and repair the problem.

What you're smoking isn't legal in Michigan.

I'll predict: Dems [[ready for Hillary Clinton) by 6 or 7%.

Dems re-capture the senate and gain some house seats.

Folks need to pick up the 'empirical voting patterns', i.e., there are off-presidential elections [[e.g., 2010, 2014) which went GOP but presidential elections [[e.g., 2012, 2008, 1996, 1992, and disputed 2000) Democratic.

GOP senators elected in 2010 like WI Ron Johnson's will face very tough elections.

[Dan Wesson]

ooh ooh...

I want to make a prediction too!

Coming to a Country near you!!

[emu steve]

I'm not gonna get hung up on the edges of the bell curve. There are also quite a few people who pay ZERO tax. Incentives drive the economy. We need people to keep buying houses and mortgage tax credits do that, and aren't going anywhere.

I guess you could impose a flat tax with no deductions for anyone if you really want to be fair. No stupid forms or IRS, just automatic 25% withholding for everyone. Sound good? Sure would be equal, wouldn't it?

No.

Actually doing away with the capital gains system and treating all income as income would be fairer. Do away with 401K type programs.

Those who want 'simpler' taxes should agree to treat all income alike. What could be simpler?

Just 25% withholding for everyone for SOME income [[mostly income on wages and salary????) but not Mitt's capital gains???

Mitt [[Romney) et. al. get rich on this stuff: No payroll taxes on capital gains income. low capital gains tax rate.

Believe me, CONSERVATIVES do NOT believe in simple taxes, fairer taxes, etc.

They believe in simple, flat taxes for those who live on wages and salaries and a completely different scheme for those who make money tons of money in capital gains, etc.

[Gpwrangler]

What you're smoking isn't legal in Michigan.

I'll predict: Dems [[ready for Hillary Clinton) by 6 or 7%.

Dems re-capture the senate and gain some house seats.

Folks need to pick up the 'empirical voting patterns', i.e., there are off-presidential elections [[e.g., 2010, 2014) which went GOP but presidential elections [[e.g., 2012, 2008, 1996, 1992, and disputed 2000) Democratic.

GOP senators elected in 2010 like WI Ron Johnson's will face very tough elections.

huh? A bit off topic lol

[Gpwrangler]

No.

Actually doing away with the capital gains system and treating all income as income would be fairer. Do away with 401K type programs.

Those who want 'simpler' taxes should agree to treat all income alike. What could be simpler?

Just 25% withholding for everyone for SOME income [[mostly income on wages and salary????) but not Mitt's capital gains???

Mitt [[Romney) et. al. get rich on this stuff: No payroll taxes on capital gains income. low capital gains tax rate.

Believe me, CONSERVATIVES do NOT believe in simple taxes, fairer taxes, etc.

They believe in simple, flat taxes for those who live on wages and salaries and a completely different scheme for those who make money tons of money in capital gains, etc.

Sounds like socialism to me. No thanks.

[emu steve]

Sounds like socialism to me. No thanks.

It sounds like what the conservatives SAY they want [[flat tax, Trojan horse) but really don't. They don't want to treat all income the same. They want to treat THEIR preferred income sources different then the primary income sources of most Americans.

Mitt doesn't want his taxes DOUBLED from capital gains rate to a flat tax rate [[say 25%).

Mitt won't buy what you're selling. Mitt has no problems with MY taxes going up though...

Do remember in 2011 and 2012 Mitt was unemployed, but looking for work . He 'survived' on capital gains income... and yes, in 2011 I paid a higher tax rate [[Federal income tax rate, not counting payroll taxes) then Mitt did.

#DoubleMittsTaxes [[couldn't resist).

[Jimaz]

Sounds like socialism to me. No thanks.

Who are you to tell Mitt Romney that he shouldn't benefit from his socialist handouts? The nerve!

Attachment 26303

[emu steve]

Who are you to tell Mitt Romney that he shouldn't benefit from his socialist handouts? The nerve!

Attachment 26303

You're right.

But the biggest socialists in Michigan or America aren't some poor folks hoping for a better life or students at Wayne State or some such university but the NFL owners.

If they were producing oil they'd be a cartel. Instead they share a very high percentage of income [[e.g., television) as 'business partners.'

So much for 'free markets', competition, etc. etc.

Try tell a NFL owner who believes in 'free market', unbridled capitalism, etc. he can't move his team to Los Angeles because his 'business partners' say NO!!!

What's next: GM will tell Ford that it can't innovate... Lol.

[Jimaz]

... But the biggest socialists in Michigan or America aren't some poor folks hoping for a better life or students at Wayne State or some such university but the NFL owners....

How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers

[emu steve]

BTW, does Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, etc. want a flat tax? Really?

Say 25% of all income from all sources, e.g., wages and salaries, capital gains, etc. etc.

And here is the kicker: "Corporations are people too."

Apple if I have to pay 25% income tax will you pay 25% too??? Mitt says you are a person like me and should be treated like me. People are people and should be treated the same.

[Jimaz]

... And here is the kicker: "Corporations are people too."...

No, they're not. Move to Amend

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Proposal 1 is flawed in that it only removes the sales tax "on the sale or use of gasoline or diesel fuel used to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads or highways of this state.” This means that if Proposal 1 is passed, fuel purchased for boats, snowmobiles, and ORVs would still be subject to the increased sales tax, on top of the increased motor fuel tax. It is estimated that 2 percent of all gasoline sold in Michigan is used for those and other recreational uses and that does not include any of the fuel sold in Michigan that is used for agriculture and other non-road uses.

About the only good thing I can find in Proposal 1 is the fact that it would eliminate the abhorrent practice of charging a retail sales tax upon a motor fuel tax. Only in Michigan do consumers have to pay a tax on a tax.

This is why Michigan residents are screwed. Everything around this freakin state has some kind of tax attached to it. The politicians don't give a _hit whether we vote yes or no. We're gonna get burned either way.

[ABetterDetroit]

This is why Michigan residents are screwed. Everything around this freakin state has some kind of tax attached to it. The politicians don't give a _hit whether we vote yes or no. We're gonna get burned either way.

Exactly! And their hands will be clean for doing nothing again. No matter how you feel about whether this tax should be raised or not, everyone should be disgusted by Lansing's demonstration that they can't and won't do their jobs. Except new office buildings for themselves, they can take care of that no problem.