Legislation to Eliminate the State Income Tax?

**Bham1982** · January-13-17, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

International economists use a measure called purchasing power parity to smooth the calculations for the cost of living in various currency regimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita
Using that measure, the bottom parts of the US are still in the top 1% of the world.

Yeah, I'm well aware of PPP, and no, it doesn't fully explain cost of living differences, and doesn't "prove" that the poorest in the U.S. are the 1% of the planet.

There are millions of people living in Third World cities like Sao Paulo, Mexico City, etc. that are objectively upper middle class to wealthy, even by U.S. standards. There's horrible inequality, but a big chunk of these countries [[maybe 20-30%) live the same as middle and higher income Americans. It's just that the poorest are far poorer than in the U.S.

And I'm foreign-born. I'm well aware the U.S. is comparatively very wealthy.

**ABetterDetroit** · January-14-17, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Zozo

If you don't think poor people in Detroit are rich compared to poor people in other parts of the world, just throw a dart at the map and take a trip to wherever the dart lands. You will find pure human misery closer to the experience of an animal. Poor Detroiters [[and Americans for that matter) have a lot to be thankful for.

A McDonald's dumpster might look like a bountiful buffet in some parts of the 3rd world but that is not going to make anyone "thankful" for living in shit in the United States for generations. One way or another it will cost us and a attitude like that only makes the price much higher.

**Wesley Mouch** · January-14-17, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Yeah, I'm well aware of PPP, and no, it doesn't fully explain cost of living differences, and doesn't "prove" that the poorest in the U.S. are the 1% of the planet. ...snip...

More to the OP, living standards aren't really important to this debate.

Everyone [[nearly) agrees that our cities [[and our city) has problems that need to be solved. Everyone [[nearly) agrees that taxes should fund the government, and that tax policy is a mess.

Fortunately, Donald Trump has expressed interest in improving cities, and in reforming tax policy. So now the debate needs to move to -- will he? And to will the entrenched interests of the left allow new ideas? Or will they fight tooth and nail for more taxes, and no changes in how we govern our cities.

Right now, Trump / Carson are hope & change. Trump won. He should get a chance to try his ideas, and his cabinet picks. The old ideas need some freshening up.

**canuck** · January-14-17, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by davewindsor

Boy, do I hate living in Canada when I hear this. We already have some of the highest income taxes in Ontario and you guys are significantly reducing yours. The province raised our gas taxes another 16 cents a gallon this year. Your sales tax is just 6% where ours is over 13%. I bought a TV on sale on Black Friday at Walmart for $199 that came to $250 after sales tax and eco fee [[which makes it a 25% sales tax). Ontario has the highest electricity rates in North America. Another 4.3cent/cm tax increase on natural gas. GM announced today they are moving production of the GMC Terrain Denali from Ingersoll to a new $5 Billion dollar plant in Mexico because it's much cheaper [[we already lost Camaro in Oshawa to Lansing, Michigan in November costing 1,000 jobs). In a few years, GM won't have a footprint in Ontario anymore. Whatever is left of our manufacturing is going to be lost to Michigan and Mexico.

Yet, people keep voting for tax and spend liberals in Canada.

WHY?!

You may be disappointed to learn about how Harper spent 3 times as much in his last year in office on federal procurements than Trudeau did in his First. Oh well.
http://www.financialpost.com/m/searc...ture%20bonanza

**Bham1982** · January-14-17, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Fortunately, Donald Trump has expressed interest in improving cities,

Um, is this a joke? Trump ran on an explicit racist, anti-urban platform, and lies, constantly, about urban America. He appointed a deranged nutcase to run HUD; a guy who tells Auschwitz jokes and claimed Obama was Satan.

Trump will be an absolute disaster for urban America. Anyone who cares about cities and who actually voted for the Orange Menace is an idiot.

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Right now, Trump / Carson are hope & change.

Change? Yes, absolutely. Probable destruction of the U.S. At the very least, the end of the U.S. as the world's hegemon. All great empires come to an end.

Hope? Hell, no, unless you're Russia, North Korea, ISIS or another U.S. adversary.

**clubboss** · January-14-17, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Um, is this a joke? Trump ran on an explicit racist, anti-urban platform, and lies, constantly, about urban America. He appointed a deranged nutcase to run HUD; a guy who tells Auschwitz jokes and claimed Obama was Satan.

And he stated "Joseph built the pyramids".

**erikd** · January-15-17, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by davewindsor

Boy, do I hate living in Canada when I hear this. We already have some of the highest income taxes in Ontario and you guys are significantly reducing yours. The province raised our gas taxes another 16 cents a gallon this year. Your sales tax is just 6% where ours is over 13%. I bought a TV on sale on Black Friday at Walmart for $199 that came to $250 after sales tax and eco fee [[which makes it a 25% sales tax). Ontario has the highest electricity rates in North America. Another 4.3cent/cm tax increase on natural gas. GM announced today they are moving production of the GMC Terrain Denali from Ingersoll to a new $5 Billion dollar plant in Mexico because it's much cheaper [[we already lost Camaro in Oshawa to Lansing, Michigan in November costing 1,000 jobs). In a few years, GM won't have a footprint in Ontario anymore. Whatever is left of our manufacturing is going to be lost to Michigan and Mexico.

Yet, people keep voting for tax and spend liberals in Canada.

WHY?!

How much do you spend on health insurance every year? How much did it cost you to go to college, or send your kids to college?

Health insurance costs a fortune in the US, as does college education.

**erikd** · January-15-17, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

More to the OP, living standards aren't really important to this debate.

Everyone [[nearly) agrees that our cities [[and our city) has problems that need to be solved. Everyone [[nearly) agrees that taxes should fund the government, and that tax policy is a mess.

Fortunately, Donald Trump has expressed interest in improving cities, and in reforming tax policy. So now the debate needs to move to -- will he? And to will the entrenched interests of the left allow new ideas? Or will they fight tooth and nail for more taxes, and no changes in how we govern our cities.

Right now, Trump / Carson are hope & change. Trump won. He should get a chance to try his ideas, and his cabinet picks. The old ideas need some freshening up.

So which policies and ideas promoted by Trump/Carson have inspired your hopes and expectations, other than some vague notion of "expressing interest in improving cities", "reforming tax policy", and "freshening up the old ideas"?

Trump says has a "big brain", and has all the "best ideas", so that's good enough, right?

Trump also said that he knows more about ISIS than the military generals. Do you believe that too?

**313WX** · January-15-17, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

More to the OP, living standards aren't really important to this debate.

Everyone [[nearly) agrees that our cities [[and our city) has problems that need to be solved. Everyone [[nearly) agrees that taxes should fund the government, and that tax policy is a mess.

Fortunately, Donald Trump has expressed interest in improving cities, and in reforming tax policy. So now the debate needs to move to -- will he? And to will the entrenched interests of the left allow new ideas? Or will they fight tooth and nail for more taxes, and no changes in how we govern our cities.

Right now, Trump / Carson are hope & change. Trump won. He should get a chance to try his ideas, and his cabinet picks. The old ideas need some freshening up.

How does repealing Obamacare, no matter how imperfect the bill is, "improve" the lives of the 20 million people who didn't have health insurance before it became law?

**ABetterDetroit** · January-15-17, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

More to the OP, living standards aren't really important to this debate.

Everyone [[nearly) agrees that our cities [[and our city) has problems that need to be solved. Everyone [[nearly) agrees that taxes should fund the government, and that tax policy is a mess.

Fortunately, Donald Trump has expressed interest in improving cities, and in reforming tax policy. So now the debate needs to move to -- will he? And to will the entrenched interests of the left allow new ideas? Or will they fight tooth and nail for more taxes, and no changes in how we govern our cities.

Right now, Trump / Carson are hope & change. Trump won. He should get a chance to try his ideas, and his cabinet picks. The old ideas need some freshening up.

Actually, the point of the OP was what State taxation policies could be adjusted with the least burden so that local economies could thrive as much as possible.

Certainly not more blind hope that external forces beyond our control will help improve things. Been there, done that. It doesn't work. It's long past due for this state to own it's own problems.

**Wesley Mouch** · January-17-17, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by erikd

So which policies and ideas promoted by Trump/Carson have inspired your hopes and expectations, other than some vague notion of "expressing interest in improving cities", "reforming tax policy", and "freshening up the old ideas"?

Trump says has a "big brain", and has all the "best ideas", so that's good enough, right?

Trump also said that he knows more about ISIS than the military generals. Do you believe that too?

That Trump mentioned urban issues nearly as the first item in his acceptance speech election night is quite a sign. That he has spoken to black voters and told them that they can't do much worse than they've done under Democrats speaks to a willingness to not follow the Republican party line. If you can trust that he's not a Russian spy, Rex Tillerson seems like a very impressive man with the real world experience, not a politicians. DeVos for education tells me he's for students, not the status quo in schools. Reducing regulation is really exciting if you like Uber and AirBnB more than monopolies, if you believe in small business and not McDonalds.... just for a couple thoughts. Or maybe I just love watching sacred cows get slaughtered. That's fun too.

But I understand how easy it is to get frightened by Trump. He scares me sometimes too. I'm soothed by the delusion that his statements about things like ISIS are just like the TV ads for mouthwash that promise to get me more dates.

**Wesley Mouch** · January-17-17, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

How does repealing Obamacare, no matter how imperfect the bill is, "improve" the lives of the 20 million people who didn't have health insurance before it became law?

Done without some replacement, it would not 'improve' lives, of course.

Since Trump isn't beholden to the conservative right, there's reason for hope on socialized heathcare. His statements on reducing prescription costs the other day scared the bejesus out of the forces of the status quo, and drove pharma stocks down about 2%. That would help everyone.

I don't see Trump eliminating socialized healthcare, so I don't think we'll see 20 million sent back to the emergency rooms. But the major tweaks likely may be just what Obama said he expected to keep his landmark plan alive for the country.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · January-17-17, 11:20 AM

The states without an income tax do attract a lot of people, both young and old. While we would need to figure out a replacement for revenue, it is a worthy and economically productive goal to do away with it. And any law that bans a state income tax should also phase out [[and ban) local income taxes.

**ABetterDetroit** · January-17-17, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

The states without an income tax do attract a lot of people, both young and old. While we would need to figure out a replacement for revenue, it is a worthy and economically productive goal to do away with it. And any law that bans a state income tax should also phase out [[and ban) local income taxes.

Ok. So what do you replace it with?

A VAT tax? That's a bureaucrats wet dream. This is not France where they embrace bureaucrats. It would take 10 accounts to figure out what's going on for every 1 compared to withholding income and tracking with W2s.

More sales tax? Unfortunately that is failing right in front of us with internet sales rocketing and being almost impossible to track.

More property tax? The communities with the highest property tax rates in Michigan have weak to non existent housing markets with people fleeing those markets for decades.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...sues/96627980/

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · January-17-17, 12:03 PM

Generally, I am an advocate for sales taxes, as being less harmful than either property or income taxes. They are also easier to collect, and follow the economy in real time. The first area of potential increase in revenue via sales tax would be to tax groceries that are currently untaxed. I would need to look at all sorts of data to determine both the amount different systems bring in, and the affect that changes in taxation bring to taxable behavior.

**erikd** · January-22-17, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

That Trump mentioned urban issues nearly as the first item in his acceptance speech election night is quite a sign. That he has spoken to black voters and told them that they can't do much worse than they've done under Democrats speaks to a willingness to not follow the Republican party line. If you can trust that he's not a Russian spy, Rex Tillerson seems like a very impressive man with the real world experience, not a politicians. DeVos for education tells me he's for students, not the status quo in schools. Reducing regulation is really exciting if you like Uber and AirBnB more than monopolies, if you believe in small business and not McDonalds.... just for a couple thoughts. Or maybe I just love watching sacred cows get slaughtered. That's fun too.

But I understand how easy it is to get frightened by Trump. He scares me sometimes too. I'm soothed by the delusion that his statements about things like ISIS are just like the TV ads for mouthwash that promise to get me more dates.

Almost everything you listed off are standard Republican talking points, and not anything new or different.

Republican candidates have been saying for years that black voters should try voting Republican, because they can't do any worse than the Dems. This isn't anything new. Touting businessmen instead of politicians as the answer is also a standard Republican talking point. Promoting the expansion of charter schools has been a top priority for the GOP for decades. Nominating DeVos is right in line with the standard ideology. Reducing regulation is also a standard top GOP priority and talking point.

There is nothing here that is new or different than pretty much any other GOP candidate, except for the addition of crazy statements and immature behavior that Trump brings to the table. I fail to see how the addition of childish behavior and crazy statements to the standard GOP platform is a reason for hope and inspiration.

**clubboss** · January-22-17, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

And you can't compare across currencies, especially between First and Third World.

I can get a solid meal in Latin America for $2 USD. I can have a full-time housekeeper/cook for $5 per day. So, yeah, median household income in Mexico, Brazil, etc. may be quite low, but it isn't remotely comparable.

Looks what $10.00 [[220,000 Dong) buys in Vietnam

https://www.facebook.com/drewbinsky7...6471609723099/

**Wesley Mouch** · January-23-17, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by erikd

Almost everything you listed off are standard Republican talking points, and not anything new or different.

Republican candidates have been saying for years that black voters should try voting Republican, because they can't do any worse than the Dems. This isn't anything new. Touting businessmen instead of politicians as the answer is also a standard Republican talking point. Promoting the expansion of charter schools has been a top priority for the GOP for decades. Nominating DeVos is right in line with the standard ideology. Reducing regulation is also a standard top GOP priority and talking point.

There is nothing here that is new or different than pretty much any other GOP candidate, except for the addition of crazy statements and immature behavior that Trump brings to the table. I fail to see how the addition of childish behavior and crazy statements to the standard GOP platform is a reason for hope and inspiration.

I did not hear "Republicans have been saying black voters can't do any worse than Dems for years" from anyone but Trump in this past election, but I have to admit I didn't pay 100% attention. It certainly isn't a novel idea, and has been a right-wing media point -- that's true.

But as far as not being different, how about 'health care for everyone'? Is that a standard Republican talking point too?

We can jab at each other here, but what's the point. For me, the point is that Trump and Sanders are resonating with the public in ways that we haven't seen for years. And I think there's common ground -- if only we'd get out of the way and stop fighting for our individual pet ideas. Sanders is right that Wall Street got away with murder. Trump is right that the public has been ignored by Republican trade policies. I'm not sure the cure is better than the disease, but we were sick -- and trying oddball ideas might be good. And Trump is bringing just as many oddball ideas as Sanders would have. Less dangerous IMO.

**bust** · January-23-17, 06:11 PM

Let's see the details of these supposed ideas. It's going to be great, it's going to be amaaazing, I've got a secret plan I'll tell you later doesn't cut it. Let's be honest: even he didn't think he'd win and he barely has a clue how he'll fulfill any of his campaign promises.

Politico interviewed three of the people who know him best: his biographers. Here's what they have to say:

He Was Surprised as Anyone
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...raphers-214448

I'm scared for our future and hell if I'm not going to try to help.

**ABetterDetroit** · January-24-17, 05:11 PM

Ok. So their is some support for increased sales tax, its the only idea floated as a alternative in this thread at least.

How about applying the existing 6% sales tax to admission to entertainment in particularly professional sports, concerts etc...All these owners are squeezing maximum dollar out of the fans with scores of price levels for every event to produce maximum revenue and we already pay for the venue why should we leave the last 6 percent in their pocket? They will always adjust pricing to meet demand anyway. Apply the additional revenue to a reduction in tax elsewhere where it is more badly needed.

The days of $5 baseball tickets are looong gone.

**MSUguy** · January-24-17, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Generally, I am an advocate for sales taxes, as being less harmful than either property or income taxes. They are also easier to collect, and follow the economy in real time. The first area of potential increase in revenue via sales tax would be to tax groceries that are currently untaxed. I would need to look at all sorts of data to determine both the amount different systems bring in, and the affect that changes in taxation bring to taxable behavior.

Less harmful for who? Your brilliant idea is do something that would make food more expensive for people in nation's poorest city.

**Zozo** · January-24-17, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by MSUguy

Less harmful for who? Your brilliant idea is do something that would make food more expensive for people in nation's poorest city.

More expensive by 2-3 cents on the dollar? That increase is negligible, even for poor people.

**archfan** · January-25-17, 02:55 AM

Originally Posted by Zozo

More expensive by 2-3 cents on the dollar? That increase is negligible, even for poor people.

It sounds like you never had to count pennies to buy what you need. I hope you never have to, and I hope you gain empathy for people who do.

**ABetterDetroit** · February-15-17, 04:48 PM

I guess this is the route they intend to push hard on. It seems like just yesterday they said the only way to get the money to fix our roads was a tax increase. Amazing how quickly they can change their mind that something like this is affordable.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/poli...-tax/97949582/

**Jason** · February-15-17, 06:00 PM

That is completely insane and the opposite of what makes any sense whatsoever.

It's unbelievable that the Republicans in the article are still spouting the garbage that this has anything to do with working families. If they wanted to reform taxes in a way that benefited working people they wouldn't be eliminating the type of tax that is the most beneficial to working people.

To make an easier comparison.

1. Take all of the state's expenses and divide it by the number of adult residents, and send every person the same bill.

2. Take a flat percentage of income from each person.

It's easy math. The only people who will pay less under this is rich people.

But it's worse than that, because the reality won't just be the simple #1, instead it will be some bureaucratic hyper nickel and diming maze of other taxes and fees, that, in their convolution, will be also be gamed to benefit the wealthy. The same amount of money needs to be collected either way, or else the state won't have the money to provide its services properly.

There's the Republican misconception that if you reduce government spending you reduce the size of government, when instead, the government still tries to perform the same services that it's obligated to do, except it does a bad job of it and the value/efficiency of those services goes down the toilet. Magically, when you talk to the Republicans in the trenches they'll say that they don't get enough funding to do their tasks properly, but if you ask them about other areas of government then they expect that reducing funding will *increase* the quality of service.

Why is it that the only fiscal conservatives are democrats, who will honestly and straightforwardly say that they want the government to perform certain services and that the cost of providing those services will be paid for with taxes? All republicans seem to be able to do is proudly cut taxes, demand services, go into panic mode when it turns out that there's not enough money, and then obliviously wonder why the government is dysfunctional.