Michigan transit tax Rejected [MI Prop 15-1]

[Jimaz]

Some of the mailings are getting very deceptive.

One today was fashioned in an attempt to look like a hand-written letter from an individual but each letter of the alphabet was identical wherever it appeared. The true author appeared at the bottom but in barely perceptible print.

I figure it's either a weak attempt by the pro side to fool people into voting for it or a shrewd attempt by the con side to depict the pros as deceptive. Either way it's pretty disgusting.

I often fantasize about forming a guerrilla team of citizens who clandestinely hotpatch the potholes but that's likely been made illegal. It's too activist—y—ish. Can't have any of that now, can we? LOL!

[Wesley Mouch]

The point is that raising sales taxes [[the most regressive and anti-poor possible tax increase) has nothing to do with fixing the roads. ...snip...

Slightly off topic, but sales tax is not regressive and anti-poor. We exempt food. So a poor person is likely to pay very little in sales taxes in proportion to their low income. While a richer person pays sales tax on their new boat, their new car, their new Playstation 7, etc. It may not be progressive, but certainly not super-regressive. And anti-poor? Really?

[Jimaz]

...sales tax is not regressive....

That's the first time I've ever heard anyone even attempt to make that claim.

... Really?

Obviously not in your parallel universe.

[Lowell]

Slightly off topic, but sales tax is not regressive and anti-poor. We exempt food. So a poor person is likely to pay very little in sales taxes in proportion to their low income. While a richer person pays sales tax on their new boat, their new car, their new Playstation 7, etc. It may not be progressive, but certainly not super-regressive. And anti-poor? Really?

Yes. Really.

A quick googling of the term lays it out simply.

DEFINITION OF 'REGRESSIVE TAX'
A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder.

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'REGRESSIVE TAX'
Some examples include gas tax and cigarette tax. For example, if a person has $10 of income and must pay $1 of tax on a package of cigarettes, this represents 10% of the person's income. However, if the person has $20 of income, this $1 tax only represents 5% of that person's income.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp

While it is true that the MI state tax does not apply to food, medications and a few other items [for which the better off get also the same break], there are many, many other items from clothing to beater cars where the tax applies unequally to the working poor.

[Dan Wesson]

It will be real interesting to see how the Dyes poll coincides with the real vote.

I' hope it does and sends a message to the new crop legislators.

Get real. It's a post industrial Michigan...
Put your ear to the ground, read the signs. There is a second wave of recession forming.

[Dan Wesson]

You don't say... who woulda thunk it?

http://www.9and10news.com/story/2889...hike-for-roads

[313WX]

Get real. It's a post industrial Michigan...
Put your ear to the ground, read the signs. There is a second wave of recession forming.

Yep, planning on getting out before it's too late...

[compn]

I'm voting YES. FYI, I am Republican, and started off NO on this, but have switched. Here is why:
1) It adds funding to roads.

sorry, nope. prop 1 does not do that.

A proposal to amend the State Constitution to increase the sales/use tax from 6% to 7% to replace and supplement reduced revenue to the School Aid Fund and local units of government caused by the elimination of the sales/use tax on gasoline and diesel fuel for vehicles operating on public roads, and to give effect to laws that provide additional money for roads and other transportation purposes by increasing the gas tax and vehicle registration fees.

the proposal only increases our taxes.

the promise of road funding is up to those completely trustworthy and HONEST people in the legislature.

of course we all trust those trustworthy people to not change the laws or pull the rug from under our feet.

[emu steve]

Yes. Really.

A quick googling of the term lays it out simply.



While it is true that the MI state tax does not apply to food, medications and a few other items [for which the better off get also the same break], there are many, many other items from clothing to beater cars where the tax applies unequally to the working poor.

Taxes are really, really tough to delineate in an accurate manner.

E.g., cigarette taxes are designed to be almost punitive, so odious that it discourages the behavior [[buying cigarettes) to which it is attached.

Gasoline taxes are essentially a user tax. If you have a vehicle you pay according to how much fuel one uses. I'd guess to get away from the regressive nature, one could lower the gasoline tax but collect those same funds in terms of a personal property tax. Someone with a 50K car pays a lot more than someone owning a low value car.

Real estate taxes are the real kicker. Seems similar to a personal property tax on vehicles but a good share of those tax funds are used for K - 12 education. But not all property owners have children so that expense is spread across a bigger population: property owners. Not a true user tax.

[jerrytimes]

I'm a Snyder supporter, he's done an OK job in my opinion, but new taxes will fix nothing. I pay enough. Make these construction companies accountable for their garbage work. I696 should be like it is already, I believe it was re paved in 2002 or something.

[248lurker]

I'm a Snyder supporter, he's done an OK job in my opinion, but new taxes will fix nothing. I pay enough.

I've liked Snyder, too. I find it hard to blame him for the road mess when the state legislators seem to be such polar opposites they are unwilling to compromise ... and probably disagree on what day of the week it is . Snyder has been wanting something for the roads since he first took office and the legislature can't seem to come up with anything.

I feel as if voters were given a rather inferior proposal to vote on with the usual promise of doom and gloom if we reject it. Note to the pols: We voted you in office to make these difficult decisions. Don't make us do your dirty work. [[/soap)

[Bham1982]

Slightly off topic, but sales tax is not regressive and anti-poor. We exempt food. So a poor person is likely to pay very little in sales taxes in proportion to their low income. While a richer person pays sales tax on their new boat, their new car, their new Playstation 7, etc. It may not be progressive, but certainly not super-regressive. And anti-poor? Really?

Of course the sales tax harms the poor the most. The poor have a very high exposure to sales taxes; the rich a very low exposure. The wealthy are hoarding their earnings in investments, which are taxed at 15% or not at all. The poor are living paycheck to paycheck and have the full exposure to sales taxes.

If you reduce sales taxes and increase income taxes [[what we used to have 20 years ago) the poor would pay a lower share of the overall tax burden, and the rich would pay a larger share of the overall tax burden. The poor in the U.S. essentially don't pay income taxes, so any cuts to income taxes accrue to the middle class and wealthy.

[Jimaz]

I'm not sure whether anyone has mentioned this story from a couple months ago.

Audit faults MDOT oversight of flawed road projects

MDOT doesn't properly followup on road warranties -- intended to hold contractors responsible for poor work -- which can then shift cost of repairs to state, according to a new audit....

"Our review ... identified 48 of 92 expired warranty projects that needed corrective action," the report said. "As of June 30, 2014, 24 of the warranties had been expired for over one year without MDOT having addressed the corrective action."...

But the auditor noted that similar issue[s] were raised in an earlier audit, released in 2010, and at that time the department said it would "strengthen its procedures to assure the completion of inspections."...

Would it be cheaper to fill potholes with cash rather than asphalt?

[Honky Tonk]

Well, I'm going to drop this right here, in case anyone wants to hear both sides of the proposal....

http://wdet.org/posts/2015/04/27/803...llot-language/

[Gpwrangler]

I watched the resurfacing of Mack Avenue from Cadieux to 7 mile. All last year the road was restricted to one lane while crews worked only on Sunday to resurface and replace some curbing. The work was half-assed and looks like it will last 2 years.

It's down to one lane each way again, while they rip out a few sidewalks and wheelchair ramps at the crosswalks and re do them. Again working mostly on the weekends. The lanes could easily be re opened during the week. And the bridge repair being done near the Chrysler plant is another masterpiece of engineering.

I can't stomach putting one more cent into road repairs if these are examples of what we are going to see.

[rb336]

yes, it's a very flawed bill. but I drive. Until we stop sending corporatist tools to Lansing, stop sending lackeys for the 1%, this is as good as we are going to get

[TheUsualSuspect]

No plan B my ass. I've got a plan B. Vote all the dunderheads that came up with this crap legislation back onto the streets.

All those knuckleheads REALLY had to do to make the bill palatable was limit the tax increase to a fixed time period, say two years...and put the increase up for renewal.

If we like what we saw and got the improvement we needed, we go another two years.

For every dollar I earn, I pay federal tax, state tax, Fica [[or whatever it's called nowadays).

Then, when I finally get to take the 60 cents home out of the dollar I earned, I pay ANOTHER 6 cents every time I spend a dollar. And you want ANOTHER penny? Nope. Nada. Nill.

[Gpwrangler]

yes, it's a very flawed bill. but I drive. Until we stop sending corporatist tools to Lansing, stop sending lackeys for the 1%, this is as good as we are going to get

I don't purchase flawed merchandise.

[313WX]

yes, it's a very flawed bill. but I drive. Until we stop sending corporatist tools to Lansing, stop sending lackeys for the 1%, this is as good as we are going to get

Good point. Bolded for emphasis.

Otherwise, I guess folks want to have their cake as well as eat it. That's not going to happen...

[ABetterDetroit]

yes, it's a very flawed bill. but I drive. Until we stop sending corporatist tools to Lansing, stop sending lackeys for the 1%, this is as good as we are going to get

Your points are exactly why I am voting NO.

Why in the world would anyone want "very flawed" legislation from "tools"?

Everyone should write in WTF? after their vote.

[rb336]

Your points are exactly why I am voting NO.

Why in the world would anyone want "very flawed" legislation from "tools"?

Everyone should write in WTF? after their vote.

Why? because our roads are in dire straights. Why? because I personally know 5 companies that were contemplating relocation here but didn't because of the roads. Why? I'm sick of blown tires, cracked rims, suspensions becoming prematurely soggy. Why? I'm sick of nearly getting hit by people dodging potholes. The status quo on this will not work

[ron]

Your elected representatives would never, never, ever vote for a tax increase. However, they would very much like all of us to do so to resolve their problem.

To that end, they have presented us with a deliberately bewildering array of issues, each of which deserve its own consideration. To bundle such disparate issues within a single proposal exposes the cowardice of our legislature.

I can't imagine that those who voted these people into office expected such flimflam tactics. They were probably expecting the actual idiotic laws that they deserve.

[sirrealone]

So the problem is that now we look and realize that we voted in the wrong people? The problem with that is that even if we somehow manage to vote out the incompetent assholes, there's a line of even more incompetent assholes waiting to take their place, and odds are they're even more incompetent than the last bunch.

It's scary to think of how many people are voting no because they think a better solution awaits. You want to know what's going to happen after this gets voted down? Nothing. Nothing at all.

I got a rotation at the tire shop and was talking to the workers. They brought me out to show me that I have three rims with imperfections that will eventually fail. He asked if I want to replace them, and I said Heck no, not until they fail, because if I do get them fixed, I probably won't make it home before the new ones get bent. He tells me that probably at least half of rims he sees now, some on cars with less than 10,000 miles, have some form of this. Eventually they'll all fail but even then I bet people will still just wait for the Road Funding Fairy to show up and make it right. But they'll still complain about the condition of the roads and blame someone, that much is for sure.

A small subset of the population will vote yes next week. But a vast majority will sit home or vote no, then after the dust settles, they'll get right back to complaining about how bad the roads are and magically expect that someone is going to come do something about it.

If you really expect that your no vote or don't vote will yield something better, then please make sure to go out next Tuesday and get a bag of sand before they run out, because a lot of people apparently will be needing some to bury their heads into.

[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.

[noise]

I believe that is Lowell's point.

Gas tax is a user tax. The more you consume the more tax you pay.

Those who driver bigger, heavier vehicles and drive more miles will pay more.

And as was posted, many in Detroit don't have cars. Their gas/vehicle taxes should be zero dollars and zero cents. They may commute via buses, taxis, etc. and those would pay their share of taxes.

They may not drive cars on the roads, but they certainly rely on other people driving vehicles on those roads.