Printable View
I wholeheartedly support the city's efforts to make sure everyone pays their taxes. It's been years since they had the manpower to do it.
And I call complete BS on Bedrock's stance that it's an invasion of privacy to provide that information. When they complete the Hudson's tower, they will be first in line to fork over that info when it means that tax money coming back to them.
https://www.freep.com/story/money/20...ers/609455002/
one ponders what the threshold/critical mass of wealthy residents it would take to sunset the city income tax...will it always exist due to large portion of suburban office workers?
You don't need wealthy residents, you need critical mass of thousands and thousands [[probably over 100,000) more middle class residents who will pay their taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by hybridy
We also need to boost training programs and job access to current Detroiters so they can pay taxes and invest in their community. Jobs, jobs, jobs! :)
I've always been curious, do Michigan auto insurance companies not investigate after an expensive claim to confirm actual residency?
I've never heard that they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
Why?
Since they seem to be able to increase rates successfully, why would they want to alienate customers by denying claims?
Going another direction with this, I'll bet that the zip code of parents is a better indicator of risk than zip code of children's residence. Or put differently, the group of insurance cheaters probably are much smaller risks than the group of true native Detroiters. So the insurance company finds it better to avoid the truth -- and pay a few large claims here and there -- while collecting premiums from thousands of white-lie-fraudsters.
The government only needs what is necessary to pursue their investigation. A court will decide and if the leases are handed over, certain personal info like phone numbers, emails and social society numbers will be redacted.Quote:
Originally Posted by middetres
I guess there's some logic to that. The reason I asked was because I know of a couple of cases here in Ontario where companies declined coverage after accidents to parent's vehicles after proving their children were not in fact occasional drivers, as claimed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
With all due respect dtowncitylover but you have a big contradiction going on there. "don't need wealthy residents" but want "jobs, jobs, jobs!" ???
Be real and look at America as it exist. Wealthy people start businesses and find opportunities where they live!
The financially secure are the ones that will be providing those jobs. You don't have to like them but wealth is a neccessary component in America for economic success.
If you throw up barriers to keep the wealth out so there is little in Detroit it will continue to get fucked. Like it or not those people have political power that's bought and paid for and if they don't have skin in the game then the railroading goes on endlessly.
You can be a fan of socialism fine but any thinking that it will work in Detroit USA is just foolhardy. The system is what it is and Detroit has to compete just like every city in America.
Detroit needs to play the Goddamn game the way it runs instead of sitting on the sidelines waiting for a new game to come along that frankly will not in any of our lifetimes.
HA! No, people with access to capital create jobs. Whether they be an entrepreneur who gets a loan to start their company/idea or JD Rockefeller. I didn't mean to imply there should be no wealthy people, I just don't want to see a city created on the backs of wealthy and the poor [[the two Detroits?). There needs to be a large majority of people who are middle class in order to create a stable tax base for a city. 1950 Detroit, despite the underlying racism and marginalization of black Detroit, was "wealthy" because wages were good and the city had a tax base.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
How is trying to build a better, larger middle class socialism? Jobs require capital, and you get capital by much more than just having a couple of wealthy people footing the tax bills and creating a few jobs.
The chant.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
And how do you think jobs are created?Quote:
Jobs, jobs, jobs!
What?Quote:
...boost training programs and job access...
What is 'job access'? Sounds like a buzzword.
And 'training programs'? Really? What makes you think that training programs is where jobs come from? If you could show me that training programs create jobs, I'll be impressed. Probably helps some people qualify for some jobs, but no jobs are created by training programs.
Jobs are created mostly by 'wealthy residents'. People who have created wealth by providing a good or service better, faster, or more efficiently. People who invested capital to create wealth. Its the process of creating wealth that creates jobs.
This post, and a whole heck of a lot of politicians seem to think that jobs can be created by 'programs'. By government spending. And of course some can. But these jobs are the by-products, not the main course. The jobs you need are created by wealth. If you want jobs, work for inequality. That's where you'll find everyone doing better.
So back to the thread.
Should Bedrock be required to give the City tenancy info?
My answer: NO.
Why? I do not believe in City income taxes. Its bad public policy to tax income -- which you want more of. I can tolerate federal and state income taxes as a necessary evil. Income taxes levied by cities are absurd, and encourage disinvestment and an exodus of jobs.
This is utterly false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Inequality has been rising for 50 years and in that time wage growth has been flat and if it weren't for government assistance the poverty rate would also be flat.
It would help refute the fact that many of the new major constructions projects seem to have residency quotas. And the whole complaint was that these companies couldn't find enough talent in the city to fill the quotas. So yes, access to these private jobs would help through public or private programs and apprenticeships.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
I also don't like the city income tax, but to get rid of it now would be detrimental to the city. It seems to me the only way to get rid of it would build a strong enough tax base that can help offset the income tax through other means. But that tax base needs to be working.
These residents are tax evaders, plain and simple. Want the city life without anything attached. Doesn't work like that.
I also didn't say anything about government spending. I just said we need a stable middle class that pays their taxes and can provide the city an offset income before we get rid of the income tax.
Build it for everyone. Rich, poor, in the middle, black white and all shades of brown.
Attempting to build a economy 'just so' is Michigans problem in a nut shell. Exactly why other states are kicking our ass decade after decade.
Seize all opportunities then what works we will have. "It used to be like" is useless. Things change, always do and never stop happening.
If Michigan is going to do nothing but try to react to the changes it is terminally screwed forever. People will never stop leaving, the best, the brightest and especially the ones with access to capital. Being a intregal part of the changes is absolutely necessary.
I have always found that if you drive an older inexpensive car that your insurance premiums here in Detroit are materially lower, Progressive presently is really working with some Detroit residents with good driving record‘s and insurance premiums are not horrific, about $1700 a year. The other thing that never seems to be mentioned, is how much , if you work downtown and live downtown, you are saving on gasoline and wear and tear on your car. I have estimated that I save approximately $1800 a year in gas, and well as over $1000 yearly in wear and repair expense on my car, as compared to what accumulated with a auto commute 70 to 80 minutes a day in total and instead only have a 10 minute walk. Its also much healthier.
Other cities like Cleveland, and its inner ring burbs [[ lakewood) residents and workers also pay city income tax, so we are not alone on this.
I believe Wolverine is correct. The court will not compel Bedrock to turn over any information about its tenants. In fact, I doubt that Bedrock will even have to turn over the leases although it may be compelled to provide a rent roll.
A factor is that Bedrock is represented by Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn, the best law firm in the state, while the City will be represented by the hacks in the Law Department.
Of course another factor may be the judge that gets the case; there are a couple, such as the Chief Judge, who’s in Duggan’s pocket, which may rule for the City regardless of the facts or the law. Then Bedrock will have to win on appeal.
I’d love to the tenants intervene and get an Injunction preventing the City from proceeding with its lawsuit.
2.4% Income tax is not the problem.
Claiming it is a major issue hurting Detroit is pure bullshit. Just more Republican same old arguments being regurgitated and then transferred from a federal tax complaint over into Detroit.
The proof of it not being the problem has has already been laid out for everyone to see in broad daylight.
If the 2.4 was such a deterrent why exactly did City Modern sell out so fast? Obviously it was the NEZ incentive, Not the income tax being a problem. You do not qualify for the NEZ if its NOT the primary residence.
Simply put the NEZ is and has been a extremely useful way for getting owner occupied housing moving again after decades of a dead real estate market in the city.
Now having said that, cheating or fudging the taxman is as widespread in America as the words are to the National Anthem. Common as rain, lets be honest here, practically a national sport. You don't even have to know a person well, sometimes having just met them and they will start bragging to you how they have a loophole or a system to avoid paying taxes.
That's exactly what is so frustrating about the state laws that have prevented Detroit from collecting their 2.4.% Hell, Lansing only legally allowed it a few years ago, still they prevent the city from knowing who lives in it solely to make it easier for the tax cheats. Imagine if there was not a W2? Would the feds have a chance of collecting taxes? Michigan sure as hell wouldn't on its income tax.
Ultimately in the end it is the taxpayer in Michigan who pays dearly for this moronic behavior from Lansing. Detroit can't collect a simple tax that would in reality maybe raise a couple hundred more million annually under ideal conditions but Lansing pours a billion at the Detroit school district in 10 months to get it out from under financial hell. The state foots the bill for 300,000 Detroiters stuck in generational poverty. This thread is not the place for listing all the expensive problems poverty in Michigan's largest city creates for the Michigan taxpayer. Rest assured, its many Billions per year. All to make a point that Republicans don't like income taxes? Duh! Nobody does! Yet sometimes... 2.4% is a shitload less expensive than the alternative.
The talk of city income tax is a red herring. People aren't using address outside the city to save $40 a paycheck. Hell I bet most people wouldn't even notice if income tax as a whole went up 2.4%.
It's the auto insurance, it all the auto insurance.
100% this is the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-slice
Being a resident in Detroit, you are aware that the State of MI has been processing Detroit taxes for the past couple of years?Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby
Well, this thread certainly makes it easy to spot who's scamming on paying their Detroit taxes.
If you are suggesting me then you are dead wrong. I do not live in Detroit and never have. I did, however, live in Flint which has a 1% income tax for residents [[.5% for non-residents) which I happily paid. My car on the other hand was in my mother's name and was insured in a nearby suburb in her name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
I call Kool-aid drinking on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shai_Hulud
Inequality of what? Wealth? Income? Between whom?
Wage growth flat? A quick google search for a decent source [[Havard Business Review) says increase overall of 0.2% per year OVER INFLATION over past couple decades. Which, yes, is near flat. But its not flat. It is lower than we probably would like. And the current recovery seems to be driving wages up now, so this may change.)
Are there problems? Yes. Are the problems extremely complex? Yes. Are there many factors that complicate making such a simple call on wage flatness? Yes. [[Employer-paid medical expenses rising, increases in disability claims, changes in tax policy, improvements in health and lifespan, decreases in infant mortality, the largest recession in our lifetime during the period, minimum wage laws driving youth employment down, etc.)
Not utterly false. Complicated.
And "inequality"? Great news. That explains why things are getting better.
[[Now if you want to do something about it, time for a 25-50% VAT, and an elimination of income taxes, and we will really get somewhere on "inequality".)