Looks Like it's the Taxpayers That'll Be Footing The Bill.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/10/gov-snyder-signs-12b-road-funding-package/75510548/
Printable View
Looks Like it's the Taxpayers That'll Be Footing The Bill.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/10/gov-snyder-signs-12b-road-funding-package/75510548/
Everything the government does is paid for by taxpayers. It's their only source of money. It doesn't matter where the tax or fee is applied, it always comes out of the taxpayers pocket.
Wonder how much of it will actually be used on the roads this time and how much will be siphoned off on "social" programs by reducing the specs for the roads to "save money". What happened to the 19 cent per gall we've been paying for years? Who's General funds did that end up in?
Your absolutely right, of course, but it was supposed to be "business" that was going to take the hit, not the taxpayers. The second part is the additional license, registration fees, and gas tax money, is going to be be kept in the "General Fund". Which, of course, means the extra revenue can also be used for "general" things. In this case though, it's the automobile owners and gasoline buyers that will be footing the bill for "general" things. This is how things came to be in the current state they're in.Quote:
Originally Posted by ndavies
This road bill doesn't hold a candle to the PPACA tax.
I wish I could get investment money for a project with no scope, plan, or estimate on timing.
Sometimes you have to wonder what this country would be like if the "not with my money" crowd were shutting down government when the Panama canal was built, the second world war was won, the interstate highway system was constructed and when we landed men on the moon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gpwrangler
Thankfully most technological advances come from private industry and not government, especially today's government.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
Your post is a last-ditch kind of post. How do you think the canal would have ended up had Roosevelt come back to the American people and said "We've used up the money for the Canal that was in the general fund. The Canal is a mess, we're going to raise your taxes for more Canal money, and keep that in the general fund as well. But listen, it'll create job, jobs, jobs!" I don't think that would fly. But that's exactly what's going on here. In the WORST State in the Union for accountabilityQuote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
Amen. And WWII doesn't belong lumped in that generalization either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
Finally those Romans in Lansing got the road fixing deal work out, with taxes coming out of our wallets. Now let's fix that I-75 Rouge River Bridge before it collapses.
Hopefully they'll do a better job fixing the roads now that they have all this money earmarked. Obviously, the way they've been doing it has been woefully inadequate. Fixing the same streets every 2 or 3 years, traffic delays, orange barrels are getting old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
Why is it un-American to just ask for your money's worth ?? Why do we have to pay several times for the same repair ?
Canada's $550 million contribution to the new proposed bridge is being leveraged for 2.2 billion in federal funds to be used for any road projects in the state of Michigan.
The well disliked Ambassador leveraged 50 million in repair tax credits for 200 million to be used on state roads.
That is 2.6 billion?
The positive is the reduction in property taxes,which hopefully will provide some relief.
Hmm this "leverage" you speak of...Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
this 2.6 billion is it a gift?
Or, is it a small amount of money used to borrow a much bigger amount of money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Wesson
The feds do not just hand over the monies the state has to have a matching funds deal,IE the Ambassador's down payment was 50 million in toll tax to leverage 200 million,or the 50 million was the down payment.For whatever the formula for matching funds are.
I theory,I guess it is borrowed monies because the taxpayers are liable.
The new bridge actually leveraged 4 billion but the 2.2 billion number was based on the amount that the state of Michigan could leverage over a 5 year period or provide the matching funds for.
So it brings to question,when that time comes has the state already budgeted the matching funds or are they going to go back to the table and say we need the 4 billion and in order to get it we need to add another tax to leverage those funds?
This is incorrect. The revenues generated by the gas and diesel excise, registrations, and the contribution from the state's general fund* will go through formula.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
Constitutionally, these monies must go to a transportation purpose.
To simplify a bit, the monies raised through registrations and fuel taxes will go towards roads, bridges, public transportation agencies, debt service, etc. These monies must be spent on transportation purposes.
The general fund/general purpose dollars will be distributed to MDOT, counties, and cities. However, Detroit will be able to flex some of that money to DDOT.
The sales tax portion of taxes paid on fuels will continue to go to the state's general fund.
* The state has pledged $150 million in 2019 up to $600 million in 2021 that will be spent from the state's general fund/general purpose account for improving roads and bridges. After that, it is up to the legislature to determine how much GF/GP monies will be spent on the road system.
ndavies point needs to be re-inforced. "Business" just means all of us. To pay our taxes, US needs jobs. Businesses are all almost all jobs. Without trade, commerce, and industry, we'd be organic, agrarian, and poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
If you want to tax 'business', just raises income tax rates on high earners -- in which case you'll get the evil business owners, and at the same time you'll get Wayne County retirees and College Presidents in the bargain.
I want to see results. There had better be results in better constructed roads and more consistent, regular repairs.
The GOP domination of the state legislature isn't going away. But they need to take ownership of state policy, including outright blunders like Flint & the water. Don't look for a critique from Mr. Schuette; he has a governor's race to prep for in a few years.
Right. The Reps have been running things since 2011, so they own what's been going on, including roads turning to gravel and people in Flint being poisoned. If they can't turn having the governorship plus large majorities in the legislature into positive results, then what the hell good are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypestyles
You guys are right, of course. Business needs all the tax breaks, write-offs, and loop-holes it can get, to keep us all gainfully employed, so we can pay our taxes, several times over, to make sure everyone has nice roads to drive on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
http://www.wsj.com/articles/gm-to-im...suv-1447349781
Did we expect that more roads were going to be fixed, but not have a tax raise in some way? I look at this proposal like this, the rise in plate renewals is just inflation. Granholm raised them [[10-20% i believe) and now it's happening again. Cost rise, and funding from plate renewals has to rise. Tax at the pump, everyone pays here as well, the more you drive on the roads, the more you pay, including businesses. It would be nice if government cut spending to cover thing, but we all know that never happens. It sucks...
Registrations already had inflation built in. That was added that last time registrations were increased.
Registrations fees are tied to the price of the car. The higher the cost of the car the higher the cost of the registration. As car prices have been rising so have the costs of registration.
This new fee goes way beyond the rate of inflation.
I'll agree gas taxes weren't tied to inflation. Also, as new cars got higher mileage, they used less gas. this caused revenues from the gas tax to fall as cars drive more miles. The new law includes increasing the tax based on inflation.