I am impressed/efm

**sumas** · August-14-13, 07:30 PM

A few years back we over payed taxes. Tried a few times to get it back but got varied advice on how to so but always was told good luck if you see it. It wasn't chump change either.

We decided, oh hell a donation to a city we love.

We got a letter today saying we are in line with other creditors for the bankruptcy. I am in shock and awe that they even knew they owed us. They can keep it. We mentally wrote it off.

I think I'll frame that letter though.

**RickBeall** · August-14-13, 07:54 PM

You made me smile Sumas.

**313WX** · August-14-13, 07:56 PM

To be completely objective, this has nothing to do with the EFM/EM. These are normal processes and procedures in a bankruptcy proceeding.

That means you may actually get .10 cents of what you were owed in taxes, instead of not getting anything at all, since you're technically a creditor.

Congrats!!!

**sumas** · August-14-13, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

To be completely objective, this has nothing to do with the EFM/EM. These are normal processes and procedures in a bankruptcy proceeding.

That means you may actually get .10 cents of what you were owed in taxes, instead of not getting anything at all, since you're technically a creditor.

Congrats!!!

What's the old phrase 10 cents and a cup of coffee...get what?

**Honky Tonk** · August-15-13, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by sumas

A few years back we over payed taxes. Tried a few times to get it back but got varied advice on how to so but always was told good luck if you see it. It wasn't chump change either.

We decided, oh hell a donation to a city we love.

We got a letter today saying we are in line with other creditors for the bankruptcy. I am in shock and awe that they even knew they owed us. They can keep it. We mentally wrote it off.

I think I'll frame that letter though.

Sumas, Hold out for a PICASSO!

**Wesley Mouch** · August-15-13, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

To be completely objective, this has nothing to do with the EFM/EM. These are normal processes and procedures in a bankruptcy proceeding. ...

Regardless, the end result is a city that actually communicates. That's an improvement. Step one.

**313WX** · August-15-13, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Regardless, the end result is a city that actually communicates. That's an improvement. Step one.

The fact of the matter is this was a legal proces the city had to fulfill with or without an EFM/EM when it filed for bankruptcy. This step alone shouldn't give any impression of the EFM/EM.

A minor quibble perhaps, but a quibble none the less.

**Wesley Mouch** · August-15-13, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

The fact of the matter is this was a legal proces the city had to fulfill with or without an EFM/EM when it filed for bankruptcy. This step alone shouldn't give any impression of the EFM/EM.

A minor quibble perhaps, but a quibble none the less.

That's no so clear to me. The EM is in charge, and the city does something it should have done before -- that is acknowledging his refund. Before EM. No word from the city that they even received the taxpayer's request for refund. After EM. A creditor letter.

Sure, it was only sent because of bankruptcy filings. But the fact remains it was sent. And nothing sent before EM. That says something good to me.

**coracle** · August-15-13, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

The fact of the matter is this was a legal proces the city had to fulfill with or without an EFM/EM when it filed for bankruptcy. This step alone shouldn't give any impression of the EFM/EM.

The City would not have filed for bankruptcy without being forced to by the Gov/EM. The biggest surprise to date is that nobody has offered to bail them out. It wasn't supposed to work like this. [[Maybe it's too early in the bankruptcy to saddle up the Cavalry).

**sumas** · August-15-13, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Sumas, Hold out for a PICASSO!

I want a VanGogh.

My house is covered in good and not so good art, just was given a new piece of art and was challenged to find a home for it

**mwilbert** · August-15-13, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by coracle

The biggest surprise to date is that nobody has offered to bail them out. It wasn't supposed to work like this. [[Maybe it's too early in the bankruptcy to saddle up the Cavalry).

I don't agree with this at all. Who do you think had or has any interest in bailing out the city? I can see a little assistance on the scale of the state taking over running Belle Isle, or helping Detroit actually collect its non-resident income tax, or maybe some help with demolition or something of that sort, but I don't see anybody interested in doing anything more than that, and I don't think it is a surprise.

It isn't beyond belief that there could be some kind of tax abatement/enterprise zone/immigration preference program designed to benefit primarily Detroit, but I don't really think I would call that a bailout, and it is a long-shot anyway.

**sumas** · August-15-13, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I don't agree with this at all. Who do you think had or has any interest in bailing out the city? I can see a little assistance on the scale of the state taking over running Belle Isle, or helping Detroit actually collect its non-resident income tax, or maybe some help with demolition or something of that sort, but I don't see anybody interested in doing anything more than that, and I don't think it is a surprise.

It isn't beyond belief that there could be some kind of tax abatement/enterprise zone/immigration preference program designed to benefit primarily Detroit, but I don't really think I would call that a bailout, and it is a long-shot anyway.

Frankly don't want your help. Lots of opportunities were missed ,lots of great things happened. You are not us.

**sumas** · August-15-13, 11:41 PM

Sorry folks, for my previous post, I am serious grumpy, health issues.

please, please, please.... remember this is Detroit YES.

Contribute to solutions not insults.

My Detroit is amazing, friendly people, great neighbors, investment by non profits. The kids adorable.

**coracle** · August-16-13, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I don't agree with this at all. Who do you think had or has any interest in bailing out the city? I can see a little assistance on the scale of the state taking over running Belle Isle, or helping Detroit actually collect its non-resident income tax, or maybe some help with demolition or something of that sort, but I don't see anybody interested in doing anything more than that, and I don't think it is a surprise.

It isn't beyond belief that there could be some kind of tax abatement/enterprise zone/immigration preference program designed to benefit primarily Detroit, but I don't really think I would call that a bailout, and it is a long-shot anyway.

You have certainly given thought to where a creeping bail out could be applied. As soon as one "little assistance" is given [[DIA) the others become the next "little assistance" to be considered in turn. I suppose it depends in the meaning of "bail out". But as a taxpayer, like you, I hope you are correct and I'm wrong.

**Scottathew** · August-16-13, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by sumas

Frankly don't want your help. Lots of opportunities were missed ,lots of great things happened. You are not us.

I know you said this out of grumpiness, but it does hold a lot of truth. Some residents don't want help from the suburbs. The suburbs offer to help but ask that where we help, we must have some control. When the authority was developed for COBO residents were screaming about the suburbs taking over their jewel, COBO, and that they'd rather see it fall apart than allow suburban money to fix it.

Every time the suburbs try to help, we're met with resistance. In a city of 700,000 it's not surprising that some folks are going to speak out in opposition.

Detroit City Council made it pretty clear that they would rather have Belle Isle to be further neglected than have the State come and fix it up while the city still maintained ownership of the island.

It's a bad thing when the vocal minority have the ability to control city council. This isn't unique to Detroit, I saw it when I lived in Warren. Warren had a vocal minority that would monopolize the "audience participation part of council. Some council members would eat it up. One time I spoke before council supporting the demolition of an old pool and I was shouted out by the vocal minority and even belittled by a sitting council member for "not living in the city long enough". As a result of the vocal minority, an old eyesore pool was allowed to crumble and be an eyesore for a few additional years before it met its inevitable fate.

I think that the folks that greatly oppose suburban help are probably the vocal minority, but the news loves controversy, so that's what we see. The news media always and city councils sometimes will represent the vocal minority, because the majority is silently carrying on.

I think that Detroit can greatly benefit from regional authorities, and will greatly benefit from EFMs. The most anti-EFM noise isn't coming from residents, but it's coming from folks that have a lot to lose, the union folks.

**Wesley Mouch** · August-16-13, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I don't agree with this at all. Who do you think had or has any interest in bailing out the city? ...

Bail out is done after you fix the leak in the boat. A bail out doesn't help Detroit. A bankruptcy does. The bankruptcy is targeted to fix the holes. After bankruptcy, I think we'll find that Detroit does get help -- if and only if Detroit stops acting badly and antisocially.

**mwilbert** · August-16-13, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Bail out is done after you fix the leak in the boat. A bail out doesn't help Detroit. A bankruptcy does. The bankruptcy is targeted to fix the holes.

I'm not sure this is really right. Reducing existing obligations seems more like removing a bunch of previously-leaked water than it does fixing the holes it came in. It is true that if there are adjustments to existing contracts in bankruptcy that might be like fixing holes.

After bankruptcy, I think we'll find that Detroit does get help -- if and only if Detroit stops acting badly and antisocially.

I lack confidence Detroit's political leadership will act in ways that are reassuring to others, and I lack confidence that it will get help if it does. However, I am always hopeful, and it isn't impossible.

**sumas** · August-17-13, 05:01 AM

I still apologize for my grumpiness. I actually support regional governance. At the least folks who work in Detroit but live elsewhere deserve some kind of vote. Taxation without representation is plain wrong.

Sometimes the negativity on this board just gets me down. We need state and federal support to bolster our situation. The banks got a bailout and celebrated big time, bonuses and all.

Maybe I should just call whose left survivors. TV Show?

**marshamusic** · August-17-13, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by sumas

I still apologize for my grumpiness. I actually support regional governance. At the least folks who work in Detroit but live elsewhere deserve some kind of vote

So, my dear Sumas, do Detroiters who work in the suburbs [[and that would be most of us) deserve "some kind" of a vote in those cities, as well?

**313WX** · August-17-13, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by marshamusic

So, my dear Sumas, do Detroiters who work in the suburbs [[and that would be most of us) deserve "some kind" of a vote in those cities, as well?

Sumas' logic is since suburbanites who work in downtown/midtown pay the commuter tax [[a measely 1.5%), they should have just as much control over Detroit as Detroit residents do.

But it doesn't work like that. The only reason you're paying taxes is because while you're in town, you use up a certain amount of city resources [[like when you guys visit Chicago for vacation and pay their 10% sales tax), but the fact of the matter is you still go home to reside in another municipality and the decision made by whatever leaders you theoretically elect in Detroit will have no impact on your lives as a commuter. It's equivalent to having your cake and eating it you [[benefitting from the positive things the city has to offer while being relieved of the problems that come with city life). Furthermore, no one forces anyone to work for an employer in Detroit.

**coracle** · August-18-13, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Sumas' logic is since suburbanites who work in downtown/midtown pay the commuter tax [[a measely 1.5%), they should have just as much control over Detroit as Detroit residents do.

But it doesn't work like that. The only reason you're paying taxes is because while you're in town, you use up a certain amount of city resources [[like when you guys visit Chicago for vacation and pay their 10% sales tax), but the fact of the matter is you still go home to reside in another municipality and the decision made by whatever leaders you theoretically elect in Detroit will have no impact on your lives as a commuter. It's equivalent to having your cake and eating it you [[benefitting from the positive things the city has to offer while being relieved of the problems that come with city life). Furthermore, no one forces anyone to work for an employer in Detroit.

It isn't the same as going to Chicago. You have a free choice to go or not go; but if your company is induced to move to Detroit with promises of tax incentives you are forced to go or lose your job; and of course forced to pay the measly 1.5% tax for using city services. Conversely, for Detroiters that work in the suburbs; why don't Detroit credit them with the measly 1.5% from their tax payment for using less city services? It could be credited to a fund to run the DIA and negate the need for the millage from the suburbs. It would remove an impression that Detroit might be having its cake and eating it, and eating it.

**mwilbert** · August-18-13, 08:44 AM

The Detroit non-resident tax is levied under authority granted by the Michigan legislature. Unless you work in Detroit and live outside the state, your representatives or their predecessors approved it.

In any case, this is a unimpressive argument. Any time you pay a tax to a jurisdiction you don't vote in, you are being taxed without representation. It isn't an unusual thing. Just because the colonists thought it was a useful slogan doesn't make it into a sensible principle--what they were complaining about were transaction taxes, not income taxes, but we pay those without representation all the time. That is why hotel and motel taxes are so popular with local and state governments.