Prop. 1 on the August 5th Primary ballot

[Pam]

Any thoughts for or against Prop 1? Here is the text of the proposal:

Reduce the state use tax and replace with a local community stabilization share of the tax for the purpose of modernizing the tax system to help small businesses grow and create jobs in Michigan.
2. Require Local Community Stabilization Authority to provide revenue to local governments dedicated for local purposes, including police safety, fire protection, and ambulance emergency services.
3. Increase portion of state use tax dedicated for aid to local school districts.
4. Prohibit Authority from increasing taxes.
5. Prohibit total use tax rate from exceeding existing constitutional 6% limitation.
------

[Jimaz]

Any thoughts for or against Prop 1? Here is the text of the proposal:

Reduce the state use tax and replace with a local community stabilization share of the tax for the purpose of modernizing the tax system to help small businesses grow and create jobs in Michigan.
2. Require Local Community Stabilization Authority to provide revenue to local governments dedicated for local purposes, including police safety, fire protection, and ambulance emergency services.
3. Increase portion of state use tax dedicated for aid to local school districts.
4. Prohibit Authority from increasing taxes.
5. Prohibit total use tax rate from exceeding existing constitutional 6% limitation.
------

Way too vague, hence way too suspicious. Vote NO in this atmosphere of post-Citizens United manipulation. They're investing too much in deception to be believed.

[jackie5275]

This proposal was written by a guy who works for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. As many know, this group is pro-business, pro-Republican, and conservative. So consider the source when deciding how to vote.

Additionally, the establishment of another "Authority" is troublesome & problematic. Authorities are run by appointed people, not by people who are voted in. Plus, there are no details on what the "Authority" will or won't be doing or what their powers will or won't be. Heck, the Authority isn't even mentioned in the ads supporting it. There's over $1 billion generated by the personal property tax. I don't think there will be enough use tax generated to cover this if the proposal passes. Besides, even if it does pass & business get the benefit of the tax cut, we've already seen that no extra jobs will be created & no savings will get passed onto consumers.

[Pam]

This proposal was written by a guy who works for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. As many know, this group is pro-business, pro-Republican, and conservative. So consider the source when deciding how to vote.

Additionally, the establishment of another "Authority" is troublesome & problematic. Authorities are run by appointed people, not by people who are voted in. Plus, there are no details on what the "Authority" will or won't be doing or what their powers will or won't be. Heck, the Authority isn't even mentioned in the ads supporting it. There's over $1 billion generated by the personal property tax. I don't think there will be enough use tax generated to cover this if the proposal passes. Besides, even if it does pass & business get the benefit of the tax cut, we've already seen that no extra jobs will be created & no savings will get passed onto consumers.

Yeah, I know enough to know the job creation claim is BS. I did also wonder if there will be a short fall in funding based on whatever they say the new source will be.

[Danny]

Excellent proposal! I will YES YES YES ON that.

[rb336]

Yeah, I know enough to know the job creation claim is BS. I did also wonder if there will be a short fall in funding based on whatever they say the new source will be.

That is the big problem - they don't say where the money comes from. Other states also have similar taxes.

While I think it is a stupid tax, and should be replaced, it is obvious that the legislature were far too gutless to actually do something responsible and come up with a replacement

[Pam]

General voter info. here:

http://www.vote411.org/

[Jimaz]

Yeah, I know enough to know the job creation claim is BS....

Exactly.

What former job destroyer wouldn't claim to be a future "job creator" today? This term is overplayed beyond the point of raising suspicion.

What's interesting is that they don't seem to recognize that they're tipping their hand. They know they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar so they try to change their story. But they've exhausted their rhetorical vocabulary so they unwittingly fail. They've overreached.

[[Not that there aren't any genuine job creators, there always have been and accolades to them.)

Since the Citizens United decision, elitist-funded deception is rampant and therefore more easily unmasked.

I see a promising trend here.

[rb336]

I see a promising trend here.

You have a less jaded opinion of the public intellect than I have

[Jimaz]

You have a less jaded opinion of the public intellect than I have

Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm thinking that if they're not going to stop reaching until they've overreached, then they're going to trigger their own trap.

"Despair is not an option."
— Senator Bernie Sanders

[gazhekwe]

I think it is a scam to trap us into thinking we will be buying jobs at no cost but we will actually be paying taxes to shore up business development. It is enough already. Businesses have their hands in our pockets two ways, what they can get in tax cuts and what they charge us. There is no guarantee the cost to us will go down any time soon. Let 'em find a better way. That added senior pension tax is just on other example of this kind of thinking. NO for my vote.

I was so surprised to agree with Mayor Fouts.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/opinion/edi...-on-proposal-1

[Zug]

APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AMENDATORY ACT TO REDUCE STATE USE TAX AND REPLACE WITH A LOCAL COMMUNITY STABILIZATION SHARE TO MODERNIZE THE TAX SYSTEM TO HELP SMALL BUSINESSES GROW AND CREATE JOBS

The amendatory act adopted by the Legislature would:

1. Reduce the state use tax and replace with a local community stabilization share of the tax for the purpose of modernizing the tax system to help small businesses grow and create jobs in Michigan.

2. Require Local Community Stabilization Authority to provide revenue to local governments dedicated for local purposes, including police safety, fire protection, and ambulance emergency services.


3. Increase portion of state use tax dedicated for aid to local school districts.

4. Prohibit Authority from increasing taxes.

5. Prohibit total use tax rate from exceeding existing constitutional 6% limitation.

Should this law be approved?

All week I have been familiarizing myself with local candidates, and the proposals for the upcoming primary. I am still confused about Proposal 1. I read the newspaper articles [[most seemingly very in favor of this). But what they say about it seems completely different than what the actual language says. The proposal makes it sound they want to reduce the use tax...all of the articles talk about how it gets rid of the business personal property tax. Then reading that the "local" authority would be a single "local" entity whose borders are the same as the state [[a state-wide "local" authority...mhmmm) seemed like a work-around for something...though it is not clear why a "local" authority is necessary. On top of those things, my knee-jerk reaction to all of the language about helping small businesses and creating jobs is that it sounds like a conservative talking...but then I see it has bipartisan support [[though those few I see against it have all been Democrats). Full disclosure...I consider myself a liberal, so sounding conservative isn't necessarily a "good" thing for me.

If I were voting today, I'd probably vote "no" because it seems like supporters are using a bunch of catch-phrases [["modernize!", "help small businesses!", "create jobs!") to mask a business tax cut. I'm not necessarily against business tax cuts in good times...but I don't want more cuts to spending, and cutting taxes without a plan to generate new revenue seems like it would lead to spending cuts [[or finding ways to get money from taxpayers). But I have a feeling I must be missing something, and I don't want to vote one way based on faulty assumptions.

Does anyone have a particularly strong opinion about the proposal? Is there a neutral resource that outlines the pros and cons of this proposal?

Links to articles I've read are below:
http://www.freep.com/article/2014060...ON01/306080051
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ON01/307280005
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...=2014307250011
http://www.freep.com/article/2014073...rial-equipment
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ises-questions [[only one containing mostly criticism)

[Jimaz]

DetroitYES Home » Non Detroit Issues » Prop. 1 on the August 5th Primary ballot

It's important to keep in mind how much post-Citizen's-United money is going to be spent on corrupting elections. It's wise to be that much more skeptical.

I commend your effort to vote carefully.

[Steve203]

I have a lot of questions about Prop 1

-So companies stop paying personal property tax to cities and the cities are supposed to have that revenue replaced by receiving a fixed piece of the use tax from Lansing. Logic says that Lansing is using that money, by one account $590M/yr, to fund something else. So what gets defunded to make that money available to the cities?

-Michigan use tax revenue, in inflation adjusted constant dollars, has been falling since about 2000. We have already seen the result on the roads of falling gas tax revenue colliding with the rising cost of road repairs. What happens when the cities see the cost of providing services rise, while their fixed portion of the use tax falls?

-Over the last 10 years, Lansing's revenue from taxes on business has fallen from $2.5B to $755M/yr, while revenue from personal income tax and sales tax have both stayed over $8B/yr. And now business wants another tax cut?

-15,000 jobs "created"? Out of a labor force of 4.7M, 15K isn't even a rounding error. It would be impossible to ever prove that a job was created by this.

-the TV ads love to complain about a company that bought a machine in 1966, and has paid property tax on it ever year since. If I built an addition on my house in 66, I would have paid taxes and fees to get it built, and I would have paid property tax on that addition ever year since. So why is it unfair for business to pay property tax, but not unfair for a homeowner?

Yup, we're getting played again.

[Novine]

You also have to pay a "registration fee" on your car and your boat and you don't get to pay less as it depreciates in value. The feds consider it the equivalent of a personal property tax. I don't know why businesses think that they alone pay personal property taxes.

[coracle]

I don't really understand Prop 1. The weasel words are reminiscent of the Millage for Art in SE Michigan which eventually found its way to the Detroit Pension Fund via DIA. It was a toss up for me until I saw that AARP is endorsing it; so now it's a definite "NO" and I think I can swing my wife's vote as well.

[bailey]

You also have to pay a "registration fee" on your car and your boat and you don't get to pay less as it depreciates in value. The feds consider it the equivalent of a personal property tax. I don't know why businesses think that they alone pay personal property taxes.

Sort of missing the forest for the trees maybe? shouldn't the question be why we as individuals put up with those fees? If the registration fee is based on the fair market value at purchase, shouldn't it go down every year I own it?

[Steve203]

shouldn't the question be why we as individuals put up with those fees?

Not really the same thing. We pay a registration fee on the vehicle we drive.

Using that example, Prop 1 is like you paying the registration fee on some other guy's car, because he feels he should not have to pay a fee. And we will pay for Prop 1. That money is coming from somewhere, so we will pay for it, either in loss of government services, higher local property tax on our homes, higher sales tax, or a combination, all so business can get a free ride.

[Bobl]

We are between a rock and a hard place. We vote yes, and cross our fingers that the so called Local Community Stabilization Authority is even handed, and the use tax receipts materialize, or we vote no, allowing the State Legislature [[republican party) to eliminate the property tax on business, without making up for the shortfall elsewhere. In other words, increase our tax while reducing benefits. Pick your poison.

[jackie5275]

If I were voting today, I'd probably vote "no" because it seems like supporters are using a bunch of catch-phrases [["modernize!", "help small businesses!", "create jobs!") to mask a business tax cut. I'm not necessarily against business tax cuts in good times...but I don't want more cuts to spending, and cutting taxes without a plan to generate new revenue seems like it would lead to spending cuts [[or finding ways to get money from taxpayers). But I have a feeling I must be missing something, and I don't want to vote one way based on faulty assumptions.

Based on your entire post, I don't think you're confused at all. I don't think you're missing anything either.

[jackie5275]

Sort of missing the forest for the trees maybe? shouldn't the question be why we as individuals put up with those fees? If the registration fee is based on the fair market value at purchase, shouldn't it go down every year I own it?

Yes, it should, but that's not going to happend.

[jackie5275]

You also have to pay a "registration fee" on your car and your boat and you don't get to pay less as it depreciates in value. The feds consider it the equivalent of a personal property tax. I don't know why businesses think that they alone pay personal property taxes.

Actually, the feds don't consider your car registration fee a personal property tax. It's actually an "ad valorem tax", which means it's based on the value of the item. As bailey, stated, it should go down as the car depreciates, but that's not going to happen on the state level. As an alternative you can deduct this amount on your Form 1040 Schedule A in the Taxes Paid section. You can bet your bottom dollar businesses are deducting their personal property taxes paid on their federal returns. You might as well do the same.

[jackie5275]

-15,000 jobs "created"? Out of a labor force of 4.7M, 15K isn't even a rounding error. It would be impossible to ever prove that a job was created by this....

Yup, we're getting played again.

15k jobs, yeah right. Not going to happen. Most small business don't even pay enough in personal property tax to generate revenue to pay someone for one day let alone create even one job. We're getting played again, but we still need to vote this down. Although, I'm sure the legislature will find some backdoor way to get it through like they did with the EM law that was voted down by the citizens.

[Steve203]

or we vote no, allowing the State Legislature [[republican party) to eliminate the property tax on business, without making up for the shortfall elsewhere.

This proposal doesn't make up the revenue shortfall. It plays a shell game, and noone will tell you where the money comes from to give business a free ride.

[motz]

or we vote no, allowing the State Legislature [[republican party) to eliminate the property tax on business, without making up for the shortfall elsewhere.

This proposal doesn't make up the revenue shortfall. It plays a shell game, and noone will tell you where the money comes from to give business a free ride.

Also if you think that the legislature is going to be a super easy peasy mega majority of Republicans, well, okay keep believing that. I can tell you lots of people are tired of being promised the world and jobs and all the money and more jobs and great happiness, yet only being delivered bans on Abortion and personal choice.