Michigan transit tax Rejected [MI Prop 15-1]

[Jayp213]

UPDATE: Voters Overwhelmingly Vote Down Prop 15-1
Click Here for Updated Discussion >>

Rejection Percentage Exceeds DetroitYES Straw Poll Vote
Click Here to view how DetroitYES Members voted in a Straw Poll >>

========================================
So maybe I am a little ignorant to the proposals and what they all stand for, but I am aware of how some proposals are masked to also benefit other funding as well. Which proposal is the funding for Michigan transit being proposed under? Is it Proposal 1?

[A2Mike]

I will vote no on Prop. 1. The bastards never stop trying to add a lot of crap to anything they think the public won't notice. Well, people really do notice and will defeat the special interests continually stuffing squalid politicians pockets. Michigan needs a part time legislature like some other states, which may help break up the permanent political class infesting the state.

[bailey]

I will vote no on Prop. 1. The bastards never stop trying to add a lot of crap to anything they think the public won't notice. Well, people really do notice and will defeat the special interests continually stuffing squalid politicians pockets. Michigan needs a part time legislature like some other states, which may help break up the permanent political class infesting the state.

that's what was said about Term limits. The result is an amateur circus of dumb. A part time legislature would be even worse.

[Jason]

Absolutely. First, with decreasing budgets for staff, politicians need to be full time in order to review everything that they'll be voting for. Second, you need politicians to be invested in their position, and ambitious with their political goals [[that is, they have to be invested enough that they'd care if they weren't reelected for going against the will of their constituents). And then in addition to those things, the government is complex and we need politicians with the institutional knowledge to get things done.

The political class is only as permanent as their performance justifies. If a politician doesn't adequately represent the will of their constituents, or a more representative candidate comes along, they will lose their job. It shouldn't be much surprise that the same geographic area with the same demographics is remains satisfied by the same politician.

[Gpwrangler]

So maybe I am a little ignorant to the proposals and what they all stand for, but I am aware of how some proposals are masked to also benefit other funding as well. Which proposal is the funding for michigan transit being proposed under? Is it Proposal 1?

Prop 1 is for roads. That means 80% of the money will go towards current debt. The other 20% will go to schools and transit and oh yeah there is some for roads.

The bill has support from government employees. I'm shocked.

[Danny]

I will vote yes of prop. 1 If it means taxes to fix our bad and broken Michigan roads, so be it.

[Dan Wesson]

So maybe I am a little ignorant to the proposals and what they all stand for, but I am aware of how some proposals are masked to also benefit other funding as well. Which proposal is the funding for michigan transit being proposed under? Is it Proposal 1?

It's gonna cost you more...

Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Transportation and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Proposal 1 would increase the tax burden of the typical Michigan household by between $477 and $525 in 2016.
Part of this increased tax burden would come from paying more taxes at the pump. The federal Energy Information Administration projects the average price of gasoline to be $2.39 per gallon in 2015. At this rate, taxpayers would pay an extra 10 cents per gallon in taxes under Proposal 1, a 4 percent increase.

But wait there is an incentive tossed in too! That only applies if you qualify for the the Earned Income Tax Credit. Could that be considered buying votes?


http://www.mackinac.org/20974

[RO_Resident]

Prop 1 is for roads. That means 80% of the money will go towards current debt. The other 20% will go to schools and transit and oh yeah there is some for roads.

The bill has support from government employees. I'm shocked.

The legislature was afraid that a quick infusion of tax dollars for roads would lead to price gouging by contractors or bad project selection by road agencies. Therefore, they passed a package that requires paydown of road bonds [[none of you remember such bonding classics as Build Michigan 1, 2, or 3 under Engler or Granholm's various bond issues, because neither wanted to raise the gas tax?).

So, if Proposal 1 passes, 2/3 of the gas tax revenues would go to debt service in the first full year [[1/3 of the increase to formula). In the second year 1/3 would go to debt service and 2/3 would go through formula. In the third year, all of the revenue would go through formula.

The Senate Fiscal Agency's take:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...FA-HJRUU-N.pdf

Not-quite-Cliff's Notes version of Proposal 1:
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/P...tesWin15gs.pdf

[lpg]

I got my robocall from the gov today. Just hung up. I voted no already. Too many hands in the potential pot of money.

[Gpwrangler]

The legislature was afraid that a quick infusion of tax dollars for roads would lead to price gouging by contractors or bad project selection by road agencies. Therefore, they passed a package that requires paydown of road bonds [[none of you remember such bonding classics as Build Michigan 1, 2, or 3 under Engler or Granholm's various bond issues, because neither wanted to raise the gas tax?).

So, if Proposal 1 passes, 2/3 of the gas tax revenues would go to debt service in the first full year [[1/3 of the increase to formula). In the second year 1/3 would go to debt service and 2/3 would go through formula. In the third year, all of the revenue would go through formula.

The Senate Fiscal Agency's take:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...FA-HJRUU-N.pdf

Not-quite-Cliff's Notes version of Proposal 1:
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/P...tesWin15gs.pdf

So the crying woman in the pathetic commercial holding a piece of concrete that "almost killed" her and her daughter would see the tax she voted for spent to service the debt.

Afraid of price gouging? This bullshit law will sure prevent that, by not actually fixing anything including the crying woman's bridge.

These people make my skin crawl.

[RO_Resident]

The bonds and debt service already exist. We are already paying down the bonds. Prop 1 or not, we'll be paying for the bonds.

Like I said, the legislature decided it was a good idea to accelerate the payment of bonds. If the proposal passes, even with the bond paydown, an extra 33% will go to roads and bridges in the first year, an extra 66% in the second year, and a doubling of monies available to locals in the third year.

So, yes, more monies will be available to fix roads and bridges in the first year.

[Dan Wesson]

Why the semi dishonesty by saying...
Eliminate sales / use taxes on gasoline / diesel fuel for vehicles on public roads.

Then enacting law that would...
Increase gasoline / diesel fuel tax and adjust annually for inflation, increase vehicle registration fees, and dedicate revenue for roads and other transportation purposes.

Your going to pay more tax on fuel than you do now and it's going to be tied to inflation which everyone should know is another form of taxation without representation.

What a shafting.

And,

This is on top of the Affordable Care Act another semi dishonest play on words with no basis in fact.

It's only money, right? To bad the average working citizen can't create their own dollars out of thin air like the banks.

[RO_Resident]

Why the semi dishonesty by saying...
Eliminate sales / use taxes on gasoline / diesel fuel for vehicles on public roads.

Yes, you currently pay 6% sales tax every time you fill up your car. Constitutionally, that money goes to the state's general fund--for things like education, local governments, and public safety. Not roads. Proposal 1 would exempt sales tax on fuel sales for vehicles on public roads. Currently, a flat 19 cents per gallon excise tax goes to state transportation uses.

This is why the proposal also includes raising the state sales tax to 7%, to make up for the lost revenue by exempting fuel sales. Yes, the increase in rate will generate more money for local units of government than the sales tax on fuels does.

Then enacting law that would...
Increase gasoline / diesel fuel tax and adjust annually for inflation, increase vehicle registration fees, and dedicate revenue for roads and other transportation purposes.

Your going to pay more tax on fuel than you do now and it's going to be tied to inflation which everyone should know is another form of taxation with representation.

Yes, Proposal 1 replaces the 19 cent/gallon excise tax with a tax based on the wholesale price of fuel. Like Proposal A, there is provision to adjust the tax rate annually.

What a shafting.

And,

This is on top of the Affordable Care Act another semi dishonest play on words with no basis in fact.

It's only money, right? To bad the average working citizen can't create their own dollars out of thin air like the banks.

This proposal is a pretty good example of 11th-hour lame duck sausage making. No doubt about that.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Taxes, taxes and more taxes, welcome to the great state of Michigan. Might be about time to leave this overtaxed state.

[erikd]

Why the semi dishonesty by saying...
Eliminate sales / use taxes on gasoline / diesel fuel for vehicles on public roads.

Then enacting law that would...
Increase gasoline / diesel fuel tax and adjust annually for inflation, increase vehicle registration fees, and dedicate revenue for roads and other transportation purposes.

Your going to pay more tax on fuel than you do now and it's going to be tied to inflation which everyone should know is another form of taxation with representation.

What a shafting.


And,

This is on top of the Affordable Care Act another semi dishonest play on words with no basis in fact.

It's only money, right? To bad the average working citizen can't create their own dollars out of thin air like the banks.

Do you have any specific examples of the "the VAST number of public employees I see nudging up to the trough everyday" who are completely ineffective, and should be reassigned to pothole patching detail?

Also, I am confused as to what your solution to the crumbling roads exactly entails. Even if we deploy the supposed lazy/ineffectual government employees out on the streets to patch potholes, what is the permanent solution? You seem to want permanent road repairs, but then complain about the inconvenience and expense of road reconstruction.

There are always opportunities to make processes and procedures more efficient and effective, so if you can offer any specific and practical suggestions that would help to improve government services and give us taxpayers more bang for the buck, I would love to hear them, and then join you in advocating for those changes.

[Gpwrangler]

Do you have any specific examples of the "the VAST number of public employees I see nudging up to the trough everyday" who are completely ineffective, and should be reassigned to pothole patching detail?

Also, I am confused as to what your solution to the crumbling roads exactly entails. Even if we deploy the supposed lazy/ineffectual government employees out on the streets to patch potholes, what is the permanent solution? You seem to want permanent road repairs, but then complain about the inconvenience and expense of road reconstruction.

There are always opportunities to make processes and procedures more efficient and effective, so if you can offer any specific and practical suggestions that would help to improve government services and give us taxpayers more bang for the buck, I would love to hear them, and then join you in advocating for those changes.

Well, in 2017 we can use all the people involved in implementing
Affordable Care after it's repealed for starters since they may be looking for work. And all the DPS maintenance people who don't need to keep up its 100 vacant destroyed buildings. The DPW is already supposed to be patching roads, we can put them on it too. Deny all you want, I can put a crew together.

There may may be a few "crumbling" roads in Michigan but I drive everywhere and the vast majority are fine. I've been driving for 40 years plus and never lost a tire, rim or suspension component to Michigan's "dangerous roads". Then again, I actually watch the road when I'm driving, not kids in the back, my phone, or tablet. Yes, there are a few really bad spots but we don't need to create a "corps" of 30,000 people to fix them.

I'm not fooled by commercials made by liberals who want to get in my wallet or by the thousands of people nudging up to the trough. I don't care if the repairs are "permanent", just fill the craters and come up with a plan for gradually making proper repairs without creating traffic jams for the next 10 years. Quit making stupid commercials with people praying they survive on these "dangerous roads" and honestly assess and repair the problem.

[erikd]

Well, in 2017 we can use all the people involved in implementing
Affordable Care after it's repealed for starters since they may be looking for work. And all the DPS maintenance people who don't need to keep up its 100 vacant destroyed buildings. The DPW is already supposed to be patching roads, we can put them on it too. Deny all you want, I can put a crew together.

There may may be a few "crumbling" roads in Michigan but I drive everywhere and the vast majority are fine. I've been driving for 40 years plus and never lost a tire, rim or suspension component to Michigan's "dangerous roads". Then again, I actually watch the road when I'm driving, not kids in the back, my phone, or tablet. Yes, there are a few really bad spots but we don't need to create a "corps" of 30,000 people to fix them.

I'm not fooled by commercials made by liberals who want to get in my wallet or by the thousands of people nudging up to the trough. I don't care if the repairs are "permanent", just fill the craters and come up with a plan for gradually making proper repairs without creating traffic jams for the next 10 years. Quit making stupid commercials with people praying they survive on these "dangerous roads" and honestly assess and repair the problem.

Is this a serious response?

Your solution to repairing crumbling roads and bridges is to repeal the ACA and reassign the people who have been working on the ACA to pothole duty? And also shore up the pothole crew with DPS maintenance people from closed schools? You must realize that the maintenance staff from the closed schools have been laid off or reassigned, and are not just sitting around in the closed school buildings doing nothing.

You must be joking, because these suggestions are completely ridiculous and irrational.

[Gpwrangler]

Is this a serious response?

Your solution to repairing crumbling roads and bridges is to repeal the ACA and reassign the people who have been working on the ACA to pothole duty? And also shore up the pothole crew with DPS maintenance people from closed schools? You must realize that the maintenance staff from the closed schools have been laid off or reassigned, and are not just sitting around in the closed school buildings doing nothing.

You must be joking, because these suggestions are completely ridiculous and irrational.

I'm half kidding. Sick of getting my pocket picked every time there is a problem. Innovate instead of using massive programs and bureaucracy as the solution to everything. Also sick of drama being created because someone can't swerve around a pothole.

Huge taxes to fix everything are a liberal knee-jerk. This mentality needs to change.

Like the old saying says, you are either part of the solution, or part of the problem.

[Dan Wesson]

Do you have any specific examples of the "the VAST number of public employees I see nudging up to the trough everyday" who are completely ineffective, and should be reassigned to pothole patching detail?

Also, I am confused as to what your solution to the crumbling roads exactly entails. Even if we deploy the supposed lazy/ineffectual government employees out on the streets to patch potholes, what is the permanent solution? You seem to want permanent road repairs, but then complain about the inconvenience and expense of road reconstruction.

There are always opportunities to make processes and procedures more efficient and effective, so if you can offer any specific and practical suggestions that would help to improve government services and give us taxpayers more bang for the buck, I would love to hear them, and then join you in advocating for those changes.

erik I didn't print any of things you are attributing to me nor have I complained about roads.

I will tell you that the government can create conditions a number of ways to get the public to do what it wants.

Sometimes they don't have to lift a finger. That may be too terse a sentence to grasp. Hope not.

[Jayp213]

Okay, sooo there's no specific proposal for the transit system? Proposal 1 is just basically for the roads then I'm gathering...

[Dan Wesson]

Okay, sooo there's no specific proposal for the transit system? Proposal 1 is just basically for the roads then I'm gathering...

It's primarily about paying principal and interest on money already spent with something extra for other interests.

Whether that satisfies needs for the foreseeable future, based on past examples, is dubious.

[Wesley Mouch]

Do you have any specific examples of the "the VAST number of public employees I see nudging up to the trough everyday" who are completely ineffective, and should be reassigned to pothole patching detail?

#1 would be public school employees nudging the charters away from 'their' trough saying only they know how to education

There are always opportunities to make processes and procedures more efficient and effective, so if you can offer any specific and practical suggestions that would help to improve government services and give us taxpayers more bang for the buck, I would love to hear them, and then join you in advocating li for those changes.

1) No pensioners paid more than $50,000 per year in retirement. 2) No pensioners making more in retirement [[inflation adjusted) than while working, 3) Pension payments prorated to years of service [[work 10 years, get about 1/3 of pension of someone who works entire career).

There's a school of thought these days that we need more taxes. I think the level of taxation in Michigan is appropriate. Thus, I don't favor more taxes. If you want to do something new, find something old that you can adjust and use the savings.

I do also agree that taxation on the rich can be increased, but mostly by elimination of programs that favor the rich such as the mortgage interest deduction. Kill that unfair deduction.

[Gpwrangler]

I do also agree that taxation on the rich can be increased, but mostly by elimination of programs that favor the rich such as the mortgage interest deduction. Kill that unfair deduction.

Mortgage interest deduction favors the rich? How ya figure?

[RO_Resident]

Okay, sooo there's no specific proposal for the transit system? Proposal 1 is just basically for the roads then I'm gathering...

The money goes through formula, so up to $130 million extra money would be available for public transit statewide.

[Wesley Mouch]

Mortgage interest deduction favors the rich? How ya figure?

Look at two cities. Take Hamtramck. Take Franklin.

Grab 10 people at random in each city. Look at average mortaged amount, and thus average interest paid. Who pays more. Second look at who is able to itemize their deductions. Then look at how many people in each town own a second residence. That interest can be deducted too. So can home-equity loans taken against those properties. The super-rich do run up against a limit of $1,000,000 limit of equity value. Poor them.