Michigan transit tax Rejected [MI Prop 15-1]

[Pam]

With a Republican Gov and Dems supporting Prop 1 who can be against it?

I'm not saying it will pass 75 - 25, but it should have enough bipartisan support to easily pass.

Any public opinion polls?

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/in...tion_to_p.html

Two new polls suggest opposition to the May 5 road and sales tax statewide ballot proposal.

[Jayp213]

Honestly, they're going to pass whatever is feasible and makes sense in the long term regardless if we vote or not. I'm definitely going to vote now that I have an extremely more detailed understanding--special thanks to all of you wonderful people for informing me on the post . I'm not against voting but I'm also not naive. They will incorporate what THEY feel is correct, somehow, regardless of how the votes turn out.

[emu steve]

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/in...tion_to_p.html

Wow, I'm surprised. If the gov is for it, why would most Republicans and Democrats be against it.

Michigan voters, esp. Republicans, do trust their governor? Correct?

[sirrealone]

Wow, I'm surprised. If the gov is for it, why would most Republicans and Democrats be against it.

Michigan voters, esp. Republicans, do trust their governor? Correct?

I don't think it's a reflection on the governor at all. I think many people see a YES vote as letting the House and Senate off the hook for not doing the jobs that the people elected them to do.

[BankruptcyGuy]

I don't think it's a reflection on the governor at all. I think many people see a YES vote as letting the House and Senate off the hook for not doing the jobs that the people elected them to do.

I've heard this comment a few times, and it kind of confuses me. Do you mean:

1) the House and Senate should go ahead and raise taxes, even if the public is against it, or
2) the House and Senate should limit themselves to raising taxes that do not require the consent of the voters?

Honest question--the comment doesn't make sense to me.

[Bham1982]

I've heard this comment a few times, and it kind of confuses me. Do you mean:

1) the House and Senate should go ahead and raise taxes, even if the public is against it, or
2) the House and Senate should limit themselves to raising taxes that do not require the consent of the voters?

Honest question--the comment doesn't make sense to me.

The point is that raising sales taxes [[the most regressive and anti-poor possible tax increase) has nothing to do with fixing the roads.

If Lansing wants to fix the roads, they can easily do so. They cut taxes by billions [[and almost completely for the wealthy) when Snyder came in. The Dems aren't blameless either; they waste huge amounts on bailouts, subsidies and other nonsense.

The public obviously sees through the charade, which is why only 21% seem to be inclined towards voting to raise their taxes. That kind of margin means it isn't a Republican or Democrat issue; everyone gets it regardless of ideology.

Honestly, at this point maybe they should just remove the proposal from the ballot. Is it too late for this? They are going to get absolutely hammered.

[sirrealone]

I've heard this comment a few times, and it kind of confuses me. Do you mean:

1) the House and Senate should go ahead and raise taxes, even if the public is against it, or
2) the House and Senate should limit themselves to raising taxes that do not require the consent of the voters?

Honest question--the comment doesn't make sense to me.

The roads are in terrible shape and need more funding. The House and Senate know this. Stuides show we have terrible roads. Data shows our funding directed toward roads is inadequate. Voters have put road conditions near or at the top of their areas of concerns for quite some time. It's something that is the job of our elected officials to address, and they did nothing.

I don't want my taxes raised. Nobody does. Has one person in the history of democracy ever elected someone saying "I'm voting you in because I want you to raise my taxes." Probably not. But it happens. Lawmakers make it happen. And if they choose NOT to raise taxes, then in my mind that means one of two things:

1) The issue itself isn't important enough to address, or
2) We have an alternative way.

Well, I'm pretty sure the road issue isn't going away by itself, which leads to the alternate way. If they didn't want to raise taxes, fine, but the issue still needed to be addressed. It was the job of the House and Senate to address it, and they didn't.

I hope that makes it more clear.

[Jimaz]

Poll announced on WWJ 950: 24% Yea, 66% Nay.

[emu steve]

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.

Absolutely.

If someone buys a 25K house in Detroit how much mortgage interest could they have [[hell, do banks even want to make mortgages less than 25K)?

Indeed, big mortgages, home equity, etc. are the financial products of the middle and upper income folks... Can't get a 400K mortgage with a 25K annual salary.

[Bham1982]

No.

Actually doing away with the capital gains system and treating all income as income would be fairer. Do away with 401K type programs.

Long-term capital gains have been taxed lower for a century now. The reasoning is that it encourages investment, which provides the govt. more revenue than a higher rate.

Just speaking from my perspective, if all capital gains were treated as income, I would completely change my investment perspective. Basically I wouldn't be doing anything outside of 401ks and Roths, and I think I would not be alone. Unless you're a big risk taker, it would pretty aggressive to invest outside of the retirement shields.

Also, keep in mind that only lower income households are escaping taxation on their investments. Once you top the cutoff [[I forgot exactly where the cutoff is) you pay a pretty substantial tax on investment gains.

[BankruptcyGuy]

The point is that raising sales taxes [[the most regressive and anti-poor possible tax increase) has nothing to do with fixing the roads.

If Lansing wants to fix the roads, they can easily do so. They cut taxes by billions [[and almost completely for the wealthy) when Snyder came in. The Dems aren't blameless either; they waste huge amounts on bailouts, subsidies and other nonsense.

I must have missed that. Income taxes are 4.25% on everyone. Property taxes haven't materially moved. The sales tax didn't either. Are you talking about replacing the Single Business Tax [[later Michigan Business Tax) with a corporate income tax? That represented a cut for businesses that weren't making money in the first place. But those didn't reduce the burden on the "wealthy" unless those people personally owned business. Mark Fields and Mary Barra didn't get a tax cut, as far as I know. What other "tax cuts" are you referring to?

[BankruptcyGuy]

The roads are in terrible shape and need more funding. The House and Senate know this. Stuides show we have terrible roads. Data shows our funding directed toward roads is inadequate. Voters have put road conditions near or at the top of their areas of concerns for quite some time. It's something that is the job of our elected officials to address, and they did nothing.

I don't want my taxes raised. Nobody does. Has one person in the history of democracy ever elected someone saying "I'm voting you in because I want you to raise my taxes." Probably not. But it happens. Lawmakers make it happen. And if they choose NOT to raise taxes, then in my mind that means one of two things:

1) The issue itself isn't important enough to address, or
2) We have an alternative way.

Well, I'm pretty sure the road issue isn't going away by itself, which leads to the alternate way. If they didn't want to raise taxes, fine, but the issue still needed to be addressed. It was the job of the House and Senate to address it, and they didn't.

I hope that makes it more clear.

I think it's pretty clear that the lawmakers concluded that fixing the roads will take actual money, not robbing Peter to pay Paul or using the time-honored smoke and mirrors. So your expectation was that lawmakers would vote for raising taxes, even though the people who elected them didn't want to? To be honest, I don't think that's a reasonable expectation at all.

We still live in a representative democracy, and if the populace doesn't want something to happen, it won't. I think we've been spoiled because the Feds don't follow that rule. Then again, they have the ability to print money and the state does not.

[Bham1982]

I must have missed that. Income taxes are 4.25% on everyone. Property taxes haven't materially moved. The sales tax didn't either. Are you talking about replacing the Single Business Tax [[later Michigan Business Tax) with a corporate income tax? That represented a cut for businesses that weren't making money in the first place. But those didn't reduce the burden on the "wealthy" unless those people personally owned business. Mark Fields and Mary Barra didn't get a tax cut, as far as I know. What other "tax cuts" are you referring to?

The corporate tax replaced the old MBT, and the property tax on industrial equipment [[a big deal in MI) was also eliminated. The MI tax systems is already skewed to screw the poor, because we have a flat income tax. Snyder's "reforms" made the inequality in the tax code worse, and an increase in sales tax would be even worse.

The only thing more regressive than a flat income tax is a sales tax. Sales tax matters to poor people, it's almost irrelevant to the rich [[and I'm speaking as someone who very much benefits from the current state tax code).

An equitable tax code would be centered around a graduated income tax, IMO. Sales tax should be kept low at the state level, but localities should have the option of local add-ons.

[BankruptcyGuy]

The corporate tax replaced the old MBT, and the property tax on industrial equipment [[a big deal in MI) was also eliminated. The MI tax systems is already skewed to screw the poor, because we have a flat income tax. Snyder's "reforms" made the inequality in the tax code worse, and an increase in sales tax would be even worse.

The only thing more regressive than a flat income tax is a sales tax. Sales tax matters to poor people, it's almost irrelevant to the rich [[and I'm speaking as someone who very much benefits from the current state tax code).

An equitable tax code would be centered around a graduated income tax, IMO. Sales tax should be kept low at the state level, but localities should have the option of local add-ons.

I understand all of that. But there was no "tax cut" for rich income earners. The PPT was a joke riddled with exceptions. The MBT was possibly the most poorly-designed tax one could think of--pay taxes on a combination of assets and revenues, independent of income. So when your business lost money, you still owed taxes. A corporate income tax is a much better idea.

I get the concept that a sales tax is regressive [[poor people pay more). A flat income tax is, by definition, not, although it's not "progressive." I agree with you there.

But this is what I don't understand: a graduated income tax will require a constitutional amendment, just like an increase in the sales tax. Would legislators have "not done their jobs" if Proposal 1 had proposed that?

The trend in income tax across states is to eliminate the income tax altogether and replace it with a hefty sales tax. Don't know if that's a better idea, but that's the trend.

[Gpwrangler]

Absolutely.

If someone buys a 25K house in Detroit how much mortgage interest could they have [[hell, do banks even want to make mortgages less than 25K)?

Indeed, big mortgages, home equity, etc. are the financial products of the middle and upper income folks... Can't get a 400K mortgage with a 25K annual salary.

So does that imply there is something unfair about this? Seems like basic math to me. It's all proportional. I had a $37k mortgage when I had a $25k salary. I also took the interest deduction. It it wasn't as big as the deduction my rich boss got on his $400k home but I don't recall any outrage.

[emu steve]

Long-term capital gains have been taxed lower for a century now. The reasoning is that it encourages investment, which provides the govt. more revenue than a higher rate.

Just speaking from my perspective, if all capital gains were treated as income, I would completely change my investment perspective. Basically I wouldn't be doing anything outside of 401ks and Roths, and I think I would not be alone. Unless you're a big risk taker, it would pretty aggressive to invest outside of the retirement shields.

Also, keep in mind that only lower income households are escaping taxation on their investments. Once you top the cutoff [[I forgot exactly where the cutoff is) you pay a pretty substantial tax on investment gains.

I understand that, but every tax or tax break is designed to encourage [[or discourage) something.

I'm not convinced Exxon needs tax breaks to drill for more oil or Warren Buffett to continue investing.

So long as the prospects of making $$$$$$$$$ is there folks will continue to invest.

As hard as it might be for some to believe, when marginal income tax rates were sky high, the rich continued to attempt to make every last buck they could [[despite high marginal tax rates).

I was a long time marathon runner. I didn't need prizes, honors, etc. to run marathons. We ran marathons because it was in our blood.

Double the capital gains rate and Warren Buffett will continue to invest as he does today. It is in his blood.

[Dan Wesson]

Ya wanna know what I think this situation reminds me of?

Corporations are persons. People on the other hand are Soylent Green.

What we need is a old time Populist politician. Channeling Huey P. Long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOWYcARTwxo

[Dan Wesson]

What!?

■ Each year, the 41.7-cents-per-gallon minimum fuel tax would be increased by 5 cents per gallon or the rate of inflation, whichever is less.




http://www.freep.com/story/news/poli...oads/70307352/

[emu steve]

If I understand this CNN Money paragraph about Rand Paul correctly, the person working at GM would pay some [[unspecified) rate while Mitt [[Romney) would have paid 0% for his investment income when he was 'unemployed' [[running for president).

"The big idea behind a flat tax: Move from an income tax system with many rates to one single rate. Kill all but a few tax breaks. And make all investment income tax free. Generally, the goal is to only tax money once: either when it's earned or when it's withdrawn after being deposited or invested."

So I would pay say 20% and Mitt 0%.

I don't think I could vote for Rand. Lol.

[Dan Wesson]

If I understand this CNN Money paragraph about Rand Paul correctly, the person working at GM would pay some [[unspecified) rate while Mitt [[Romney) would have paid 0% for his investment income when he was 'unemployed' [[running for president).

"The big idea behind a flat tax: Move from an income tax system with many rates to one single rate. Kill all but a few tax breaks. And make all investment income tax free. Generally, the goal is to only tax money once: either when it's earned or when it's withdrawn after being deposited or invested."

So I would pay say 20% and Mitt 0%.

I don't think I could vote for Rand. Lol.

Your missing the idea about investment income [[Capital Gains) it's when it is withdrawn from whatever vehicle it was is when taxes are due.

Remember that some investments don't pan out, that is there is a loss.

[emu steve]

WaPo [[Washington Post) weighs in about who gets those tax deductions like 1st and 2nd houses [[e.g., a yacht can be a 2nd house).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-them/?hpid=z9

[Gpwrangler]

WaPo [[Washington Post) weighs in about who gets those tax deductions like 1st and 2nd houses [[e.g., a yacht can be a 2nd house).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-them/?hpid=z9

Vilify them all you want, but corporations [[yes, universities too) that pay us generally are started and run by people who end up rich. We need to quit focusing about how unfair it all is and deal with our own issues.

Even if we could collect all that money from those bad rich people our "leaders" would piss it away. There is a reason legislators don't pull down the big bucks working for industry.

[Dan Wesson]

Vilify them all you want, but corporations [[yes, universities too) that pay us generally are started and run by people who end up rich. We need to quit focusing about how unfair it all is and deal with our own issues.

Even if we could collect all that money from those bad rich people our "leaders" would piss it away. There is a reason legislators don't pull down the big bucks working for industry.

Gpwrangler, a pattern emerges.

A 21 century American Apologist...

American apologists

At the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century a group of conservative American economists and social scientists became known as the American Apologists. Their different theoretical orientations notwithstanding, they were apologists for the status quo and rose to defend the new industrial age and condemn unions and populist causes.

Party on sir, with all due respect.

[Dan Wesson]

Pile on, kick'em when their down.
From none other than big business journalism... http://www.bloombergview.com/article...than-you-think

But worry not it's not altruism. It's a report concerning the cash cow business and governments depends on.
Plan accordingly.

[gvidas]

I'm voting YES. FYI, I am Republican, and started off NO on this, but have switched. Here is why:

1) It adds funding to roads. Our roads are in poor shape. The state is collecting less than they did 20 years ago, and with the price increases over that time, they can afford only 60% or so of what they spent 20 years ago.

2) It directs all taxes collected at the pump toward transportation - Under the current system, the taxes collected at Michigan pumps are among the highest in the nation, but the amount spent on roads is the lowest. Most other states do not have a sales tax on gas purchases. Now, we won't either. This directs funding as it should be directed.

3) It increases educational funding - By removing the sales tax on gas, the amount collected for education decreases, but increasing the sales tax makes up for that funding shortfall and then some. As a parent of two kids just starting in elementary school, this is a positive.

4) Nobody in the world is paying 16.67% more for their goods because of the sales tax increase. You're paying 1% more. The cost of the 'item' itself is not going up. There are many who will have you believe that something you buy for $50 is suddenly going to cost you 1/6th more than it does today if this passes. No, under that scenario, it will go from costing $53.00 to costing you $53.50

5) Registration fees aren't going up, they just aren't going down. If you go and buy a new car and your registration is $200, under the current system it goes down to $180 then $160 and stays there in subsequent years [[numbers might not be exact but they're close). If the change passes, the $200 will still be $200. That's not going up, it's just that the subsequent years are not going to decrease. Most people, when considering the purchase of a car, don't factor in the cost of registration fees as a big factor. Are you now telling me that there will be people that would have completed a purchase of a car that will now decline to do so because "Woah, that $40 per year in registration fees in a couple of years just kills it for me." It just seems grasping at straws on this one.

6) I often see 'no' ads saying that our sales tax will be among the highest in the country if this passes. They leave out the part where many other states have local city or county sales taxes that get added on, making Michigan's effective rate nowhere near the top sales tax rates.

7) Our politicians, if this is kicked back to them, will not fix this. Part of the problem that I see is that the voters [[and therefore their reps) for the U.P. and rural areas of the state know that the funding will not proportionally reach their area of the state. The majority of the roads and the most heavily used ones are here, not up in the tip of the UP. So, legislators for those areas will likely continue to hold back support for any legislation that will result in a tax increase for their constituents. I don't see how this changes if the voters kick this back. All it will do is delay this even further and let the roads crumble even more.

8) The level of misinformation is much less on the 'yes' side. Those lobbying for this are, for the most part, stating the facts: Our roads are terrible and they need more funding and this will acheive that. Those lobbying against are putting out more skewed numbers or targeting only one side of a fact in order to make their points heard.

I skimmed the whole thread. This post stood out as being remarkably sane. I quoted it in full to nudge the ratio coherent thought vs of crazy talking points.

I'll add that tying gas tax increases to inflation seems to be the key to long-term road maintenance. From what I've read, most states struggle with road funding because they their gas tax was specified [[decades ago, usually) as X cents per gallon, rather than a percentage of wholesale price. So even when we were paying $4/gal, the states were getting relatively little. And then compounding this with the increased fuel efficiency.

I think the best argument for voting NO is to "send a message that the government should come back with a better plan," or whatever. Except that isn't the message being sent. People will always interpret election results however they want. It's not a place for that level of nuance. Your choice is "yes" or "no," not "no, six inches more to the left."

Don't let perfection be the enemy of good enough.