Michigan is not growing to keep pace with other states

[Canadian Visitor]

Neither is no population growth.

Just look at Japan as an example of why. The problem you have is that with too few new people, you have an increasingly aging population who can no longer contribute the tax revenue necessary to support the infrastructure in place.

This is not a good example.

First, Japan is experiencing the beginning of population collapse, not stagnation.

That is a completely different matter.

Further, one can have no population growth at all [[not no births) and have a population with demographic [[age) stability.

Where one does not see that it is because a previous generation had a baby boom and therefore a return to replacement birth rates results [[as with the Baby Boomers) is an older bulge in the population.

Population stability is in fact an essential thing over time; growth in this category is not advantageous unto itself.

Yes, you will grow real estate values, but you will then see smaller housing and/or higher rates of homelessness or public subsidies of housing.......in other words, population growth isn't free.

Yes there's more money, but there's also greater expense.

Further, bulges in population cause extreme cost problems.

In the context of the baby boom it means vast resources on new/expanded schools, many of which are now being closed and demolished.

Society paid first for their construction, then again for their removal.

That shows as economic growth both times by the way; but stupid growth rather than smart.

All you need out of aggregate population numbers is stability.

In the case of Michigan, and particularly Detroit, because of past population loss, there is some surplus land and infrastructure to absorb some net population growth at low cost.

But that is a one-time thing and anomalous. Once any surplus capacity in 1/2 empty schools or parks is used and any abandoned housing re-occupied, the benefits of further growth at the State level are marginal at best.

There is some benefit to urbanizing/shifting population, up to a point, but not simply more people for their own sake.

[MicrosoftFan]

I agree 100% I like the country being country why do more people to make the suburbs of Detroit to expand out any more then they are.
I have no problem with no population growth in Michigan

I agree absolutely, we have enough exurbs already. But your opinion is based on flawed thinking and thinking that the state has used for the past 50 years. Growth does not equal more suburbs and further expansion into the country. We build suburbs, inhabit them for a generation, then build new ones further out. It started with Detroit's outer neighborhoods, then it progressed to places like Redford, then Livonia, and now Canton. Within the next 20 years we'll be building new suburbs and letting the inner ones age into irrelevance. "Smart growth" doesn't mean building fancy lofts and condos where single family homes once stood; it means renewing the housing stock we already have and building more infill housing to increase density. The strain on our infrastructure will also be reduced as smart growth removes the need for more schools and more roads in the country-turned-suburbs. We can already see a good example of this with Livonia becoming an attractive place to live for young families. The biggest thing we need to leave in the 2010s is that population growth must ALWAYS mean new housing stock. If anything, we have a surplus of housing stock that needs to be refurbished and filled first.

[313WX]

This is not a good example.

First, Japan is experiencing the beginning of population collapse, not stagnation.

That is a completely different matter.

Further, one can have no population growth at all [[not no births) and have a population with demographic [[age) stability.

Where one does not see that it is because a previous generation had a baby boom and therefore a return to replacement birth rates results [[as with the Baby Boomers) is an older bulge in the population.

Population stability is in fact an essential thing over time; growth in this category is not advantageous unto itself.

Yes, you will grow real estate values, but you will then see smaller housing and/or higher rates of homelessness or public subsidies of housing.......in other words, population growth isn't free.

Yes there's more money, but there's also greater expense.

Further, bulges in population cause extreme cost problems.

In the context of the baby boom it means vast resources on new/expanded schools, many of which are now being closed and demolished.

Society paid first for their construction, then again for their removal.

That shows as economic growth both times by the way; but stupid growth rather than smart.

All you need out of aggregate population numbers is stability.

In the case of Michigan, and particularly Detroit, because of past population loss, there is some surplus land and infrastructure to absorb some net population growth at low cost.

But that is a one-time thing and anomalous. Once any surplus capacity in 1/2 empty schools or parks is used and any abandoned housing re-occupied, the benefits of further growth at the State level are marginal at best.

There is some benefit to urbanizing/shifting population, up to a point, but not simply more people for their own sake.

Population growth isn't zero sum.

The problems you describe come with explosive population growth of low quality people [[those who are un/undereducated and poor).

There is a middle ground though. Minnesota is one model that has experience steady but moderate population growth of white collar professionals and blue collar laborers alike, enough to maintain a healthy labor market and ensure well-run governments without dealing with problems such as an affordable housing crisis or roads that are overcapacity.

That's what Detroit and Michigan should strive to emulate.

[Meddle]

For the benefit of the planet, the Human plague must go to negative infestation.

[Luke09]

California's population is growing, and the economy in California is outpacing the country:
https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/facult...-review/ca-gdp
https://www.inc.com/catherine-perlof...10-states.html
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-state...usiness/36934/
http://worldpopulationreview.com/sta...ia-population/
Poor folks are leaving California, while those better off are moving in and replacing them at a faster rate. I'm not saying that is ideal, but to portray California as a state on the decline like Illinois is not accurate. It's a state that has similar population growth as the country, but with wealth and GDP rising much faster.

[Richard]

^ California debt to GDP ratio 153%

Michigan debt to GDP ratio 13.09 %

[Canadian Visitor]

^ California debt to GDP ratio 153%

Michigan debt to GDP ratio 13.09 %

Uhh, where did you get that stat?

Cause I see California at 16.58%.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...entage-of-gsp/

When I consult this site, I get Cali at just over 17%

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_debt_rank

****

AHA!

I found the BS nonsense you quoted.....its here

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick.../#2752620337b5

It takes Cali's share of the federal debt and adds it to the state total.

Which is not the way you got the figure for Michigan.

Sigh.....

[Richard]

^ nice try slick

https://californiapolicycenter.org/c...-1-3-trillion/


Numbers are public record,kinda hard to fudge them.

[Canadian Visitor]

Population growth isn't zero sum.

The problems you describe come with explosive population growth of low quality people [[those who are un/undereducated and poor).

There is a middle ground though. Minnesota is one model that has experience steady but moderate population growth of white collar professionals and blue collar laborers alike, enough to maintain a healthy labor market and ensure well-run governments without dealing with problems such as an affordable housing crisis or roads that are overcapacity.

That's what Detroit and Michigan should strive to emulate.

Sure....I don't dislike Minnesota as a positive example..........

But, let's keep in mind all of Minnesota has a population only slightly larger than greater Detroit.

The entire state grew by 6.3% over the last decade or about 335,000 people.

That's almost perfectly in-line with the country as a whole.

The importance of that last bit is to note that Minnesota is drawing huge numbers of people and that much of what is seeing is simply its pro-rata share of U.S. growth overall.

I would argue that to the extent that its growth is inline w/the national average, the key to Minnesota's success really isn't its population growth.

Its a lower rate of poverty, a lower rate of violent crime, and a higher quality of life for its citizens. Which then allows it a normative share of U.S. growth writ large.

Minnesota's homicide rate is 1.9 to Michigan's 5.5; Minnesota has the 4th lowest poverty rate in the U.S. where Michigan is at #36

That's where the focus needs to be; not growth.

Growth comes from those stats, those stats. don't come from growth.

[Canadian Visitor]

^ nice try slick

https://californiapolicycenter.org/californias-total-state-local-debt-totals-1-3-trillion/
Numbers are public record,kinda hard to fudge them.

I don't need to fudge a thing.

The article you link to above says this "Our estimate of California government debt represents about 52%"

That's the article YOU quoted.

It specifies the higher number includes Cali's share of the national debt.

Further if you read on...

That number not only includes 'unfunded liabilities' something you could hardly spell, let alone comprehend.......

But a number also not included in the Michigan total you referenced. So not an apples to apples comparison.

On top of which that study tacks on an extra 400B that no official source, Federal or State supports as accurate.

[313WX]

Sure....I don't dislike Minnesota as a positive example..........

But, let's keep in mind all of Minnesota has a population only slightly larger than greater Detroit.

The entire state grew by 6.3% over the last decade or about 335,000 people.

That's almost perfectly in-line with the country as a whole.

The importance of that last bit is to note that Minnesota is drawing huge numbers of people and that much of what is seeing is simply its pro-rata share of U.S. growth overall.

I would argue that to the extent that its growth is inline w/the national average, the key to Minnesota's success really isn't its population growth.

Its a lower rate of poverty, a lower rate of violent crime, and a higher quality of life for its citizens. Which then allows it a normative share of U.S. growth writ large.

Minnesota's homicide rate is 1.9 to Michigan's 5.5; Minnesota has the 4th lowest poverty rate in the U.S. where Michigan is at #36

That's where the focus needs to be; not growth.

Growth comes from those stats, those stats. don't come from growth.

The focus needs to be on both.

Attracting people at a healthy rate to the city/state who are likely to reproduce as well as be productive citizen is critical if the local/state government expects to raise sufficient enough revenue to address those quality of life categories that you list.

[Canadian Visitor]

Richard, you cannot, never have, nor will you ever successfully argue with me.

You're too damned lazy to read your own links.

[Canadian Visitor]

The focus needs to be on both.

Attracting people at a healthy rate to the city/state who are likely to reproduce as well as be productive citizen is critical if the local/state government expects to raise sufficient enough revenue to address those quality of life categories that you list.

May I suggest to you a different reason for the standard of living outcome?

Minnesota has the 7th highest per capita taxes in the United States at $6,600 and change per person.

Michigan is #28 at $4,000 and change per person.

An extra $2,400 per person in investment in quality of life produces a tangible gain and one which is self-sustaining and growth-encouraging.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/2019....Draft2-01.png

Lets look at the difference btw........its not just a difference in raw income.

Its a corporate tax rate in MN of 9.8% compared to 6% in Mich.

Its a higher sales tax rate in MN than Mich.

Mich also has a lower rate of personal income tax at 4.35% flat vs MN with a range of 5.35% to 9.85%

In other words, all those tax cuts in Mich did nothing to promote growth and everything to hinder it.

A higher tax state is more competitive in attracting business and immigrants.

[313WX]

May I suggest to you a different reason for the standard of living outcome?

Minnesota has the 7th highest per capita taxes in the United States at $6,600 and change per person.

Michigan is #28 at $4,000 and change per person.

An extra $2,400 per person in investment in quality of life produces a tangible gain and one which is self-sustaining and growth-encouraging.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/2019....Draft2-01.png

Lets look at the difference btw........its not just a difference in raw income.

Its a corporate tax rate in MN of 9.8% compared to 6% in Mich.

Its a higher sales tax rate in MN than Mich.

Mich also has a lower rate of personal income tax at 4.35% flat vs MN with a range of 5.35% to 9.85%

In other words, all those tax cuts in Mich did nothing to promote growth and everything to hinder it.

A higher tax state is more competitive in attracting business and immigrants.

I agree that Michigan's tax cuts were a mistake. I was against them at the time.

That being said, what's done is done now and you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. The people of Michigan who have taken a massive hit in their incomes over the past decade and are amongst the oldest in the country are not going to willingly open their wallets for the government to raise more tax revenue.

This does create a catch-22, because outside businesses and residents that local companies may want to attract as employees will not voluntarily consider moving to Michigan until it addresses its numerous quality of life issues.

[Atticus]

May I suggest to you a different reason for the standard of living outcome?

Minnesota has the 7th highest per capita taxes in the United States at $6,600 and change per person.

Michigan is #28 at $4,000 and change per person.

An extra $2,400 per person in investment in quality of life produces a tangible gain and one which is self-sustaining and growth-encouraging.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/2019....Draft2-01.png

Lets look at the difference btw........its not just a difference in raw income.

Its a corporate tax rate in MN of 9.8% compared to 6% in Mich.

Its a higher sales tax rate in MN than Mich.

Mich also has a lower rate of personal income tax at 4.35% flat vs MN with a range of 5.35% to 9.85%

In other words, all those tax cuts in Mich did nothing to promote growth and everything to hinder it.

A higher tax state is more competitive in attracting business and immigrants.

As mentioned in an earlier post, Minnesota is an example of successful liberal state politics. The statistics reflect that. Most conservative cannot bring themselves to believe that conclusion however, because ideology tells them ALL higher tax and social welfare programs are bad. The truth is some social welfare programs are bad, but some are good. The difference between Minnesota and Illinois is one state government is smart enough to realize that, and the other is not.

Conversely, the numbers also show that Utah is doing well and Kansas is not. Again, Utah has figured out which conservative politics actually work, and Kansas hasn’t. But that is a topic that never gets discussed because most conservatives love both Utah and Kansas style state governments, and of course liberals loathe both. Despite that, what gets missed is that one form of conservatism works, and the other does not. Unfortunately for Michigan, the state legislature is much more in line with Kansas’ way of thinking as opposed to Utah, Florida, Texas, etc.

[Canadian Visitor]

As mentioned in an earlier post, Minnesota is an example of successful liberal state politics. The statistics reflect that. Most conservative cannot bring themselves to believe that conclusion however, because ideology tells them ALL higher tax and social welfare programs are bad. The truth is some social welfare programs are bad, but some are good. The difference between Minnesota and Illinois is one state government is smart enough to realize that, and the other is not.

Conversely, the numbers also show that Utah is doing well and Kansas is not. Again, Utah has figured out which conservative politics actually work, and Kansas hasn’t. But that is a topic that never gets discussed because most conservatives love both Utah and Kansas style state governments, and of course liberals loathe both. Despite that, what gets missed is that one form of conservatism works, and the other does not. Unfortunately for Michigan, the state legislature is much more in line with Kansas’ way of thinking as opposed to Utah, Florida, Texas, etc.

Certainly, uber-partisanship/uber-ideological rigidity is unhelpful.

I think the issue of the U.S. 2-party system that by its nature promotes an either/or dichotomy.

Most jurisdictions around the world don't have this....

Worth saying, in their own way, neither do Utah or Minnesota.

That is to say, in those jurisdictions, while there is certainly a partisan-lean; there is more consensus on outcomes/goals and more openness on methods across party lines.

So one may see a greater emphasis on community fundraising or charity via church in one case; but that is actually delivered, vs a somewhat more government program based approach in another, that doesn't result in an expansive state doing everything, but does see effective programs.

To achieve either requires a greater effort at social consensus and less tribalism.

[Canadian Visitor]

I agree that Michigan's tax cuts were a mistake. I was against them at the time.

That being said, what's done is done now and you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. The people of Michigan who have taken a massive hit in their incomes over the past decade and are amongst the oldest in the country are not going to willingly open their wallets for the government to raise more tax revenue.

This does create a catch-22, because outside businesses and residents that local companies may want to attract as employees will not voluntarily consider moving to Michigan until it addresses its numerous quality of life issues.

I can understand the argument as it would apply to those who are low income; but why not return to a progressive tax scheme and raise rates only on those making over 70k per year [[just to pick a number); or raise corporate tax [[which applies only to profits); and do so only on profits over $1M?

It doesn't create a windfall, but it would begin to allow reinvestment infrastructure and schools; while keeping taxes lower on poor and lower-middle-income citizens.

[Meddle]

Nobody ever wins a webgument, no matter how many words they use.

[Wesley Mouch]

...A higher tax state is more competitive in attracting business and immigrants.

Hey CV, what makes you think that high taxes are the cause of success rather than a result?

Seems just as possible that high taxes are enabled by an environment of success and happiness.

I hear your idea that its the extra spending that can 'begin to be enabled' by extra taxes. I'd suggest it may be that people are willing to tolerate high taxes to live where they get 'high' benefits. These could be social welfare transfers, but could also, for one example, just be living in a more vibrant urban environment [[where I think MSP is ahead of DTW).

What makes you think high taxes are an enablibng cause rather than yet-to-be harmful effect.

[Canadian Visitor]

Hey CV, what makes you think that high taxes are the cause of success rather than a result?

First, as I would hope is obvious, 'high taxes' unto themselves certainly are not a cause of happiness/success etc.

'Higher' taxes [[the U.S. does not have a high-tax jurisdiction overall by global standards) are a tool which facilitates investment that attracts success.

The evidence is already laid out in the links above; higher rates of High School graduation, and post-secondary attainment are closely correlated with greater economic success.

No surprise there, dentists make more money that McStaff at the drive-thru.

But raising that education level is a public investment. Even if per student funding were the same [[which is often is not); the longer students stay in school, the more they cost, because they are simply more numerous.

True at the HS level and in any State College system.

Further, while students, they aren't likely working full-time, which means they aren't paying as much, if any, income tax.

That in turn means other taxpayers must pick up the tab, thus higher rates.

A more educated workforce attracts more high-paying jobs, it costs money.

Likewise, more and better quality infrastructure isn't free; some of it may be covered by tolls as opposed to taxes; but where that infrastructure includes, power, sewer/water, roads, bridges, transit, schools, public hospitals etc etc; taxes are a near-certain factor.

The benefit to business is clear in terms of logistics and higher-quality, happier workforce; while individual citizens are happier, picking up shorter commutes, communities they are prouder to live in, better schools for their kids etc.

There's nothing shocking here, with some rare exceptions, mostly tied to the energy sector, higher taxes in the U.S. and around the world are linked to a higher standard of living; lower taxes are linked to a poorer standard of living.

That should not be used an argument for infinitely high taxes, or shocking increases; but clearly Michigan has lots of room to raising taxes in a U.S. context without being remotely uncompetitive.

If low taxes were the answer, Michigan would be in the midst of a profound decade-long boom.

That it is not, correlates with an education system that under performs and poor infrastructure, both, at least in part, due to inadequate funding.

[Richard]

Gee Michigan and Detroit there is your answer,triple your tax rates and prepare for the surge wealthy people and businesses tripping over themselves in order to move there.

Even though there is 9,000,000,000 tons of information out there that prove exactly the opposite.


Yes you to can have the pleasure of a walled city where only those who have incomes over $500,000 a year may enter,but of course they realize that the toilet may become plugged or when they go to that fancy restaurant some low grade uneducated serb will have to be there to cater to their needs,so in appreciation and in order to makes us highly educated and well paid look good,we will be sure to reserve a few city blocks where you are welcome to pitch you tents.

Unfortunately there will come a time when the high tax rates that we campaigned for will reach the point where we will also leave to greener lower tax rate states,but look at the bright side,you will have the whole city to yourself,while we migrate to another low tax state and push for the exact same policies that ruined your city for you.

Yea,sorry about that tax burden we created but if you take on another job then maybe you will have enough left over so you can enjoy the finer things in life,like a cup of coffee and a stale donut at the end of the week.

[Canadian Visitor]

Gee Michigan and Detroit there is your answer,triple your tax rates and prepare for the surge wealthy people and businesses tripping over themselves in order to move there.

Even though there is 9,000,000,000 tons of information out there that prove exactly the opposite.

No one suggested tripling taxes anywhere; you're being silly as is your nature.

There is not 9,000,000 tons of evidence is support of your nonsense position; your zero citations reflect that.

Again, making stuff up.

Be quiet child, you have nothing useful to offer, so offer nothing.

[Richard]

No one suggested tripling taxes anywhere; you're being silly as is your nature.

There is not 9,000,000 tons of evidence is support of your nonsense position; your zero citations reflect that.

Again, making stuff up.

Be quiet child, you have nothing useful to offer, so offer nothing.

Well gee let me relocate to another city so I can double my tax rate,said nobody ever.

New York City had to pass new laws about taxes because it seems like it was quite profitable to buy a condo in Florida and claim that as a residence while remaining in NYC.

Florida Which remains on the list of top 5 states to relocate to has no income tax and is homeowner tax friendly.

In the last 3 years 70 financial institutions have relocated to WPB alone.

The problem is what you view as useful to offer only fits your narrative and when it fails you resort to name calling.

You cannot think or accept [[I did that just for ray) outside of your liberal socialist programming.

You claim to have wealth but I highly doubt it,unless of course Canada does not have tax accountants,because the wealthy can afford those things.

Speaking of high taxes,because your loony is in the dumps Canadians now have to cough up another 2 billion for your fantasy bridge and my uneducated guess is with the new trade deal you guys will no longer be able to whore out China’s cheap steel to the US,that will have to be another added tax to make up for that loss.

Your Star cites were built by injecting billions of dollars gained by dumping tons of heroin on the streets of America,I wonder where they would be today without that.

Remind me again how what you are trying to sell has any credibility?

Here is a little linky for you because it does appear as your research capabilities are limited.

https://floridataxwatch.org/Research...omes-with-Them

[Wesley Mouch]

First, as I would hope is obvious, 'high taxes' unto themselves certainly are not a cause of happiness/success etc. ...

Thanks for your opinion. The other opinion would be that high taxes are the result of success rather than the cause. Any reason why this doesn't make sense to you as well?

The idea that more spending translates into better results in the future makes sense, but so does my counterpoint that past success may have resulted in present higher taxes [[in MN in your example).

Again, thanks.

[Canadian Visitor]

Thanks for your opinion. The other opinion would be that high taxes are the result of success rather than the cause. Any reason why this doesn't make sense to you as well?

The idea that more spending translates into better results in the future makes sense, but so does my counterpoint that past success may have resulted in present higher taxes [[in MN in your example).

Again, thanks.

Wesley, I always have an open mind to the evidence. So if you have any in support of your thesis, I'm more than happy to consider it.

In the absence of that, I must say it doesn't make intuitive sense to me; and here's why.

1) Lets look at the list of countries, and/or U.S. States w/the healthiest economies and highest standards of living.

Lets exclude those that very clearly correlated with energy resources [[be than Saudi Arabia or Alaska); and then review the list.

With the odd exception to be sure, most are high[[er) tax jurisdictions.

The first thing that would seem to indicate is that high taxes are not an impairment to that success.

We might not know that if the taxes only recently arrived at a higher level.

But if one examined most of the jurisdictions in question, their higher-tax status has been in place for a bare minimum of a decade and in most cases much longer.

2) Where we know this 'high[[er) tax' status has been a multi-decade phenomenon it seems inherently unreasonable to say it is the result of success. If one goes far enough back in history everything could be based on anything. But I should think in reviewing present performance the key would be the previous 10-30 years. Where those were all high[[er) tax years; it seems reasonable to infer success has followed that tax regime.

3) We have a control situation now in the United States, one in which the majority of lower-tax states have under produced economically, and typically offer a lower standard of living.

Surely, if lower taxes were the key to success, that success would have arrived.

But Kansas, Michigan, Indiana, amongst others have been on a drive to be lower-cost jurisdictions in taxes and labour, and all have a mediocre [[at best) record of achievement.

4) We know the link to education and a skilled labour force is absolutely key, all the evidence supports this.

That is the result of an investment that can only come from greater tax revenue and by no other means.

You can't hire more, and more qualified teachers, increase the number of post-secondary opportunities, and lower tuitions without money to do so. Money that comes from taxes.

5) This record holds here in Canada, the 4 best performing economic provinces, Quebec, BC, Ontario and Alberta have the highest ranking/performing education systems. They also have the highest per capita government expenditures, and with the exception of Alberta [[which has substantial energy revenues) are all the highest taxing provinces as well.

6) Finally, why would 'success' result in higher taxes? Sure, growth in population requires investment, but it should also finance it. It doesn't follow to me that people with higher incomes [[who will automatically generate higher income taxes in a progressive system, and higher sales taxes as they spend more) will demand rate increases to impinge on their prosperity.

Do you have any evidence in support of a contrary position?