Which Way To Vote On Proposal 1 ?

[t-pain]

heres the ballot proposal. is this the actual text of the law? there is no law to read first?

basically you are voting blind on this?

 

 

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?

[ ] YES

[ ] NO

[cristinew]

REDUCE STATE USE TAX AND REPLACE WITH A LOCAL COMMUNITY STABILIZATION SHARE   that means more taxes  for the poor .. vote NO

[cristinew]

ALWAYS vote "NO" on any state-spnsored proposal.  And we should know who is behind this scam 

[phaquetoo]

Are you sure that is what the actual out come would be?  I too wondered which way to vote, most times when we vote yes for something like this we wind up screwing our selves.

 

any other opinions on prop 1 ?

[cristinew]

I just know when you cut taxes  on business  and then keep spending the same amount ,, no cuts in spending in this  prop... Someone has to pay,, and that someone will be us 

[Sidartha Jones]

Unless you are a business owner vote against this proposal.

While the proposal does address structural issues with the Michigan tax code, it'll be the little guy footing the bill.

Same as it ever was....

 

[Hayduke]

I am voting no.

 

They propose to forgive businesses hundreds of millions of taxes presently in place.  Ends up costing the taxpayer 551 million or so...

 

Now how do you suppose they will get that tax from to replace the shortfall?

 

No kidding Sherlock...

[Hayduke]

... and if the business gets a tax break, do you suppose they will pass any of that break on to you or me?

[t-pain]

i read an analysis of the ballot proposal, it has to do with a previous tax reform the legislature passed previously.

more info:

http://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Use_Tax_and_Community_Stabilization_Share,_Proposal_1_(August_2014)

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

The proposal eliminates the personal property tax (PPT) and replaces the local community stabilization share with a Michigan user's tax which is also a business tax.  The thing about the scheme here is that it divides the money more evenhandedly among communities instead of keeping it how it currently is with all personal property tax proceeds going to the community from which it came.  That means communities then have a more stable and dependable budget. 

 

As it is set up now the communities where the PPT is collected is where the money stays.  So for a state tax it is spread out awfully unevenly.  This proposal fixes that.

 

I'd say that if the proposal doesn't pass look for the legislature to do some tinkering with it during their lame duck session.  The proposal has broad repub and dem support so I would bet they will mess with the issue should it fail at the polls.

[beourbud]

NO

[Restorium2]

Republican trick is to cut taxes and then replace those taxes with other taxes on the little guy. This is a prime example of the rich trying to get richer (behind your back) but we can still see them busting moves even though they think they are invisible.

We can see you ..... No you can't .... lol

VOTE NO.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Restorium2

[Sidartha Jones]

Just watched this weeks "Off the Record" and Warren's Mayor Fouts laid out why Proposal 1 is a "scam".

Here he is in a Free Press article laying down the law.

http://www.freep.com/article/20140725/OPINION04/307250012/michigan-proposal-1

 

"I view Proposal 1 on the August ballot as another large corporate giveaway that will result in service cutbacks and employee lay-offs by cities like Warren. So much for the argument that the proposal will create new jobs. This is a very confusing propaganda proposal, primarily benefiting industrial manufactures. For that reason, I call it a hoax on taxpayers and urge voters to vote against Proposal 1.

James R. Fouts

Mayor of Warren"

[bobandtorey]

Are you sure that is what the actual out come would be?  I too wondered which way to vote, most times when we vote yes for something like this we wind up screwing our selves.

 

any other opinions on prop 1 ?

 

 

I can see this like voting No may mean a Yes vote ?

[Restorium2]

I can see this like voting No may mean a Yes vote ?

No means NO. It's bad unless you are trying to add another zero at the end of your bank account. 6,000,000 + 1 zero = 60,000,000. Ah, what a relief it is ...

[GregS]

There is an element of trickle down stated in the bill analysis (ty t-pain). That, in and of itself, is a red flag. The list of donors that support the bill is more than just top heavy with business interests.

 

Nope. Not for me.

[phaquetoo]

ok the stupid add I see on t.v for this, is it looks like a lathe in a machine shop, they say the owner of the business has been paying personal property tax on it for 45 yrs than his grand son takes over the biz and is still payin ppt on the same lathe or grinder or what ever it is.  Is that for real? do they pay for that same peice of equipment for that many yrs?  I thought I knew a little more about the tax structure, like boats, cottages, hotels, they all have a pleasure tax correct? and do them same people have to keep paying that pleasure tax on their large boat that qualify's for a right off (if it has a kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, etc?

 

I guess Im a little perplexed by this one, my 1st instinct is to vote no, but will that help the people who may have saved while the nest was still full, finaly the last of the kids flea the nest and they lose the tax right off of the kids but have the tax right offs of their retirement tools/ fun, ie campers, boats, cottages and so on? or do they not have them tax right offs?

 

Im just wondering others opinions! and I would like to vote the right way, I do not skip a vote if I dont understand it, but this one I need to understand, please, any and all views are welcome!

 

Peace

 

edit = I know they have taxes on their cottages and they are more than there full time home. and them same people dont get to vote local on their cottage propertys, so the people who have cottages where people live have to pay more taxes, that is kinda like making some one pay more becuase they have more, we could all have more than the next guy, why should the people with more suffer or the people with less?

Edited August 4, 2014 by phaquetoo

[cristinew]

my 1st instinct is to vote no...  I go with my first instinct ,,, Unless you are a Meijer billionaire they are the ones pushing this,  They always show the little guy  but they do not show  Meijers people ,,  Do you think that they will pass the savings on the the consumers  or employees?  Nope,...  And your taxes will go up  sooner or later ,, You cannot cut taxes  with out  cutting spending ,, So they will raise taxes on the  people not the big business ,,

[+Malamute]

They get tax deductions for that machinery for ten years. They are, or were, allowed to front end those tax cuts and receive all ten years of tax credits up front on that machine. They then sell the machines and move them out of country and got the whole ten year of taxes off of it without keeping them in use. The tax credit is done to encourage businesses to stay; it is used to skim money off of the taxpayers without giving back.  Etc etc.

 

 Anyhow,... I am voting no.  I would agree the business tax system is a little messed up in Michigan,... but this proposal is NOT even close to the answer.

 

If a community allows businesses to open in their community, use its roads(trash the roads with semi's etc) use its development(water, sewer, parking lots, impact costs) that tax money should go to that local community.  This allows businesses to screw over the area they are located in IMO.  TheState can easily even out school funding by directing funds in a way that compensates an even distribution minimum per child across the state; o wait, they already do that!. ;-)

[Restorium2]

edit

Edited August 4, 2014 by Restorium2

[phaquetoo]

Thanks Mal!

 

Peace

 

edit= you to rest!  I was writing while you were posting, I think I have learned enough to vote no!

 

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread, when I ask for advise on voting I realy need it, even after reading this b.s proposal I was still unsure, now I feel good enough to vote no!

Edited August 4, 2014 by phaquetoo

[Restorium2]

ok the stupid add I see on t.v for this, is it looks like a lathe in a machine shop, they say the owner of the business has been paying personal property tax on it for 45 yrs than his grand son takes over the biz and is still payin ppt on the same lathe or grinder or what ever it is.  Is that for real? do they pay for that same peice of equipment for that many yrs?  I thought I knew a little more about the tax structure, like boats, cottages, hotels, they all have a pleasure tax correct? and do them same people have to keep paying that pleasure tax on their large boat that qualify's for a right off (if it has a kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, etc?

 

I guess Im a little perplexed by this one, my 1st instinct is to vote no, but will that help the people who may have saved while the nest was still full, finaly the last of the kids flea the nest and they lose the tax right off of the kids but have the tax right offs of their retirement tools/ fun, ie campers, boats, cottages and so on? or do they not have them tax right offs?

 

Im just wondering others opinions! and I would like to vote the right way, I do not skip a vote if I dont understand it, but this one I need to understand, please, any and all views are welcome!

 

Peace

 

edit = I know they have taxes on their cottages and they are more than there full time home. and them same people dont get to vote local on their cottage propertys, so the people who have cottages where people live have to pay more taxes, that is kinda like making some one pay more becuase they have more, we could all have more than the next guy, why should the people with more suffer or the people with less?

You can show depreciation on a machine in your business if that machine depreciates. Like a computer is only good for 5 years. Those machine tools are still up and running, making the business money, so they still have a substancial tax value. If he bought new stuff then the old stuff wouldn't be taxed. He wants to not buy new stuff and say his old stuff is worthless. Like having your cake and eating it too. They caught them doing that long ago. That's why he's paying tax.

[+Malamute]

No problem phaq. I try not to tell people HOW to vote,... but tell them why I am voting a certain way. :-)

 

This is just one of those "greasy" things they are trying to sneak through IMO.

 

Besides, it is being funded by Koch's, Devos's and Mackinac Center.  That should always put up your BS radar.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

So explain why it has bipartisan support.

[+Malamute]

Because both parties, in varying degress, are bought and sold by corrupt corporations?

 

 I see the police support it!!!