Which Way To Vote On Proposal 1 ?

[Restorium2]

The more I look into it the more I see crooked business interests eating away at the fairness of the PTT. We definitely needed a proper depreciation schedule. Now we will just get new taxes. Bleh.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Describe to me how the PPT was fair?

1. How is it fair to tax a business on personal property with no regard to income?

2. How is it fair to tax a business on personal property for the useful life of the property?

3. How is it fair to tax a business on personal property with no regard as to what the property produces?

4. How is it fair to tax a business on personal property at the same rate for equipment that is used for only a few hours a day or only a few hours a week as opposed to equipment that is used 24/7 with 3 shifts of workers?

5. How is it fair to tax a business on personal property that doesn't produce widgets that need to be transported over the road as opposed to property that produces individual widgets that are 30 pounds each?

 

Shall I continue? Tell me how this was ever fair. It uniformly puts a burden on business regardless of income, regardless of how the property is used, and regardless of how long it has been owned.

 

Wait I already know your answer, you must levy all possible taxes on evil businesses otherwise the state is engaging in corporate welfare.

 

Not only is the tax unfair but it stifles equipment purchases because a business that will only use a piece of equipment a few hours a week is less likely to buy it if it is taxed like other equipment that is in constant use. It stifles technological upgrades. It makes a business environment that businesses want to escape. If the cost of paying PPT is greater over the course of a few years than moving to Ohio or Illinois where there is no PPT then what do you think businesses will do?

 

I think you are finally starting to understand. You finally admitted that the PPT is unfair.  So we ARE getting somewhere. Now you just need to admit that the rickety chair purchased in 1974 is STILL taxed under PPT. Half the battle is admitting there is a problem.

Edited August 9, 2014 by FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana

[+Malamute]

Why do they tax consumers sales tax regardless of income?

Why do consumers get taxed regardless of what the property produces?

How is it right to tax a consumer for property they never use?

 

Heh...

 

 We all pay taxes.  That is how Society works. 

 

This tax was used to make businesses pay their fair share.  Over time, it is possible this tax needed to be readjusted or altered in some format. 

 

 That is what this discussion is about.

 

I feel there will be a shortfall in tax collection with the new system which will likely be burdened onto homeowners.  You say the new influx of businesses due to this tax reform will outweigh that shortfall.

 

 We will see.

[Wild Bill]

Why do we even pay taxes? They were unnecessary before 1913, why do we need them now?

[+Malamute]

Taxes were well paid before the introduction of the income tax.  It was done with indirect taxes like levies, tariffs and sin taxes.  Localities charged property taxes and during wartime taxes were raised and imposed.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Consumer sales tax is structured in a way that hits the biggest purchasers the most. If you are paying $100 for a pair of jeans then you pay more tax than someone paying $15 for a pair at Old Navy. That tax is inherently charging more to those who can more afford it. That is the reason we have no food tax. Everyone needs their 2500 calories a day regardless of income level. The same with prescription drugs.

 

Real property taxes are based on property value. If you are a business that owns 20 acres with huge buildings you are taxed accordingly. That takes income into account.  If you are poor you likely don't own $1,000,000 worth of real estate. Similarly, if you own $1,000,000 worth of real estate you require a higher level of fire protection and the like and therefore you pay proportionately.

 

As for taxing for unused property you need to be clear. If you are talking about real property you need to be taxed because it still requires a level of service such as police, fire, and roads.  I don't see consumers being taxed for a chair that is 30 years old.

 

All of your arguments fail miserably.

 

As for a fair share I'd like you to justify for me how taxing an office chair is a fair share.

 

Also even though your arguments fail they aren't relevant to begin with.  You can't justify an unfair tax based on the fact that other tax is unfair. If the state passed a law that made doing 20 pushups every morning illegal what would you say? It isn't fair. It makes no sense. But what if I tried to justify it by saying that it is okay because there are other unfair laws on the books? Like for committing adultery? 2 wrongs don't make a right so I don't see how your attempts at pointing to unfair taxes somehow justifies levying other unfair taxes.

 

And why don't you enlighten me as to what is someone's fair share anyway. If you are in the highest income tax bracket and pay $1,000,000 of tax every year is that your fair share? It costs the same to build the road for you as it does for some poor person. These are all fixed costs but you see it as fair that one person should pay 1000 times more taxes. Why? If I drive on a toll road it is a fixed cost based on vehicle size and designed to pay for road maintenance. Should someone pay more since they are a millionaire? Did they damage the road more? Do they get better protection from the military? Do they benefit more from NASA? Just wondering how that is fair.

Edited August 9, 2014 by FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana

[knucklehead bob]

Why do we even pay taxes? They were unnecessary before 1913, why do we need them now?

 

We pay increasingly more taxes because of the greatest scam of all time , and how about that retirement package our "Elected Officials" enjoy , where does the money come from for that ?  

[+Malamute]

Everyone pays the same income tax rates. Billionaires and minimum wage alike. A billionaire pays the exact same tax rate(10%) on his first 9,000 of income a minimum wager does.  Everyone pays the same rate on their income tax rate on income between 9,000 and 36,000(15%). Etc.

 

 Also, if I buy an office chair as a consumer, I pay tax.  As a business I do not pay sales tax. So we have a different tax for businesses. ;-)

 

 I am guessing you are a flat taxer aye? Flat income tax, levies, tariffs and consumer taxes?

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Going over this thread again, Restorium2, I guess I have a direct question for you. How did my bringing up the constitution have anything to do with muddying the waters? You claimed that PPT was based on a depreciation schedule and you further claimed that at some point (10 years) the property is at a zero value for depreciation purposes. Your claim was the property was then NOT taxed under the PPT because it was at zero. I brought up the constitution to UNmuddy the waters. The constitution shows that your claim is completely wrong. The constitution requires that the property be valued at the true cash value. That is why it was brought up, to show that you are wrong. You are the one muddying the waters by twisting it around and acting as though I brought up the constitution as a way to say there can only ever be one way to assess the tax and that is the constitution's way. Clearly the constitution can be amended but that isn't the issue. The issue was that you were misrepresenting the way the PPT worked.  WORKED.  Past tense. It showed that you are shooting from the hip and that you are willing to say anything even if untrue in YOUR attempt to muddy the waters.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Income tax rate isn't the point. the point is your idea of "fair" share. If someone pays $1million how is that fair?

 

If a business buys an office chair it pays sales tax unless it is purchased for resale.

Edited August 9, 2014 by FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana

[cheapshades]

We interrupt our regular show for a brief musical interlude:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JLNnXgQeqU

[+Malamute]

What isn't fair?

 

 So you are saying someone who makes 30,000 should pay $10,000 in tax and someone who makes 100 million should pay 10,000 in tax too?

[+Malamute]

I believe wholeheartedly in progressive taxing.

[+Malamute]

And ya keep saying OHIO,...

 

In Ohio they made up for the immediate losses in revenue by also allowing millage increase for property taxes. The reimbursement period will end and taxes may need to be raised again.

 

 So even in Ohio, at least they were honest about property tax millage increases.  That is what I keep saying here.  This issue will lead to increased burden on homeowners.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

You are making an assumption that homeowners will have to bear a burden of shortfall. That is all it is an assumption. I can make the same assumption that the state will fund any shortfall. The money is there wilh the elimination of PPT credits and, frankly, there is even a large amount saved by elimination of the administration of the PPT. The state funded local budgets that had little to no PPT revenue as well. So is it your position that it will eliminate all funding? If so that's a guess. What did the great majority of the cities do to survive that had no significant PPT revenue?  The GREAT majority. 

 

The sky isn't falling. Do yourself a favor and don't become restorium2's lil brother. Throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks isn't a good way to argue. It damages credibility. Restorium2 has told so many fairytales in this thread only to go back and try to do damage control when he has been exposed. I can appreciate your style of argument better because it seems rational and thought out and fact based for the most part but let's not toss up what you expect to be zingers like the business sales tax issue because they won't stick on that wall they will fall flat.

 

And addressing the income tax issue, are you saying that someone who makes 100 million should have to pay darn near half to the government after federal, state, and local income taxes?  Asserting that the graduated tax structure is fair because everyone pays the same amount on the first $15k, and so on and so forth is very disingenuous because once you hit that top tier you are really socked for a boatload of money. So sure it's fair for the lower tiers. In the past 2 years the top tier's rate was increased by almost 5%.

Edited August 9, 2014 by FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana

[Restorium2]

And the rich just get richer.... I don't think you have much of a choir here to preach to Frank. What you are preaching just isn't working for anyone but the rich and they are in the minority in a democracy. You can't sell it and no one here is buying it.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Restorium2

[+Malamute]

At this point we are going in circles. :-)

 

Hopefully some people have learned some stuff etc.

[Hayduke]

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Malamute we haven't come full circle. I am still waiting on an answer as to how the great majority of Michigan cities have survived with minuscule, to no, PPT. How did they ever make it?  You pointed out that Carson City is a very small municipality and therefore isn't a good example of a business that got the majority of its funding from PPT.  Guess what, the top 10 cities that collected the most PPT are small cities. See the graph on ballotpedia. So I suppose none of them are good examples as to cities that were funded with their majority of property taxes coming from PPT?  Certainly those cities don't have considerably larger costs for services than other cities with similar population. How did other cities survive?

 

I am also waiting on your answer as to why you say businesses don't pay sales tax.

 

I am also waiting on restorium2's answer as to where he came up with the cockamamie idea that personal property is and has been depreciated to zero over a few years.

 

I am also waiting on responses to several other outright blatant untruths that have been asserted in this thread in an effort to discredit the idea of voting yes on the proposal..  Most of them by restorium2.

 

More folklore and lies that are made up to tarnish the image of businesses to make them look bad?

[cheapshades]

[trichcycler]

I learned that this may not be a dem vs repub issue after all !

[Restorium2]

[Restorium2]

[Wild Bill]

I learned that this may not be a dem vs repub issue after all !

 

They're normally on the same side. The fighting over insignificant issues is all for show.

[+Malamute]

I have also stated, if new business racing into Michigan actually ends up making up those funds in municipalities over the next 3 years,... I will eat my words and admit I am wrong.  I have already tagged this thread and will revisit in 3 years. :-)

 

 

 

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan would cover a state budget shortfall with a mix of one-time and ongoing cuts across state departments, including a $12 million reduction in film incentives under a plan Gov. Rick Snyder announced Wednesday.

 

The cuts will be made through an executive order, which Snyder signed Wednesday, and supplemental appropriations bills deducting funding from amounts allocated previously. The executive order and supplemental bills will all need approval from lawmakers.

 

The package assigns the largest reductions to the Department of Community Health, the Department of Technology, Management and Budget, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Human Services and the State Police. Each of those departments would have a more than $23 million budget cut for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 if the package is approved. The health department would receive the biggest cut in its total budget with a 25 percent decrease.

 

The Michigan Strategic Fund budget would also be cut by $22 million, including a $12 million reduction for the current fiscal year in the total $50 million amount available for film incentives. The incentives, aimed at luring movie and TV productions to the state, have been a point of dispute among legislators in recent years.

 

Some of the cuts to agencies are one-time reductions for budgeted items that were no longer needed. For example, Snyder said, of some $30 million allocated to the police for disaster assistance after flooding in Southeast Michigan, $16 million was not needed and is included in the total $23.3 million being cut from the police budget for the current fiscal year.

 

Asked about the impacts of other cuts, Snyder said, "In terms of layoffs, this is not anticipated to lead to massive layoffs in any case."

 

The proposed cuts come after economists agreed state revenue is $289 million short of projections in the current budget — mostly because of large companies cashing in tax credits at a higher rate than expected.

 

When Snyder took office in 2011, he and the Legislature scrapped the Michigan Business Tax in favor of the Corporate Income Tax, relieving 95,000 businesses of having to pay a main business tax and eliminating new tax breaks for specific companies. But companies can continue under the old tax system until their previously awarded tax credits expire. Jim Stansell with the House Fiscal Agency said about $5.4 billion in business tax credits were awarded from 2009 through 2011. The credits can be claimed until 2032.

 

Snyder said solving the shortfall through cuts to state agencies protects priorities such as students and funding for local communities.

 

House Democrats issued a statement saying the cuts should target big businesses instead.

 

"Michigan families and schoolchildren have already sacrificed enough in recent years through tax increases and school funding cuts," said House Democratic Leader Tim Greimel, an Auburn Hills Democrat. "This deficit was caused by excessive sweetheart deals without job creation guarantees to big corporations, and that's where the cuts should be made. We need to invest in our people and our communities, not in big corporations that are already profitable."