Which Way To Vote On Proposal 1 ?

[cristinew]

and builds in a new even handed tax.    in other word     we pay,,,,

[Restorium2]

NEW STUDY: Corporate Welfare Makes the Rich Lazy

byDavid Harris GershonFollow

 

 

114 Comments / 114 New

Contrary to conventional wisdom, tax breaks and corporate welfare structures turn the ultra-rich into lazy moochers, and not motivated corporate citizens.

 

By monitoring the daily lives of CEOs heading America's largest tax dodgers, the Society for Motivated Americans (SMA) was able to conclude that extreme corporate welfare benefits make the super-rich lazy and complacent.

 

"Most of them spend an inordinate amount of time hobnobbing in lavish resorts and playing Candy Crush on corporate jets," said Jeff Zebo of SMA.

 

Zebo provided Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan as a prime example. BOA is the nation's leading tax dodger, having paid zero taxes in 2010 – a $1.9 billion tax break – after receiving more than a trillion dollars in bailout money. "Has this made Moynihan motivated?" asked Zebo. "No – the man can barely pay attention on the job. And he sleeps all the time – employees sometimes stumble into his office and find him face down on the desk mumbling about things like milk shakes and Aruba."

 

 

BrianMoynihan1

 

 

Moynihan, unable to stay awake at the World Economic Forum.

Zebo cited Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein as another prime example. Goldman Sachs is the second-largest recipient of corporate welfare, paying zero in taxes in 2010 despite profits of $2.3 billion. "He sits around his mansion most days eating chips, drinking Belgian beer and taking conference calls in a bathrobe while secretly playing Call of Duty," said Zebo. "And when he's forced to leave his house, it's clear he just wants back on his couch."

 

LloydBlankfein1

Lloyd Blankfein, upset he's not on his couch.

According to the SMA study, such examples are rampant in the corporate community, blowing apart the long-held notion (among the super-rich and Republicans) that tax breaks make the one percent motivated to further produce.

This study comes on the heels of GOP claims that government assistance for the poor, particularly those who would starve or go bankrupt on their own without such help, make the destitute lazy. In fact, the opposite is the case, as pointed out by the CATO Institute. Those poor citizens who receive benefits are often themselves working multiple jobs or actively seeking employment they can't find, partially due to outsourcing of jobs from lazy, super-rich CEOs.

 

The solution to this epidemic of laziness now running rampant among American CEOs? "Take away their corporate welfare," says Zebo. "Unlike the poor, they don't need it. And they'd actually be more productive as a result."

 

A novel, and radical idea.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/11/1276705/-NEW-STUDY-Corporate-Welfare-Makes-the-Rich-Lazy#

[Norby]

The economic activity is not primarily from hotel stays Norby. Think real hard and I bet you come up with places where the real money is spent when one makes a movie. I posted example somewhere up in the thread and I am betting you can find them.

 

Restorium2 if you read every word in the thread then you would notice I brought up Carson City well before my last post. I came across it when I did my research when trying to decide on how to vote for prop 1. That's right, someone did research, didn't just listen to everyone in the room banging their beer steins on the table asking for another round and slapping one another on the back with self-congratulatory remarks about how their one-liners about corporate welfare were so right. I dug for the facts while everyone else sat around and whined about how picked on they are.

 

I will post more about the Carson City issue later, I'm over and out to catch my late news.

I don't get fooled by slight of hand tricks.  The money all ends up in the same place, benefitting the wealthy over the poor.  The shutdown areas, security, etc.  These benefits usually help the wealthy at the cost to the locals while a few business' benefit and the profits go elsewhere. The real profit for using a city to shoot goes to the film industry and the investors.  They wouldn't do it if it didn't. The US wouldn't be going the way it is if it were otherwise. There aren't enough jobs and business in the US anymore and cities are going bankrupt, piling the debt on their citizens and defaulting trying to go cheap enough to draw in corporations. In this kind of game there are winners and losers and the cities that can pile the most debt on their citizens will be the last one standing.  This is the current bigger picture.

[Restorium2]

Michigan has spent $444.7 million on the film subsidy program since 2008.

 

[Restorium2]

and builds in a new even handed tax.    in other word     we pay,,,,

Another Frank Quote;  'Gets around the Hedley amendment'

 

in other words

 

we pay......

[GregS]

Frank. Meet Resto. Resto meet Frank.

Edited August 8, 2014 by GregS

[Restorium2]

Frank. Meet Resto.

I would like to meet Frank. Where is he? I can read what he writes many places on the internet. The internet is the long arm of the carpetbagger. We have carpetbaggers in my home town right now saying how we shouldn't be helping children from other countries here. It's really none of their business. Scram. We don't need your help, we are proud to help these young refugees and get some jobs to boot. Proud to help.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

You do see how there is no point in responding here right? All there is is a bunch of whinng about how the PPT repeal cannot possibly benefit Michigan. I point out solid examples of how tax incentives have directly benefitted Michigan and what do we get? We get one member here saying he likes the film incentives, yet he is opposed to the PPT repeal. We get another member here admitting that the film incentive brought economic activity to Michigan but then he asserts that the only people who benefitted are "rich fat cats." He also weakly tried to imply that the only economic benefit was hotel stays by film crews.  Even then he says that the money from the hotel stays went straight to out of state hotel headquarters. Then we get another member posting a graph representing film jobs as if that has been the only benefit form the film production. What you don't get is that film production requires more than employing a few extras and key grips. I already explained all of this but you either refuse to comprehend or just don't want to. All I see are a bunch of angry Stalinists that can't see past the nose on their face.

 

And Restorium2 the only way the PPT repeal benefits me is the same way it benefits you. It makes Michigan more business friendly. It attracts new business to the state and retains old businesses. It gives business more capital to grow. Implying that I am in some way directly benefitting from the PPT repeal will get you no where. You make that assumption because you assume that all people are socialists and should agree with your philosophy unless they are one of your fat cats. No, I worked for local government for over 20 years and have since retired. Wasn't and am not a business owner of any sort. But logic and history have taught me that some things don't work.

[Restorium2]

You do see how there is no point in responding here right? All there is is a bunch of whinng about how the PPT repeal cannot possibly benefit Michigan. I point out solid examples of how tax incentives have directly benefitted Michigan and what do we get? We get one member here saying he likes the film incentives, yet he is opposed to the PPT repeal. We get another member here admitting that the film incentive brought economic activity to Michigan but then he asserts that the only people who benefitted are "rich fat cats." He also weakly tried to imply that the only economic benefit was hotel stays by film crews.  Even then he says that the money from the hotel stays went straight to out of state hotel headquarters. Then we get another member posting a graph representing film jobs as if that has been the only benefit form the film production. What you don't get is that film production requires more than employing a few extras and key grips. I already explained all of this but you either refuse to comprehend or just don't want to. All I see are a bunch of angry Stalinists that can't see past the nose on their face.

 

And Restorium2 the only way the PPT repeal benefits me is the same way it benefits you. It makes Michigan more business friendly. It attracts new business to the state and retains old businesses. It gives business more capital to grow. Implying that I am in some way directly benefitting from the PPT repeal will get you no where. You make that assumption because you assume that all people are socialists and should agree with your philosophy unless they are one of your fat cats. No, I worked for local government for over 20 years and have since retired. Wasn't and am not a business owner of any sort. But logic and history have taught me that some things don't work.

The one example that you used was the film industry. It had nothing to do with the PPT. And it hasn't helped Michigan jobs much at all.

 

I know of hundreds of thousands of machines in Michigan that will be going tax free now. Billions of tax dollars that were being collected exactly where they should have been.

[t-pain]

i'm for repealing the PPT too. i just dont like the other crap setup to 'fix' the loss in taxes.

and i said it would be better if we repealed some personal home taxes as well, but i guess no one cares about how much tax you pay on your house every year.

[Hayduke]

cry one more time for me

you really got it bad....

 

J. Geils Band

[Wild Bill]

Had they just said they were repealing the tax that would have been great. But, they said that it would be made up for in other ways.

 

My question is how do they intend to do it?

Will they increase the use tax? Will they increase the sales tax? Cut spending?( :lol: )

Will they do it in a way that doesn't cost me more? I sincerely doubt it.

 

I remember a few years ago they wanted to add sales tax to services. How much would that have helped our economy?

 

My business never increased because my overhead was lowered, it increased when people had disposable income and were in need of the services the business provided. If people have to pay more sales or use tax then their disposable income will shrink.

 

When their income shrinks they tend to concentrate on buying things like food and clothing, but in smaller quantities and generally lower quality.

 

When businesses get tax cuts they don't generally "pass the savings on to the consumers". They keep the profits or "pass them on" to the executives.

 

Those who hold to the trickle down theory all seem to feel that the only way to get ahead is to suckle at the corporate teat. What's good for GM is good for the nation.

 

Unfortunately the corporations are now multi-national and hold no allegiance to our country or our people.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Very fitting hayduke, very fitting.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Wild Bill if businesses didn't use money to expand GM would be run out of someone's garage. Businesses want to expand. You act as if big industry got that way by doing nothing but taking profits and making 3 people rich.

 

I don't know how many times I have said it but here we go again. They are levying a new use tax on businesses to make up shortfall.  It is part of prop1. If anyone actually read prop 1 they would know this. A NEW tax assessment. That assessment is a millage. It is in the SECOND line of the proposal yet people either have no reading comprehension or just choose to ignore it. I suppose some people can be taught while others either refuse or just cannot.

 

On top of all of that is the fact that businesses that realize a profit will no longer be able to benefit from getting a tax credit from paying the PPT. That means more money into state coffers. Everyone ignores this fact because it doesn't help their argument. A huge chunk of the PPT is creditable against business "income" tax. That means if I am a business and paid $10,000 in PPT and owed $20,000 in "income" tax I could potentially get a dollar for dollar credit on the PPT against the "income" tax. That means I really didn't pay any PPT.  I DID pay PPT but I basically got tax foregivness for it on the other end. You all just have no understanding of how this works and why the sky isn't falling. For sake of example if the state brings in $100 in total PPT much of that is creditable against business "income" tax. That means the state is taking in much less in "income" tax. So while the PPT will be eliminated the state coffers won't suffer dollar for dollar on that. On top of that they are assessing the increased use tax. It is easy math and you don't get it. You ask why they would eliminate the PPT if it won't make a difference and I already answered that. The PPT is an unfair tax and burdens business disproportionately. It also is a STATE tax that municipalities have great control over. Since the PPT covers essential services in a municipality like police, fire, etc., then some communities know how much PPT they are getting and can better plan their budget whereas municipalities that don't receive much in PPT need to wait for a state allocation to plan their budgets and their budgets are always up in the air until the state comes out with how much the municipality is getting. It is a messed up tax and a messed up tax structure. That is what you are not getting.

 

That is why there was no organized opposition against the repeal. Because consumer groups saw it as a tax neutral. Stop acting like this was some hincky secret plan. When Snyder signed the repeal bill in December (I think) 2012 it was all in the open. It had a built in requirement that it also go to a vote by the people before it could become law. That is why we had prop 1. Any consumer group had ample opportunity to oppose this but they didn't because their analysts did the research and recognized that it wasn't a bad thing. Yet people here demonstrate how little they know about it and still think it is good to whine and complain.

 

To understand the ramifications of the PPT repeal you need to know more about the tax structure. All you want to see is a repeal of a business tax so you cry foul. Even after I explain it every which way you continue to beat the dead horse. It passed by an overwhelming majority. Don't pull a bill schuette on the mma and assume the electorate was hoodwinked.

[+Malamute]

(quick reference to what resto said about moving equipment.  This can be done sometimes in joint tenancy arrangements to avoid taxes due to reassessment and conveyance. Typically about moving from one business to another business, not one side to another))

 

 

Some of these arguments are going off the rail.

 

 As I said earlier,... let's talk about facts here people. I am reading bumper stickers.

 

 I still believe I will be proved correct in the long run to my assessment of this issue.

 

 So,.. what is actually happening?

 

Municipalities were imposing PPT on businesses for certain equipment.  Some municipalities charged higher rates than others.

 

So, they had already removed "industrial" PP in 2012 leaving only "commercial" PP thus cutting municipality funding at that time.  This now will fully repeal the PPT for all. Fine and dandy I guess.

 

 BUT, the issue here is that the Business Use tax will not keep up witht he losses by municipalities thus putting pressure on communities to raise property taxes to cover nonessential services(anything besides fire, police, jail, ambulance).

 

 The Business Use tax will only cover 80% of the lost revenue.

 

 To make it clear on what will be paid/reimbursed and won't:

 

Essential services(police, fire, jail, ambulance) will receive up to 100% reimbursement of lost PPT revenue(for now)

 

The portion of the State Use Tax that was previously dedicated to the state school fund will receive 100% reimbursement from PPT revenue loss. This can result in lower state portion of school funding due to accounting shift/caps down the road. We will see how that goes. 

 

ISD and k-12 funding and ISD school bond debts will receive 100% reimbursement of revenue lost through PPT.

 

Sinking funds(funds established to pay debt) will only receive an estimated 80% reimbursement of revenues lost through PPT.  Quick example, my town has a few sinking funds(think of it as sinking your money in to it to pay off  already accrued debt in the future) centered around things such as our electrical dam owned by the city.  I have seen estimates range from as low as 60% and as high as 90% on this issue of lost PPT funding. 

 

Recreational Mills will be refunded an estimated 80% reimbursement of revenues lost through PPT.  This covers revenue used for parks, playgrounds, beaches, trails, summer programs etc etc. . I have also seen this estimate range.

 

Non-Essential services will be refunded an estimated 80% reimbursement of revenues lost through PPT. This covers about everything else your like that your town does. City workers, maintenance, Snow removal, library, etc etc etc.

 

 

 SO, when I see people say that this won't effect municipalities I have to chuckle a little bit. There is only 2 options and 1 point of contention left to talk about.  Will the municipalities cut services or raise millages to cover funding lost for Sinking funds, recreational , and non essential services?

 

The point of contention which I speak of has to do with whether this sudden drop in revenue will be replaced by increased businesses in Michigan?  Will your municipality garner enough extra property taxes from new businesses to make up for lost revenue? Or will services be cut/ Or will millages be raised?

 

 

 That is what I am talking about and have asked for non bumper sticker responses.

 

 So....?

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

You are being fooled Malamute. While the PPT repeal will only be made up 80% with the use tax the state still gets the enormous amount of PPT credits back in the "income" tax. That is the piece of the puzzle that everyone ignores. In the end it is tax neutral and a more fair way to tax businesses.  On top of that municipalities are free to raise real property taxes and put the burden of essential services where it belongs. A tax that fixes roads should go on vehicles that use the road and gas, etc. A tax that provides essential services (police and fire) should be levied based on real property value. That way fire protection is at a level where it should be based on the cumulative value of property in a municipality.

[+Malamute]

So, you say increased property taxes.

 

 Thank you.

 

 My point is made.

[+Malamute]

Oh,.. and increased gas taxes, car registration tax? and decreased public protection based on the size of a pocket book.

 

heh..

 

 It is all good Frank.

 

 I just feel I will win this wager in 3 years.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

No I don't say increased real property taxes. Why increase them when this is all tax neutral? All I said is they are free to raise real property taxes.  That is where essential services funding should lie anyway.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Malamute you just act as if each individual tax resides in a vacuum. If we taxed vehicles and gas and everything related to how much you drive and the weight of the vehicle then we would have road funding taxes where they should be. If we did that then that would mean lower taxes in areas where we currently siphon money for road funding. Stop pretending that it is just an added tax. It would put road funding where it belongs so those that benefit most from roads end up paying the most. 

Edited August 7, 2014 by FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana

[t-pain]

use taxes are horrible.

taxing things bought in other states is silly as well. if michigan wants to tax online sales maybe they should encourage online retailers to locate in michigan.

[Wild Bill]

I think it's great anytime a tax is removed. My concern is that they will replace the revenue in an as yet unnamed manner.

 

If it is tax neutral as you say then what is the point? 

neu·tral·i·ty
noun: neutrality

    1.
    the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality.

 

 

Just curious Frank, have you ever owned or operated a business in the state of Michigan?

 

[+Malamute]

If it is actually tax neutral, then why are cities only being reimbursed at an estimated 80% on non essential services, Sinking funds, and recreational mills?

 

The STATE level will remain 'tax neutral'(maybe)  but as I have said over and over again, this impact will be felt by municipalities which in turn must either cut services, raise millages or acquire new business property taxes from new and expanding businesses created by the removal of the PPT.

 

I will look the other way and say it may work,.... but I have a feeling I will win this one  over time.

 

edit: (add 'maybe')

[+Malamute]

As far as road taxes,... that is why gas tax and higher registration costs exist.  We already have that tax scheme implemented.  The problem is, as you say, is that not enough taxes are levied on BUSINESSES that utilze the roadways with large equipment, semi's and trucks.  Businesses like that should pay more for registration and licensing, or some other form, to make up for impact fees.  Otherwise impact fees are covered by the local taxpayer.  Such impact fees many times outweigh the advantage of a new businesses employment and such.

 

*shrug*

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

I totally agree. Put the tax where it should be. Raise taxes on heavy trucks. But taxing business equipment like a CAT scan the same as you would tax a sheet metal stamper that actually produces heavy goods that travel the roads is ridiculous. You know it as well as I do. Why should the Cat scan be taxed in a fashion that contributes to road repair when images are stored digitally and cause much less harm to roads than heavy manufacturing? That's is the point. UNEVENESS in taxing. Call it a bumper sticker if you want if that is the only way you can counter the argument.

 

Wild Bill I've said it many times now you just aren't reading my posts. There can still be a point in repealing an unfair tax even if the end result is revenue-neutral. The point is that it removes an unfair tax firstly and secondly it removes the unfairness as far as revenue distribution among municipalities. The issue isn't the bottom line here it is the way the bottom line is achieved.

 

Also, Wild Bill, IF YOU READ MY POSTS I indicate that I haven't ever been a business owner.

 

Malamute, I wrote tax neutral when I should've written revenue neutral. The municipalities won't feel the pinch because the state will have to use the general fund to make up the difference. The very same general fund that benefits from the increased income tax that will result from the lack of tax credits from the PPT.  That is the point. The state coffers will receive millions more due to no more PPT credits. That is part of what makes this revenue neutral. People don't realize that businesses that paid income taxes got tax credits against the paid PPT dollar for dollar. I already explained this in an earlier post. The tax credits disappear with the PPT repeal. So while businesses no longer pay the PPT they will pay MORE in income tax. Geez Louise, am I just spinning my wheels here?

Edited August 7, 2014 by FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana