Which Way To Vote On Proposal 1 ?

[Restorium2]

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.

You got the wrong group pal. We pass the bowl and think with our 'non pickled' brains. Where we start is with the people we know are running the show and what they want. So we already know the motives behind every move. It's like doing a maze puzzle backwards. Very easy. If the playing field were equal we would win every time because we know our opponents next move.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Isn't it interesting how the evil republicans pulled the wool over the taxpayer's eyes? And the democrats who are the only ones who can fix this were bamboozled. If the republicans do it then it was evil. If the dems do it then it was because of the wool in their eyes. If there was NO organized opposition it is because everyone in the state was tricked because they only had 18+ months to organize opposition. Everyone was wrong except for the few smarties here who know the real motives and have crystal balls that they can use to see how thinks will really shake out.

 

It's the bowl is it? That's the key here. If the consumer groups only had a bowl to pass so there were no more pickled brains.

Edited August 8, 2014 by FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana

[Restorium2]

Isn't it interesting how the evil republicans pulled the wool over the taxpayer's eyes? And the democrats who are the only ones who can fix this were bamboozled. If the republicans do it then it was evil. If the dems do it then it was because of the wool in their eyes. If there was NO organized opposition it is because everyone in the state was tricked because they only had 18+ months to organize opposition. Everyone was wrong except for the few smarties here who know the real motives and have crystal balls that they can use to see how thinks will really shake out.

Just like I knew you would come back, not think, and shoot from the hip. lol

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Shooting from the hip is everyone here with their guesses. Telling everyone else how they are now screwed. Back it up with facts not guesses. I gave you a solid example of how tax cuts/incentives have grown the economy and you have no answer other than you don't care about that example.

[Restorium2]

No fair editing after you have been replied to. Take a breath and think Frank.

[Restorium2]

Shooting from the hip is everyone here with their guesses. Telling everyone else how they are now screwed. Back it up with facts not guesses. I gave you a solid example of how tax cuts/incentives have grown the economy and you have no answer other than you don't care about that example.

You have a lot to address with the things you were wrong about, if you dare to dig your hole deeper.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

I edited right after I posted. Didn't know there was a reply. Did the edit throw you that much? It was minor.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Name something I was wrong about.  One thing.

[Restorium2]

Name something I was wrong about.  One thing.

The rickety old chair for one. I read the depreciation schedule way back at page one. And you said you researched?

 

You kept harping that you KNEW there were already taxes in place to replace this corporate welfare. You have evolved that opinion to having the legislature make new taxes. Reserach on the fly now. I'm glad you are learning.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Restorium2

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

No you are the one who is wrong my friend. Gotta walk the dog. You have fun with your parsed "proofs" and when I have time I help you out.

[Restorium2]

I edited right after I posted. Didn't know there was a reply. Did the edit throw you that much? It was minor.

I think it was a major breakthough BOOM;

 

It's the bowl is it? That's the key here. If the consumer groups only had a bowl to pass so there were no more pickled brains.

[bobandtorey]

[cheapshades]

awesome post B&T!  A bit of levity goes a long ways in this thread about which way to vote in a Primary that is over with.  I can imagine that there are forums for accountants that would eat this stuff up.    

 

 

[cheapshades]

ok.  I'll bite.  Chew on this.

 

"Warren mayor to sue over 'one-sided' ballot language on Michigan Proposal 1"

 

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/08/warren_mayor_to_sue_over_one-s.html#incart_m-rpt-2

 

edit:  be sure to read the comments in the article  

Edited August 8, 2014 by cheapshades

[imiubu]

imho, whenever big business is the largest contributors to any taxation legislation it means it will benefit them the most.

I may not understand tax law but as I said earlier, I believe it is pretty plain to see just who will benefit by who are the

most willing to through money into this.

 

 

Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities committee received $8,498,328 in contributions.

 

The following is a list of those who contributed $30,000 or more to Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities:

 

Michigan Manufacturers Association $2,831,384 Ford Motor Company $2,000,000 Dow Chemical $1,500,000 General Motors Corp. $501,031 Dow Corning $500,000 Alticor Inc. $250,000 Chrysler Corp. $250,000 Kellogg Corp. $200,000 Consumers Energy Company $50,000 DTE Energy Co. $50,000 John Kennedy III $50,000 Haworth Inc. $50,000 Lear Corporation $50,000 Herman Miller $50,000 Michigan Chamber of Commerce $30,000 Masco Corp. $30,000

 

hummm...   

 

 

http://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Use_Tax_and_Community_Stabilization_Share,_Proposal_1_%28August_2014%29

[GregS]

Wild Bill everything you are talking about is illegal.  As for the million dollars you are mistaken about the tax brackets. The tax for personal income tax is 39.6% if you make a little over $400,000. The tax on business income over $335,000 is 34%.  Putting the money in an account overseas and not paying taxes on it is illegal. That would definitely be found out as there would be one heck of a paper trail.

 

Basically what you are saying is the company was engaging in massive tax evasion.  Illegally evading taxes is completely outside of the discussion here so at this point there is no point in discussing it anymore. May as well say that no one is overtaxed because they can just NOT pay taxes.I

Are you suggesting that hiding wealth to avoid taxation does not happen because it is illegal? Are wealthy individuals that altruistic?  I am aware that tracking that money is improving, e.g., moves with Switzerland to identify these big hearted coksuckers. I argue that it is not always found out. Hell, the Vatican has been involved in it, hiding and laundering money illicitly. Are you suggesting there are not more stashes anywhere else that have not been identified? Help me out. What identified havens are out there that nonetheless remain?

 

The chickens are coming home to roost. The abuses that began with Reagan, creating the disparity of wealth that led to hiding it, are coming to an end. I laughed at Laffer then. I am laughing now. Milton Friedman may have been arguably right for his time. John Maynard Keynes' theories are right for this time. Greenspan admitted his error in his naive confidence in the magnanimity of the business class. Enough wealth has been bilked from the economy and hidden away to put us in this tailspin. That money must be left in the wider economy where it continues the multiplier effect, circulating and driving the engines of this consumer economy. Trickle down could not be more insanely backward and disingenuous. Business tax accommodation has been and remains excessive. Fair wages and progressive taxation put us in the number one spot in the world and Michigan in the country. There are those of us who remember that time. Excesses of and by capital have diminished us.

Edited August 8, 2014 by GregS

[Wild Bill]

Isn't it interesting how the evil republicans pulled the wool over the taxpayer's eyes? And the democrats who are the only ones who can fix this were bamboozled. If the republicans do it then it was evil. If the dems do it then it was because of the wool in their eyes.

 

Who said the Democrats could fix anything?

 

[GregS]

I think this is pertinent. The Sureme Court of Michigan hands the State Treasury to business in a split decision. Who will pay to make the State solvent? Will it be us? Will it bankrupt the State? Will IBM or its directors or execs park any of it offshore, preventing it from working in the wider economy? Is it just me, or does anyone else expect the Republican Legislature will not fix it? They did, after all, break it to begin with.

 

 

By Paul Egan

Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau

• Filed Under

• Local News
• Michigan news

Election 2014

• Wayne County primary results
• Oakland County primary results
• Macomb County primary results
• Statewide primary results
• Complete coverage

Related Links

• Motion for stay
• Motion for rehearing

 

 

 

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

LANSING — A little-noticed tax case the Michigan Supreme Court decided in July could have huge financial implications for the state — costing it more than $1 billion.

In a 4-3 opinion, the court overturned two lower courts, ruling in favor of IBM and against the Michigan Treasury Department in a long-standing tax dispute about how corporations that do business in several states may calculate their Michigan taxes.

The ruling means IBM gets a $6-million tax refund for 2008, rather than the $1.3 million calculated by Michigan Treasury.

■ PDF: Motion for rehearing

■ PDF: Motion for stay

But the ruling has implications for many more companies and also could affect Michigan Business Tax cases in the 2009 and 2010 tax years.

And the case has implications beyond Michigan, but Michigan is the first state where a Supreme Court has ruled in favor of out-of-state corporations at the expense of the state Treasury, said Amy Hamilton, a senior writer for Tax Analysts, a publication that caters to tax professionals in law and accounting firms.

The Treasury Department estimates the state’s exposure from the decision at $1.1 billion, plus interest. Just what trickle-down effect the ruling may have on the state’s programs — and ultimately residents — is not yet known. But officials say it would be felt.

In a strongly worded post-opinion motion seeking a rehearing of the case, Attorney General Bill Schuette said the ruling “results in the state potentially owing a budget-busting aggregated tax refund in the hundreds of millions of dollars (not including interest) to mostly out of state corporations.

“The total cost to the state is likely to exceed $1 billion,” Schuette said.

In a separate motion asking the court to stay its July 14 ruling “as to all lower court cases,” Schuette said there are 134 similar cases filed by out-of-state corporations pending in Michigan courts and “there are thousands of potential claims.”

Kurt Weiss, a spokesman for the Michigan Department of Technology, Management and Budget, said officials believe most of the impact would be felt in the 2014-15 fiscal year, though there could also be some impact this year.

“It creates a significant problem for the budget,” Weiss said. “We are hoping for reconsideration from the Supreme Court.”

It’s exceedingly rare for the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse one of its own opinions in a rehearing.

And an appeal to the federal courts does not appear to be an option, said Dave Murray, a spokesman for Gov. Rick Snyder.

Justice David Viviano wrote the majority opinion in favor of IBM, joined by Justices Michael Cavanagh and Stephen Markman, and by Justice Brian Zahra, who wrote a separate concurring opinion. Justice Bridget McCormack wrote the dissent, siding with the Treasury Department, joined by Chief Justice Robert Young Jr. and Justice Mary Beth Kelly.

At the heart of the cases are state corporate income tax policies designed to favor local corporations at the expense of out-of-state corporations, Hamilton said. The Michigan Business Tax, which was repealed in 2011, required out-of-state corporations to calculate their taxes based on sales, she said.

But since 1970, Michigan has belonged to a multistate compact, intended to make things easier for out-of-state corporations by providing greater uniformity in how they calculate their tax bills for various states.

Under the compact, corporations have the option of using the state tax law or an optional formula that considers not just sales but the property and payroll a corporation has in a given state.

Weighing in those factors generally leads to lower income tax bills for out-of-state corporations, Hamilton said. And companies such as IBM went to court to argue they could still use that method, despite what the MBT said.

The Michigan Court of Claims sided with the Michigan Treasury Department, as did the Michigan Court of Appeals.

But the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled for IBM, rejecting the state’s arguments that Michigan implicitly repealed the alternative tax calculating option set out in the compact when it passed the MBT — even if it didn’t explicitly do so.

The Legislature “had full knowledge of the compact and its provisions” when it passed the MBT, yet it “left the compact’s election provision intact.”

In fact, the court suggested the Legislature shot itself in the foot in 2011, when it amended the legislation related to the multistate compact to say that starting Jan. 1, 2011, out-of-state corporations no longer had the option of using the three-pronged method to calculate state taxes.

If the Legislature hadn’t wanted corporations to use that method in 2008, 2009 or 2010, it would have made the 2011 statute fully retroactive, the court said.

The ruling arguably gives out-of-state corporations better tax treatment than those located in Michigan.

In her dissent, McCormack said the MBT law and the compact law are “irreconcilably in conflict” and it makes sense to follow the law that is more specific and passed more recently — the MBT.

The Michigan case received no attention in the mainstream media, but corporate number crunchers have been watching. Accounting firms such as Deloitte have sent out alerts to clients in the wake of the Michigan ruling, letting them know the case could reduce tax liability for certain corporations.

“That’s a huge chunk of money for any state and that’s why it’s been watched so closely,” Hamilton said.

Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660

Edited August 8, 2014 by GregS

[+Malamute]

Actually I know this issue well. It is costing my community about $240,000 from just one Home Despot store as Schuette points out there.  They are one of the lower court cases that were held for this decision.

[GregS]

Actually I know this issue well. It is costing my community about $240,000 from just one Home Despot store as Schuette points out there.  They are one of the lower court cases that were held for this decision.

Do you think my observations accurate Mal? Plz. note that the motion for stay argues there are 134 out-of-state corporations with claims pending.

[+Malamute]

Yea.... Home despot is one of them. It is an issue we been fighting here for awhile now.  It will destroy the budget.

[+Malamute]

In another case, the big box stores are fighting there property tax assessments stating that since the store is built only for a big box store and has no re-use value, the value should be judged at what a vacant lot/store would be.

 

Heh...

 

 That one is about $10,000/yr just for the one store.

[GregS]

by Pat Garofalo Posted on

May 13, 2011 at 8:00 pm

 

Updated: May 13, 2011 at 4:12 pm

0Share This 0Tweet This

"Michigan Approves Bill That Cuts Corporate Taxes By $1.7 Billion, Raises Taxes On Low-Income Families"

Share:

Share on email

Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI)

Conservatives in several states, as we’ve been documenting, have moved in recent months to reduce their state corporate taxes at the same time that they’ve proposed raising taxes on low-income families and cutting services upon which their most vulnerable citizens depend. Last week, Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) lost his fight to eliminate Florida’s corporate income tax, in the highest-profile defeat the corporate tax-cutters have suffered yet.

However, Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI) has been far more successful in getting his tax package through. Yesterday, in fact, the Michigan legislature approved Snyder’s plan, with some slight modifications, by narrow margins in both the state House and state Senate:

For months, Governor Rick Snyder has been trying desperately to enact massive business tax cuts paid for with new taxes on pension income and the elimination of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Unfortunately, a modified version of Snyder’s plan passed both houses of the state legislature yesterday and is now on its way to the Governor’s desk, where it will soon be signed into law…In the end, the most notable change to occur in the Senate was the reintroduction of the EITC, set at a level equal to 6 percent of the federal credit.

Given that Michigan’s current EITC is equal to 20 percent of the federal credit, this change will still result in a steep tax hike on low-income families.

This amounts to an 86 percent cut in the state’s corporate income tax, exempting nearly 100,000 businesses from paying any corporate income tax at all, combined with a two-thirds reduction in the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit (which goes to benefit low-income families). (Snyder originally wanted to eliminate the state’s EITC entirely.) As state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D) said, the plan represents a “significant tax shift” from business to those “who are the least among us.”

Adding insult to injury, there’s little guarantee that Snyder’s corporate tax cut will lead to job creation. Snyder himself confessed that “I can’t guarantee results.” State Sen. Jack Brandenburg ® added that “there’s no guarantee that the tax cuts for businesses will generate a lot more jobs.” “The results are likely to be very disappointing,” said Timothy Bartik, senior economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

[GregS]

"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?"

 

Umm, for the greater good? To promote the general welfare? How's your dog?

Edited August 8, 2014 by GregS

[+Malamute]

I know. They pass these tax cuts and now act like they didn't know how it would end up...

 

 heh.