Which Way To Vote On Proposal 1 ?

[+Malamute]

Why should my taxes be used to build nuclear warheads?  Or pay for Tax credits to oil companies?

 

Heh...

 

 Kinda a silly argument...

[GregS]

the fraternal order of police left me a message saying they support prop 1...I'm  you t-pain. They call me to ask for money.

They call me to ask for money. There is no end of fun to be had with that.

Edited August 8, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

"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."

 

Hey boyzbgrrlz. How do you spell sophistry?

Edited August 8, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

Nice thread t-pain, It's working out nicely.

[GregS]

oops

Edited August 8, 2014 by GregS

[Wild Bill]

[cheapshades]

Hey boyzbgrrlz. How do you spell sophistry?

 

one letter at a time

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Restorium2 I can't help but laugh at how wrong you are and how you persist in claiming to be right. At least you are dogged. Where did you get the notion that chairs and computers are depreciated to zero???  Nothing is depreciated to zero. This isn't income tax we are talking about and there is no set depreciation schedule.  Like I said do your research. Don't hit the google button and think that something that pops up from 16 years ago is helpful in this conversation or that your key words in any way are informative on this topic. The Michigan Constitution itself forbids a general depreciation as it applies to the PPT and businesses. The Constitution requires that personal property be assessed at TRUE CASH VALUE! If you have a chair and you can sit in it and it works then it isn't worth zero. There really is no point in arguing with you because you just make things up as you go along to fit your needs. Do your research. Read the Constitution and read the General Property Tax Act. They will both confirm that what I am saying is right. Your random web pages that put forth opinion and conjecture and outright untruths cannot support your argument. Heck whoever wrote those probably did exactly what you are doing. They just did a web search and adopted someone's else's misinformed opinion.

 

I researched the source. You research random web pages built by people with an agenda. You're wrong. Bite the bullet and move on. Unless you want to entertain me some more by pulling more flying monkeys out of your backside.

 

Gregs I certainly agree that many people evade taxes. But when we are talking about the end results of legal behavior then discussing how to illegally evade taxes isn't relevant to the conversation.

 

Malamute I understand that you are frustrated because many taxes are levied without any relatable connection to the item taxed. But does that mean we keep that system up or does that mean we should try and reform it? Local road repair should be funded in a manner that takes the largest chunk from the users of the road. That is logically where the money should come from. If you strive for a tax system that basically taxes those who benefit most from a particular item then you have fairness built in. If you are going to use state parks then you should pay an entrance fee, right? Sure some money should come from general funds because we all benefit from preserving land but those who actually use it should pay more to maintain sidewalks, roads, and other facilities in a park. If you disagree with that then there is no use of you or I arguing it because it is a philosophical difference and we don't agree.

[+Malamute]

Not really.  I am being very facetious in my responses at this point.

 

My issue is more with the problem of not actually replacing those taxes to municipalities in full.  This will put pressure on all the services I have spoken of.  This is a net tax break to business, a money grab from municipalities by the State and it is being done at the cost of local services, local 'bond' payment funding,  and eventually resulting in revenue raises to the average homeowner.

 

 

We shall see.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

How is it a money grab by the state? The STATE passed the PPT to begin with. So the state, coupled with a vote of the people, repealing a tax is a state money grab? That is the same as calling it corporate welfare. As if a tax repeal is somehow giving money back to a business that they have no business having. Legitimate question: Do you consider yourself a communist, or at least a hard left leaning socialist? No being an donkey just wondering where you stand.

[GregS]

Tax reduction for business at the expense of middle and lower class taxpayers is appropriate and most certainly relevant, especially in this time of excess. Opening the conversation up to macro issues is the necessary next step. Stump Resto down in the weeds with fallacy, hype, and sophistry. That is no chore. The larger view does not permit flat earth argument.

[GregS]

GTG and, um, walk my dog you know.

[t-pain]

you guys are doing it wrong.

when you both cant defeat each other in arguments, you must start working on things you can agree upon.

 

would you want to pay less in taxes to have a bi-monthy (2x per month) trash pickup vs a weekly trash pickup?

[+Malamute]

Trash pickup wont reduce my taxes... ;-)

 

As you have said Frank, over and over again, the same amount of tax is being collected from the state(Tax Neutral), yet the municipalities are seeing 20% lack of reimbursement in non essential services, Sinking funds and recreational millages.

 

It is rather straight forward. Thus, the State is taking away the funding of locals by repealing this tax and 'supposedly' remaining revenue neutral at the state level.  For that fact to be true, that means the State did a money grab against Municipalities, or businesses are paying less in taxes.  Those Municipalities will either have to make up that money from the "supposed" new businesses that open in their town because of this tax reduction, by cutting  services, fund their Sinking funds less thus lowering Bond quality, or increase revenue elsewhere(raise property taxes likely).

 

And so now I have reached "communist" status.  Hahahaha....  I suppose next I will have to claim Godwin's Law against you. ;-)

 

 Being Anti Corporate has nothing to do with communism.  Corporate taxes are levied in the manner they are because there is a HUGE privilege to being a corporation. The complete lack of personal liability. That is what you pay for with those taxes. Risk removal.  When a corporation shiits on the world, government picks up the mess.  Corporate taxes are partially in fact, insurance costs charged by the government in practice.

 

 The fact they pay more in taxes(rarely) than an individual is because an individual doesn't have a complete lack of personal responsibility. IMO of course.

 

 This tax issue we currently speak of partially covers corporate issues, but is about all large equipment businesses.   If the revenue stream is equal and the municipality is getting less,... it is not revenue neutral to the town.  *shrug*

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Malamute, you are making a major assumption by saying that the municipalities will receive less money. You are assuming that the state won't pick up the slack. Answer this question, what did these poor, poor municipalities do that got very little money from the PPT? What they did was get larger amounts from the state. So why are you assuming that will change? Carson City, Michigan got a little over 70% of their monies from the PPT. Many municipalities got much less than 10%. However did they survive? More money from the state that's how. Your "sky is falling" position is exactly the type of tactic used to try and get people to vote against things like the PPT repeal. But let's assume these cities are now all about to enter the poorhouse, why was there no organized opposition against the PPT repeal? And please spare me the rhetoric that restorium2 spouts. It is one thing to argue that the people were all bamboozled but were the consumer groups also?

 

I'm not calling you a communist. I was asking. Just wanted to understand where you are coming from so no need for the flippant reply. Many people have varying degrees of many different political philosophies. I don't begrudge them that. I may not agree with someone's philosophy but I respect their philosophical positions.

 

I don't know what you mean when you assert that corporations have a complete lack of personal responsibility. Certainly corporate officers are shielded form personal liabilities as long as they act within certain parameters but the corporation is certainly just as liable as any person would be. And since the corporation has the deeper pockets as compared to the officers and workers I'd say that is a good thing for any plaintiff suing for negligence or whatever. I don't see how you can equate taxes to insurance given that the corporation is completely open to liability. You act as if nothing can happen to a corporation.

[+Malamute]

The "State" has SPECIFICALLY said NO!, It will not cover but up to 80% reimbursement of revenue lost to non-essential services, Sinking funds and recreational millages.

 

 I know ya keep poking around the fact,... but it is what it is.

[+Malamute]

Oh,... and if cities start to fall into financial peril from the underfunding,.... Snyder will send in his emergency managers to resolve that buggerin problem!

 

:-)

[+Malamute]

And lets just blow this ridiculous "carson city" crap out the door.

 

 Carson city is 1000 people. Only 1000. their yearly budget becomes lopsided from PPT because it only takes a few big businesses to lopside revenue percentages.  That was lucky fo rthem because they put up with the big businesses in their tin little town.

 

It is really disingenuous to use them as an example honestly.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Really? The state said no? Could I get a reference on that?

 

I'll add that according to a footnote on ballotpedia 2/3 of municipalities got less than 1% of property tax revenue from PPT. So I'd like to know how many got less than 5%, 10%, etc. You act as though the municipalities are in grave danger of bankruptcy. Give me a freaking break. The vast majority of municipalities get less than $1 per $100 of their property taxes from PPT. Ouch! Might have to mow that park every other week rather than every week during the summer or risk going bankrupt.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Is it disingenuous to claim that municipalities will go bankrupt or suffer emergency managers because they are losing maybe 0.20% of their tax handout?  How about you work the numbers.  How much does the PPT bring in and how much is reimbursed by the state. Then what percentage of the total property tax in the municipality is that unreimbursed amount?

[+Malamute]

1% of a $10,000,000 budget(very small city) is still $100,000  bucks.

 

 Ya act as though it is nothing.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

No I don't act as though it is nothing I act as though it isn't going to send anyone into bankruptcy.

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

But please direct me to where the state said they will not make up the 20%.  I'll enjoy that.

[+Malamute]

You worked for a city as ya said,... How much was your city budget and what percentage of it came from PPT taxes and what did use it for?

 

I mean... you seem to act daft on purpose on some of this.  You obviously understand a city budget... You should 100% understand what an approximate loss of 20% revenue from PPT on those parts of a budget are. It will not full lbreak a budget, but as I have said over and over and over and over again,..  The difference has to be made up somewhere.  Cut services(fire a worker, cut road/sidewalk funding etc), lower payments into Sinking funds, or raise revenue.

 

ding ding.

[+Malamute]

I know this for a fact because I actually read the stuff aye,... and you seem to be such an expert,... why is it you do not know about it?