Posted: 6/24/2014 2:10:08 PM EDT
|
I take it that this will be a tax increase? Is there any accurate research materiel on this with pros and cons?
APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AMENDATORY ACT TO REDUCE STATE USE TAX AND REPLACE WITH A LOCAL COMMUNITY STABILIZATION SHARE TO MODERNI ZE 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, in cluding police safety, fire protection, and ambulance emergency services. 3. Increase portion of state use tax dedicat ed for aid to local school districts. 4. Prohibit Authority from increasing taxes. 5. Prohibit total use tax rate from exceed ing existing constitutional 6% limitation. Should this law be approved? |
|
Doesn't sound like a tax increase. Read the last part, number 5. The total use tax is not to exceed 6%, which is what it is now. The change is that instead of that entire 6% going to the state to distribute as they see fit, it would now get separated and some goes to the state and some stays in the local government to distribute how they see fit.
I see pros and cons to it. On one hand, the local govs should know better which programs need the aid. However, the con is that this now opens the use tax to abuse by local govs who may not necessarily spend it on what it should really be spent on. I have mixed opinions because I like the lowest levels of management deciding exactly where the money goes because they should be more in-touch with where it's actually needed; however, I hate having so many grubby fingers in the piggy bank. I'd probably vote know just because I think as few people as possible should touch that money before it's distributed. |
|
I'm sure the creation of "local community stabilization authority" will add new costs to the system. More hands in the bank. The existing constitutional limit is 6% so the last statement seems redundant as if they are trying to reassure us of the limit. I am inherently skeptical of any change unless there is a quantifiable benefit that is easy to articulate. It does not seem what they are trying to do is easy to articulate. Seems like more special interest nonsense. I like how they throw I the obligatory "its for the schools, it's for the children" statement.
Unless I see additional new information I would vote no. |
|
Shooting from the hip on this one, but my feeling is that the state already does a pretty good job of taking my tax dollars and not leaving me with the feeling that I got ripped off or that they are egregiously mis-handling the funds. I can't say that I can trust local jurisdictions to do the same.....
Can you guys imagine say..... Detroit, Warren, or Flint saying to themselves "We're going to Do The Right Thing with all this state funding!"..... I can't. |
|
Quoted:
Shooting from the hip on this one, but my feeling is that the state already does a pretty good job of taking my tax dollars and not leaving me with the feeling that I got ripped off or that they are egregiously mis-handling the funds. I can't say that I can trust local jurisdictions to do the same..... Can you guys imagine say..... Detroit, Warren, or Flint saying to themselves "We're going to Do The Right Thing with all this state funding!"..... I can't. Hey now, don't group Warren in with those dumps. They're still doing alright considering the population decline and aging population bringing in less income. |
|
Quoted:
Hey now, don't group Warren in with those dumps. They're still doing alright considering the population decline and aging population bringing in less income. Quoted:
Quoted:
Shooting from the hip on this one, but my feeling is that the state already does a pretty good job of taking my tax dollars and not leaving me with the feeling that I got ripped off or that they are egregiously mis-handling the funds. I can't say that I can trust local jurisdictions to do the same..... Can you guys imagine say..... Detroit, Warren, or Flint saying to themselves "We're going to Do The Right Thing with all this state funding!"..... I can't. Hey now, don't group Warren in with those dumps. They're still doing alright considering the population decline and aging population bringing in less income. They could have all the income in the world-it doesn't matter when you are universally known for corruption. |
|
I read up on prop 14-1 and it looks like they are dangling the carrot of lower PP taxes to entice us to establish a brand new local tax. No promises on how much exactly the PP tax will be decreased or for how long. Also it is left to an appointed board how much the new tax will be.
For example, let's say you buy a car from a private party for $3,000. Today you would pay the state $180 in PP tax. Period. If prop. 14-1 goes through you might only pay $120 for the PP tax on the car but you will be paying a new local tax every year whether you buy a car or not. Also, if it is decided that more of this new tax is needed for schools, fire, police protection, etc. then the appointed board will recommend a tax rate increase.I'm voting no. It's pretty much a case of taking the tax burden off big business and putting it on the individual taxpayers to make up the difference. I'm not financially ready to take on that burden. They claim it will allow small businesses to hire more people but in similar situations, most small (and large) business owners said that their hiring depends on whether they need more production or not, NOT on whether or not they have extra money in their profit margin. They could be rolling in dough but if production is being met then theyhave no need to hire. All this promise of jobs is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Our governor is basicly a CEO who regards us as employees, not taxpayers to whom he is accountable. That's his mindset. To other CEO's he's Santa Claus who brings them tax breaks for Christmas at taxpayer's expense. |
|
Quoted:
I read up on prop 14-1 and it looks like they are dangling the carrot of lower PP taxes to entice us to establish a brand new local tax. No promises on how much exactly the PP tax will be decreased or for how long. Also it is left to an appointed board how much the new tax will be. For example, let's say you buy a car from a private party for $3,000. Today you would pay the state $180 in PP tax. Period. If prop. 14-1 goes through you might only pay $120 for the PP tax on the car but you will be paying a new local tax every year whether you buy a car or not. Also, if it is decided that more of this new tax is needed for schools, fire, police protection, etc. then the appointed board will recommend a tax rate increase.I'm voting no. It's pretty much a case of taking the tax burden off big business and putting it on the individual taxpayers to make up the difference. I'm not financially ready to take on that burden. They claim it will allow small businesses to hire more people but in similar situations, most small (and large) business owners said that their hiring depends on whether they need more production or not, NOT on whether or not they have extra money in their profit margin. They could be rolling in dough but if production is being met then theyhave no need to hire. All this promise of jobs is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Our governor is basicly a CEO who regards us as employees, not taxpayers to whom he is accountable. That's his mindset. To other CEO's he's Santa Claus who brings them tax breaks for Christmas at taxpayer's expense. Nailed it |
|
Quoted:
Nailed it Quoted:
Quoted:
I read up on prop 14-1 and it looks like they are dangling the carrot of lower PP taxes to entice us to establish a brand new local tax. No promises on how much exactly the PP tax will be decreased or for how long. Also it is left to an appointed board how much the new tax will be. For example, let's say you buy a car from a private party for $3,000. Today you would pay the state $180 in PP tax. Period. If prop. 14-1 goes through you might only pay $120 for the PP tax on the car but you will be paying a new local tax every year whether you buy a car or not. Also, if it is decided that more of this new tax is needed for schools, fire, police protection, etc. then the appointed board will recommend a tax rate increase.I'm voting no. It's pretty much a case of taking the tax burden off big business and putting it on the individual taxpayers to make up the difference. I'm not financially ready to take on that burden. They claim it will allow small businesses to hire more people but in similar situations, most small (and large) business owners said that their hiring depends on whether they need more production or not, NOT on whether or not they have extra money in their profit margin. They could be rolling in dough but if production is being met then theyhave no need to hire. All this promise of jobs is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Our governor is basicly a CEO who regards us as employees, not taxpayers to whom he is accountable. That's his mindset. To other CEO's he's Santa Claus who brings them tax breaks for Christmas at taxpayer's expense. Nailed it Ditto. Snyder can k**s my fat a**.  
|
|
The language is a bit too kludgy, and suspect the law will be interpreted by local and state authorities to create backdoor tax schemes to make up for revenue short falls.
I fully support getting rid of the State Use Tax...Lansing will need to devise a better way. I voted NO on my absentee. |
|
www.voicenews.com/articles/2014/07/20/opinion/doc53c969eb906d2200253321.txt Thus article makes it sound like the PPT is going away regardless of the vote. The vote only takes money from the state and distributes it to localities.
|
|
While I can get behind ending on-going personal property taxes on businesses, where this proposal fails for me is the creation of yet another bureaucratic entity to distribute state funds to localities. More government is never the answer, even if it appears to be for a good reason.
NO for me. |
|
Quoted: While I can get behind ending on-going personal property taxes on businesses, where this proposal fails for me is the creation of yet another bureaucratic entity to distribute state funds to localities. More government is never the answer, even if it appears to be for a good reason. NO for me. If you're going to get rid of a tax than get rid of it period.
|
