  Jdmdetroit Member Username: Jdmdetroit Post Number: 151 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 170.20.11.116 |
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20060322/NEW S11/60322015 Gov. Granholm: If I was one of your advisors, I'd suggest that you sign the SBT repeal -- and then put the ball back into the court of the legislature to find a better way to fund the state budget. Yes, I know that we cannot just slash state spending by $2 billion. Running the state is not free. And that is not an amount you can "tweak" out of the budget. But that said, I think you should not spend political capital defending a tax that everyone knows is bad -- and which will go away eventually anyway. In short: You should call the GOP's bluff. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 2 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 67.63.232.195 |
Amen Jdmdetroit! We have almost 2 years to come up with a better tax structure, and the SBT was going to end in 2009 anyway. So lets do it now and maybe some business folks who are on the fence about staying in Michigan will decide to stay here and invest. | ||
Unclefrank Member Username: Unclefrank Post Number: 10 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 192.85.50.2 |
That tax sucks. We keep giving away the store to the dying auto industry. Time to make economic diversty a reality. | ||
Rberlin Member Username: Rberlin Post Number: 427 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 65.43.45.201 |
The problem with calling the bluff however, is that you might go over it. The legislature can afford to be reckless, most of their jobs just aren't that vulnerable. Granholm's is. If in an election year that Republicans think they can hammer Granholm for a 2 billion dollar deficit and claim credit for a 2 billion dollar tax cut they won't be moving too quick on a solution. | ||
Jdmdetroit Member Username: Jdmdetroit Post Number: 152 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 170.20.11.116 |
Rberlin I hear you. But that bill would not take effect till Sept. 2007. That provides plenty of time for cooler heads to prevail after the election this fall. | ||
Rberlin Member Username: Rberlin Post Number: 431 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 65.43.45.201 |
Off topic, but does JDM stand for what I think it does? If so I'm not sure if your name is ironic, an oxymoron, or outright blasphemy. | ||
Jdmdetroit Member Username: Jdmdetroit Post Number: 153 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 170.20.11.116 |
Not sure what you think JDM stands for. But it is not an oxymoron, or outright blasphemy. That much I know. | ||
Rberlin Member Username: Rberlin Post Number: 432 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 65.43.45.201 |
In automotive terms JDM stands for Japanese Domestic Market. Import enthusiasts will often import parts, like engines, transmission, or more often body parts from their vehicle's Japanese counterpart so they can be JDM TYTE YO! Sorry I was mistaken and I apologize for hijacking this thread. | ||
Jdmdetroit Member Username: Jdmdetroit Post Number: 154 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.246.1.255 |
Rberlin: JDM are my initials. My identity here is only thinly veiled. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2073 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
Why are people under the mistaken opinion that the money "needs" to be replaced? Household budgets have taken an ass-kicking for several years now. Why should Lansing have it any easier in making financial decisions? | ||
Jdmdetroit Member Username: Jdmdetroit Post Number: 155 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 170.20.11.116 |
Mcp001: Running a state is not free. $2 billion would be something like 20% of the state's general fund. Find some real numbers if you want to be taken seriously about this. Show me line items that can be cut that add up to $2 billion. | ||
Rberlin Member Username: Rberlin Post Number: 441 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 65.43.45.201 |
Quick vote, who thinks this money would be taken from: A) the state universities, parks, state police, health care and roads B) cutting political favors to friends and pet projects for the individual districts | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1476 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.61.197.206 |
There will have to be a new tax. 2 billion is too big a chunk... unless you don't care if bridges start to fall down. That said, almost anything would be better than the SBT. I know the company I work for would prefer not to have to wait another three years. llyn is the Irish/gaelic form of my middle name. Just in case anyone thought I was being blasphemous. | ||
Jdmdetroit Member Username: Jdmdetroit Post Number: 156 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 170.20.11.116 |
Rberlin: Once again: please come up with some real budget line items. Llyn: I totally agree. | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 1321 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.238.170.34 |
Mcp, This is totally different than a family budget. The GOP is proposing taking a voluntary pay cut of 25%. I don't know of any family who would willingly take a 25% pay cut. If the GOP were talking about keeping tax revenue relatively unchanged and then cutting spending, that would be more like a family budget. | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 1322 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.238.170.34 |
The problem I see with calling a bluff on the SBT elimination is that the neo-cons and their senseless tax cutting strategy wouldn't call for replacing it. They'd just cut it and then cut state spending accordingly. | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 9957 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 64.118.137.226 |
Dear Governor, You suck. | ||
Rberlin Member Username: Rberlin Post Number: 443 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 65.43.45.201 |
Well I'm still more specific about the cuts than anyone else in Lansing. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 2395 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.167.58.120 |
Dear Governor, Please repeal the income tax, property and sales tax. I'm tired of paying them. If the citizens want roads, parks, universities, schools, police, courts, prisons, etc. let them build them their own damn selves and hire their own damn rent-a-cops. Why should I pay for them? I rarely, if ever, use any of them. Who cares what happens? I got mine; screw everybody else. | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 245 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 69.212.43.223 |
Dear Governor, Please cut the legions of bureaucrats that infest our state. Take a look to the south. The fat, bloated, inefficent state government of Ohio employs 60,000 to serve 11.4 million. Michigan employs 64,000 to serve 10.1 million. Like parasites on a host, these thousands of extra bureaucrats are squashing initiative, supressing growth and sucking the life out of us. Eliminate 6,000 bureaucrats today. Pass the savings to taxpayers. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2075 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
Well, Jdmdetroit... The above example. Eliminating MEGA & The Michigan Broadband Authority & the proposal to send more state money to school districts with decreasing enrollment. Repealing the "Prevailing Wage" law. There's a good start. | ||
Jdmdetroit Member Username: Jdmdetroit Post Number: 157 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 170.20.11.116 |
Lowell: I am not suggesting that we aliminate business taxes in Michigan. But if the SBT is going to go away anyway and everyone hates it, why should Granholm put herself in the position of being its "defender"? She should sign the bill and immediately offer an alternative that makes sense. She could steal this issue from the GOP. And I wish she would. If she doesn't, DeVos won't hestitate to use the fact that she "vetoed the repeal of the job-killing SBT" against her. The Republicans are using this issue as a wedge. Granholm could let them do it. Or, like any good political martial arts practitioner, Granholm could seek to use her opponents' strength and weight against them. | ||
Dtwphoenix Member Username: Dtwphoenix Post Number: 45 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.190.215.201 |
Where to get 1.9Billion for an SBT repeal: 1)raise gax tax 10cents. The state earns 49.1million/cent tax Total=491 Million dollars 2) raise diesel tax 5cents. The state earns 9.4million/cent tax Total=47 Million dollars 3) raise sales tax to 7% from 6% Total= 1.08 Billion dollars Simplify Income tax code, and fix the screwed up prop A to squeeze out a few hundred million. http://www.michigan.gov/treasu ry/0,1607,7-121-1755_2296---,0 0.html | ||
Rberlin Member Username: Rberlin Post Number: 463 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 65.43.45.201 |
Just wait and see where gas prices go in the next couple of months. Not that I care, I drive a manual transmission Neon, and live/work/go to school in the same city. But for everyone else, throw another 10 cents on God knows what the price of gas will be, you have the perfect formula for political suicide. Sin tax increases would be beating a dead horse IMO, and I doubt even the Republicans would support any meaningful cuts, so the only "easy" option is sales tax. | ||
Treelock Member Username: Treelock Post Number: 99 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 68.77.166.98 |
She already tried to do that, jdmdetroit. GOPers and insurance honchos shot it dead. And forget about expecting the Republican Legislature to sign off on a gas tax hike, sensible though it might be. Never gonna happen. | ||
K00jd01 Member Username: K00jd01 Post Number: 10 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 143.115.159.53 |
3 Easy Steps to Cutting $1.98BB: 1) Eliminate the right of state employees to engage in collective bargaining (what, you didn't know that UAW represents most MI employees?) 2) Using our new leverage, cut some of the absurd benefits enjoyed by state employees, like $7 prescription copays, guaranteed pay raises every year, and a pension on par with the GM of yore. 3) Keep cutting till we reach $1.98BB in annual savings. ... I know good government costs money, but as Futurecity noted, our government continues to bloat and fatten while the rest of the state tightens its belt. Let's start Michigan's renaissance with some good old-fashioned union busting. | ||
1honey Member Username: 1honey Post Number: 126 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
Yes Lowell, Please repeal the income tax, property and sales tax. Especially that Prop A Do something about auto insurance in the Motor City. | ||
Rberlin Member Username: Rberlin Post Number: 466 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 65.43.45.201 |
I have a soft spot for union labor, but I do wish the state and cities would put professional managers in charge of services instead of just giving them to their buddies. <--see Detroit for examples. In my sick personal fantasies this includes the mayors of our larger cities. I'm a big fan of city council/city manager setups. | ||
Solarflare Member Username: Solarflare Post Number: 402 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 63.69.106.29 |
Fire the Senate. | ||
Atl_runner Member Username: Atl_runner Post Number: 1891 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 24.98.116.13 |
Small business is the ONLY future for the Detroit Metro right now. I don't see large corporations beating down the door to open up shop there.
Please tell me how another gas tax in already heavily gas taxed Michigan could ever equal a good thing? I'm rarely shocked anymore, but to even suggest this is just bizzare. | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 14 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 66.174.93.99 |
The Detroit Regional Chamber has offered a proposed alternative to the SBT, which it calls a fee-for-licensure scheme. It calls for businesses to pay a fee to conduct business in Michigan based upon its in-state sales. This proposal would result in an approximate reduction of business tax of $500 milion. This gap could be filled by either 1) reducing waste in the state budget, or 2) imposing a tax on certain services, coupled with a reduction of the sales tax from 6% to 5%. Basically, this scheme would align business taxation more closely with personal income taxation, at a graduated level (the higher the sales, the higher percentage fee you pay). Currently, the SBT makes businesses pay for wages and benefits for its' employees regardless of whether they see a profit in a given year. With respect to cutting waste, does anyone find the nature of government funding crazy? The methodology currently employed is that certain programs are funded for a year, and if all of that funding is not used, the funding is reduced by the amount saved the prior year. I used to work for a company that received state funding; 11 months into the fiscal year, we would be running around trying to spend our excess cash in order to ensure re-funding at the prior years' level. We are punishing programs that save money by the threat of a reduced budget. I would propose rewarding those programs that achieve their objectives at a lower cost than proposed; and to fund programs in the future based upon their proposals for a specific funding year, not based what they spent in prior years. This in and of itself, could create a far more efficient government. The arguments in favor of this scheme are that 1) if you don't spend it, you don't need it, and 2) the state doesn't have the resources to analyze each proposed program each year to determine the appropriate level of funding. It just seems crazy to punish contractors who can achieve the same results for less money by reducing their future awards. Fund programs based upon proposed services, not what they spent last year. | ||
Gildas Member Username: Gildas Post Number: 538 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 147.240.236.9 |
Get rid of the SBT and replace it with nothing, Here's how: (sorry its a bit long) Below is a list of ways to achieve $1.855 billion in savings with little heavy lifting. Much of the savings comes from injecting competition into government operations, providing government employee fringe benefits comparable to (generous) private sector plans or eliminating non-core functions. Higher education — Change the funding mechanism to a standard "per-pupil foundation grant" in which the money is attached to the students, rather than each university getting an amount determined by legislative maneuvering. As colleges are forced to compete for students they would "sharpen their pencils," rein in costs and eliminate the kinds of inefficiencies highlighted in recent audit reports. If the effect was that costs fell by just 5 percent, the savings would be: $70 million. Shift state police road patrols to less expensive county sheriff deputies. With benefits and related expenses it costs more than $100,000 per year to employ a state trooper; most sheriff deputies cost much less to employ. Effect on public safety: Zero. Savings: $65 million. Adopt the Hay Group report recommendations on rationalizing public school health insurance, including requiring co-pays and preferred provider networks. This could save: $422 million. Eliminate the Michigan State University cooperative extension service and agriculture experiment station to save: $61 million. Repeal the "21st Century Jobs Fund." (Act quickly on this one: The money hasn’t been wasted yet, but the spending starts soon.): $40 million in annual debt service avoided. Prison privatization — according to a Rio Grande Foundation report, if 5 percent of prisoners are placed in privately-managed prisons, the state saves 14 percent on overall prison spending, because government-managed prisons have an incentive to "sharpen their pencils." Savings: $192 million. The state’s portion of the budget for the Department of History, Arts and Libraries is $45 million. Around $20 million of this is on libraries (which also get $5.5 million in federal money). The "history" portion should come from user fees and the arts portion from voluntary contributions. Cut state spending on libraries in half and eliminate the rest: $35 million. In 1999 the Citizens Research Council noted that "a number of changes have occurred over the past decade that have reduced the need for intermediate school districts." Let's help the ISDs catch up by reducing their operations grants: $32 million. Cut so-called "20j" payments to affluent schools in half. This extra money is a political response to the fact that under Proposal A certain wealthy school districts benefit less from per-pupil state foundation grant increases than other districts. (They still benefit, though.) Savings: $26 million. Cut transit funding in half. By eliminating protectionist regulations that restrict alternatives, empty buses driven by public employee union members can be replaced by private sector innovations like jitneys, commercial van pools, "call-and-ride" services, car-sharing and more. This will improve service for transit users at a much lower cost: $112 million. Repeal the "prevailing wage" law that requires above-market rate wages be paid on school construction projects: $150 million. Don’t send extra money to declining school districts. Gov. Jennifer Granholm proposes sending extra money to districts that are losing pupils. Here’s a better idea for those districts: consolidate and downsize. In the private sector, this is what an enterprise that’s losing customers must do. That’s a useful model and would save: $50 million. Reduce the Merit Award Scholarships by 50 percent. When families face economic hard times, the first thing they do is cut luxuries. Non-need based college scholarships is a luxury Michigan can no longer afford. $60 million. Reform Medicaid and welfare — The state spends almost $15 billion on these two programs, more than $6 billion of which is from state taxes and fees. Medicaid in particular is a command-and-control monstrosity rife with perverse incentives. Reforming it in ways that give recipients an incentive to economize and take better care of themselves could save hundreds of millions of dollars, while actually giving recipients greater freedom and choice. If just 1.6 percent of the expense in these two programs could be reduced in this way, the state would save: $240 million. Stimulate growth. Can anyone doubt that eliminating the SBT, one of the most complex and burdensome business taxes in the nation, would be a shot of adrenalin for the state’s economy? It would send a powerful message that Michigan is open for business. The dynamic effects of such a change on income, property and sales tax receipts would easily raise: $300 million. Total: $1.855 billion. This is how much the Single Business Tax now takes in. There is a common theme that runs through opposition to every one of these common-sense reforms: "That’s not the way we’ve done it in the past." That’s not good enough anymore: Michigan is at the tipping point of going from relative decline in population and income, to absolute decline. If we don’t reduce the disincentives to doing business here, there’s nothing to prevent the entire state from going the way of Detroit, with a declining population and an economy that is unable to support a government establishment that believes its citizens exist to serve it — not the other way around. | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 16 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 66.174.93.99 |
Gildas, I have read the above plan, which is actually the Detroit Chamber's primary position. I also recently had a discussion with one of the Chamber's lobbyists regarding business taxation. His position was that business does not really pay any taxes, it simply passes the cost on to the consumer. The only issues I have with the proposal you mentioned, and the Chamber's position in general, is that 1) if business does not really pay any taxes, why the big hoopla about business taxation, 2) if business does not pay any taxes, the burden of making up the difference will then fall directly on consumers, rather than indirectly now through increased prices for the products we purchase, and 3) what will business do with the savings it realizes from the reduction/elimination of business taxes? Will we see a significant reduction in the price of goods we purchase, or will they simply pocket the savings as higher profits, or will they reinvest that money into the infrastructure of the state? Another concern is that the common mantra in business is that the SBT is a jobs-killer. My response is that jobs are created and filled based upon the demand for the products produced or provided by a particular company. If there is sufficient demand for a product, the company providing that product will create/fill as many jobs as necessary to satisfy that demand. I understand that the decision as to where to locate a business is contingent upon the taxation environment in a particular state, and that does need to be worked on. But, if you look at the numbers, the biggest line-item cost any traditional business has is its' labor costs. Also, the information I have seen is that lowering taxes, in and of itself, does not create any new development or spur any new capital investment. Typically, if you give a tax break to a wealthy individual, that money will be put into savings, whereas, if you provide a tax break to a low-income individual, that money is immediately and directly put back into the economy because they go out and purchase some necessities or luxury goods that they went without before. There is no committment from business in Michigan to reinvest any money saved from a tax break into the state economy. Additionally, with respect to passing the cost of business taxes on to the consumer, the way it exists now is that, as consumers, we pick and choose which products we purchase, and therefore we pick and choose which "taxes" we pay. If that cost was to fall directly on to the consumer, we would all have a far larger price to pay in the form of personal taxes, and we wouldn't have the option to buy this product or that, and therefore pay the cost of that business tax. All in all, I agree that something must be done to create a more conducive environment to do business in Michigan, but I don't believe that we can totally reduce ~ $2 billion in services. It is the government's job to fund the programs we need as citizens, and our current legislature has done a horrible job in encouraging an efficient structure to do so. | ||
Hooha Member Username: Hooha Post Number: 104 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.81.52.28 |
Have to say I side with the Gov on this one. Spending is dictated by income, not the other way around. Nobody quits their job without thinking of how they're going to support their family first. Nor should we cut a 2 billion dollar tax without figuring out how to replace the money or cut spending. MCP, why on Earth would you think that 2 billion doesn't need to be replaced? It's not like we're in a surplus. Quite the opposite, state government has been fighting a deficit since Granholm took office. Maybe you've read some stories the past few years about all of the unpopular cuts the governor has made. I know there was quite an uproar about cutting money to public universities. If the money isn't replaced, it's not like we'll just cut 2 billion dollars worth of pork and everyone will live happily ever after. Something important will suffer. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2087 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
Simple Hooha, much of the state's budget is for items that are not constitutionally mandated. Many of them are allocations for items that are nothing less than blatent vote-buying schemes for members of the legislature and to assuage the conscience of the guv. And while there unfortunately is a provision for "maintaining" public universities in the Michigan Constitution, it does not specifiy exactly how much this maintenance should be. Given the fact that these universities have enjoyed their annual (with above inflation rate increases to boot) subsidies, and given that they are simultaneously shafting their students with obscene tuition hikes. I'm of the opinion that they should go onto a jenny craig diet from the public trough for a few years until they can learn to live within their means like everyone else in the state. Gildas brought up several good points as well, I'd just wish that a link to the source was also included in the above post | ||
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan Post Number: 297 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 68.43.81.191 |
Legalize marijuana and tax it, revenue problem solved. Then legalize "escorting" like they did in Ontario, heavily regulate it, and you'll have another source of revenue. | ||
Gildas Member Username: Gildas Post Number: 542 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.216.100.1 |
Mcp001, Glad to help: http://www.mackinac.org/ |
