[Bydand]

Originally Posted by bryan61

So if I want to re-furnish my house and have $15,000.00 to spend how much do I save buying in a state where I pay 3.5% less in tax.

You save $525. If somebody is buying that much furniture, they are going to be either bringing a moving truck (think rental cost and fuel costs), they are going to have it delivered (If out of State I'll assure you it is going to cost extra), or they have a full sized pick-up with a good sized trailer (Way extra gas). So that $525 is going to be eaten up rather quickly, Probably going to actually save $100, maybe $200. If you have $15000 to spend, that's peanuts and not worth the hassle.

Don't know what the real answer is truthfully. I can see the benefits both ways. On the one hand income taxes would be much easier personally, and cheaper for the State because of no tax returns and paperwork for tax season. BUT, more costly to replace necessary items when you need to, an extra 3.5% on an auto purchase would get expensive real fast, Housing included as well? That would be outrageous.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by bryan61

Ive already researched and discussed the issue ad nauseum on 15 different political forums over the last 10 years. I dont need the "majorities"

word

Im am completely open minded and will listen to logic and reason that makes sense and is backed up with facts.

So if I want to re-furnish my house and have $15,000.00 to spend how much do I save buying in a state where I pay 3.5% less in tax.

Where are you headed to buy $15,000 in furniture? Chicago? They have a 9.00% sales tax. Toledo? Is there any place in Toledo where people would comfortably spend $15,000 on furniture? I don't know, but if so, 6.75% sales tax there, so the difference would be about $412. Knock off half of that for gas for the moving truck as someone else mentioned.

Yes, of course there may be SOME people who would travel across state lines to save a few bucks, just like people who drive from Kzoo to Indiana to buy cheap booze and pay no deposit, but they are few and far between. The one area that you forget though is automobile sales, where yes some people might travel to Indiana or Ohio to buy cars, but dealerships in our area seem to vary so much for the same cars that I don't know how widespread that would be.

I guess at this point in time, the burden of proof falls on the supporters of the current system in Michigan, not the people with new ideas.

[Cliffie]

Originally Posted by magellan

This flat sales tax of 9.5% on retail sales (not services) would replace all of Michigan's income tax on individuals and all state business taxes.
Moderator cut: do not repost copyrighted articles

I've thought this was a great idea ever since I first heard about it, when Ross Perot was running for president. You need to tax spending, not earning, to keep things fair. That way welfare moms are paying proportionately less tax than auto execs -- the way it should be.

[Cliffie]

Originally Posted by mich2fla

If it will replace the income tax, sure it's will benefit the workers here. The retirees and the poor will feel squeezed.

My dad is squeaking plenty because his teeny-tiny Social Security check is getting taxed. This would eliminate that problem neatly. I think he would be less squeezed, not more, especially since he is now vegan and eating everything off the produce aisle. He is 84 and knows how to economize because he lived thru the Depression.

He and I and everyone I know would LOVE to see those guys who own meth labs and use their ill-gotten gains from selling heroin to be taxed through the nostrils.

[TaxBait]

Originally Posted by Cliffie

My dad is squeaking plenty because his teeny-tiny Social Security check is getting taxed. ...

He needs to find a new accountant then. Social Security is not subject to Michigan income taxes. It figures into the homestead property tax credit but only for eligibility purposes.

[suydam]

Originally Posted by TaxBait

He needs to find a new accountant then. Social Security is not subject to Michigan income taxes. It figures into the homestead property tax credit but only for eligibility purposes.

*Snap!*

[Br1234]

Originally Posted by TaxBait

But they don't generate much state revenue. And when revenues fall short, they look to the working class for more. Why? I know a couple who just retired form teaching. Between them they take in $8K/month completely free of MI income tax. Would it really hurt to ask well-off retirees to pensioners to share some of the burden? They consume just as many "services" as me and probably much more with all their free time. I have no time for more parks, libraries, and all the other amenities we support. Driving out taxpaying workers for non-taxpaying retirees is a recipie for permanent budget crisis.

I don't see how they can not pay any tax but I'm not an accountant. They must pay prop. tax. Either way thats $96,000 for them to spend in MI. I don't want them taking their money to Florida, unless I move there of course.

We could get into the fact that MOST MI public school teachers are overpaid anyway but I won't go there in this thread.

I don't see how retirees are driving out workers, Grandmole and the dems. are doing that well enough on their own.

I say to retirees; Come one, come all.
Just don't drive during rush hour.

[TaxBait]

Originally Posted by Br1234

I don't see how they can not pay any tax but I'm not an accountant. ..

You don't need to be. Just read the tax forms.
From the instructions for MI Schedule 1 subtractions to income line 12 :
"You may subtract all pension benefits included in AGI
and received from the following public sources:
• The State of Michigan
• Michigan local governmental units
(e.g., Michigan counties, cities and school districts)"

[SIZE=3]

Originally Posted by Br1234

...They must pay prop. tax. ...

Yea, but less than 1/2 what I do since they've lived here for decades.

[Br1234]

I agree that it shouldn't only apply to govt' jobs. That is not fair. Reminds me of the (I think Mitt Romney) comment made during the debate today about how government employees don't need any extra help from unions. They are already swimming in benefits.

[bryan61]

That was Tancredo. Duncan Hunter was the only one who kept his focus squarely on the widening gap between rich and poor, the shrinking middle class and the screwing of labor with trade policies that send manufacturing jobs overseas, import H1Bs and allows corporations to employ illegal aliens