U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-11-2011, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
515 posts, read 306,648 times
Reputation: 139

Advertisements

KALAMAZOO — Following the Single Business Tax and the Michigan Business Tax, new Gov. Rick Snyder’s corporate income tax plan makes sense, says Amanda J. Radaz, assistant director of the Michigan office of the National Federation of Independent Business.
The SBT was universally reviled by business people, she said. And the MBT, which was implemented at the start of 2008 to be “less burdensome and less costly to employers, more equitable and more conducive to job creation and investment,” has been considered a confusing and unsatisfying replacement. It was once described as being like the SBT “hanging upside down — a vampire awakened from its slumber and still preying upon the economy.”
Snyder’s proposed Michigan Corporate Income Tax Plan — which is linked to proposals in his 2012 budget but must be considered separately by the Michigan Legislature — looks like something a certified public accountant would draw up, Radaz says. Snyder is, after all, a CPA. And that’s not bad if you’re trying to balance a budget, Radaz said on a visit to Kalamazoo Tuesday.


Corporate tax: Why business favors Gov. Rick Snyder's overhaul | MLive.com

I can feel the renaissance of Michigan Thanks Gov Snyder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2011, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Grand Rapids Metro
8,872 posts, read 17,748,233 times
Reputation: 3833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragneel View Post
KALAMAZOO — Following the Single Business Tax and the Michigan Business Tax, new Gov. Rick Snyder’s corporate income tax plan makes sense, says Amanda J. Radaz, assistant director of the Michigan office of the National Federation of Independent Business.
The SBT was universally reviled by business people, she said. And the MBT, which was implemented at the start of 2008 to be “less burdensome and less costly to employers, more equitable and more conducive to job creation and investment,” has been considered a confusing and unsatisfying replacement. It was once described as being like the SBT “hanging upside down — a vampire awakened from its slumber and still preying upon the economy.”
Snyder’s proposed Michigan Corporate Income Tax Plan — which is linked to proposals in his 2012 budget but must be considered separately by the Michigan Legislature — looks like something a certified public accountant would draw up, Radaz says. Snyder is, after all, a CPA. And that’s not bad if you’re trying to balance a budget, Radaz said on a visit to Kalamazoo Tuesday.


Corporate tax: Why business favors Gov. Rick Snyder's overhaul | MLive.com

I can feel the renaissance of Michigan Thanks Gov Snyder
I hope he has more up his sleeve than just repealing the MBT and slashing jobs. And this coming from someone who voted for him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2011, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Michigan
736 posts, read 1,996,721 times
Reputation: 739
I can see the advantage of simplifying the business tax and making it more fair, but I don't see why we have to cut business taxes by $1.8 billion when the state can't balance its books. I'll say what I said on another thread:

Simplify the business tax this year, then
Cut the business tax later, when and if we can afford to do so.

Please don't tell me that cutting taxes on the wealthy creates jobs. That's BS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2011, 11:09 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
515 posts, read 306,648 times
Reputation: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuebor View Post
I can see the advantage of simplifying the business tax and making it more fair, but I don't see why we have to cut business taxes by $1.8 billion when the state can't balance its books. I'll say what I said on another thread:

Simplify the business tax this year, then
Cut the business tax later, when and if we can afford to do so.

Please don't tell me that cutting taxes on the wealthy creates jobs. That's BS.
Small businesses = wealthy ? LOL please, THIS is BS
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 04:58 AM
 
Location: West Michigan
3,095 posts, read 5,626,464 times
Reputation: 4404
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuebor View Post
Please don't tell me that cutting taxes on the wealthy creates jobs. That's BS.
You were sounding pretty credible until you threw in a left-wing, class warfare campaign slogan at the end.

Businesses and "the wealthy" are not the same thing. The vast majority of businesses in Michigan are NOT large corporations, nor are they "wealthy". Since when are Michigan businesses rolling in cash? A lot of them are barely surviving. A tax cut might be the difference between staying open or closing up shop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 08:09 AM
 
Location: Michigan
736 posts, read 1,996,721 times
Reputation: 739
I never said all businesses were wealthy, but I doubt that cutting the taxes of businesses that are barely surviving would dig a $1.8 billion dollar hole. But I don't know -- how many businesses are affected by the tax? What is the average tax liability of those businesses? Does the state raise most of its business tax revenue by getting a small amount from each of a multitude of small businesses, or does it get most of the revenue from a few large enterprises, or what? I honestly don't know, although I do know that the state is home to GM, Ford, Chrysler, Dow, Whirlpool, Amway, Northwest Airlines, Steelcase, and Meijer, and that the state seems to have trouble balancing its books when those companies have bad years.

But go ahead and take out the word "wealthy" if it offends you. Tax cuts for any income level do not necessarily contribute to job growth, especially when those tax cuts entail slashing public payrolls, failing to make necessary investments in infrastructure and education, and letting past investments erode and go to waste.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2011, 09:10 AM
 
Location: In my house
541 posts, read 889,502 times
Reputation: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuebor View Post
I the state can't balance its books.
state can't balance it's books? i always thought it was the elected idiots who couldn't balance the books...boy,was i wrong
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2011, 11:28 AM
 
Location: West Michigan
3,095 posts, read 5,626,464 times
Reputation: 4404
Quote:
I never said all businesses were wealthy, but I doubt that cutting the taxes of businesses that are barely surviving would dig a $1.8 billion dollar hole. But I don't know -- how many businesses are affected by the tax? What is the average tax liability of those businesses? Does the state raise most of its business tax revenue by getting a small amount from each of a multitude of small businesses, or does it get most of the revenue from a few large enterprises, or what? I honestly don't know, although I do know that the state is home to GM, Ford, Chrysler, Dow, Whirlpool, Amway, Northwest Airlines, Steelcase, and Meijer, and that the state seems to have trouble balancing its books when those companies have bad years.

But go ahead and take out the word "wealthy" if it offends you. Tax cuts for any income level do not necessarily contribute to job growth, especially when those tax cuts entail slashing public payrolls, failing to make necessary investments in infrastructure and education, and letting past investments erode and go to waste.
Honestly, you raise some really good questions. And I don't know the answer to them either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2011, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
27,759 posts, read 65,614,818 times
Reputation: 32943
Michigan has a bad reputation inthe business community for being tax heavy, highly regulated and a difficult and risky place to try to operate a business. It can also be difficult to attract employees because the weather and culture are nto popular right now. Put it all together and you have a State that cannot attract new business. Now throw in a tax structure that is onorus and difficult to understand and new businesses starting up are at a competitive disadvantage, existing businesses find reasons to expand elsewhere. The idea is that if we take away some of the disincentives, maybe existing businesses can be encouraged to expand into or move into Michigan and new businesses can be given a better chance of success. Either of those two will result in some more jobs.

The question is whether the theory actually works. Is simplifying and reducing business taxes enough to attract existing businesses and give new businesses a leg up? We still ahve a regulartoy nightbare and unfriendly employment atmosphere, and an unpopular distination for new employees (especially withthe constant beating that we take int he media). Conceptually tax reform should improve things, but i am not sure that it is enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2011, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
515 posts, read 306,648 times
Reputation: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens View Post
Michigan has a bad reputation inthe business community for being tax heavy, highly regulated and a difficult and risky place to try to operate a business. It can also be difficult to attract employees because the weather and culture are nto popular right now. Put it all together and you have a State that cannot attract new business. Now throw in a tax structure that is onorus and difficult to understand and new businesses starting up are at a competitive disadvantage, existing businesses find reasons to expand elsewhere. The idea is that if we take away some of the disincentives, maybe existing businesses can be encouraged to expand into or move into Michigan and new businesses can be given a better chance of success. Either of those two will result in some more jobs.

The question is whether the theory actually works. Is simplifying and reducing business taxes enough to attract existing businesses and give new businesses a leg up? We still ahve a regulartoy nightbare and unfriendly employment atmosphere, and an unpopular distination for new employees (especially withthe constant beating that we take int he media). Conceptually tax reform should improve things, but i am not sure that it is enough.
Good post Not easy to answer...Enough ? We must wait 2013.But in Texas it's a success, same thing in South Dakota.Why not in Michigan ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top