Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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 04-18-2015, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Grand Rapids Metro
8,882 posts, read 19,804,330 times
Reputation: 3920

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
People want something for nothing, and have a well founded mistrust in the state government that they seem unable / unwilling to control. So no funding to fix the roads, because we don't want to pay, and because the funds will likely be misappropriated while voters are busy pulling buggers out of their noses and voting for the same crooked politicians they keep complaining about, time after time. Perhaps the best thing would be to dissolve MI and merge it with a better functioning state
Most of the states around us are in fiscal crisis. Illinois and Wisconsin especially, because I don't believe their constitution requires a balanced budget (like Michigan).

There is no other way to fix this than we taxpayers taking control, through a sales tax increase that we get to vote for and a bipartisan oversight committee to make sure the funds go where they're supposed to. Frankly I like this plan because it's not being voted on by a right-leaning legislature who is shoving some poor solution down our throats. We FINALLY can take hold of the reins and get the road repairs headed in the right direction.

The only thing worse than the horrible roads is that Michiganders can't seem to be flexible on working on solutions. So much arguing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2015, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
2,851 posts, read 2,287,908 times
Reputation: 4546
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
Most of the states around us are in fiscal crisis. Illinois and Wisconsin especially, because I don't believe their constitution requires a balanced budget (like Michigan).

There is no other way to fix this than we taxpayers taking control, through a sales tax increase that we get to vote for and a bipartisan oversight committee to make sure the funds go where they're supposed to. Frankly I like this plan because it's not being voted on by a right-leaning legislature who is shoving some poor solution down our throats. We FINALLY can take hold of the reins and get the road repairs headed in the right direction.

The only thing worse than the horrible roads is that Michiganders can't seem to be flexible on working on solutions. So much arguing.
None of the states around us have had roads in such a terrible shape for such long time.

To get the funding for road repair, we must raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere, it's as simple as that. I don't see what other solutions are available.

People don't want to raise taxes, and complain when there are spending cuts.

They also keep re-electing the same corrupt or inept politicians who mishandled the state finances and wasted billions on poorly made road repairs without any oversight or accountability. Oakland county contractor did repairs in our neighborhood and completely screwed up the grade on merge point from subdivision side streets onto major streets, creating huge humps that tear up the front end of a car no matter how careful you are. This was in clear violation of codes and standards yet Oakland County bought off on it and is refusing to fix the problems saying they don't have the resources. They've been in their offices far too long and know that MI residents would ***** and moan but won't change a thing. How many years did L. Brooks Patterson spend in that office ? In that time Oakland county went downhill, and you can only blame economy for part of it. The quality of services that we did pay for has declined significantly with no oversight and buddy-buddy system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 05:21 PM
 
Location: On the brink of WWIII
21,088 posts, read 29,129,289 times
Reputation: 7812
3 of the big school districts here in Livings County will LOSE and average of $25 per student IF Prop 1 passes..

I am voting NO

PLUS, the gas prices will be tied to WHOLESALE costs..as gas increases, so dos the tax?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 07:27 AM
 
Location: Grand Rapids Metro
8,882 posts, read 19,804,330 times
Reputation: 3920
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28 View Post
3 of the big school districts here in Livings County will LOSE and average of $25 per student IF Prop 1 passes..
Do you have a link for that? Most of the superintendents I've seen commenting on it are saying the opposite:

West Michigan superintendent addresses Proposal 1 impact on school funding | MLive.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
2,851 posts, read 2,287,908 times
Reputation: 4546
So they won't be able to pay for lunches for the kids whose parents prefer to milk the system (literally) rather than to pack them a $1 worth of food a day (two slides of bread, two slices of cheese, some crackers, a few baby carrots). Or buy high tech devices to help kids study math and sciences so that they could move on to the next grade knowing less than their grandparents did when all they had was a textbook, a blackboard, some discipline, and a good teacher.

The lack of funding is not the problem with our school system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 05:09 AM
 
Location: On the brink of WWIII
21,088 posts, read 29,129,289 times
Reputation: 7812
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
Do you have a link for that? Most of the superintendents I've seen commenting on it are saying the opposite:

West Michigan superintendent addresses Proposal 1 impact on school funding | MLive.com
Pinckney is also going to lose $20 per student.

Hartland Schools will NOT benefit from Prop 1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 07:55 AM
 
485 posts, read 963,846 times
Reputation: 374
The state does not have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. We are raking in more $$$ than ever and need to spend it wiser. This proposal is too complicated and comes with too many side issues, the EITC being one example. The feds give a VERY generous EITC to low-earners (Michigan's is simply a % of it), we don't have to stack more of our own on top of it. If this was 1/2% increase and ALL the money went to the roads, I might have considered it. As it is, I'm a slam-dunk no on it. This could be a historical turnout for a special election with folks coming out just to send a big-time message to Lansing that new taxes are not acceptable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 08:22 AM
 
8,560 posts, read 12,330,854 times
Reputation: 16468
Default VOTE NO!! on Proposal 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
Most of this seems like it was copied and pasted from some email campaign, most of which is false and exaggerated. Tell us what you really think.
I'm not sure whether I should be more dismayed by your conduct as a so-called CD "Moderator"...or whether I should feel flattered by your supposition that what I wrote must have been copied and pasted from elsewhere. You can rest assured that those were my words, written rather hastily at the spur of the moment. The only fact that I had checked on previously was the amount of the 41.7 cents/gallon tax which will be levied against both gasoline and diesel should Proposal 1 pass. This is in addition to the 1% sales tax increase...and in addition to the increase in license registration fees, etc., etc.

I realize that my words were harsh--but they were accurate. I have been a long-standing critic of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)--ever since I worked at the State Capitol and analyzed MDOT's policies and practices. Their history of waste and misguided policies are unmatched in state government. Of course, that part is my personal opinion, but it is based upon years of observation. I have also seen, firsthand, some of the deceitful proclamations (some would call them outright lies) that MDOT officials have made to federal officials to gain approval for highway expansions, most notably the I-275 extension in southeast Michigan which is now called M-5.

And lest you think that I'm just a right-winger who opposes all tax increases, I'll have you know that at one point in my career I drafted a significant portion of the platform for the Michigan Democratic Party. Proposal 1, however, is something that both conservatives and those of a more liberal persuasion should unite to oppose. On the one hand, Proposal 1 is simply a bad, complicated tax plan; on the other hand, it provides a windfall to an agency which has a long history of wasteful and destructive practices as they've promoted urban sprawl, the destruction of our cities and the fragmentation of our northern environs--with little regard for true transportation needs.

To more than double their budget, with no change in their overall policies--and no prioritization towards maintenance--is a potential recipe for disaster. Given their history, I do not trust MDOT...and, I believe, rightly so.

You may have swallowed their baseless and deceptive arguments hook, line and sinker--and that's your prerogative to do so--but there are clearly more efficient and less onerous options available to fund actual maintenance needs for Michigan roadways.

You have claimed that what I wrote about Proposal 1 was "mostly false". I will counter that your claim is patently untrue...and I challenge you to point out ONE point which was false. (I strive very much to be accurate!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
But the part about other states not charging any sales tax? What states are those?
Ten percent of U.S. states do not charge any sales tax. Those states are Alaska, Montana, New Hampshire, Delaware and Oregon. I only mentioned that to remind people that high sales taxes are not universal. Colorado's sales tax is 2.9%.

There is still a legitimate rationale for the imposition of sales taxes. When applied against smaller purchases, a sales tax is a relatively painless tax--meaning that the amount of the tax is not onerous at any given time. It is, however, a very regressive tax...and when applied against larger, perhaps unusual, purchases, the tax amount can be very significant, with potentially severe negative consequences. But it is a way to tax poorer people who might otherwise escape many taxing programs and it diversifies the sources of tax revenue, leading to greater stability in the overall generation of taxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
Did you forget to mention that many states have county and municipal sales tax tacked onto their state sales tax?
No, I didn't forget to mention them. I simply chose not to because I was trying not to write a book. Besides, I don't feel that how local communities generate their taxes is particularly relevant to a discussion about state taxes. You may feel that it's alright for Michigan to charge a high sales tax simply because other areas have a high combined state/local sales tax...but I don't buy that argument. Presently, California has the highest state-level sales tax at 7.5%. If Proposal 1 passes, Michigan will have the second highest state-level sales tax in the country (although we'd be tied with five other states). We shouldn't try to emulate those states with high tax rates just because they have them. We need to examine the effectiveness, the fairness and the appropriateness of any tax. Personally, I feel that an income tax is the fairest way, in general, to provide tax revenue...but a gas tax is different, appropriately so, since it is an earmarked tax.

Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
"It wasn't that long ago that Michigan had a 4% sales tax." LOL, try 1994, which was 21 years ago. Twenty...one...years ago.
Ha. When I wrote that I wasn't sure that it was only 21 years ago, but if you think that 21 years is an especially long time you clearly suffer from a lack of perspective. Anyone who studies the history and evolution of taxation policies needs to look at more than just the last couple of decades. I don't recall offhand the particular timeframe (it was probably in the 70s), but in the past there was consideration about allowing Michigan local communities to enact local sales taxes--just like some Michigan cities have local income taxes. Fortunately, that hasn't happened to date, but it is not out of the realm of possibilities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
"If you happen to buy a mobile home." - If you're buying a mobile home, you probably won't pay property tax like the rest of us. You can pay that extra 1%.
Well, admittedly, citing a mobile home as an example was a poor choice--because I strongly disagree with the tax policies which largely benefit the mobile home park developers. If someone foolishly buys a new mobile home in a licensed MH park, they are virtually throwing their money away since mobile homes depreciate rapidly and then they're stuck with paying perpetual lot rent, usually at an excessive rate. (By the way, an occupied mobile home in a licensed park is only charged $3/month in lieu of property taxes: 50 cents of which goes to the local community; $.50 to the County; and $2 to the state education fund.) State law regarding mobile homes is geared to benefit the developers, not the owner/tenants. The developers simply had better lobbyists.

Still, my point was, when a person of lesser means buys a large-ticket item--whether it's a car or whatever--the imposition of a sales tax is very burdensome. Such a tax is very regressive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
The fuel tax WILL be raised, almost doubled. But sales tax on gasoline will disappear. It works out to about the same.
That is not true. Either you're bad at math or you're parroting the Proposal 1 proponents by downplaying the true impacts of what will occur. Going from 15 cents to 41.7 cents is nearly triple. Going from 19 cents to 41.7 cents is MORE than double (not "almost" doubled). I greatly oppose giving MDOT that much more money to spend with no strings attached.

Yes, the sales tax will be removed but the sales tax is based upon the wholesale price of fuel. So...at present-day prices we're talking roughly 10 cents/gallon. (I don't have time right now to try to look up more precise figures.) So, the increase in fuel tax will be more than double the amount of the reduction due to removing the sales tax. It is not "about the same". I acknowledge that when fuel prices increase, that disparity will lessen...but the fuel tax will also automatically increase each year (something they conveniently forget to mention).

Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
Gas tax has always been adjusted with inflation.
HUH? That is absolutely false. The gas tax has been a set price per gallon. But, that is part of the reason why there is a need for some adjustment at this point. We just don't need the complicated and excessive measures which are in Proposal 1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
Part of the sales tax increase WILL go to pay down debt/bonds we've used for past road construction, yes.
No--NONE of the sales tax increase is to go towards roads. Period. The greatly increased fuel tax is to go towards the roads--but it is not earmarked to go towards maintenance. I would actually support getting away from debt financing for road projects--and paying off existing bonds--but they should be honest about it. Much--if not most--of this money is NOT intended to go towards road maintenance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
They've been borrowing money because there is none.
No. They cannot borrow money "because there is none". They borrow money against projected revenues. MDOT has always borrowed money; nothing has changed in that regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
I love all of these opponents who have absolutely no solution to the issue. And a solution is put forward, that gives taxpayers the actual voice to vote on it, and they think it should be voted down with no plan b, c, d. nothing.
In no way is Proposal 1 a "solution"--because it is not targeted at the problem. It is an overreaching tax proposal which increases a number of taxes and funds a number of specific issues--but road maintenance is not exclusively one of them. This issue needs to be kicked back to the legislature so that they can do their job. It's been revealed that none of this money would likely go to road maintenance until 2017, so there is time.

In my view, the best solution is a simple one: raise the gas tax a more modest amount, say to 24 or 25 cents per gallon. That would be a 5 or 6 cent increase on gas (26 or 32%), and a 9 or 10 cent increase on diesel fuel (60 or 67%)--both of which would be substantial increases! But--importantly--earmark any tax increase specifically for road maintenance. This will immediately make funds available for maintenance--and it would be substantially more than under the present proposal. Any money generated should not be used for boondoggle projects across the state. Furthermore, MDOT needs to be reigned in so that maintenance needs are deemed the priority. MDOT should not be building new roads to subsidize urban sprawl or other wasteful, excessive projects (such as the 14+ lanes which comprise I-96 in Detroit, or the proposed widening of I-94), especially while there are maintenance needs. MDOT needs to fix what we have!

Proponents of Proposal 1 are spending millions of dollars in an attempt to fool people into thinking that Proposal 1 is okay, that it's the only option, that it's only about "safer" roads. That is certainly not the case. We can and must do better.

I may not have swayed you, but I encourage others to VOTE NO on Proposal 1. This is likely going to be another low-turnout election (as proponents hope). Get out and VOTE NO!

Last edited by jackmichigan; 04-20-2015 at 09:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 08:39 AM
 
Location: West Michigan
3,119 posts, read 6,581,370 times
Reputation: 4543
Quote:
I may not have swayed you, but I encourage others to VOTE NO on Proposal 1. This is likely going to be another low-turnout election (as proponents hope). Get out and VOTE NO!
Well I can promise that my cat, my dog, my deceased great grandmother and I will all be voting yes. So that's at least 4 votes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 09:11 AM
 
485 posts, read 963,846 times
Reputation: 374
Wow, Jackmichigan. Great rebuttal. I'll have to admit, at first glance your first post appeared like a standard "line" but you've disproved that with a thoughtful blow-by-blow answer to the criticism.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top