So, the Michigan Business Tax is dead. Will the changes create jobs?
Rest in peace, Michigan Business Tax.
The widely despised MBT — created as a replacement for the similarly reviled Single Business Tax — died Thursday. It was four years old.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder called for the death of the Michigan Business Tax for about two years.
Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com
In the four months since he took office, Snyder has systematically assembled a list of legislative allies to axe the wildly complex MBT once and for all. The Michigan Legislature on Thursday voted to eliminate the MBT and replace it with a 6 percent corporate income tax that exempts most small businesses, equaling an estimated business tax cut of about $1.7 billion.
Now, most small business owners in Michigan will only pay taxes on their business profits through their personal income tax return, where they're taxed at a flat rate of 4.35 percent.
In the end, the Senate split evenly on the vote — and Lt. Gov. Brian Calley had to cast a vote to break the tie.
To pay for the business tax cut, the Legislature also approved Snyder's recommended phase-in pension tax, a massive reduction in tax credits for the poor and other income tax code changes. Snyder now needs to get the Legislature to approve big cuts in K-12 funding, higher education funding, municipal revenue sharing and other sources.
During his campaign to kill the MBT, Snyder's approval ratings dropped precipitously as critics have decried a shift of the tax burden from businesses to individuals.
“I firmly believe that we need to invest in our schools, our cities and our citizenry if we are to move forward as a state, but I cannot support this tax increase because of the undue burden it places on our children, needy families and seniors," state Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, said in a statement. "This legislation provides a windfall tax break for businesses without any promise of creating jobs, all at the expense of Michigan’s most vulnerable citizens.”
All along, Snyder defended his proposals by saying that the state must adopt increased taxes on senior citizens to pay for government services as our population shifts.
And, of course, he argued that a simpler, lower business tax would create jobs and grow the economy, making it all worthwhile.
"We are making the tough decisions and taking the bold actions necessary to put our state on the path to prosperity," Snyder said in a statement Thursday. "Michigan’s complex, unwieldy and unfair tax structure has been a major impediment to economic growth. By bringing greater fairness and simplicity to the system, we are correcting longstanding inequities, protecting low-income families and paving the way for economic expansion."
Now, we ask you: Will the death of the MBT create jobs?
We're asking that question this morning to businesses in the Ann Arbor region, but we want to hear from you.
Is job growth next?
Contact AnnArbor.com's Nathan Bomey at (734) 623-2587 or nathanbomey@annarbor.com. You can also follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's newsletters.
Comments
chefbrian1
Thu, May 19, 2011 : 4:25 p.m.
Lets get right to the point. Asking all Michigan business owners: Do you plan to use your portion of the $1.8 Billion tax cut to create jobs or expand your business?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 11:37 p.m.
eric wrote: "I moved my business from Michigan to Florida in 2007 due to the MBT and the outrageous labor costs in Michigan. . . . Repeal of MBT is one step in the right direction. 'Right-to-work' is also needed before business owners such as myself come back. I can hire a skilled laborer for 60% of what it would cost me in Michigan." 22 states are RTW states. 10 of those states--nearly half--are among the 14 states with the highest unemployment rates. Florida, with an unemployment rate of 11.1%, is 49/51--WORSE than Michigan, which is 10.2% and 47/51 (includes D.C.) Sources: <a href="http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm</a> -and- <a href="http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm</a> So please, again, tell us about how in Florida specifically and in RTW states generally RTW creates jobs. Oh, and by the way, Florida is #30 in cost of living (#1 = lowest COL). So, in an expensive state (Michigan, by comparison, is #24), you are paying people only 60% of what you would if you were in Michigan? Source: <a href="http://www.top50states.com/cost-of-living-by-state.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.top50states.com/cost-of-living-by-state.html</a> I'm certain that your employees appreciate your generosity. Good Night and Good Luck
eric
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 12:54 p.m.
I moved my business from Michigan to Florida in 2007 due to the MBT and the outrageous labor costs in Michigan. I now earn a respectable return on investment for the time, effort and risks I take as a business owner. I prefer to be in Michigan. Repeal of MBT is one step in the right direction. "Right-to-work" is also needed before business owners such as myself come back. I can hire a skilled laborer for 60% of what it would cost me in Michigan.
Townie
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 6:17 p.m.
What kind of business? How outrageous were the labor costs (sorry, I just tend to like facts)? How many illegal aliens did you employ in FL? Stay in Florida - Rick Scott is really doing a great job there for you.
chefbrian1
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 5:24 a.m.
Gov. Rick Snyder is expected to soon sign legislation that replaces the Michigan Business Tax with a 6 percent income tax to be paid by about a third of Michigan businesses, most of them large corporations with shareholders. From The Detroit News: <a href="http://detnews.com/article/20110513/POLITICS02/105130443/Business-tax-cut-will-wipe-out-rising-Michigan-revenue--House-agency-says#ixzz1MIjx0q9r" rel='nofollow'>http://detnews.com/article/20110513/POLITICS02/105130443/Business-tax-cut-will-wipe-out-rising-Michigan-revenue--House-agency-says#ixzz1MIjx0q9r</a> For those that think this tax break will go to the mom and pop shop on the corner, read this article from the Detroit News. Most of the tax break will go to Large Corps with shareholders. Unless you are a shareholder in a Michigan based corp, don't hold your breath that this will do anything for you or Michigan.
G. Orwell
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 2:48 a.m.
JFK cut both corporate and personal income taxes to increase employment and spur economic growth. Go ahead, accuse me of believing everything on YouTube. Maybe this JFK is an impostor. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU" rel='nofollow'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU</a> I would rather see huge cuts in the federal income tax for the average person or eliminated. Income tax is a way to redistribute wealth from the average person to the very wealthy. War profiteering, GE, Google and many huge corporations paying no to near no taxes, oil companies getting billions in subsidies, tax breaks for companies outsourcing jobs, on and on and on. What benefit does the average person get from paying the federal income tax. Not nearly as much as the very wealthy. Now our Social Security, Medicare and pensions are in danger to pay off the bankers.
Tom
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 11:05 p.m.
Rick is like a modern-day reverse Robin Hood: Taking from the poor to give to the rich!
eric
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 12:57 p.m.
A bit short sighted. Without repeal of MBT and right-to-work, eventually everyone will be poor in Michigan because there will be no corporations left to tax and no jobs.
jjc155
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 10:12 p.m.
One thing that I have never seen posted in these Business/Corporate tax discussions is the fact Business/Corporations really do not and have never "paid" taxes. Let me explain. Say a company sells a widget for $100. Say their pre tax profit is $90 and they are taxed 10% so they "pay" $9 in taxes on each widget. Now say .gov comes along and says to the company, your tax rate is now 20% (100% increase!). Since any business' goal is to make as much money for their shareholders they are going to pass on the tax increase to their customers in the form of a price increase for said widget. So the price of said widget goes to $109 so they can keep pocketing their $90 per widget. Business/Corp taxes are merely a form of taxation with out representation and is a politically easy way for politicians to "raise" taxes on those who elect them with out making them mad. The blame is shifted by .gov to Big Business when people see the price raise as just Big Business "getting richer off the backs of the common man." LOL Love it when people whine about low taxes on big business and then cry when big business raises prices to cover the taxes, LOLOLOLOLOL
eric
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 1:11 p.m.
It is actually not quite as simple and much worse for Michiganders than what you say. If the Michigan based company raises their price to $109 their Tennessee and South Carolina competitors will keep their prices at $100, steal market share, increase their profits and put significant financial pressure on the Michigan company. The Michigan company will be forced to either cut their price back to $100 to maintain market share, but that will eliminate their profit unless they take cost cutting measures such as job cuts, outsourcing to China, etc.. The end result of comparatively higher Michigan business taxes is a shift in jobs and tax base from Michigan to Tennessee, South Carolina and/or overseas.
Bogie
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 9:34 p.m.
Funny. We have states in this country, that have lower corporate taxes, and operate WITHOUT a personal state income tax. Florida, Tennessee, and Texas come to mind. If you were in control of a public traded company, where would you expand? Would you stay in Michigan, if you had the choice? If you wanted to start your own business, would you do here? These class warfare arguments are absurd. Have we not learned from the socialistic experiment, called Detroit? I don't know, if this strategy will create massive amounts of jobs, but I would bet, that it prevents the further job "bloodshed," we have experienced the last ten years. Companies, large and small, have choices. Do we want to stay with archaic "Big three, big union mentality?" We, most assuredly, will become the next California, or Illinois. On a final note, today Forbes magazine released an article on, the best places to find employment. Texas had the five out of the top ten. I am glad for the Governor, and now, I am serious about starting my own business in the state. If other states can do it, why not us?
Paul LaRoe
Thu, May 19, 2011 : 2:07 p.m.
Having lived in Michigan my whole life, 57 years and counting, and also run a small business for the past 31 years, I've faced many business challenges over the years. Paying state business taxes has not been in the top 10 of my challenges. The belief that removing the single business tax in Michigan will create jobs, is just that, a belief. It is not founded on any factual data. Wouldn't you think that the Governor, who likes to use statistics to get his point across, have a number of how many jobs will be created by each $1,000 reduction in business tax? Say for example, a small business was paying $4,000 a year in single business tax, and under the new tax law would pay $0. How many employees would that small business hire with this newly found $4,000 windfall? What is the current minimum wage? With this $4,000 savings in cost of doing business, a small business could hire a minimum wage employee for 10 hours a week. That's sure to reduce the ranks of unemployed in Michigan and get our State back to prosperity. The annual CNBC report, America's Top States for Business 2010, shows Texas as the best of the 50 states to operate, start or expand a business. Michigan is rated 41st in this study, where all states are measured on 40 different metrics in ten categories. The number one category and accounts for the most points is "Cost of Doing Business." This category looks at the tax burden within the state, including those on individuals, property, business taxes and even gasoline. Utility costs, cost of wages and workers' compensation insurance as well as rental costs for office and industrial space are also factored in. In the Cost of Doing Business category, Michigan is ranked 32nd in the country. What do you think Texas, the number one state overall for doing business is rated in the "Cost of Doing Business" category? What a surprise, Texas is ranked 30th. The remaining top five states are rated 26, 25, 15 and 39th in this same category. What's the tr
Townie
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.
Please look at the state you have cited: "We have states in this country, that have lower corporate taxes, and operate WITHOUT a personal state income tax. Florida, Tennessee, and Texas come to mind." All have huge deficits (larger per capita than Michigan by substantial margins) and horrible educational systems, millions with no health insurance, etc. Some paradises... Please read up on Texas -- a disaster area happening before our eyes. But still cited by Republicans. Amazing. How about citing Ireland too?
John Q
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 3:10 a.m.
"We have states in this country, that have lower corporate taxes, and operate WITHOUT a personal state income tax. Florida, Tennessee, and Texas come to mind." These states rely on local and state level sales tax to fund government. Those taxes fall heavily on the poor and elderly. Sounds like class warfare to me.
gsorter
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 11:15 p.m.
Bravo Bogie, Start that company, that is exactly the can-do attitude we need to turn this state around. You are trying to grow the pie, not complaining about your shrinking piece of a shrinking pie. I also believe Detroit could turn around with a massive urban homesteading plan. Give away the city owned properties for free in exchange for a guarantee of investing X amount of money in each property, and create a giant renaissance zone for budding business owners, then stand back.
Larry Eiler
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 9:12 p.m.
You do not "hire" a man of Gov. Snyder's experience and savvy -- who invests $6 million of his own money to get the job -- and then put him on the side track after 5 months. You go with him, set reasonable expectations and do not demand that an immediate increase in jobs in a few months. This is a years-long process, citizens of Michigan. Set expectations right, pls. Larry Eiler, Ann Arbor
Ed Kimball
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.
So you're saying that we didn't "hire" Snyder -- he bought the job. For the record, I don't agree with the idea of recalling Snyder after 5 months, but I'm awfully unhappy with his proposal to reduce taxes on business by cutting education services.
Top Cat
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 7:45 p.m.
If your poll question was posed solely to people that either currently own a business or who have ever owned a business, I would suggest that the response would be that incentives matter and a more healthy tax environment creates opportunity and jobs. Low tax states are doing much better than high tax states on job creation.
Mush
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 1:57 p.m.
Minnesota is a high tax state with a very low unemployment rate and there are many other examples of this. There are many reasons why a business would choose one state over another: quality of life, available skilled labor, a healthy environment, proximity of supplies and suppliers, quality and availability of public and other services, and yes, the business and personal tax rates. Michigan was already one of the lower tax states. In it's race to the bottom, it's now working it's way to being one of the lower service states. It will be ten years before we know if this radical Teapublican experiment actually worked.
bulldog01
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 7:28 p.m.
Get real ....the state has no money (as every other state) the status quo will no longer work. What would you suggest we cut??? I say cut all the income tax and go to a sales tax increase as a replacement - that way the rich will pay more based on what they buy and we will all share equally. You get taxed on what you buy and you have the choice of what you are buying. I say Good Luck to Gov Snyder and keep moving forward no matter what the criticism.
Townie
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 3:32 p.m.
I don't know why it is so hard to understand but the present deficit is because we / the state legislature gave away $9 billion in state tax revenue under the guise of 'cuts will create jobs'. But we ended up with no extra revenue - just a huge deficit. And what is proposed as a solution? More tax cuts and a larger deficit! It's like a family who decides to quit their jobs and then is surprised when they can't meet the rent or mortgage payments on their house, etc. It's income and expense on financial reports, not just one or the other. But our Slick Rick and his legislator buddies only see expenses...
Mush
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 1:43 p.m.
The state deficit is largely a myth. Revenues this year will be much higher than the Governor told us (about 1/2 billion higher this year and even higher next year). The problem next year is that the projected increased revenue will be wiped out by the new business tax break. The state deficit will be caused, not by the economy, but buy our politicians. The MBT was an accountant's nightmare, but most small businesses paid $0 and the tax revenue was relatively stable compared to a flat tax revenue, which will fluctuate wildly. The revenue from the flat tax will decrease drastically during a recession and it's going to make government budget planning a nightmare.
John Q
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 7:46 p.m.
Another deluded idea from the Tea Partiers. A sales tax increase to replace the income tax would hammer the working poor and the middle class and be a boon to the wealthy. The idea that the wealthy spend anywhere near the same percentage of income as the working poor and middle class is not based in reality.
Mr. Tibbs
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:29 p.m.
an "off topic comment" removed is code for we disagree with YOU! look, a fair tax is the only honorable way out. I don't care if my taxes go up. besides that is the biggest lie on the planet. we pay all the taxes. "they" create all the jobs. it is a trade off of sorts. but to me a flat tax with the only deductions being for children is the only way out. the rich will still be rich only with a flat tax, a flat national income tax is the only way. the biggest reason it is argued against, that that when our taxes drop to little or nothing, the rich would be and perhaps they should be, afraid of our collective reaction to just how unfair the tax system is. just like the cystic fibrosis research foundation has just been embarrassed by a 16 year old kid. no money in a cure, but lots of it in research! big money always gets what it wants....republican, or democrat, it doesn't matter who wins politically, "we the people" still loose!
1bit
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 1:16 a.m.
"just like the cystic fibrosis research foundation has just been embarrassed by a 16 year old kid. no money in a cure, but lots of it in research! " You do realize the kid had access to a supercomputer and a mentor/lab who guided him through the whole thing (and probably a drug company that bankrolled it).
maallen
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:01 p.m.
Well, we increased taxes on businesses under Granholm's 8 year reign and it didn't create jobs whatsoever. We lost jobs. So, why not try cutting the taxes and see what happens?
Tom
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 11:06 p.m.
I'm sure the global recession had nothing to do with that.
John Q
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:31 p.m.
" we increased taxes on businesses under Granholm's 8 year reign and it didn't create jobs whatsoever" Really? Personal income taxes only went up once during Granholm's 8 years. They went down or stayed steady every other year. Business taxes went up once, when the MBT surcharge was adopted. But many businesses also got a huge property tax break around the time the MBT was adopted. Keep making it up and we'll keep knocking down the lies.
alan
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:28 p.m.
Actually, the net effect was to reduce business taxes and we still lost jobs.
Alan Benard
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:47 p.m.
Tax cuts do not create jobs. Tax cuts to large corporations go to the corporate senior management. This is what has driven the engine of the income disparity between the most very wealthy and the very poor in the United States since 1980.
1bit
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 9:16 p.m.
The tax reform mostly affects small businesses. These are the folks who do most of the hiring.
mitch
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:30 p.m.
i'll be signing the recall , fire slick rick!!!!!!
steve h
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 2:27 a.m.
never gonna happen
chefbrian1
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:20 p.m.
How about our teachers, seniors and poor get together and start a business? They can call it Michigan Citizens Consulting or something like that. This way they can enjoy the lower tax rate. Heck, maybe they can profit from this budget? In fact everyone in Michigan should incorperate. That way they will not have to pay taxes at all like GE. I am going to file the papers today.
alan
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:10 p.m.
@runbum03- Friedman's self-professed best work was the permanent income hypothesis. Rational consumer's base decisions on what they perceive to be their permanent income. Windfall gains and tax reductions are saved, not spent, because the consumer perceives that they will have to be spent later to balance public finances. While he was not opposed to tax reductions, he was opposed to the notion that they encouraged spending which is exactly what we're talking about.
tommy_t
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.
The cut certainly will create jobs ...unfortunately in China.
gsorter
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:41 p.m.
Yes, certainly this will help Michigan, and it will benefit the most dynamic sector, small businesses, not large ones. Here is my personal example as to why. As an S-corporation, we paid 12% of our income to the MBT, then another 3.5% of net income at the personal level. That is a whopping total of 15.5% of income paid to the state alone. Even California, which is considered a high-tax state doesn't take 15.5%. What the repeal of the MBT does is help small S-corporations. I don't see how it is a big-business giveaway, since those companies now need to pay 6% on profits. So, how does this create jobs in Michigan? Most importantly, it will prevent companies like mine considering other states (even Ohio was more attractive than the MBT regime). For I.T type companies, location is somewhat irrelevant, as long as you have electricity and internet access. Ohio taxes companies at 0.26% of revenue, so my MBT tax would have been reduced by 80% just by moving 35 miles south.
Townie
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 6:13 p.m.
Eric - please tell us about your business paradise: where, what kind of business?
eric
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 1:22 p.m.
gsorter may not have moved his business, but I did. Moving to a right-to-work state saved me 6% on income taxes, about 40% on labor costs and nearly 50% on energy costs. Had I stayed in Michigan, I would be out of business. Moving out of state allowed me to grow, create additional jobs, and put money in my pocket (all in a recession).
Stuart Brown
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 3:01 a.m.
If you are an IT company that can leave, the smart thing for the state is to double your taxes so the state can get what it can while it can. So, did you forget that without the services provided by state government, your business would not even exist? This measure will only facilitate the export of more jobs to China.
John Q
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 7:48 p.m.
Get hiring more people. Hopefully, your fellow business owners will be in need of your services because a lot of your fellow citizens are going to have less money to spend on goods and services to give you a tax break.
gsorter
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 7:26 p.m.
Business can and do up and leave on a whim. Making it a no-brainer to do so isn't the way to attract jobs. We've been here for 12 years, and have won 3 Fast Track awards, you may disagree, but I'd like to think we aren't "unimportant". Seniors do pack their bags for more friendly locations, namely Texas, Nevada, and Washington. Remember, those states don't have any income taxes on small businesses either.
chefbrian1
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:40 p.m.
So Snyders little (big) tax cut bribe is keeping you in Michigan for what another year? According to your logic, every senior with a pension should be packing their bags for tax friendly greener pastures. If they do, so long all of that extra tax revenue, property tax and money they spend in the state right? So basically it is a race to the bottom until another state or country one ups the deal. That is what you are saying, right?
John Q
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:32 p.m.
No explanation of how this creates job.
johnnya2
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:59 p.m.
Oh wait, but you didnt. So you prove how wrong your argument is. People choose where they locate a business based on OTHER factors. Why are you still in Michigan? Oh thats right, it must be something besides taxes that matter. Could it be education, workforce, quality of life, or any number of other reasons people want to open a business there. By the way, YOUR business could be anywhere including another country. it means your business is really unimportant. If a business can up and leave at a whim, then it is a race to the bottom.
runbum03
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:41 p.m.
Dead Ed Said: "Since there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever--NONE--that cutting taxes leads to increased employment . . " Yeah . . . that's why Milton Friedman 1) established Economics as a Science and 2) Picked up a Nobel Prize to boot. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever--NONE--that Liberal thinking has ever created anything more than a government job.
Ed Kimball
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.
Paul Krugman also won a Nobel Prize, and he disagrees with Friedman. Pick you Nobel prizewinner and take your choice.
RayA2
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:34 p.m.
If a business needs additional capacity it will add jobs, but only if it can find the people educated with the productive capacity it needs. I can imagine there are a handful of businesses at most in this state where this reduction in tax will make the difference between adding one job or not adding that one job. There will be far more businesses however that leave or do not hire, because they can not find enough people with the capacity they need and because they don't want to live in a state where their children can't receive an education that is at least comparable with other states and countries. They will also not want to live in a state where there is little protection from air and water contamination and because of privitaization of public assets, only the wealthy can enjoy formerly public spaces. Education is a highly leveraged investment by the state. One considered so important to national security that the government believed that it needed to assure that all its citizens received an education, not just those who could afford one. I know that in Slick's world the next quarter is all you have to be concerned about. We the people however ignore the future at our own, and our children's peril.
RayA2
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 9:38 p.m.
Bob, it sounds like you're calling Michiganders lazy. Sorry, no one believes that convenient hogwash.
Basic Bob
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 12:58 a.m.
The big reason there are no businesses relocating to Michigan is that they can't find anyone who wants to work. Educational attainment is not important if they just want to live off other people's effort.
John Q
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:34 p.m.
During Jennifer Granholm's tenure, personal income taxes only went up once, in 2007, when the income tax was raised to 4.35%. Every other year, tax rates either declined or at worst, stayed the same as the previous year. But to hear it from Republicans, it was taxes that was destroying Michigan's economy. In less than 6 months, Rick Snyder has pushed a massive tax increase on Michigan individuals and he's told us that this will create jobs! It shows that when it comes to taxes, Republicans love raising taxes when it's on the poor and the elderly. It's only taxes on the wealthy and business interests that they oppose.
1bit
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:33 p.m.
Qestion: Does cutting taxes for small businesses help small businesses? Answer: Absolutely. If you don't agree, then why not tax businesses at a 100% rate and nationalize everything? Of course, it is a question of degree - will the additional revenue returned to small businesses create jobs. Hopefully. Job growth among small businesses has not been great coming out of the Great Recession. With jobs, demand will increase and the pendulum will swing back. It is probably happening already in spite of the death of the MBT.
1bit
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 11:34 a.m.
JohnQ: "Picking a fight" because you're assuming that we disagree on everything. In Michigan, you can't raise taxes on the "wealthy", however arbitrarily you want to define that, because there is a flat tax. By keeping the tax rate at 4.35%, there was an effective tax increase on everyone. I already said I liked the EITC but, really, your moral indignation is misplaced as the "poor" will likely not have a significantly higher tax burden. The "poor elderly" will also not see a tax increase. You didn't answer my question, however. If a former executive is taking in a $100,000 pension (or more), do you think it is fair that they would not pay taxes on it while someone taking $20,000 out of a 401k would?
John Q
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 3:20 a.m.
Picking a fight? I'm doing no such thing. I'm waiting for an explanation of how raising taxes on seniors and working poor is going to help the economy. We're always told that raising taxes on the wealthy will cause economic harm because they'll spend less. Why isn't this true for those groups? When it comes to the tax cut for businesses, they aren't going to hire people if there's no demand for their goods and services. Cutting the demand by reducing the spending from those groups doesn't sound like it's going to result in positive economic activity.
1bit
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 9:14 p.m.
You're looking for a fight, John Q, but perhaps you should reread my post. As for taxing pensions, it doesn't kick in for many seniors right now. The seniors with larger pensions (not the poor elderly) will be taxed. Do you think the GM executives with over $100,000 pension income shouldn't have to pay taxes on that income while someone pulling money out of a 401k should? I'd rather nobody paid any taxes on their retirement income. As for the EITC, I liked it. There is a remnant left behind. When times are better, I'd like to see it make a comeback.
alan
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 7:17 p.m.
Wow, we are cynical runbum. Shal I tell my 79 year old mother with 2 hip replacements who can't drive anymore to suck it up and go get a job because she's lazy?
John Q
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:33 p.m.
""John Q. The low-income and seniors already live off of the government. Cutting them gives them an incentive to go out and get a job." EITC goes to people who have a job. People who are retired need to go and get a job and compete with people out-of-work and need a job? Nice logic.
runbum03
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:46 p.m.
John Q. The low-income and seniors already live off of the government. Cutting them gives them an incentive to go out and get a job. In addition, a million people in Michigan on welfare are too many and inexcusable. Do you Liberals hear me? A million Michigan people on welfare is inexcusable! Your solution: more handouts and economic castration.
John Q
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:35 p.m.
Please explain how cutting taxes for businesses while reducing the disposable income of seniors and low-income workers creates jobs? Those people will spend less, generating less business activity. No spending, no need for businesses to hire anyone because there's going to be no one who can afford their products ans services.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:18 p.m.
Since there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever--NONE--that cutting taxes leads to increased employment . . . Why, of course it will!!! According to RepubliKan mythology. Good Night and Good Luck
chefbrian1
Tue, May 17, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.
Republicans are one trick "tax cuts solve all" ponies (or um..elephants) and it just does not work. I say how about business loans not blanket tax cut gifts? How many Michigan businesses/markets really are growing or have increased demand to warrent a need for increased captial for investment to create jobs that a blanket tax cut would provide, 5-10-15% (maybe)? And how many of these businesses will even make capital investments despite demand? Most businesses will hoard their cash just like the big banks are doing for a sunny day or worse. They will take their tax cut and hand it over to out of state share holders or they will line CEO's pockets to invest elsewhere. I say why not provide low/no interest business loans for the people/businesses who are actually going to make capital investments to grow/start their business instead? These businesses will have to apply for these loans and justify why they need the money. What a concept. This would be in sharp contrast to just handing over a tax cut cash gift with the hopes of job growth if that is even why they are doing it. Remember that these tax cuts provide nothing for NEW business start ups, which is a huge economic job creating engine. Access to capital has dried up thanks to the banks hoarding cash, which is the real problem. The tax cuts only provide a little extra cash for businesses with some profit on their books who will get this cash gift in part from taking $400 from every K-12 student in the state. Access to capital through loans will/can bring new business start ups to Michigan who will come here because a business loan will make it possible not some tax cut. At best, this tax cut may get a few businesses who are tax break benefit nomads to show up until a new state offers a better deal then it is bye bye Michigan, and at the expense of gutting state revenue.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 5:34 p.m.
"Never claimed tax cuts for businesses = jobs and no one will be able to provide you incontrovertable evidence." Glad we got that out of the way. There is no evidence that tax cuts = jobs. "My opinion is that some will do that and the majority will reinvest in their businesses with equipment, people, etc." And my opinion is that businesses will not invest in people or in equipment unless they see reason to do so--e.g., the state's economy improving. Until that happens they will pocket the money. And when the state's economy begins improving, they will invest in people or equipment whether or not taxes have been cut if they want to grow their business. Interesting that after 18 replies, no one can offer any evidence to support the religious belief that tax cuts for business = more jobs. I can only conclude that there is none. Good Night and Good Luck
1bit
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 4:11 p.m.
Never claimed tax cuts for businesses = jobs and no one will be able to provide you incontrovertable evidence. It's too complicated of a problem to link to any one item. The MBT needed to go for its own sake, because of double taxation on small business owners. Your opinion is that small business owners will pocket the cash and call it a day. My opinion is that some will do that and the majority will reinvest in their businesses with equipment, people, etc. I have no evidence to prove you wrong and, likewise, you have no evidence to prove me incorrect.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 12:33 p.m.
"Cash for Clunkers" Really? That's the best you can come up with? I say that because the money went to the consumer, not the business (which is true of EVERY example you cite in your last); because it was not a tax break; and because there is substantial evidence that it had little positive effect (<a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/02/129608251/cash-for-clunkers?ft=1&f=93559255)" rel='nofollow'>http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/02/129608251/cash-for-clunkers?ft=1&f=93559255)</a>. I guess I'm not overwhelmed with the evidence. Given the religious-like fervor have regarding tax cuts = jobs, I'd think there's be dozens of examples of it working. If "Cash for Clunkers" is the best example one can come up with, I think we already know that my comment that started this thread is correct. I mean, really. Come on. If tax breaks for businesses = jobs, you must be able to find AT LEAST ONE case where a state businesses received a TAX CUT (i.e., the % they pay in tax went down) and job thereby were created. Just ONE?? Good Night and Good Luck
1bit
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 3:32 a.m.
You're right - semantics - like I said at the outset. But if one includes "tax credits" then I do think jobs are created. "Cash for clunkers" was a nice tax credit (mostly across the board) and stimulated the automobile industry which preserved or created jobs. Some of the credits for getting more efficient appliances, windows, etc likely accomplished the same thing. Tax cuts, when given to the less wealthy, also seem to stimulate the economy by increasing demand and presumably increasing (or retaining) jobs. So, maybe it is parsing words, but the dogma of tax cuts not generating jobs perhaps oversimplifies things (or is an overly narrow way of stating things). I was not criticizing Gov. Granholm here (even though I have been critical of her in other instances). She either had the foresight or good fortune to make the correct decision in regards to Pfizer. I agree also with you points about companies "prostituting" themselves and the film subsidy.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 3 a.m.
You're parsing words. Fine. So give me an example of an across-the-board "tax credit"--one that every business in a state receives--that has created jobs. And I must say that I am struck by the fact that, given the religious-like fervor with which the "right" believe that tax cuts create jobs, my request for proof is met with the parsing of words rather that with . . . proof!! Re. Granholm and Pfeizer: I don't know what she did. I don't know what she didn't do. I don't know what she based her decisions on, nor do I know what she thought possible to do with a legislature that blocked nearly every initiative she undertook. Nor, I suspect, do you know any of these things, either. But this much I DO know: Any company that is lured to a location or that stays in that location by promises of tax breaks is little more that prostituting itself to the highest bidder. If their loyalty can be bought now for X dollars it can be bought by someone else next year for two times X dollars. And, as the Pfizer example makes clear, at the moment of decision all of the money invested in a locality means nothing--it is a sunk cost and money spent, and therefore no guarantee that they will stay. IF Governor Snyder follows through with his rhetoric on this point, it is one of the few things about which I agree with him. And again, let me make clear, that the film incentive had nothing to do with taxes. Under it the state a of Michigan agreed to pay a percentage of the cost of production for all costs that happened in this state. That's not a tax credit or a tax cut. It is a subsidy and, in the vast majority of cases, the subsidy was substantially greater than any taxes owed. Good Night and Good Luck
1bit
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 11:53 p.m.
ERMG: The point is that an across the board "tax cut" may be considered similar to an across the board "tax credit". If you give someone a "tax credit" or "tax incentive" then in effect you are giving them a "tax cut" but just calling it something else. But tax credits and incentives sound different. Now the question is whether businesses will act like "people" would act. My assumption is that smaller businesses will reinvest their money in the business, through hiring or purchasing new equipment or expanding. As for Pfizer, there is an argument that Gov. Granholm should have lobbied them harder with incentives to stay. Pfizer's biggest problem was a failure of drug development and no amount of incentives would save them. In hindsight, incentives would have only delayed the inevitable. To some degree, I believe that is why Gov. Snyder is eliminating/reducing "credits".
alan
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 11:13 p.m.
Don't know who's claiming that eyeheart. The federal tax code is written to allow large corporations to shift their tax burden to other countries. GE did plenty of business in the US last year but paid no income taxes here. They paid plenty elsewhere. Exxon paid $1.6B in US taxes but about $25B to other countries, not because they made all their money elsewhere, but rather because US tax codes permit them to shift their income elsewhere.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 10:08 p.m.
1bit: I'm talking about across-the-board tax cuts given to every business. Not tax abatements given to a business to relocate or to start up (BTW, how are those property tax breaks given to Pfizer workin' out?). @Eyeheart: the film industry did not receive a tax cut. It got cold cash from the State of Michigan out of which it paid its taxes, and still reaped a healthy dividend. But, that said, the film subsidies were an ENORMOUSLY bad idea, and I've said so in other earlier discussions. And oil companies have not moved their jobs overseas. They have moved the address of their headquarters. The company that owned the drilling rig that exploded in the Gulf is a good example. Its corporate "headquarter" is in Switzerland and almost no one works in its very small office there. All of the corporate officers and thousands of staff are in Houston. So, yes. Slimeball companies like that are despicable. Good Night and Good Luck So, no inconsistency regarding them on my part.
EyeHeartA2
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 9:52 p.m.
Well, on the other thread beating up big oil, they claimed that the oil companies moved all their jobs overseas to avoid taxes here. Big Oil = Bad. I suppose the same logic would apply here. Ooops. I forgot Rick = Bad. Bit of a conundrum. Sort of like hating tax cuts for "big business" but supporting tax cuts for Hollywood studios? Hmmmm. So, I guess mythology is not limited to the right?
1bit
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 9:18 p.m.
Semantics to some degree - do you consider "stimulus" or "tax credits" as "tax cuts", or do you consider these items as separate?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 8:11 p.m.
Evidence please, not hypotheticals. When have tax cuts led to job growth? I'm seeing a lot of blather but no facts. Good Night and Good Luck
Matthew
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 7:17 p.m.
Any theory that believe people respond to incentives. i.e. any modern economics theory. Does anybody think businesses would open in Michigan if the tax rate were 100%? 90%? No? Why not?
alan
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 7:15 p.m.
What modern economic theory are we referring to?
Nick
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:39 p.m.
@Matthew- such as???
Matthew
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:50 p.m.
You're right! There's NO EVIDENCE!! Unless one subscribes to any modern economic theory.
grye
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:37 p.m.
And do you subscribe to the "trickle up" theory? Good morning, I'm here to work hard today instead of expecting a handout.
alan
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:57 p.m.
@Technojunkie The problem with taxing pensions is that one is taxing a fixed income. Assuming that inflation is positive, the net effect is to annually increase the effective tax rate on those with a fixed income. it would make much more sense to simply tax the benefit contribution as earnings at the time it is made. Government gets the money up front when it is worth more, and the burden doesn't increase annually on the elderly.
Betty
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 1:16 p.m.
Most pensions are indexed for inflation. For example, Teachers with an MIP Pension (Most Teachers whoare retireing today hav an MIP Pension) get an automatic flat 3% increase every year.
Jen Eyer
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.
An off-topic comment was removed.
alan
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.
When I was a kid the max federal tax rate was 70%. Unemployment was low, poverty was low, government was solvent. For 30 years we've been told that cutting taxes creates jobs but we now have the largest income and wealth disparity in history. Since 1980 the average CEO wage has increased by 500% and the average worker wage has increased by 2% (both inflation adjusted). If worker wages had increased at the same rate the average US wage would be $175K today. Government is broke, in part, because revenues have decreased. Companies and their executives now keep the extra income because it is advantageous to do so from a tax perspective. They get to keep it, as opposed to the 60's when it made no sense to take $50M wages and give it all to the government. Yes, the MBT was bad and needed to be fixed, but it didn't kill jobs. Anyone who made enough to be affected was incorporated anyway. How about a graduated income tax. How about a graduated corporate tax. At 6% it's pretty low compared to other states and I'm sure any break will go to executive salaries, not to actually creating jobs that pay a living wage. How about closing tax loopholes? Why do financial institutions pay no income tax in Michigan? That was never discussed.
Mike Martin
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 8:41 p.m.
Haha - 70% that is ridiculous. I am currently in the highest federal tax rate and would still be if my income was cut by 1/3. Change my tax rate to 70% in addition to my huge Ann Arbor property taxes and my Michigan income tax and there is little incentive to strive to be in the top level. I would downsize my business and have to lay off eight people to do that. That's serious. I would never work this hard on my business if the government took 70% + all the other various taxes. There is no incentive to do so.
Matthew
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 11:26 p.m.
Alan, I'm glad we agree then :)
alan
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 9:04 p.m.
Matthew, It's very simple mathematics and you are talking to a mathematician. The problem with your analysis is that you have assumed a constant rate of growth for everyone. That is not what has happened for the last 30 years, according to the empirical evidence. The problem is not necessarily income disparity, it is the growth thereof, not in absolute dollars, but in income ratio.
JSA
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 8:23 p.m.
If you want fairness go to a flat tax with no deductions. Like that would get any support from either party.
John Q
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 7:51 p.m.
Go get educated on how income disparity is happening in America. It's not everyone seeing their incomes increase. The wealthy have seen their income increase tremendously. Everyone else has seen their income stagnate or even decline. In your example, after 1000 days, the guy making $1 is still making a $1 or less while the guy making $2 now makes $2000. How wonderful is that?
Matthew
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 7:15 p.m.
Alan, After one day in my example, the rich person's pay is $2.06 , while the poor person's pay $1.03. The income disparity has increased by 3 cents, from 1 dollar to $1.03. Still, everybody is better off. By the miracle of compound interest, this income disparity will grow larger at an exponential rate over time, even though the rich and poor are receiving the same percentage raise over time. It's simple mathematics, and it's why wealth disparity is a stupid way to measure how well the citizens of a country are doing.
alan
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:19 p.m.
No Matthew, the income disparity has been increasing steadily for 30 years. If the guy who makes $1 gets a 2% raise and the guy who already makes $2 gets a 500% raise at the expense of the guy making $1 then I think there is a problem. You may disagree about whether or not it's a problem but there has been a very large redistribution of both income and wealth.
Matthew
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:48 p.m.
MATH EXERCISE: Let's say a poor person makes one dollar per day, while a richer person makes two dollars per day. Thus and the disparity between the rich and poor is 1 dollar per day. Now let's say both rich and poor incomes increase by 3% per day. Question 1: After 1000 days, how much does a poor person make? How much does a rich person make? Question 2: What is the disparity between a rich person's income and a poor person's income? Question 3: Since everybody is better off in this model after 1000 days, do you now see why using income disparity is a stupid way to measure how well of citizens of a country are?
alan
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:42 p.m.
Yes, in part.
runbum03
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:37 p.m.
"Government is broke, in part, because revenues have decreased. " - Govt. spending has gone wild - So have our young, bright and productive - leaving the old, dull and lazy
shipdog7
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 2:58 p.m.
Snyder could care less what we think. His tens of millions of dollars are his when he leaves office. He won't need to file for Social Security. With all of his money. But he will. Greed. He paid $6 million to get the job of Governor. Gov. Snyder Puts Investments In Blind Trust Exact Net Worth Of Rick Snyder Not Known LANSING, Mich. -- Multimillionaire Rick Snyder has put his personal investments into a blind trust to avoid any potential conflict of interest while he's Michigan governor. Snyder spokeswoman Geralyn Lasher gave The Associated Press the preamble to the blind trust on Friday. In it, Snyder said he wishes "scrupulously to avoid the possibility" that any decision he makes as governor could be influenced by his financial interests. Lasher said she doesn't know how much money the former Gateway computer executive and venture capitalist has in the trust. Snyder spent nearly $6 million of his own money in his successful race to become Michigan's 48th governor. The 51-year-old Republican signed the paperwork amending his trust two days before he was sworn in as governor on Jan. 1. A trustee will now make all investment decisions. Several published reports were unable to nail down exactly how much Snyder is worth, but being that in the last year of his tenure at Gateway saw sales reach $5 billion, it's most likely in the tens of millions of dollars.
Matthew
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:43 p.m.
How much less could Synder care what we think? I think he could care quite a great deal less.
Technojunkie
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 2:56 p.m.
Businesses are tax collectors because businesses get their money from individuals. Democrats like business taxes because when they tax individuals directly they tend to get thrown out of office. Snyder's re-weighting from business taxes to individual taxes makes for much better government accountability. Better yet, business tax simplification removes a very painful discouragement to the small business creation Michigan desperately needs. The question is whether we'll see results in time for the 2012 election so that Republicans can hold onto the state legislature. That's one reason why Snyder is moving so fast: the clock is ticking. I think that Michigan will do better relative to other states thanks to the new policies, especially Illinois which is taking the opposite approach.
johnnya2
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:45 p.m.
I have no problem with paying higher prices based on a business paying higher taxes. Why would that matter? I can actually CHOOSE to pay that tax by utilizing that business or not pay it by not doing business with them. Wow, what a concept, democrats like to let people CHOOSE where they do business, instead of allowing those same businesses to use the resources (police, fire, roads, railways, airports, transit) of the state.
Andersen
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:01 p.m.
we are forgetting that Jennifer did away the MSBT tax which was several times greater than the current Business Tax. This cut will not create jobs
runbum03
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.
No taxes were cut - only shifted - the classic three shell game of Liberal spenders. Cut out the $300,000 /YR average salary so-called economic developers, the $25 Million FILM SUBSIDY, Pure Socialism - I mean "Pure Michigan" program, MEGA grants to Chinese automotive companies and MEDC grants to all the rest and we're half-way there to balancing the budget. With its bloated budget, Michigan is still a "command-control" state run by thousands of little Pol-Pots, spawning more of their kind - the only jobs that keep increasing in number.
mentalNomad
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.
Someone's feeling little a bitter today . . .
Carfan
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 2:39 p.m.
Everybody is for helping local businesses and the idea of eliminated the Michigan Business Tax sounded great. Did anyone look into the details of this? Is the MBT really killing jobs? How about some examples? The fact is that the current MBT is apportioned, that is it only taxes business on the portion of its sales done in Michigan and then only on the profits on those sales and then only after a business exceeds $350,000 of sales. For example, a Michigan business that does 750K of sales in the state is allowed to deduct 350K of that right off the bat. If profits on the remaining 400K amount to say, 7% or $28,000 then the taxes paid are somewhere near the astonishing, job killing figure of $1250! Wow! That HUGE amount surely will drive companies out of Michigan, right? $1250 less taxes on $750,000 of sales will surely mean those same companies will hire new employees to fill the huge demand created by all that extra income, right? In its place, pensioners will now be taxed and the earned income credit (available only to lower income families) is being eliminated. Great plan….
Betty
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 1:11 p.m.
I own a small business in Dominos Farms (3 Employees). I live in Scio. My children go to AAPS public schools. I AM your neighbor. This tax is a killer for me. I will hire a part time person if this tax is really eliminated because I can afford it and I need the help. I hope this example is concrete enough.
John Q
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:35 p.m.
"The MBT is a complex, piece of junk. It needed to be axed. There's no reason for making Michigan's business tax more complex than the federal taxes." Thank Brian Calley, the brain child for the MBT.
A2Realilty
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:47 p.m.
You're missing some huge aspects of the MBT. For example, bad debts. In your scenario, it is possible that the $750k of sales were all bad debts. Given this, the company made no money (and actually, lost a ton most likely through the COGS); HOWEVER, the business will still be asked by the state to pay taxes on the hypothetical profit. This is terrible. The MBT is a complex, piece of junk. It needed to be axed. There's no reason for making Michigan's business tax more complex than the federal taxes.
alan
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:39 p.m.
But you are talking about the associated costs to the employer of keeping that employee. What compliance costs are associated with paying the MBT? When I had a small business it was an extra hour at the end of the year.
runbum03
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:33 p.m.
Alan: What compliance cost is involved with paying a tax? A part-time employee, working a few hours a week cost about $3,543.00 a few years ago. Solution: Gave the individual a $2.00 Hr raise and made them a 1099 subcontractor. It was win-win. Compliance costs always run into thousands of dollars - and so do the fines if any mistakes are made, Michigan turns honest people into crooks. The good leave the State.
alan
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:19 p.m.
What compliance cost is involved with paying a tax?
Technojunkie
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 2:59 p.m.
The problem is that it can cost small businesses a multiple of their tax payment in compliance cost. Replacing the MBT with a flat tax makes those compliance costs go away.
Will
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 2:36 p.m.
And how do the free lifetime health care benefits for state legislators and judges after 6 years of service and age 55 retirement, fit into the "bring greater fairness" and "correcting longstanding inequities?!" It's disgusting! He doesn't believe in raising taxes unless it's on the elderly. It's also o.k. in his mind to raid the school aid fund intended for K-12 schools and divert it elsewhere.
eagleman
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 1:44 a.m.
With the economy going the way it was, funding for K-12 was going to drop anyways. Do I agree with the cut? No, but I also recognize that there are limited options available to Snyder just as they were for Granholm.
Ignatz
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 2:11 p.m.
A businessman gets elected Governor and is able to eliminate the business tax. Nothing odd about that. I just hope that the public school system his kids go to are not too adversley affected by funding cuts. Oh, wait...
eagleman
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 1:42 a.m.
Johnnya2 , "immoral" and "incompetent"? Really? He is immoral for trying to jumpstart business growth in Michigan? You do realize that without busines, there are no taxes to be collected, schools for children to go to, funds to support the elderly...no social programs at all. Businesses are the most important part of a nation's economy. 98% of all Americans are employed by or own a business. If business struggles so does the rest of us. Therefore, it makes sense to undertake initiatives that encourage business growth for it impacts EVERYTHING.
1bit
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 9:20 p.m.
johnnya2: He's still paying taxes for kids to go to public school even though he reaps no direct benefit.
SillyTree
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 8:03 p.m.
Jimmy Carter's daughter went to public school while he was president.
johnnya2
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:29 p.m.
1bit, That is exactly right, the key word being DID, which is a PAST TENSE verb. So when the funding for public schools was higher, he made the decision to send his kids there, BUT now he realized I can cut in something he no longer personally uses. That is even worse than if he sent all his kids to private school from the start. Rick Snyder is immoral and incompetent.
1bit
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:26 p.m.
Some of his kids did go to public school but, oh wait, you knew that...
tom swift jr.
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 2:08 p.m.
""We are making the tough decisions and taking the bold actions necessary to put our state on the path to prosperity,"" Here, let me rephrase that with some truth.."We are making the easy decisions and taking the inhumane actions necessary to put our corporate buddies on the path to prosperity." There...that makes more sense...
mohomed
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:27 p.m.
Most people make there money from their "corporate buddies", so doesn't it make sense to help them. People that actually work wan't lower taxes and conservatives are for that. I understand people on bridge cards and gov. workers get hurt more but the welfare is still there along with the medicaid for the nonworking class, thanks!