bugjuice

Fri, Mar 4, 2011 : 3:19 p.m.

Demand spurs growth. Putting more real money, in the form of wages and lower taxes, in the wallets of people who actually spend it will help create demand and grow the economy. Putting less money, in the form of lower wages, more taxes and inflation, in the wallets of those who spend every penny to get by in a growing economy, hurts demand and keeps the economy from growing.

Dave Miller

Fri, Mar 4, 2011 : 12:37 p.m.

The problem in Michigan is that Big Government (on both sides of the aisle) has for too long, been in bed with Big Labor. Their typical class-warfare tactics are tired and frankly, only effective with those with a socialist view point. America is a meritocracy established on the principal of equal protection, NOT equal outcomes. Outcomes are based on individual risk-taking and hard work. If Michigan continues to do what it has done for DECADES, we will continue to suffer from the same outcomes. The World has changed, and so must Michigan if it's going to have any chance in once again establishing Michigan as a place where success can be gained. And that requires establishing an environment that welcomes the business community, and should include moving Michigan to becoming a Right to Work State........but our Governor stops short of enacting systemic changes necessary to sustainable take on Michigan's fiscal crisis. At this point, and based on many of these comments, we have far too many who believe "the world owes them a living".......and nothing could be further from the truth.

Will Warner

Fri, Mar 4, 2011 : 2:53 a.m.

Excellent, DonBee. I think I'll let that be my response to David. Questions of fairness are in a sense questions of symmetry. Symmetry cannot be judged without a choice of axis-of-symmetry, and there are as many axes as dogs in the fight. It is a rare person who does not see the axis most favorable to himself as the most natural and fair.

DonBee

Fri, Mar 4, 2011 : 2:20 a.m.

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100... If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this... The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7.. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

David Briegel

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 11:23 p.m.

OK Will , You and I have been fortunate. But everything you mention is exactly what has occurred for the last 30 yrs. Huge gains for the fortunate few and NOTHING for the rest of society. Is that your vision? Look what those results have done for America. We are living YOUR dream! That is precisely what Communist China has done. Happy? Why don't we demand they improve their standards if they wish to export to us? Our economy is growing. And all the benefits are accumulating for the most fortunate. Let 'em eat cake! Right Will? The downward spiral will continue. Working people are paying high effective tax rates while the most fortunate pay relatively low tax rates.

Don

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 7:19 p.m.

I guess I find the governor's logic that he cannot tax a business smaller than a C corporation because it results in the imposition of a second tax on personal income somewhat vexing when I look at the impact of his proposal on my own tax status: I am a retiree with income from a pension which will now be taxed. I work part time to supplement that income, which is taxed, and I earn just enough to lose my personal tax exemption... more tax to pay. Oh yeah, if I continue to choose to support public broadcasting and make donations to Michigan's universities, that tax deduction will be gone as well. Somewhere I am missing the 'share the burden' part of this plan... When I look at the demands on the state's infrastructure that I make compared to the needs of businesses for roads, utilities, etc., I am a little confused...

Floyd

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 6:53 p.m.

It is just to tax the rich.

Will Warner

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 6:42 p.m.

continuing... Last week Time magazine analyzed the effect of economic growth on deficits and found that 1.1% in additional annual growth over the next decade would reduce the projected deficits eight-fold. I'm going to speculate that it was the robust economic growth of the 1990s, coupled with restraint in the growth of government spending in the same period, that gave us the much touted surpluses at the end of Clinton's term. Let's do that again. It seems counter-intuitive to me to assert that reducing taxes would not spur growth. Of course, growth in spending must also be curtailed.

Will Warner

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 6:40 p.m.

David: "Taxes are at their lowest levels in the modern era." Even if this were true at the federal level, wouldn't differentiating Michigan through lower taxes draw business to Michigan? "Bank of American and GE paid no tax last year; profits are at a record high," and my mutual funds attest to it. "Two trillion sitting in the bank accounts of our poor corporations," available for loans to people like me. "Wages stagnant for 30 years." My wages quadrupled in the the last 30 years. more to follow..

Will Warner

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 6:37 p.m.

Ok, David: Are you saying that it is not plausible that the prospect of greater after-tax profits will lead to increased business investment? Remember that tax-related incentives just recently motivated Hollywood types to hold their noses and shoot movies here in fly-over country. I could scour the internet for miscellaneous facts that seem to counter yours (for example, I read that the top 5 percent of earners in the U.S. pay 60 percent of the federal taxes), but let me just reply to yours in the next post (site won't let me enter very much at a time...)

David Briegel

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 4:27 p.m.

OK Will, Taxes are at their lowest levels in the modern era. Bank of America and GE paid no tax last year! Profits are at a record high. 2 trillion sitting in the bank accounts of our poor corporations. Wages stagnant for 30 yrs. Huge increases in the net worth of the wealthiest amongst us. And all they want is more. How much will be enough?

Will Warner

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 3:59 p.m.

A tax rate of zero percent on business earnings will generate zero dollars in revenue, obviously. Now, how much revenue will a 100 percent tax rate create? Again zero dollars. Not only would every business relocate out of state, but, more fundamentally, nobody works when there is no possibility of profit. As the tax rate rises from zero, the revenue to the state increases up to a peak, then declines, returning to zero dollars. So a given amount of revenue is raised by two different tax rates, a low one on the zero percent side of the peak, and a high one on the 100 percent side of the peak. I say we look for the low rate.

Will Warner

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 3:58 p.m.

It is at least plausible that reducing business tax rates could spur business investment in our state, leading to growth in employment and incomes in general. That is the govenor's contention. If you think you can prove that even though plausible it is false, I'm all ears. But people who cannot address its basic plausibility are not rational participants in the effort to solve Michigan's fiscal problems.

LarryJ

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.

Why not institute a business payroll tax that starts at $50,000. That can maximize the potential for business to increase employment, at least at the level of the average worker, but not let business off the hook for the "shared sacrifice".

davidwaymire

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.

For those making the argument that "businesses don't pay taxes, people pay taxes:" I own a S Corp business. And yes, maybe you could make the argument that I pay taxes on income twice through the current business tax. But I have two sets of operations I'm paying taxes for: My home and family, where I want good police and fire protection, a court system if I need to sue someone, a good education system, clean drinking water, a sewer system or septic inspections, etc. And I have a business, for which I want the same thing. So now, I'm being told I only have to pay for the services I get for my family...and not the services I get for my business? If this is so, I should be paying a higher income tax to pay for the additional services I'm not going to pay for now that I have no business tax. Or put another way: If the business tax cut means we cut revenue sharing and higher education (which it does), why should a fire truck stop at my office next time I have a fire, and why should I be able to hire Michigan college grads? I'm not paying for them. This is more of the "something for nothing" that started when people believed Arthur Laffer "if you cut taxes you get more revenue" BS, which, as Rick has proven, simply doesn't work in today's state economy.

clownfish

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:08 p.m.

Got it! Zero taxes on corporations, higher taxes on personal income. Are the cons on board?

Chase Ingersoll

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 12:26 p.m.

EDITOR: Whomever is responsible for editing this "Rick" Haglund, needs to ask him about the "tax credits" that are being eliminated in the proposed budget. All of the squawking has been about the film credits, to the detriment of the discussion of the discussion of Billions of Tax Credits for Business. And the sneering headline of "shared sacrifice" is not appreciated. Corporations don't pay taxes. The people who own, work for, and who do business with corporation are the ones that bear the taxes.

Floyd

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 11:56 a.m.

When your first action as governor is to give yourself and those who look like you a payout, while you squeeze everyone else, you demonstrate a limited field of view. This myopia is why Europe suffered with aristocracy for so long, why elites prop up sham governments, etc. When all your friends are rich like you, being rich becomes normal and somehow there is something dysfunctional about everyone else who didn't go into business an score millions. How else could you pay $17,000 a year for your daughter to go to school and simultaneously say that schools are overfunded at $7000 per student? How does that make sense?! It makes sense because you just gave yourself and all your close friends a fat payout. Tax the rich! Tax the rich! Tax the rich!

Cash

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 11:10 a.m.

The Freep has the results of a survey this morning (3/3) that show the people of Michigan have caught on to Snyder's true plan and they don't like it. Warning: If a politician refuses to debate, refuses to give details of how they are going to "turn around" the government...BEWARE and do not vote for him/her. Behind the curtain all along was the true story....cut taxes by over a billion to big business and raise taxes for the poor and elderly to pay for it.

Rabbit1

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 6:41 a.m.

While he was conducting his campaign for governor financed, as newspapers reported primarily with his own funds, Mr. Snyder was a partner in and the CEO of a company called Ardesta LLC located in Ann Arbor. The Lt. Governor Brian Calley in his report "Foundation for Michigan's Reinvention" dated February 17, 2011 writes the following about the governors tax proposals."For decades, Michigan has levied a double tax on pass through entities (LLCs, S Corporations, Partnerships and Sole Proprietors) - all of which pay both the personal income tax and the MBT on all business profits. The corporate income tax ends that practice as it only applies to C Corporations, exempting all such pass through entities." Ardesta is a private LLC equity company making investments, something like Goldman Sachs. Since they are private, their financial records are not publicly available. However if their gross receipts are more than the $350,000 now exempted by the MBT, they may have been paying a state business tax. It is hard to imagine that they did not, because Mr. Snyder, being a good CEO, would hardly run a company that was not making a profit. Therefore, another way of looking at Mr. Snyder's tax proposal is that he proposes to eliminate most of his own taxes and increase those on retired Michigan seniors.

Roger Roth

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:26 a.m.

Remember in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs when she sang, "Someday my prince will come?" I have news. He ain't coming. Rick isn't the prince. Obama isn't the prince. Walker. Any of them. Even if he came, he'd be rendered impotent by his detractors and opponents. Nobody really wants to make it better here--not really. Founding fathers didn't foresee this little ironic gem about democracy and partisanism. We're stuck! Best outsource yourself and your family to some other place. I remember years ago taking the train to Chicago which traveled through some of the most depraved and disgusting looking places in the outskirts of Chicago and I thought, how could they ever clean up this mess? Oh, and one more thing. Maybe what we need is a princess.

Gary Clark

Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 12:59 a.m.

Today on the news I saw Senator McCaskill (D - Missouri) speaking about the federal budget. She said "Everything is on the table in the budget talks". "This includes cuts to Social Security for both future AND PRESENT recipients", she said. She is a Democrat mind you. I ask, "Is the war in Afghanistan on the table, foreign aid, the war in Iraq, large corporate tax breaks, are these things on the table?" What about new fighter planes? What about tax increases for the top 2%, or did Obama give that away for good? I mention this because it reminds me of what is going on in Lansing. What is not on the table that should be? To quote Rick Hagland above: "Snyder's budget proposes deep cuts to higher education, municipal revenue sharing and other things that can stimulate economic growth so he can give businesses a huge tax cut. Is this the time to give businesses a big tax break? That doesn't sound much like shared sacrifice."

glacialerratic

Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 11:59 p.m.

Middle class wages have remained stagnant for the past 30 years--less than 1 percent of a gain in more than a quarter century. Read that again and let it sink in. Any increase in household incomes is because of the rise of two-income families. Well, we could also put the kids to work to keep pace, I suppose. But how is it that the economy has grown so extraordinarily over the same period? It's gone to the wealthiest Americans who have had their taxes cut. Teachers, fire fighters, are being fired--following their brethren in manufacturing who were pink-slipped years ago. Who's going to be left to buy the goods that our entrepreneurs are supposed to create? Time to raise taxes on the wealthy and get the economy going again.

1bit

Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 11:43 p.m.

I am not sure what to say about this rambling non sequitir article. The author defeats his own premise. In one breath, he states that small businesses are the ones being spared from the double taxation of the MBT saying "Snyder has a point there." In the next breath, he reiterates the misconception that "big business" is getting it easier - when they will actually be paying more. The concept of "fairness" is brought up commonly and the ideologues keep trying to make the old partisan argument of workers versus corporations. Is double taxation of small businesses/owners really fair?

dotdash

Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 11:05 p.m.

This transfer of tax burden from business to individuals is especially egregious in the case of Ann Arbor; our two largest employers are tax-free already -- but all Ann Arborite employees will now be taxed more. I'd like to see the map of which Michigan cities win and which cities lose by this proposal, because on the face of it, we are being handed a huge tax increase by our home-town guy.

David Briegel

Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 10:46 p.m.

Nave, what tough decisions? To pick on the elderly, the poor, the disadvantaged? Shared sacrifice? Really? Seriously? Where? Instead of Slick Rick I'm going to start referring to his as Tough Guy Rick! NOT

L. C. Burgundy

Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 10:45 p.m.

The only myth perpetuated here is the idea is that corporations "pay" taxes and that there are small businesses in Michigan rubbing their hands together in glee for fleecing in the state. Taxes are a line item on a budget that is made up with in increased prices and reduced expenditures on other parts of the business. Period. To tax things is to curb them. The idea that you can increase taxes on businesses, and by doing so, stimulate economic activity is nuts and flies in the face of even the most basic economics education. You do not fix problems with a risk-averse and still too heavily dependent on manufacturing state by hanging more on the people who try to start a business to do something different. You want less small business in MI? By all means, hit the tax button.

Basic Bob

Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 10:44 p.m.

Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama economic policies all run together. Listen to all the rhetoric, but in practice, politicians do NOTHING to affect the economy, good or bad. What has killed the economy is the notion that people can make more money doing less work. For too long, people are telling themselves and their kids to avoid any hard work. The only people that make out on that deal are the lucky few bean counters, tax attorneys, and crooked politicians that skim off the dividends and interest payments. If people in the USA really want to increase their standard of living, they need to get some dirt under their fingernails.

aareader

Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 10:36 p.m.

"Snyder's budget proposes deep cuts to higher education, municipal revenue sharing and other things that can stimulate economic growth so he can give businesses a huge tax cut." I had hoped that Gov. Snyder might be the "nerd" he claims to be. Instead he shows his corporate bias. After all he "built Gateway Computers - made a lot of money in the process. As "Northside" noted "Corporate profits at an all-time + Wealthiest 1% getting 23% of nation's income = one group noticeably exempt from 'shared sacrifice'" How about it Gov. (Nerd) Snyder. Show us you do get it. Tax ALL groups (including businesses) to share in the sacrifice. Others have already noted business tax breaks do not mean more jobs. And/Or you could just spread taxes to untaxed areas to repair many of the systemic shortfalls. How about taxing POP, and tickets for events plus other discretionary items. They do not hurt and the taxes are discretionary items not necessities. Then I would be inclined think you really mean what you have been stating.

Townie

Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 9:45 p.m.

Thank you Rick for 'Republicans have been making this claim since at least the days of Ronald Reagan, but there's little evidence that cutting taxes leads to job growth.' It's been so tiring to hear the meme about cutting taxes and how they will lead to a jobs paradise and yet we never see the jobs. It amazes me that the general populace continues to believe what is being sold to them (as their taxes go up). I guess it's just an exercise of repeating it over and over again and people stop looking at what is really happening around them and believe the lie. And Reagan, Clinton, etc. raised taxes and yet the economy and jobs grew. Yes, another myth: Reagan raised taxes - what blasphemy these days despite all the lionization of Reagan's legacy. The Bush tax cuts never spurred any job growth - check the Labor Dept. statistics for his years. Down, down and down. You're entitled to your opinion but not your own 'facts'. And, of course, all the big corporations (GE, etc.) manage to escape all taxation anyway so raising or lowering their taxes becomes a joke. GE actually gets money back from our federal taxes for not paying any taxes. Nice work if you can get it.

Nave

Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 8:50 p.m.

Glad to see Snyder is making tough decisions to help stimulate business in Michigan. It's this kind of short sighted argument that's going to perpetuate the brain drain from not only Michigan but from the Midwest as a whole. Watch the short video below for some frightening facts about young talent fleeing Michigan... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNrYkBS7w&feature=player_embedded" rel='nofollow'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNrYkBS7w&amp;feature=player_embedded</a>

Top Cat

Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 8:36 p.m.

There are many factors, local, national and international that affect economic growth and job creation. Taxes is just one of those factors. There have been numerous studies that have shown consistently that low tax states have higher rates of growth and job creation than high tax states. Growth and job creation in the U.S. accelerated after the Mellon tax cuts in the 1920's, JFK's in 1962, Reagan's in 1981, Clinton's in 1997 and Bush's in 2001. Mr. Haglund's claim about &quot;there's little evidence that cutting taxes leads to job growth&quot; is false.

northside

Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 8:32 p.m.

Corporate profits at an all-time + Wealthiest 1% getting 23% of nation's income = one group noticeably exempt from 'shared sacrifice'

David Briegel

Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 8:13 p.m.

Careful there Rick, you are blaspheming that trickle down mythology essential to the fundamentalist beliefs of the Reagan disciples. We have all been waiting for that trickle down effect. Ten years of those fantastic Bush tax cuts and here we are. Waiting. Still Waiting! Gov Rick drank the kool aid!

John B.

Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 8:13 p.m.

I am shocked to hear this - not. Will people ever wake up and smell the Chase and Sanborn?