  Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 1002 Registered: 10-2003 |
Buckle your seat belts! http://www.crainsdetroit.com/a pps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2007 0820/SUB/708200356/-1/newslett er02 | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 3766 Registered: 10-2004 |
And at the same time, the Michigan legislature (and Granholm) is planning on raising the state income tax rates. More than doubling them for the wealthiest earners--3.9% to a 9.0 or 9.1% top rate. Third highest after California and Vermont. Doubtful if many investors will look to Michigan for their businesses. And still more skilled workers will emigrate to better states to work and retain their income. (Message edited by Livernoisyard on August 20, 2007) | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 2356 Registered: 07-2004 |
It would be nice if the article provided evidence that supports these predictions. As it stands, Karnac the Magnificent could have made these same predictions as the UM economists and I'm supposed to be convinced that they will happen, right? | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 3767 Registered: 10-2004 |
Royce, one of those profs might have been that UM economics prof who stated that Michigan (technically) came out of recession a year ago because MI's preliminary economic metrics improved by something like 0.1% over the previous (similarly dismal) year. Economists' predictions should be stored in the fiction stacks whenever they're in any libraries. | ||
Ray Member Username: Ray Post Number: 988 Registered: 06-2004 |
You realize that "top earners" means people making $100,000 a year. If the taxes go to 9%, I will leave and take my business with me. There's no way in hell I'm going to pay the state $9000 on top of the crushing $20,000 in property taxes we already pay. Plus our state and local taxes are so high, we then get hit by the AMT at the federal level. We get practially NOTHING in return. Shitty roads. Shitty weather. Shitty schools, which our kids don't even attend. This is fucking robbery. Let them suck somebody else dry. I have totally had it. California had a 10% income tax, but the property taxes were only $8000 on the same value house, which by the way actually APPRECIATED instead of falling in value like an stone (this while the bastard assessors office tells us each year that our home is more valuable). | ||
Jdkeepsmiling Member Username: Jdkeepsmiling Post Number: 290 Registered: 01-2006 |
Ray, That point about the property taxes is well taken, but you fail to mention that the appreciation you talk about is no longer happening, in fact many places like San Diego, Sacramento, and Miami are seeing 20 or 30% declines in value. We are looking at about 5-10% right now. I also share your complaint about the assessors office, but remember that if you voted for Prop A, you made this law. It basically says that no matter what our taxes go up, but they are capped at how fast they can rise. This was great when values were going up consistently, but it really sucks now. I think in the end its not that bad. Plus if you are way off just pay the $200 for an appraisel and submit that to your local tax commission during the challenge time, it has to be accpeted by law. | ||
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina Post Number: 43 Registered: 12-2004 |
Man Ray, I feel for you. I don't what I would do if I could *only* spend $80,000 a year... Such a pity... | ||
Buzzman0077 Member Username: Buzzman0077 Post Number: 96 Registered: 11-2006 |
Hudkina you have to remember that's just the property tax, then you have the city income tax, state and federal income tax, SS, medicare, medicad. After all is said and done your working half the year or more for the government. You still have to buy and maintain a car because we lack any unified transit. That leaves very little for spending. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 1338 Registered: 02-2007 |
Guess what? where ya gonna go that's cheaper in the tax dept? most of the fastest growth states have a higher tax structure than Michigan (NV, AZ, CA, VA, etc) | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 283 Registered: 12-2006 |
Ray, Are you prepared for California home costs? A few years ago, my cousin bought an 800 square foot, former crack den for $300k. A year or so later, he sold that house fore $450k! For an 800 square foot former crack den! Even with your clearly large income, would you be able to afford the house you have now in California? | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2570 Registered: 07-2004 |
I suppose I am rather callow but it is not as if a bunch of kindergartners are making these predictions.What will happen no one really knows.But these are very bright people(maybe even as smart as you LY)that base their projections on something more than just random conjecture. I do gotta ask though, since all I hear is about taxes what exactly has all the "tax cutting" done for mich? I mean this sincerly and I am not saying I think taxes should be raised,But if the mantra is to lower taxes and cut services what is the benefit? | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 1832 Registered: 01-2005 |
People who make predictions are nuts. When a corporation makes the news because "Quarterly earnings failed to make predictions", I say it was the predictors that failed. I'll guarantee you right now that come January, you will read articles that state, "Retailers report Holiday sales failed to meet projections". Guaranteed. You saw it here first. | ||
Gmich99 Member Username: Gmich99 Post Number: 234 Registered: 11-2005 |
Taxes are low in Africa. I suggest Ray get on the first boat. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1415 Registered: 04-2006 |
I suppose I am rather callow but it is not as if a bunch of kindergartners are making these predictions.What will happen no one really knows.But these are very bright people(maybe even as smart as you LY)that base their projections on something more than just random conjecture. If they were predicting a one state armageddon to hit Michigan tomorrow then LY would be touting it as fact. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 6375 Registered: 02-2004 |
At least the Michigan unemployment rate has decreased a bit from 6.0% to 5.7% due to new alternative jobs. YAY GRANHOLM!!! | ||
Jdkeepsmiling Member Username: Jdkeepsmiling Post Number: 291 Registered: 01-2006 |
5.7% is really not that bad. Lets put this in perspective. When I was in college, 4% was touted as the "natural unemployment rate." What I was taught is that you need a certain number of people always in transition for the economy and efficiency to move forward. So if our unemployment is 5.7%, it means we are 1.7% away from where we should be. From 1979 - 1988 Michigan had unemployment that ranged from 8.0 to 16.6% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Now that is bad. This is a transitional economy that we are in. We need to focus on moving forward and by and large we are doing that. I don't blame the governor or give credit to the governor, of whatever party, for the economy. There are just too many structural things built in that they have no control over. So its not great out there right now, true, but it is also not that bad by historic measures. So quit complaining and either be part of the solution or move out. I am tired of people sitting around bemoaning this state. Leave and go be happy in N. Carolina, which BTW has a current unemployment of 5.0%, VASTLY better then MI. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 3772 Registered: 10-2004 |
quote:Let's see... Only two years ago, housing starts were more than 2 million. They will rise from 1.43 to 1.48 million--about 2 to 3%. Then will rise another 7% after yet another slow year. However, after all this rising over the next two years, housing starts will still be about 21% lower than what they were only two years ago. So after four years--from 2005 to 2009, this metric is still relatively bad. So what is a rebound? Being a bit better than the bottom OR a return to its earlier state? A rebound in physics is typically measured by a coefficient of restitution. This so called predicted bounce (rebound) as relating to housing starts doesn't seem so hot. (Message edited by livernoisyard on August 21, 2007) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3067 Registered: 10-2003 |
I think it's patently misleading to describe the health of the economy in terms of "housing starts", especially in Southeast Michigan where the population is relatively static. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 1986 Registered: 10-2003 |
Really, as many have suggested, perhaps not having new housing starts is a good thing in this area. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 3773 Registered: 10-2004 |
Those stats related to the national economy, not Michigan's. One who is knowing and aware wouldn't ever imagine that two million housing starts for Michigan made sense... | ||
Accraghana Member Username: Accraghana Post Number: 62 Registered: 07-2007 |
I would take these economic forecasts with a grain of salt. Why? The reason is that most people are aware of the primary means of influencing the economy is via monetary (the Fed…interest rates) and Fiscal (the government…..taxing or spending) policies. The other means of influencing the economy is via a strategy of optimism and “good news” targeted for consumers. The key to the economy is the mindset and hence behavior of the consumer. The reason that the US economy is not in an “official” recession today is due to the “irrational exuberance” of consumers conditioned by pundits of optimism who gets their rosy forecast into mainstream media. Granted, not all economists who have a rosy forecast are being strategically optimistic to promote the economy or are biased politically or otherwise. One can have GDP growth and an unhealthy economy at the same time. Usually the sign of this counter intuitive phenomenon is revealed by the growth of DEBT rising faster than the growth in income. So if the US economy is supposed to grow by 3.5% next year, then the only way that will happen is if levels of debt increases by about 4%, which we know is already happening with all the “liquidity” in the financial markets today. The cheaper money is to borrow the more people will borrow it to maintain their lifestyles and eventually get to the point where their income can no longer support the growth of their debt and they default. Of course, this happens first with the poor because their already weak incomes will be the first to fail to support its debt. However, the poor are not the only ones borrowing above their means due to easy money and more middle class will default as well. Liquidity or easy money is a short term GDP boost that only makes the long run worse than it would have been. At the point in time where servicing all these debts become too great, new consumption will be reduced radically until the consumer pays down its debt burden. At the point consumption drops so will production which leads to layoffs and more reduced income and hence consumption bringing about a deep recession. Americans should be saving at least 4 percent of their gross, but rather, they are spending more than their gross and that is why there is so much consumer debt. A healthy correction for the American economy, one that brings spending in line with earnings and savings, would be about a 6% decline in GDP as a liberal estimate. It actually may be more like 10% as our economy has a lot of fat and obesity associated with it. Our GDP body fat percentage is like 20% percent. So although we seem to associating big and growth with health, that’s not always true. A person can gain 10 lbs of fat or ten lbs of muscles. Gaining 10 lbs of fat, although it is growth, is a lot less healthier than gaining muscle. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 1989 Registered: 10-2003 |
"Those stats related to the national economy, not Michigan's. One who is knowing and aware wouldn't ever imagine that two million housing starts for Michigan made sense..." Arrogant much? Both Dan and my comments are valid. Housing starts are a misleading way of describing the health of the economy, regardless if it is national or local. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 3775 Registered: 10-2004 |
If the housing starts metric is so irrelevant to the national economy, then why did Crain's Detroit even include it in its edited, concise blurb in the first place and title it in such a way? quote:Just to fill space? Enquiring minds want to know... | ||
Accraghana Member Username: Accraghana Post Number: 63 Registered: 07-2007 |
Also….I think the thing that should make people stop and say “Hmmmmmmmm” is the fact that at the FED last meeting, they concluded that everything was FINE and that the sub prime issue and foreclosures did not and would not effect the economy or the finical markets negatively. Remember, it is at these meetings that the FED’s economist give their analysis on whether any action needs to be take by the fed protect the economy. Well….no more than two week sine their last meeting, they had to do an about face and lower a key discount rate when the Stock market started tanking. Right before that it injected Billions of dollars into the system due to the so called “credit crunch”. What this should tell everyone is that the economy is either unpredictably out of control to the degree that leading economist at the FED cannot even predict near term economic phenomenon…..and or they are invoking the economic stimulant of “optimism” as a means of keeping the nation out of “official” recession. As long as leading institutions and media keep talking up how good the “fundamental” of the economy are…..people will keep spending and that is the only reason why GDP is growing. The problem that a growing percentage of this spending is with another entities monies and not ones earnings. (Message edited by accraghana on August 21, 2007) |
