 
Crawford
Member
Username: Crawford
Post Number: 105
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 11:02 pm: |    |
Eh, I don't really agree with the editorial. An annual household income of $150,000 is NOT a typical struggling middle-class American family, even where I live (NYC). In metro Detroit, $150,000 a year is even less typical for the "average Joe". I am a professional with two Ivy League degrees, and I don't quite make that income and I realize my lifestyle is at least upper middle class (though I'm pretty thrifty and I don't own a car).
Granted, you are hardly "rich" with such an income, but you are solidly upper middle-class or higher, even if you have kids.
In metro Detroit, an annual household income of $150,000 for, let's say, two working adults with two kids, can buy you an decent older house in the Bloomfield or Birmingham school districts, or a very nice newer house in pretty much any exurb. In a place like Royal Oak you can buy the nicest homes on the nicest streets. Even in Huntington Woods or the Pointes (excluding Shores), you will be able to afford 80%-90% of the homes. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3034
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 11:25 pm: | |
The anti-tax crowd is spewing half-truths again. Here's the other half:
quote:Let me help you with this:
Reagan lowered tax "rates" and increased tax "revenues"
Bush lowered tax "rates" and increased tax "revenues"
Don't be fooled. If you want "revenue", you need to provide an attractive tax structure to invest in, thereby attracting capital, building, employment and...you guessed it: More tax Revenue!
Clinton cut marginal tax rates on the middle class. As a result, revenues increased and led to a budget surplus, which allowed interest rates to be lowered, freeing up capital for the economic expansion of the late 1990s. Any questions on this?
Reagan and Bush Jr. both cut taxes heavily on the wealthy, and ran enormous deficits. While it's true that revenues did increase, you clowns aren't accounting for inflation, or increases in interest rates made necessary by whopping deficits. We could expect the same phenomenon to occur at the state level. The difference is that Michigan's budget won't impact national interest rates, but it will affect bond ratings, and local rates of taxation will likely increase, eliminating any "benefit" of a statewide tax cut.
In 2005, Michigan's average rate of state/local taxation was 10.1 % of gross income. The national average? 10.1%.
What's Michigan's state income tax rate, anyway? Four percent? That's virtually nothing. Most places on the East Coast have higher percentages--with higher income earners, to boot. The top marginal rate in DC is 8.7%--for anything earned beyond $30,000 per year. Our population is increasing slightly. Maybe it's because tight fiscal controls and budget surpluses have allowed the city to improve services, and gain a top-notch bond rating?
Just a thought. Consider the whole picture, because you can't discuss revenues without discussing expenditures. You can't live within your means if you're constantly reducing your means. At some point, you just starve to death. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 56
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 11:47 pm: | |
"What's Michigan's state income tax rate, anyway? Four percent?"
3.9% actually.
Here's a puzzle for the anti-tax crowd. First,
state the state's income tax rate in 1999 and the rate today. Second, state the Single Business Tax Rate in 1999 and the SBT rate today. Three, explain how the answers to the first two questions square with your philosophy that cutting taxes leads to increase revenues. |
Jtw
Member
Username: Jtw
Post Number: 156
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 11:53 pm: | |
novine, you won't be bothered to state the facts for us, which would allow us to come to our own conclusions? you're harping on some hot-button issues where you assume no one has considered the numbers before.
regardless, the state takes more than enough of my money, which i'm not unhappy to give. but why should i have to give more? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3038
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 11:56 pm: | |
You know what would be great? If all the people who complain that government takes "too much of their money" decided to take the money they would otherwise spend on higher taxes (in a fiscally responsible state), and use it to open their own businesses. That's called "added value".
Of course, we're talking about Michiganders, though, who will just put the difference back into their gas tanks and the casino coffers. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 2315
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 12:37 am: | |
Casinos employ people, as do gas stations (and down the line). Consumption and investment by virtue of maintaining more of your own earned income and doing with it as you please is the best formula for growth. That is why revenues go up with lower taxes, individuals do better and pay more taxes on higher income. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 57
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 1:03 am: | |
Doesn't anyone know how to work Google? To recap:
"Here's a puzzle for the anti-tax crowd. First,
state the state's income tax rate in 1999 and the rate today. Second, state the Single Business Tax Rate in 1999 and the SBT rate today. Three, explain how the answers to the first two questions square with your philosophy that cutting taxes leads to increase revenues."
State Income Tax rate 1999: 4.4%
State Income Tax rate 2007: 3.9%
SBT rate 1999: 2.3%
SBT rate 2007: 1.9%
If the state has cut two of the major taxes significantly since 1999 (and no other major taxes have gone up in the same time), where's all that extra revenue you claimed would come in? Before you run and tell us how the state does take in more money, any increases in revenue has been from increases in federal funds. Revenues from both of these taxes have fallen off, despite claims that cutting those taxes would lead to more revenue. |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 2319
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 1:11 am: | |
To small to make a difference. But moving in the right direction. Remember also that business taxes become individual taxes, so, add them together (at least) for a total burden. |
Oladub
Member
Username: Oladub
Post Number: 60
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 2:26 am: | |
Why is the Michigan's sales tax so much higher than, say, Wisconsin's or Minnesota's? Michigan's extra taxes are not resulting in a better standard of living, better educations, or more jobs. The extra money goes into someone's pocket. Someone is now requesting more money. Some people just like being hustled. |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 233
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 5:52 am: | |
Re: income tax...
Econ 101 says that an increase will depress "demand" for Michigan. Are all of the profs and theorists wrong? My fear is that cranking the rate will drive off our next boom industry: retirees. Does anyone else know curmudgeons who talk about leaving us for Kentucky and the low taxes? |
Bongman
Member
Username: Bongman
Post Number: 1502
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 9:12 am: | |
There is no marriage penalty. It's actually a surcharge for being single, and a credit for being married. |
Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 9:50 am: | |
"Just a thought. Consider the whole picture, because you can't discuss revenues without discussing expenditures".
Correct!
Not hearing much about cutting that bloated bureaucracy that MI has. Too many union votes covering Jen.
Cut, Cut, Cut that big ole sow of a govt. down.
"You can't live within your means if you're constantly reducing your means. At some point, you just starve to death."
Wrong!
Start the diet.... we'll let you know when the scale says you can leave the program. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 58
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 9:56 am: | |
"Not hearing much about cutting that bloated bureaucracy that MI has. Too many union votes covering Jen."
There's fewer people working for the state when John Engler was Governor and in fact, I think fewer than we had in the 1970s. So if the bureaucracy is bloated, it's not as bloated as it was before Granholm took office. |
El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 279
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 9:58 am: | |
IrishMafia,
Your theory is all well and good. Revenues rose under Reagan and Bush. However, do you realize that Engler cut taxes 31 times during his administration? Revenues have plummeted since then. If cutting 31 times has only reduced revenues, what makes you think cutting taxes a 32nd time will increase them? |
Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 10:01 am: | |
Too much Kool Aid in the beltway Dan.
"Clinton cut marginal tax rates on the middle class. As a result, revenues increased and led to a budget surplus, which allowed interest rates to be lowered, freeing up capital for the economic expansion of the late 1990s. Any questions on this?"
Interesting re-interpretation. Clinton raised taxes on everyone and was not reeled in until the Repub congress came into power to shackle his hands. Clinton's tax party ended when the false economy of the .com bubble burst and he left office under the shame of the Clinton Recession. Any questions on this?
"Reagan and Bush Jr. both cut taxes heavily on the wealthy, and ran enormous deficits. While it's true that revenues did increase, you clowns aren't accounting for inflation, or increases in interest rates made necessary by whopping deficits. We could expect the same phenomenon to occur at the state level. The difference is that Michigan's budget won't impact national interest rates, but it will affect bond ratings, and local rates of taxation will likely increase, eliminating any "benefit" of a statewide tax cut."
Reagan cut taxes on everyone. The Slovenly Democratic Congress spent the huge increases in revenue and then added their trough of goodies on top of that to create deficits of a magnitude to match their tax and spend liberal moniker. The only justifiable expenditure increases for the Feds during that time were the funds for the Cold War that Reagan used to beat the Soviets. Any questions on this? |
El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 280
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 10:05 am: | |
Irish Mafia,
Talk about revisionist history. How much did Reagan beef up defense spending in the 80s? That blew away just about every initiative congress proposed in the 80s in terms of dollar value. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3044
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 10:28 am: | |
quote:Clinton raised taxes on everyone
Yes, Clinton raised taxes in 1993 in an attempt to get rid of the deficits that Bush Sr. left him holding. He later cut taxes on the middle class to spur economic growth.
Are we still debating the point that huge deficits lead to higher interest rates, which stifle economic growth more than taxes? Because that seems pretty clear from the past 25 years or so. |
Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia
Post Number: 1005
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 10:30 am: | |
Numbers please Jimbo |
Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia
Post Number: 1006
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 10:39 am: | |
Here's a puzzle for Novine:
Which of the following taxes existed 100 years ago?
How do these taxes benefit us?
How much does each one cost the average consumer?
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3045
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 10:47 am: | |
quote:Which of the following taxes existed 100 years ago?
How do these taxes benefit us?
How much does each one cost the average consumer?
A bit disingenous of a list. A lot of these items are fees that fund the operations involved.
If you want to live in 1907, knock yourself out. Good luck during influenza season. |
_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_
Post Number: 2022
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 10:56 am: | |
quote:Are we still debating the point that huge deficits lead to higher interest rates, which stifle economic growth more than taxes? Because that seems pretty clear from the past 25 years or so.
Yes, because basic economic theory was lost on this area/State decades ago. |
El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 281
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 10:58 am: | |
Some of those you list, Irish Mafia, are unfair question. In 1907, how many homes had a telephone?
(Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax,
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes,
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax,
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax,
Telephone State and Local Tax,
Telephone Usage Charge Tax)
How many cars were their burning gasoline and requiring concrete and asphalt roads to navigate? (Fuel Permit Tax,
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon), Recreational Vehicle Tax, Vehicle License Registration Tax,
Vehicle Sales Tax)
How many people had electricity, running water and sewers in 1907? (Utility Taxes)
Was the FDA in existence in 1907 and if not, was anybody inspecting the food and medicine that was consumed? (Food License Tax)
The fact of the matter is that it isn't 1907 anymore. Times are more complex and in these more complex times, the government has had to expand the services it provides to the people. This requires more revenue and more taxes. The ones I've mentioned above seem pretty legitimate and there are others on there that are also DIRECTLY tied to services as well. (Social Security, Medicare, Workers Comp, etc). If you want services, you have to pay for them.
Here's another question for you. How big was the military in 1907? How expensive was it to feed a horse compared to fueling an M-1A2 Main Battle Tank? What was more expensive, building and operating a early 1900s Battleship or a state-of the-art early 2000s Nimitz class nuclear Aircraft Carrier? Was their even such a thing as the US Army Air Corps in 1907 let alone the US Air Force we have today? Did the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security or NSA exist in 1907?
I hope you are getting the point now. The US government is doing a LOT more for its people than it did in 1907. Unfortunately, its one of those things where it boils down to a case of "No tickee, no laundry" and some people don't want to pay. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 3768
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 11:23 am: | |
BS about correlating taxing for something and any merit coming out of them... New taxes are rarely intended for anything other than paying the costs for increasing the reach of the state, local, and federal governments--more socialism.
The Feds were charging a phone surcharge since the 1960s (supposedly needed for the war effort then) for over thirty years after the Vietnam war had ended. Although that tax is now finally gone, in come the state and federal governments trying to charge them and more (in different disguises) yet again. |
Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia
Post Number: 1008
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 11:47 am: | |
Jimbo,
I respectfully disagree.
"Times are more complex and in these more complex times, the government has had to expand the services it provides to the people". Did they have to? Often the answer is:
No, or
No it could have been done by someone else, or
No, they taxed us to ostensibly provide a service and then never did it.
"This requires more revenue and more taxes".
Thus begins the sales pitch for ever increasing taxes. In reality, tax revenues are often very loosely tied to a specific goals if at all (by design).
"The ones I've mentioned above seem pretty legitimate and there are others on there that are also DIRECTLY tied to services as well.
(Social Security, Medicare, Workers Comp, etc)".
Again No. Social Security (as an example) is a money laundering scheme for the feds to pay their bureaucracy and short cycle "wants". Money does not tie to a specific account, it goes to the general fund.
If we are looking for a benefit, then a simple bank account in the beneficiaries name would be the alternative to the present social security program.
"If you want services, you have to pay for them".
To whom?
If we want services, outside of a couple of areas specific to the Feds. ie, defense, the least effective way to garner those services is through taxation to a bloated govt. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3050
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 11:51 am: | |
To read the writings of some of our posters, you'd think the most cruel, insufferable act on earth is to pay taxes to live in civilized society.
You guys keep preaching entrepreneurship. Get to it, I say! Get working on that business plan to privatize DNR, so that we won't have to pay for fishing licenses anymore! |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 59
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 11:55 am: | |
I would say that El_jimbo pretty much took apart your argument pointing out all of the things that never even existed in 1907 that now have to be funded through taxation (how many billions are spent on roads, airports, etc.).
But more on point, you didn't answer my initial question. If cutting taxes leads to more government revenue, then why did state tax revenues from the income tax and SBT both decline after the cuts that were made in 1999. Still waiting to hear that answer. |
Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 11:55 am: | |
Dan,
How much is too much? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3051
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 12:00 pm: | |
Considering the U.S. has the lowest levels of taxation in the industrialized world, I think we're doing quite well. Nevermind that we have a complete infrastructure on the brink of collapse, but I digress.
For anti-tax zealots, ANYTHING seems to be too much. I would kindly ask they at least return the money spent on their education, then, for wasting public resources. |
Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia
Post Number: 1010
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 1:55 pm: | |
Dan,
Do you really want to compare America's booming economy to the failed socialist economies of Europe and elsewhere? By any measure, we win hands down.
Your comment that "we're doing quite well" might indicate that you hope to hold taxes at their present level of 40 - 50% total taxation (not up or down). Is that your contention? For some reason, I was under the impression that you wanted to raise taxes like so many of the pro-tax zealots.
Given my stated position, I may be able to state the anti-tax position more accurately than you have.
This zealot believes that a 20% cap of all fed, state and local taxes and fees would be a good position.
Care to join the party? |
_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_
Post Number: 2028
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 2:10 pm: | |
You know if we stop expecting the government to provide so much we could accomplish a hell of a lot. |