 
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2880
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 11:49 pm: |    |
you know she only signs off on the budget, right? |
Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001
Post Number: 3020
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 11:51 pm: | |
And where does it say that the "quality" of your life needs to come from the wallet of someone else?
Being generous with other people's money doesn't resonate too well right now. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2881
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 12:08 am: | |
being greedy never resonates well |
Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001
Post Number: 3021
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 12:09 am: | |
Well, the guv certainly exemplifies that trait! |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3328
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 12:24 am: | |
quote:you know she only signs off on the budget, right?
You know that the tax increases that were signed into law were her idea right? She has veto power, she is governor, lets not pretend she is some bystander to the process. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2882
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 12:33 am: | |
vetoes can be overridden |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3329
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 12:37 am: | |
The bottom line is this:
It really isn’t up to the taxpayers to tell our representatives WHERE to cut. We are on the outside looking in. The folks that work in government and our representatives should know where the bodies are buried and where cuts can be made.
As a person who runs a business and has been involved in managing many companies, I always knew where the fat and waste were. If upper management came in with an edict to cut 5% of operating costs or more, it wasn’t like I had to rack my brain as to where they were going to come from. The last thing I would do is ask my customers where I should make cuts, which is the equivalent of the taxpayers telling government where to cut.
The idiots like Granholm would have us believe that every stone has been turned over and there are no savings to be had. This is utter nonsense, she knows it and we know it. So let’s cut the crap. We need to be DEMANDING cuts relentlessly. If the politicians say there are none to be had we need to threaten them with recalls or vote them out of office.
We have all sacrificed in the private sector, the public sector needs to do the same. Give a financial incentive to the department heads in the state agencies to come up with savings. They know damn well there is waste and they know where it is. The current budget process does not provide incentives to reduce costs.
Hire outside auditors if you have to, the mentality and culture of the state government needs to change. Constantly caving in to new taxes is not the answer as we are conditioning these morons to do that any time there is a crunch. We should also stop electing lawyers like Granholm who have no executive experience whatsoever.
(Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 03, 2007) |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 161
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 12:53 am: | |
I love this stuff:
"As a person who runs a business and has been involved in managing many companies, I always knew where the fat and waste were."
Really? So why did you let it continue? Doesn't speak highly of your management skills.
"We have all sacrificed in the private sector, the public sector needs to do the same."
No doubt some have. But tell the workers at Northwest about all of the sacrifices made by the management and executives at Northwest. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3331
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 12:59 am: | |
quote:Really? So why did you let it continue? Doesn't speak highly of your management skills.
There are things that are essential and things that are nice to have when times are good that are not as essential. When times get tough, you do without the non-essentials.
This cycle is repeated over and over throughout the business world. You may do certain things that you feel will enhance your operation but then later find you could have done without them. Did you ever buy something that in retrospect you didn't really need? Same thing.
quote:But tell the workers at Northwest about all of the sacrifices made by the management and executives at Northwest.
Well the analogy is that the workers sacrificed and management did not. That is wrong but in the case of state government the taxpayers are being asked to sacrifice and the bureaucrats are not. Also wrong. |
Cjs
Member
Username: Cjs
Post Number: 16
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 1:03 am: | |
I read people's entries who are worried about SMART being funded so they can get to a job or a doctor. There should be plenty of money for SMART. Unfortunately, SMART is a big target when it comes time to tighten the state's budget. But SMART is really one of the more important services our tax dollars provide.
The issue as I see it is the tax money that is spent on the things that aren't as essential. You catch glimmers of them in the press. There must be hundreds, perhaps thousands of them. If we could award "spending points" on what good is delivered, how it helps people improve thier lives, how the money multiplies through the economy, if we could rank expenses by these "spending points", we could improve the effectiveness of our taxes.
I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes. But this raising of taxes now, when I and many others are feeling such a hard time in this tough economy, and we know there is waste in this huge government, that is unacceptable. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2883
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 1:23 am: | |
"taxpayers are being asked to sacrifice and the bureaucrats are not."
our bureaucrats don't pay taxes? |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 4821
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 1:36 am: | |
Robbing Peter to pay Paul for the politicians...raise taxes, raise their own salaries the same amount and more. If only everyone else could do that. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 825
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 1:56 am: | |
Lilpup,
I wish I could remember who came up with this, but I can't. Anyhow it's not original.
There are two classes of people in society: taxpayers and government people. The distinction is simple: if you pay more in taxes than you get in direct cash payments from the government, you are a taxpayer. If you don't, you are a government person.
Taxpayers (using this definition) provide positive cashflow to the government, and government people drain cash out of the government. Bureaucrats, since they work for and are paid by the government, are for the most part government people.
A government person can give himself a 200% raise by raising taxes 200%. Sure, his taxes go up too, but his taxes are only a small percentage of his pay so he benefits overall. The rest of us hurt.
I still wish people would give more specifics. We had a few good ones going several hours ago, but it's reverted back to nonsense. People that say "we could cut nonessentials": WHAT would you cut? BE SPECIFIC. Otherwise you are not contributing signal, just noise. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 826
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 1:58 am: | |
Also, Ccbatson, politicians' salaries make up a very tiny, pretty much insignificant, part of the whole picture. Sure, it'd be symbolic for them to cut their own pay, but that'd be all: symbolic. |
Cjs
Member
Username: Cjs
Post Number: 17
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 2:27 am: | |
Yesterday the New York Times reported Granholm was trying to reduce the amount of cash the state would have to come up with to continue to fund the shortfalls in the state pensions funds. They way to do it is to look at accounting principles rather than actuarial estimates. You've got to expend a lot of energy in court to make the change, but it will save the state millions in pension expense if they can win. Check it out. Scott, if you want more examples, try Google.
This is the kind of expense we need to cut. Government going to court to avoid paying into the pension fund. That will cost taxpayers millions. I am not happy about this waste. |
Abracadabra
Member
Username: Abracadabra
Post Number: 98
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 3:23 am: | |
Well, not one incumbent will get a circle filled in from this voter. I'll have to decide what third party I want to have a chance to get some funds. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4176
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 3:28 am: | |
One specific is that the pensions of Michigan state government retirees are exempt from Michigan state income taxes. Or at least, that's what was said on WJR. Is this accurate?
(Message edited by LivernoisYard on October 03, 2007) |
The_rock
Member
Username: The_rock
Post Number: 1973
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 6:02 am: | |
Gazhekwe---According to the Detroit News, another service being taxed is "Phrenology services". I hope the State Bar Commissioners add it to their list.
I am sure glad I did not become a Phrenologist but went to law school instead.
My clients receive a bill based on $250 an hour but will be relieved that each hour does not mean an extra $15. But performing Phrenological services to the same clients would really have pissed them off to see that a 6% tax was added to the bottom line.
Oh yes, by the way, I only have three college degrees. What the hell are Phrenological services? |
Pam
Member
Username: Pam
Post Number: 2769
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 7:13 am: | |
quote:What the hell are Phrenological services?
Reading the bumps on the head. I didn't know it was still being practiced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P hrenology |
The_rock
Member
Username: The_rock
Post Number: 1975
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 10:33 am: | |
We used an occasional psychologist to sit with us at the counsel table when we voir -dired a potential jury before commencing a civil trial to (hopefully) give us some insight on whether or not we really wanted a particular person to sit on the panel, but never in 37 years of practice did we engage the services of a "phrenologist."
Come to think of it, I doubt if the trial judge would allow such mischief, much less if a potential juror would have wanted to be so "examined". |
Blueidone
Member
Username: Blueidone
Post Number: 137
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 6:24 pm: | |
Having assisted registration tables at a couple of "psychic fairs", I'm here to tell you that people who visit phrenologists, astrologers, palm readers etc do not report what they pay for these services. Therefore, rarely does the service provider report the income received. And very few of them perform these services on a full time basis. So just how much additional tax money are they going to receive? I would think it is insignificant for the amount of time it will take to notify those who conduct this type of business, try to track their income and collect the tax.
As to where else we can cut...I heard a few years back that the State owned many houses on Mackinaw Island (near the Governor's Mansion there, which we all pay to support) that are available to our legislators to rent at a MUCH reduced rate. They are maintained, cleaned and supplied by taxpayer dollars. I think the figure I heard was they pay $20 a day or something, when the market rate for such a thing would be $1000 or more a week.
Does anyone know if this is still happening? If so, I would say that's one perk the legislators can do without, wouldn't you? |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3359
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 6:51 pm: | |
I agree alot of the services on the list are already performed under the table on a cash basis. This tax will ensure even more of them do the same. |
Abracadabra
Member
Username: Abracadabra
Post Number: 106
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 7:12 pm: | |
Though my profession was not directly hit by the service tax, my fear is that it opens the door for them to tax all services in the near future. When/if it does, I will actively try to avoid the tax whenever possible. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 2887
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 9:33 pm: | |
Some services on the list are big dollar services and taxing them will allow the state more reason to look at their books and possibly find monkey business (e.g. some limo companies) |
Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe
Post Number: 730
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 9:48 pm: | |
State employee pensions exempt from state income tax, yes, that is true.
Of course, that is under attack. Can you imagine, taxing a fixed income that does not increase annually to cover even a fraction of the cost of living? Tsk tsk tsk.
Well, here is a summary of the Pension Reform Bill and some comments about it:
http://www.michiganvotes.com/2 007-HB-4801 |
Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson
Post Number: 4825
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 10:06 pm: | |
Rumblings point in the direction that the states Democrats, particularly Granholm, are in some deep doo doo over this one. |
Jrvass
Member
Username: Jrvass
Post Number: 245
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 12:28 am: | |
Please name a government entity that taxed their way into prosperity?
James |
Mauser765
Member
Username: Mauser765
Post Number: 1968
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 8:36 am: | |
Better to be a "tax and spend" liberal than a "borrow from China and deficit spend like a mofo" so-called 'conservative'.
James - please name a government entity that borrowed their way to prosperity. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 86
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 9:01 am: | |
"Tax and Spend" and "Borrow and Spend" are two sides of the same coin. Both are unsustainable.
If we're serious about cuts to programs that otherwise provide beneficial outcomes to residents and businesses, let them share the burden equally. In other words, for each $1.00 we remove from the budget that goes towards resident benefits, let's remove $1.00 in tax breaks. That's fair correct? |
Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn
Post Number: 569
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 11:41 am: | |
An excerpt from a comerica bank analysis of the new tax. this is only an excerpt, and I unfortunately cannot link to the larger document:
"In sum, the new structure of taxes is a little less hostile to businesses. Personal income tax rates are still relatively low. And extending the sales taxes to services has broadened the base in a way that makes the tax code more equitable. None of these changes will materially change the behavior of most individuals and businesses in Michigan. Given the woes of the state economy and the historic
opportunity provided by the elimination of the SBT, it was reasonable to hope for bolder action from the political process. In the end, the budget drama could have borrowed a title from Shakespeare, “Much Ado About Nothing.” But at least, no great harm has been done."
The original article was actually about both the UAW strike outcome and the tax changes... the writer was GLOWING about the changes to GM because of the strike, BTW... |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.