"I'm wondering whether you all know this variation on the old folktale of stone soup: that when everyone comes together to contribute their own ingredient, in the end a delicious and nourishing repast is created for all. That's what I'm hoping to do, metaphorically speaking, through these Michigan/Motor City Kossacks Open Thread diaries... The good thing about an Open Thread is that anything is fair game for adding, as long as it's in the interest of promoting community across the state." - peregrine kate
Today's Icebreaker: Something I learned at a NN14 session was that when talking with prospective voters, it is effective to not only ask for their vote but to ask for their voting plan. This means asking when they intend to vote: in the morning, afternoon, or evening; how they intend to get to their voting place: walking, driving, public transportation, neighbor, or other; and any other variables that may come up in conversation. There is statistical evidence that voters are more likely to vote if they have been asked to specify their voting plan. So, what is YOUR voting plan for the August 5th primaries?
And as a reminder, the August 5th ballot will include Proposal 1, which may be my new nominee for the most confusingly-worded ballot proposal in recent memory:
APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AMENDATORY ACT TO REDUCE STATE USE TAX AND REPLACE WITH A LOCAL COMMUNITY STABILIZATION SHARE TO MODERNIZE THE TAX SYSTEM TO HELP SMALL BUSINESSES GROW AND CREATE JOBS
The amendatory act adopted by the Legislature would:
1. Reduce the state use tax and replace with a local community stabilization share of the tax for the purpose of modernizing the tax system to help small businesses grow and create jobs in Michigan.
2. Require Local Community Stabilization Authority to provide revenue to local governments dedicated for local purposes, including police safety, fire protection, and ambulance emergency services.
3. Increase portion of state use tax dedicated for aid to local school districts.
4. Prohibit Authority from increasing taxes.
5. Prohibit total use tax rate from exceeding existing constitutional 6% limitation.
Should this law be approved?
[ ] YES
[ ] NO
http://ballotpedia.org/... Any thoughts on this proposal? (I have some, but I will add them in the comments.)
[To prime the pump for that discussion, here are a couple of statements from Washtenaw County elected officials. (DoReMI was kind enough to let me, peregrine kate, add these to the diary body.)
The first position statement is from Jeff Irwin, MI Rep. for the 53rd District:
The good part is that the Personal Property Tax, which proposal 1 repeals, is an expensive tax to account for because it is unnecessarily complicated. Also, since it taxes business equipment, the tax is a problem for businesses that want to bring in big equipment.
The less than good part of the proposal is that the reduction in business tax is not fully replaced. Instead, the general fund will no longer receive the revenue from the use tax (a portion of sales tax revenue). That money will go to local governments to replace lost ppt revenue (which all goes to local governments). The impact to the general fund is about $100M next year and estimated to be $500M in ten years. That money will no longer be available for schools, roads, health care, assisting the poor or at other priorities of state government.
I will be voting no. Our state revenues are at a historic low (as a percentage of economic activity) and that shows in our schools and on our roads. I'd like to reform this tax, but I'd like the business community to continue paying at the level currently. This is especially true after the 2011 changes that dramatically reduced business taxes while raising taxes on people. This sort of trickle down economic theory is bad for our future because it just doesn't work.
In any event, the Citizens Research Council has a long but good explanation here.
The second, also explaining a NO vote, is from Yousef Rabhi, Washtenaw County Commissioner:
A few thoughts on prop 1 as I see it:
1. If the legislature had the votes or political will to repeal ppt, it would have been done already. No compromise, no ballot proposal - #righttowork.
2. I trust Lansing to reimburse us as much as I trust governor Snyder to not repeal right to work, or as much as I trust Lansing to not give locals more unfunded mandates, or as much as I trust that "restored" revenue sharing will last for very long. Bottom line: a promise from this republican controlled Lansing, at least from where I sit, is as good as broken.
3. Revenue for local government is limited not just by Headlee and prop a, but also the fact that with the repeal of PPT, we will have essentially one tax option left: real property tax (at least for counties). That means more millages to support services... The fact that we are shifting the entire tax burden on to home owners is bad for the sustainability of our local governments. I don't disagree that PPT is an old law, but with out a replacement revenue option (ie a different way to raise revenue that is not property tax and does not rely on a promise from Lansing) I can't support repeal. The state should give voters in communities new tools to raise the money that their government needs: medical marijuana tax, additional liquor tax, special event tax, sales tax, income tax (for counties) or another revenue option that the voters in local municipalities can vote to impose.
4. Assuming that the repeal of ppt is inevitable and either we repeal or the legislature will, why not put the burden on them. Let them record a vote and then suffer the consequences of their actions. The beauty of this ballot measure for them is that ALL of the political liability is on us, the People. If this turns out to be a good thing for our state, Lansing will take credit for a job well done. If it is flop the burden falls on all of us.
While I will be voting no, I certainly respect those of you who will be voting yes or who already have. This is a difficult issue and I understand all perspectives. Many of my close friends and colleagues think differently than i do on this issue and I still respect and honor them just the same. Reasonable minds can disagree on this.
Closing remark from peregrine kate on these two statements: There are perhaps equally as compelling arguments to be made for a YES vote. Stay tuned for those! And now back to DoReMI, with my thanks to her for permitting the interjection.]
Finally, there has been talk of an August meet-up, so please feel free to discuss dates/times/places.
I won't be around to attend this diary for awhile; publishing at 6:00pm means I'm still at work, but I'll check in later. For now, let the Open Thread begin!