Introduced by Sen. Nancy Cassis (R) on May 3, 2005, to establish a state earned income tax credit (EITC), which would provide a refundable credit (meaning that a check is sent to the taxpayer for the balance of the credit exceeding taxes owed) equal to 10 percent of the federal EITC. The federal EITC is a refundable credit (or “reverse income tax”) for low income workers. For a person with two or more children, it begins to phase out at an income level of $13,549 and ends at $34,458. These amounts are considerably less for those with no children. The size of the credit runs between $390 and $4,300 depending on tax status (2004 tax year figures).
Referred to the Senate Finance Committee on May 3, 2005.
Amendment offered in the Senate on August 30, 2006, to tie-bar the bill to Senate Bill 1364 and House Bill 6213, meaning this bill cannot become law unless those ones do also. These are the other bills in the "deal" made to get Democrats to approve immediate effect on the minimum wage "clean-up" legislation. The amendment was to a substitute adopted on a voice vote which increases the EITC from 10 percent of the federal level to 20 percent, phased in over two years. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on August 30, 2006.
Passed 38 to 0 in the Senate on August 30, 2006, to establish a state earned income tax credit (EITC), which would provide a refundable income tax credit equal to 20 percent of the federal EITC in 2009, and 10 percent in 2008. The federal EITC is a refundable tax credit (or “reverse income tax”) for low income workers. The bill was part of a "deal" between legislative Republicans and Democrats to get the latter's support for immediate effect on House Bill 6213, which corrects unintended consequences of a bill that increased mandated private sector minimum wage levels, and in the process upset the balance of a law mandating that employers in certain industries must pay overtime rates for shifts lasting longer than eight hours. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the House on August 30, 2006.
Referred to the House on August 30, 2006.
Motion by Rep. Chris Ward (R) on August 30, 2006, that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills. The motion passed 100 to 2 in the House on August 30, 2006. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Passed 103 to 3 in the House on September 5, 2006, to establish a state earned income tax credit (EITC), which would provide a refundable income tax credit equal to 20 percent of the federal EITC in 2009, and 10 percent in 2008. The federal EITC is a refundable tax credit (or “reverse income tax”) for low income workers. The bill was part of a "deal" between legislative Republicans and Democrats to get the latter's support for immediate effect on House Bill 6213, which corrects unintended consequences of a bill that increased mandated private sector minimum wage levels, and in the process upset the balance of a law mandating that employers in certain industries must pay overtime rates for shifts lasting longer than eight hours. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on September 22, 2006.
1) Re: 2005 Senate Bill 453 (Establish state earned income tax credit ) by catalinoss on June 9, 2011
The Senate must explain why the relation was used in this way. Is there another way to produce the same effects ? I don't believe it ! hotel ieftin bucuresti
2) Rep. Drolet's "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on September 7, 2006 Rep. Drolet, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I am always supportive of tax cuts, and any measure that reduces the amount of money that government takes from individuals. However, this bill is not primarily a tax cut--it is a redistribution of taxpayer money.
This 'credit' does more than merely cut taxes payed by some citizens. Instead it actually PAYS some citizens to not pay taxes. Over 88% of those eligible for this credit get refunds in excess of what they actually payed in taxes. In other words, the state is taking money from some citizens and paying it out to other citizens in cash.
Economist Milton Friedman, and President Ronald Reagan supported tax credits such as this as a replacement for the current, and ineffective welfare programs we have in place, NOT in addition to them. If this credit were being introduced for this purpose, to give cash directly to those in need in place of the millions spent on welfare programs, I would be supportive. However, as it stands this bill is merely a redistribution of taxpayer money by the state reminiscent of the policies of socialist governments of the past.
I will, and have always supported any tax cut for the citizens of Michigan. I cannot, and will not support any effort to take money from one taxpayer and pay it out to another. That is why I am voting 'no' on SB 453."
3) The Reason That by Anonymous Citizen on September 6, 2006 this state is going down the tubes is because there is not one conservative, common sense person left in lansing. Maybe the water is bad and causes them to want to give away money to get elected. Maybe the canadian governor spiked the punch. If you keep giving money away pretty soon there will be no one left working, then what will you geniuses do? Do whats right, Stop the insanity. Reply