Introduced by Rep. Tim Melton (D) on March 1, 2007, to repeal a use tax exemption on toll free phone services (800-numbers, WATTS lines, etc.) Also, to repeal the use tax exemption on cars sold to public or parochial school drivers education programs. This is one of a number of “tax expenditure repeal” proposals included in Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s Fiscal Year 2007-2008 budget recommendation, which is based on approximately $1 billion in tax increases. The telephone provision would increase the taxes paid by citizens approximately $22 million, and the drivers education car provision around $700,000.
Referred to the House Tax Policy Committee on March 1, 2007.
Reported in the House on April 12, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the House on April 17, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on April 17, 2007.
Passed in the House (58 to 51) on April 17, 2007, to repeal a use tax exemption on toll free phone services (800-numbers, WATTS lines, etc.) Also, to repeal the use tax exemption on cars sold to public or parochial school drivers education programs. This is one of a number of “tax expenditure repeal” proposals proposed to pay for higher spending in the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 budget. The telephone provision would increase the taxes paid by citizens approximately $22 million, and the drivers education car provision around $700,000. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on April 19, 2007.
Referred to the Senate Finance Committee on April 19, 2007.
Received in the House on June 7, 2007.
Moved to reconsider by Rep. Steve Tobocman (D) on June 7, 2007, the vote by which the House passed the bill. The motion passed in the House by voice vote on June 7, 2007.
1) good point, mike, [by Anonymous Citizen on June 12, 2007] and a lot of those things are things the government has no business buying in the first place.
2) Good point [by Mike Hignite on June 12, 2007] A business can't be run without revenue. But the state of Michigan isn't a business; no profit motive. All it does is take monies away from businesses and individuals and spend it on other things, some needed, some not. All those other things are less efficiently paid for through taxes than they would be otherwise. Reply
3) as a conservative, [by Anonymous Citizen on June 9, 2007] i can live without certain 'state services', such as mandatory pistol registration, which doesn't deter crime, has high costs, and is, in some people's opinion, unconstitutional.
i can live without other 'state services', such as the DRIVER RESPONSIBILITY FEE, which is a capricious tax disguised as law enforcement.
i can also live without about fifty state mandates that only serve to bilk money from the citizens.
i can also live without the state prying into my private life in the name of 'doing what's good for me'.
i would rather pay a SALES tax than an INCOME tax. a sales tax would only tax those that have the money to BUY things, and not unfairly tax those that don't.
while no business can live without revenue, no business deserves to continue doing business that overspends it's earnings. also, this state is so busy spending millions on doing 'BUSINESS' that it has NO BUSINESS DOING.
if the state got back to doing the business of the state, and not the business of the nanny, there would be plenty of money.
now, as a liberal, i'm sure you see higher taxes as the "DO ALL, END ALL, AND FIX ALL" for this state.
remember, no business ever prospered by raising the prices on services they don't deliver.
let's be a little more 'BUSINESS-LIKE' in this state.