2007 House Bill 4852 (Impose new $1.35 monthly phone tax )

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. George Cushingberry on May 24, 2007, to impose a new $1.35 monthly tax on each phone user in the state. The money would be used for various law enforcement-related functions, allowing other tax revenue to be spent on other things.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on May 24, 2007.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. George Cushingberry on May 24, 2007. New Comment

1) GRABYERMONEY GRANHOLM [by Anonymous Citizen on October 2, 2007]
Hey here's an idea to start to save money in the Michigan budget. Howzabout getting rid of the Michigan taxpayer paid STAFF that her husband Dan Mulhern has, especially that $100,000 plus, administrative assistant (glorified secretary)! What kind of work does she do for that kind of money?
Nobody in this state voted for Mulhern and nobody in this state should have to pay for his perks!
Reply New Comment

Line

2) GRABYER$ GRANHOLM & DEMS [by Anonymous Citizen on October 2, 2007]
Is anyone else as disgusted by GRABYER$ GRANHOLM and her crooked cronies as I am!!! She has no new ideas, no new plans, no new jobs (worst unemployment in nation)!!!
The only thing we got with her is NEW TAXES!!!!
I have no idea how she had the gall to run again after her last disasterous 4 years in office, let alone HOW DID SHE GET RE-ELECTED??? I know of no one who voted for her! There really should be an investigation into her election!!!
Anyone thinking of voting all the Dems into national office should be forced to live in Michigan for 6 months first to see what living with TAXATION TO THE MAXATION is really like, and GETTING VERY LITTLE IN RETURN FOR YOUR MONEY. Plus if the Dem voters were forced to move here, I would have someone to sell my beautiful home to, so I could move to a red state where they have something called JOBS!!! Yea thats right I like to work for my money, not be on the DEM govt. doleout program Michigan cities are known for. Meanwhile my neighbors and I are hanging on by a thread here in the burbs where every 3rd home is for sale or foreclosing, because our jobs have been downsized (or left town). If we are lucky enough to still have a job because of all the layoffs we work more hours yet make 1/2 the $ we made 5 years ago and we have less benefits (if any, but our kids can't be covered by MICHILD cuz we make "too much" eventhough we pay the taxes for it, though our house payment is the same for a devalued home and our bills and expenses are higher than ever since the DEMS have taken over in Michigan. Grabyer$ Granholm warned us herself in her campaign speech, "In the 5th year of her governing we would be BLOWN AWAY." Unfortunately about that, she was right. Michigan was and is the most beautiful state in the country. Its too bad its potential has been squandered by the bloodsuckers in Lansing, not to mention that lowlife Levin who has spent 19 years in the Senate, yet had no foresight at all about what was happening to the economy in his own state. Maybe he should spend less time running his big yap about Bush, and try earn his pay to do something to get jobs in MICHIGAN. He tries to blame it on Bush, but the fact is, the rest of the country is experiencing record low unemployment and it was Levin's buddy Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA into law (before Bush got there) that sent so many jobs out of Michigan. Next election: LETS KICK THE DEMS TO THE CURB, and let them experience some unemployment firsthand.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) confusing and incoherent [by pfschaffner on September 7, 2007]
I've read this bill several times and cannot make sense of the actual tax mechanism. It appears to
impose a uniform tax "on each service user," which is defined as "a person receiving a communications service." That is: it is a flat tax of $1.35 per phone-using person, regardless of how many phone lines that person owns or how many service providers that person uses. That is what the bill actually says--but such a thing would be impossible to apply, since it would require immensely complex coordination between service providers. John Doe has two cell phones, a land line, and a fax line. He still owes only $1.35, but to which provider does he pay it? Perhaps the bill meant to say 'a tax on each service used by a service user,' or 'a tax on each phone number owned by a service user' or 'a tax on each user's services from a single service provider.' But which of those?
Even if that question could be resolved, there are others. The bill presupposes that service providers employ 'regular billings.' But what about those of us with pre-paid mobile phones? We never get billed, and when we do pay, it is never on a monthly basis but only for set of commodity 'minutes' that can be used at any time. And the name and address associated with the account are purely nominal: there is nothing to stop a user of a prepaid SIM from giving an address in another state, or another name, for that matter. How will such things be accommodated? I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of. It is hard to believe a bill could be this incoherently written.

Reply New Comment

Line

4) Idiot [by Anonymous Citizen on September 6, 2007]
Yeah, lay off the cops that ruined your life after you got dinged for drunk driving. Go talk to the family that just had someone killed by a idiot drunk you moron.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Wrong [by Anonymous Citizen on September 7, 2007]
"The next time your daughter breaks down on the freeway and gets assaulted, the next time you call for a breaking and entering in progress and you get no response think about this small tax that could save a life of a loved one."

Try sitting along the road broke down, if you see a state cop it will be their tail lights that you are looking at and they will dissappear quickly. As for your b&e in progress, if you ain't packin all you can do is wait . average response time is about 5 minutes. It takes time to stow that radar gun.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) daughter on the highway [by Anonymous Citizen on September 7, 2007]
the police stater's favorite 'worst case scenario'.

"The next time your daughter breaks down on the freeway and gets assaulted, the next time you call for a breaking and entering in progress and you get no response think about this small tax that could save a life of a loved one."

how about this...

"The next time your daughter breaks down on the highway, and a guy comes up to assault her, have her taught how to properly use a weapon. she will be able, with a minimum of training to dispatch the felon with one or two shots from the twelve gauge shotgun she knows well how to use."

the problem with this is, the police stater's have already made carrying a weapon in your car ILLEGAL, so your daughter CAN'T DO THAT. even if you taught her how.

how about allowing the people of michigan to PROTECT THEMSELVES IN THE EVENT OF A PERSONAL ATTACK? that would go farther in PREVENTING PERSONAL ATTACKS than putting more policemen on the streets.

now let's look at 'worst case scenario' number two.

"the next time you call for a breaking and entering in progress and get no response... take that same twelve gauge shotgun off the wall and point it at the door the bad guy is trying to break in. as soon as it swings open, blast him. if he get's up, blast him again.

now, the hopolophobes will cry "what if it's a relative or somebody you know trying to get in to save you?"

my relatives don't kick in doors at odd hours of the night. my friends don't either. they know that this is the 'right way to get their butts shot'. anyone with any common sense realizes this too.

and, since someone is going to say it, 'what if its the police trying to serve a warrant?'.

they have the legal obligation to knock and announce before they start kicking. if they can't yell "POLICE!!! WE HAVE A WARRANT!!! loudly enough to be heard from the other side of the door, they know what the consequences will be.

now, both of these solutions are simple, don't cost the citizens of this state a dime, and are constitutionally supportable. the draconian gun laws of this state are not.

neither relies on 'police response time' as part of the plan, and neither relies on anything else other than a citizen saving himself.

now, the police's job is NOT to protect you from crime, it's to ENFORCE THE LAW. a police officer can watch as a person beats you to death before arresting him for your murder. he is NOT legally obligated to protect you from anything.

in other words, he is not obligated to stop the person from assaulting your daughter, or the person from kicking in your door, but he IS obligated to investigate the crime and attempt to arrest the subject for doing it.

it's YOUR job to protect YOUR life. it's the government's job not to take that life away without due process.

Reply New Comment

Line

7) Lay Off half The Cops [by Anonymous Citizen on September 5, 2007]
from the looks of things when driving around all they do is hide with the radar gun to generate revenue. The only time you see them driving is after midnight when they pull everybody over in hopes of finding one of the elusive "drinking drivers" so they can ruin someones life for .08.
If they called themselves what they truly have become, the revenue arm of the government folks wouldn't have a problem cutting half of them.

When did you last see a local cop on your sidestreet??????
Reply New Comment

Line

8) cop slamming [by Anonymous Citizen on September 12, 2007]
You people are disturbed and uneducated in the school of common sense. You have no clue to what you are even talking about. Do you read your posts prior to clicking them, becuase if you did, you would see how stupid you look. I would guess most of you have been arrested, blame your act of stupidity on the police and the system, pay little in taxes but cry the most, have never been the victim of a crime, but probably commit them or have never had a friend killed by a drunk driver at "only a 0.08". Get a life, better yet, get an education and job and be a productive member of society. It's a wonder people even want to police fools like yourselves. For some of you, there truly is no help.
Reply New Comment

Line

9) Show Me One [by Anonymous Citizen on October 1, 2007]
Person "killed by a drunk driver at "only a 0.08"" If you are a real cop then you know that most drunks crash at about .24 and most of these are running off the road and hitting a tree. You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than getting hit by a drunk. These draconian laws only serve to make more money for the giant state revenue vacumn.

Reply New Comment

Line

10) Disturbed? Uneducated? [by Anonymous Citizen on October 1, 2007]
Here is a glowing example of someone who needs to learn how to deal with the public. Calling people disturbed and uneducated makes you look like the uneducated fool. Whatever department you work for should send you to some public relations classes before they ever send you back on the street to face the general public. You are the best example of someone who has no reason to be wearing any badge.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) Answers [by Anonymous Citizen on September 12, 2007]
"I would guess most of you have been arrested"
Not Me. But I still think we have too many revenue agents/cops.

"pay little in taxes"

I'll bet you I pay more than you do. Two homes in Michigan, one non homestead, one business for 25 years, three cars. You know not of what you speak.

"never had a friend killed by a drunk driver at "only a 0.08"

Neither have you. Almost all drunks crash at about .25 and the vast majority of those are running off the road, one car wrecks. These laws are just about raising revenue for the ever hungrier bloated government.

"have never been the victim of a crime"

Wrong again. I have been a victim but have never had a cop solve it.

"It's a wonder people even want to police fools like yourselves"

They don't want to "police" anyone. They want to drink coffee and write tickets. And furthermore I don't want to be "policed"
I don't need a nanny. I don't need a police state. If you can't take care of yourself then it is you that has a problem.

Now a few questions for you...
Have you ever tried to drive in this state after midnight?
Do you have any teenaged straight A students that leave work at 11 pm on the weekend and get pulled over every other weekend? It's always the same, C'mo kid, tell us how much you been drinkin and we'll go easy on you.
Same kids haven't ever gotten a ticket, just harrassment.
Has a cop ever solved one of your crimes?
You are a "usefull idiot"
Go look it up.
Have a nice day.
Reply New Comment

Line

12) Send people home two [by Mike Hignite on September 5, 2007]
As far as funding the state police, if they are under-staffed, under-equiped and under-paid, and unable to do their mission, it is the fault of the legislature and governor.

I simply question the spending we already have. We have a general fund that should be funding the important activities of government. I don't like special taxes applied to special departments that don't have any connection to the source, or are multiple-taxed from the same source.

Special taxes like user fees make sense for state parks. Use the park, pay the fee for its upkeep. Don't use the park, don't pay the fee. The police function is not like that. It is a basic part of government and should only be funded from general revenues.
Reply New Comment

Line

13) One more thing [by Anonymous Citizen on August 31, 2007]
For a big company with several lines and branches this tax increase will probably mean sme people will be out of a job.Tax increases never increase revenue it always backfires.The thing is tax decreases though make tax revenues.Itlike people spend more when they have more companies invest expand do all kinds of great things when taxes lower.
Reply New Comment

Line

14) Cut my a*** [by Anonymous Citizen on August 31, 2007]
I read the budget for this year compared to last there is no cuts.The state police is out of control anyway the communties they serve up north don't need them they have police forces of their own.The only reason we have so many post up north is because these communties a lot of them anyway didn't have a police force.I saw on the news where the state police travel in wolf packs now to catch speeders must be they don't have anything better to do than catch a soccer mom 10 over in her mini van.I also seen where they got more gas money so thhey'lll be out there but as far as cuts go the only cuts in this state will be the ones in our budgets to make up for the extra taxes.Don't worry the lansing spending machine will continue to run full boar sucking every penny out of every tax payer like the blood sucking leech it is.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) Did you even read the bill? [by Anonymous Citizen on August 31, 2007]
Yeah the State Police blew past their last budget protecting your arse--couldnt have been the nearly dollar a gallon gas rise or the fact that they are dictated to buy everything they use by DMB-Computers, buildings, cars you name it. Maybe they should just close their doors when they reach their budget ceiling? Send all their people home? Quite taking calls after 5pm? Not work holidays? Police work is not a money maker-if you want it then it costs-if not then dont complain when you dont have it. Get a grip Mike-maybe you should take the time to review "how" they blew past their budget instead of listening to the media. Of course that might take some time on your part-- better to just take everything your told for granted.
Reply New Comment

Line

16) Send people home [by Mike Hignite on September 5, 2007]
They SHOULD just close their doors when they reach their budget ceiling. That's the point of a legislature voting on a budget.

The state legislature is responsible for approval of ALL funding for the State of Michigan; funding is not approved at the whim of even a governor, much less a controller of a department. They didn't do their job. They should have notified the governor and she should get approval from the legislature to increase the budget. If that isn't done, and people are at risk because of the lack of state police, then it is the legislature's responsibility.
Reply New Comment

Line

17) Send people home [by Anonymous Citizen on October 2, 2007]
C'mon! You say "they should have notified the governor!" Didn't you see the blood sucking wench smiling with glee, like she usually is on the news when she was poised to take yet another stab at Michigan taxpayers and the remaining businesses of Michigan. UNLESS GRANHOLM IS SENT HOME SOON, Michigan may not be able to recover from her inept, incompetent, illogical mismanagement of this state's government.
Reply New Comment

Line

18) Yeah,Right [by Anonymous Citizen on September 5, 2007]
"If that isn't done, and people are at risk because of the lack of state police,"

Reply New Comment

Line

19) did you even read the bill [by Anonymous Citizen on August 31, 2007]
If he did, he does not understand it anyway. The problem is the public does not get it. The state police are out of money. Tighten the belt any more and it will not be holding up the pants. I agree, stop talking calls. Posts have closed, millage restrictions, no overtime, broken equipment, no recruit schools in five years, uniforms with holes in them, no flash lights that work, broken cars and these nuts keep thinking we need to tighten the belt. WE HAVE, we have no more left. Public saftey has taken a back seat. Rest easy Michigan, your state police are hurting. It will get worse come October.
Reply New Comment

Line

20) no overtime! [by Anonymous Citizen on October 1, 2007]
Obviously you have not seen the amount of overtime afforded to the troopers this year alone. Please quit adding lies and misrepresentations. Troopers are given OWI overtime, seatbelt overtime, and oh yes! VISIBILITY OVERTIME. You read that right, VISIBILITY overtime, they are not required to stop anybody for violating the law, they just simply sit in the median so the general public can see them, so they are VISIBLE. Try being honest for a change and tell the public the whole truth, not what you think the public should hear. Now that would be refreshing for a change.
Reply New Comment

Line

21) Safety schmafety [by Anonymous Citizen on September 2, 2007]
"Public saftey has taken a back seat."

It hasn't been about public safety for a long time. It's really all about fleecing the populace via seatbelt tickets and speed traps.

Public safety would be best served by diverting part of the police budget to providing a pistol and NRA-approved pistol training to all Michigan citizens capable of meeting the Federal requirements.
Reply New Comment

Line

22) housebill 4852 [by burker1307 on August 17, 2007]
I think that most of these against the bill have no idea of what will happen to the state police that serve as primary law enforcement outside the Detroit area if this does not pass. Granholm has cut millions out of the MSP budget. People are without police protection becuase of her. Trooper strength is down 500. The next time your daughter breaks down on the freeway and gets assaulted, the next time you call for a breaking and entering in progress and you get no response think about this small tax that could save a life of a loved one. Of course if you are so confident that you will never need police protection, then by all means, shoot it down. Police protection comes at a cost. This is a very small cost. And remember, the democrates really care about your protection!
Reply New Comment

Line

23) using the daughter threat [by Anonymous Citizen on October 1, 2007]
I have always supported the police in the past and probably will for the most part in the future. I have read this bill and I have to say I just will not support it. Another tax applied to people who are over taxed as it is. What really bothers me is using the threat of "the next time your daughter breaks down." I can't belive the state police would use a scare tactic like that to put money in their pockets. I have already wrote and sent letters to my Senator and Representative to vote completly against this bill. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
Reply New Comment

Line

24) The Threat Is Baloney Anyhow [by Anonymous Citizen on October 1, 2007]
Go sit along the freeway or any road and see how long it takes for the state boys to come see if you're okay. If you happen to park in a place where kids drink beer it may be quick, if it's along the freeway you will just get to wave as they go past in their hunt for the elusive speeders.
Reply New Comment

Line

25) Conserve resources [by Anonymous Citizen on September 2, 2007]
"Trooper strength is down 500. The next time your daughter breaks down on the freeway and gets assaulted, the next time you call for a breaking and entering in progress and you get no response think about this small tax that could save a life of a loved one."

Good point. The logical thing do do, therefore, would to reserve police manpower for response to and investigation of violent crimes, burglary, etc., instead of easy revenue-enhancers like speed traps and seatbelt-ticket patrol.

The state police budget also would benefit from not driving fleets of huge gas-guzzler Suburbans at 80+ MPH like crack-crazed retards.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) small tax [by Anonymous Citizen on October 1, 2007]
Here is an idea! How about we take $1.35 an hour from every current trooper and trooper Sgt. pay. Gee, I heard they just received a very generous pay raise not to long ago. Thats right a pay raise when the state could not afford one. And yes, the state police was way over budjet for fiscal year 2007, go figure. Why did'nt the public hear about this big pay raise the troopers recieved? Just to answer any rediculous coment someone might have, no I have not been arrested, I just simply speak the truth. So if these troopers are to protect and serve, they would not mind giving up that measely $1.35 an hour would they.
Reply New Comment

Line

27) Disband The State Revenue Dept. [by Anonymous Citizen on October 1, 2007]
Keep the crime lab until a few private ones can get up and running.
Reply New Comment

Line

28) democrats [by burker1307 on August 17, 2007]
my point was a slam on the democrats. They do not care about cutting fat or police protection.
Reply New Comment

Line

29) Republicrats or Demolucans? [by Anonymous Citizen on September 2, 2007]
"my point was a slam on the democrats. They do not care about cutting fat or police protection."

Sometimes "police protection" becomes another kind of governmental fat deposit rife with inefficiency and pork-barreling. Both parties are guilty of fattening up our police-state, and too many quivering sheep out there lap this stuff up, gladly hucking liberties out the window in exchange for a little temporary security.
Reply New Comment

Line

30) if the 'democrates' [by Anonymous Citizen on August 17, 2007]
really cared about our protection, they wouldn't have MIS-SPENT ALL THE MONEY.

we would have adequate police protection, and then some.

we would have more than enough money to keep the jails open.

but we DON'T.

the democrats don't give a rip about our protection, only their getting re-elected.
Reply New Comment

Line

31) democrats [by Anonymous Citizen on August 17, 2007]
My point, democrats do not care about police protection, only entitlement programs to give to the lazy on the backs of the working
Reply New Comment

Line

32) Telephone tax increase [by Anonymous Citizen on June 1, 2007]
I feel that the justification of the tax is too vague. I do support tax increases, we need to start paying for things that we want, we can't keep getting things for free. Paying for law enforcement functions might not be the best place for our money, would need more specifics in order to feel comfortable with agreeing to this tax.

Reply New Comment

Line

33) why should we [by Anonymous Citizen on June 2, 2007]
pay a telephone tax to fund law enforcement?

they make enough on d.u.i. fines.

Reply New Comment

Line

34) dui tax? [by burker1307 on August 17, 2007]
for your information, it is OWI and the police do not see but pennies to the dollar on your court costs. Look at your county where you were arrested, the township where the arrest took place, your local court, your local library and the Michgian Judges Retirement fund to see where the money goes. It does not give but a fraction to police. If that were the case, I would agree with you, every department would have the best equipement and more officers than needed. Sadly, about everyone but law enforcement gets the money. Hope this helps clear up the rumor.
Reply New Comment

Line

35) Jackal attack [by Anonymous Citizen on June 1, 2007]
These swirling revenue proposals are like the Whack-A-Mole arcade game, or like in cartoons when someone gets clubbed on the head and a bump rises, they push the bump back down only to have three others pop up somewhere else. Except these aren't fun or funny.

Let's all administer a severe literary beat-down to this one today, and tomorrow we'll read about a proposed toilet-tax, or a special cauliflower tax, or a plan to license walking on public sidewalks.
Reply New Comment

Line

36) More phone tax? Are you crazy? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 1, 2007]
This is downright ridiculous-I try to use my phone instead of drive my car...supposedly, to save me some money. I shop phone service providers constantly, trying to bring that big bill down. Seems like first the Feds, and now the state, cant bear for me to keep ANY of the money I work for. READ MY LIPS! NO NEW TAXES!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

37) No more taxes [by family on May 31, 2007]
This money will be reaapropriated like th erest. Departmental mismanagement is at the core of the states fiscal issues. Lets solve the real problem.
Reply New Comment

Line

38) $1.35 monthly phone tax [by Yooper_Dave on May 30, 2007]
Another "tax and spend" example. Get rid of the fat. Belt tightening may be difficult, but it is the right solution.
Reply New Comment

Line

39) Not another tax! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 30, 2007]
We just received a federal tax increase on our phone service so that everyone in the U.S. who can't afford service can have it. That tax was always there before, but the feds felt it necessary to increase it. Now you want this?!!

Who would monitor the misappropriation - I mean distribution of this tax??
Reply New Comment

Line

40) Have you seen your phone bill lately? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 30, 2007]
Fed. Tax
Use tax
911 tax
local tax
connection tax
landline tax
tax this
tax that
tax on tax
tax on tax on tax
and oh, by the way...you made no calls this billing period so you owe the phone company nothing except basic service, HOWEVER you must still pay the taxes or we'll have to turn off your phone service.
Thanks
Reply New Comment

Line

41) STOP IT!!!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 30, 2007]
No More, No More.
Why don't you guys admit that you don't have a clue and just quit. NO MORE TAXES
Reply New Comment

Line

42) I love tax increases! [by jhicks on May 30, 2007]
That seems to be George's mantra. He surely is the poster child of why we need a part time legislature. He has never seen a tax increase he did not like. Why is that? Is he altruistic? I think not.
Reply New Comment

Line

43) Yet another tax increase [by Mike Hignite on May 29, 2007]
State police already blew past their last budget. Is this some pathetic attempt to cover it with more taxes?

Only a small portion is to be used in any way connected to phone usage. The rest is just activities that should be provided from general state funds.
Reply New Comment

Line

Home
Create an account
Legislation watch
Search Legislation
Search Voting Record
Reports
- Recent Laws
- Missed Votes Report
Links
About
Tell a friend about this site