Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on October 31, 2007, to impose a 32.9 percent surcharge on businesses subject to the Michigan Business Tax, and repeal the new 6 percent tax on many services. After the 2008 tax year the surcharge would be 27.3 percent. The rate was determined by the desire to take in $614 million to avoid spending cuts in Fiscal Year 2008, and $750 million in 2009. Small businesses (gross sales below $10 million and earnings below $475,000) would be exempt, and there would be a $2 million surcharge cap on the amount of surcharge imposed on any particular company, so the the full surcharge rate would only be imposed on medium size firms

The vote was 58 in favor, 47 opposed and 5 not voting

(House Roll Call 524 at House Journal 121)

Click here to view bill details.

I see one common theme in so many of the bills recently introduced. The theme is to raise taxes then other taxes will presumably be repealed. I like starting my day with a good joke. We have 28 more legislators than California at 148. We have certainly not been very choosy in our selection.

Reps. Palmer and Knollenberg, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I have voted no on this bill because while I support the repeal of the services tax, I cannot support a surcharge on the MBT. I believe that the bill should simply repeal the tax and the legislature should make up the difference through spending reductions, and structural reforms in both the budget and the operations of government, as we should have from the beginning of the year."

Reps. Caswell, Robertson, Nitz and Agema, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: NO VOTE on 5408 I voted no on this bill because there was clear support via 34 signatures for an amendment and the Speaker failed to recognize them."

Rep. Calley, 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: While I supported portions of this bill, specifically the repeal of the service tax, the structure of the MBT changes were not in form that I could support. The surcharge method of taxation added an unnecessary step to an already complicated tax code. Additionally, the dollars required to accommodate the $2,000,000 cap would be better spent providing tax credits for investments in Michigan and Personal Property Tax relief. Finally, this increase, along with all other forms of taxation, should include a sunset or rollback provision of the additional liability."

Rep. Moss, 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 voted NO on HB 5408 because there was sufficient support for an amendment with 34 signatures and the Speaker refused to recognize them, which is against the Constitutional Rules of the House. I opposed the Service tax, I voted no on it last September. I would be happy to eliminate it right now. However, I will not just take a bad tax burden off some businesses and load it onto someone else. We need to eliminate the Service Tax and pay for it by reform of government operations."

Rep. Shaffer, 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: NO VOTE on 5408 I voted no on this bill because there was clear support via 34 signatures for an amendment and the Speaker failed to recognize them. I believe that this was contrary to the Joint Rules of the House."

Rep. Stahl, 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 voted no on this bill because there was clear support via 34 signatures for an amendment and the Speaker failed to recognize them, this is a violation to the Constitution of the state of Michigan, not allowing the voices of many Michigan citizens to be heard, denying the democratic process of our republican government in Michigan."

Rep. Meltzer, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: NO VOTE on 5408 I voted no on this bill because the presiding officer failed to recognize the request for record roll call on support of my amendment to repeal the service tax. The request for record roll call was supported in writing by 34 signatures, which exceeds the constitutional requirement of 22 members supporting a record roll call. This is a violation of Michigan's Constitution pursuant to Article 4, Section 18."

Senator Cherry's statement is as follows: I voted "no" because I believe that the substitute for House Bill No.5408 causes more problems than it solves. It does not replace revenue, it hurts job creation in this state, and it opens up the MBT, before it has taken effect, for majorrewrites. I think the perfect solution was House Bill No.5408 as passed by the House. Since we did not pass that version and passed a version which is more harmful and causes more problems, I voted "no."

Senator Switalski's statement, in which Senators Jacobs and Clarke concurred, is as follows: I can understand why the majority wanted to cut off debate because I'd be embarrassed, too, if I'd just put forward a plan that was fiscally irresponsible, that used one-time money, and put Michigan back into deficit spending and a chronic budget deficit. So I can understand why they didn't want to talk about that very much. There were two alternatives that I voted for that would have been a much better solution. One was the bill as passed by the House. We also made a change to it with the Prusi amendment and offered an alternative. Both of those were fiscally responsible, and they did not use one-time money. They were fiscal approaches that would continue over years and keep us out of fiscal problems. But the majority has chosen to do the irresponsible thing and raid the piggy bank, spend all our savings, and leave us bereft next year.

Senator Prusi's statement is as follows: In essence, I concur with the previous two speakers, but I would like to add another reason why I could not bring myself to vote for the substitute for House Bill No.5408. I am disappointed that once again we've put partisanship and political game playing ahead of good public policy. We've turned this into just some more of the "gotcha" politics of who is voting for what, instead of actually sitting in a room with the House, with the administration, with the Treasurer, with the Senate Democrats and Republicans all in one room talking about good public policy and a long-lasting fix. We embarked on this road of twisting and rewriting policy that we've struggled with all year, and I think it is a bad precedent to be set because it was set earlier in this session. I am just disappointed that we cannot find the political will to come together and find a solution that matters to everybody, that meets the needs of our employers, both big and small, as well as the citizens who sent us to this town to legislate on their behalf.

Senator Gleason's statement is as follows: I would like to offer some remarks in regard to the action that just transpired. As I mentioned a week and a half ago, we were all predetermined as either a man of means or not of means. In my short time here in the Senate, we have consistently addressed issues and readdressed them and readdressed them even further. We talk today about a complicated issue and easy results that could redefine and redistribute the treasury of this state into much-needed programs. A short while ago, we were accused of raising taxes as a Democratic Caucus, yet today we had the will--some of us in the chamber--to raise them three-quarters of a billion dollars just a moment ago. The issue before us should not be about who wins or loses the political debate, but what is going to be provided for the families of Michigan. Mr.President, we are having difficult times in this state. We're having a difficult time trying to measure what tomorrow will be offering and what obligations the businesses that provide the revenue of our state will be facing. There is great uncertainty now. We have marched through nearly another calendar year, and yet, those who will be asked to pay taxes, fair taxes on their business dealings, still do not have an answer. Thanksgiving is now upon us. Another weekend, another holiday is going to transpire and once again the Michigan businesses will not understand what their tax obligations are going to be. I have had personal friends who have gone out of business in Michigan in recent times because they did not understand what their tax obligations were going to be. We had a chance today to pick up where the House left off, asking us to offer a responsible tax policy for the businesses here in Michigan. Many of you have communicated with theses businesses, as I have, saying that they would accept this new tax burden, yet we're going to leave here today with a huge question mark once again over the businesses across the state of Michigan. Now we're going to be hitting them pretty soon and it's going to be a 15-round hit again, late into the match to determine what their tax obligations are going to be. We do have a remedy. The House was very diligent in offering us a resolution to the state tax and treasury and revenue obligations. We should have taken that opportunity. One of the greatest hurdles any of us have as individuals or as businesses is the undecidedness of what our actions will require. Once again, we come down to Lansing and we're going to go home this afternoon and not offering to share what the tax obligations of our businesses are. That's what the biggest question is: How do you make accommodations to pay your tax obligations? Not necessarily what they are, but how and by what means you are going to be afforded to pay them and when they are going to be due. December 1st is now right in our midst. I sat here as a first-term Senator, and nearly 11-months I have served down here. We have charged ahead and we've retreated. We've charged ahead and we've retreated again on these policies that will determine the tax obligations of our businesses. I'm not pleased with how we do our business down here. So, Mr.President, I would ask that we undertake the obligations that we have been honorably disposed to do and make sure that we give an understanding to our businesses--big, medium, and small businesses. I received a letter, as you did, too, from the Chamber of Commerce organizations here in Michigan, saying that this was an acceptable means. The House policy that was presented to us was a measurable means. We should have utilized that today and sent the businesses a message that we were willing to do their work and that we would fulfill the obligations as legislators to provide the policy-making decisions that is ours. I had to vote "no" because we did not give them a conclusion today, as we have not given them for eleven and a half months.

Senator Jacobs' statement is as follows: It's really tough to serve in Michigan now. We've got a really tough job to do. Times are tough. We've got to make very tough decisions. To be honest, I was so excited about coming back to work today because I've been spending a lot of time in the district, as I'm sure all of have done this past week, talking to business owners--small business owners, medium-size business owners; I did a cable show with one of my chambers of commerce--and the businesses were crying out for explanations and relief and solutions. I came here today fully expecting to provide those solutions tothe businesses in my district, and I feel that we've let the folks down in our districts by not moving forward, particularly with the Prusi substitute. This is my "no" vote explanation that we really did not do the work that the business owners wanted us to

Senator Schauer's statement, in which Senator Clark-Coleman concurred, is as follows: Colleagues, this was a special, unprecedented Thanksgiving week session, and I'm sure the Republican majority envisioned a headline something like, "Senate repeals service tax - helps Michigan business." Well, it didn't quite work out that way. I voted "no" on the Senate-passed version of House Bill No.5408 because it does not repeal the service tax, which by law is slated to go into effect December 1. This bill, colleagues, actually removed the service tax repeal as passed by the House. I also voted "no" because this bill actually hurts Michigan-based companies. This bill which passed with the minimum number of votes in this chamber and along purely partisan lines will cost Michigan business investments and jobs. This unfortunate partisan stab at dealing with Michigan's tax structure by the Republicans is dead on arrival, unacceptable to the House and unacceptable to our Governor. This partisan legislation is a setback to individuals and businesses hoping to see the service tax not take effect. Now, ten days before the December 1 effective date, the State Treasurer must now send out new tax forms for this new service tax. If I was a Michigan-based company facing investment decisions, like Kellogg Company in my own district, I'd be scratching my head wondering what the heck is going on in Lansing. This is serious business, colleagues. I voted "no" because this bill hurts Michigan's economy. I am not willing to do that nor, colleagues, should you. Finally, I voted "no" because along party lines Republicans just voted to cut $300-400 million out of the state's budget, which will hurt Michigan's families, our schools will raise tuition for college students, throw people off of health care, and cut police and fire fighters in our own communities. To the Senator from Oakland County from the 13th District who spoke about process, you're fiddling and Rome is burning. You're game playing and posturing while Michigan is in crisis. So the real headline today should be, "Senate fails Michigan businesses - puts state's future at risk." That's why I voted "no."

Senator Cherry asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal. The motion prevailed. Senator Cherry's statement is as follows: I think that this substitute is a very good solution to a problem that we are facing now. It again brings us very close to the original House version. It raises the cap and lowers the surcharge, which is what I heard in testimony over in the Finance Committee last week as being a problem. I think that, again, as I said earlier, it is a solution with a Senate fix on it. It is bipartisan in nature. We can all easily support this and go home knowing that we have fixed a very serious problem without extending it into the future. It also is very important because it fully replaced revenue and it replaces that revenue permanently. I ask that members support it.

Senator Cherry's statement is as follows: I rise today to express my disappointment that we once again did not solve the problem, but instead we delayed this issue. On Tuesday, as was stated, the Treasury Department will be sending out notices to all businesses within the state of Michigan because we did not finish our job today. Those businesses are going to be very confused, and they are spending, I think the tag that I saw last week was something like $14 million just a day to get ready for implementation of the service tax. So while we are talking, they are spending money trying to figure out how to comply with something that may or may not exist on December 1. So I am very disappointed that we could not solve this problem today and instead have shifted it. To the Senator from Oakland County the 13th District, the conference committees that we had for our budget shut people out. They did not bring people together. There were conference committees that dealt with only one or two people solving a problem. House Bill No.5408 actually brought a large group of people together, they took testimony, and they took time in committee to come up with a solution that was comprehensive in nature. The conference committee by the nature of it includes very few people; they do not have to talk to anybody else to solve that problem. They simply need to figure out a solution that they think can get passed. It is not the best procedure for solving a problem. Today was the best procedure for that, I think, where we could have all come together in a bipartisan fashion. I'm very disappointed that we did not do that.

Senator Basham's statement is as follows: There's been a lot of comments from both sides of the aisle about what this solution does or doesn't do to fix Michigan's business woes; if we'd acted on House Bill No.5408 as it came to us. There were some comments about how it hurts businesses, and in reading my analysis in support of House Bill No.5408, it says the Michigan Manufacturers Association supports it; Detroit Regional Chamber supports it; the Grand Rapids Chamber supports it; the Insurance Institute of Michigan supports it; specifically, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Chrysler, AT&T, Meijer, EDS, Kellogg's, Herman Miller, Alticor, Dow, Whirlpool, Delphi, Strategic Staffing Solutions, Northwest Airlines, Amerisure Insurance, AAA, Steelcase, Guardian, Jackson National Life Insurance, Auto-Owners Insurance--they all support House Bill No.5408 the way it was presented to the Senate. The only opposition I see here to that House bill on my paper, it says the Michigan Chamber opposes it. So I would ask my colleagues who want to work together, maybe you should tell the Michigan Chamber that they should work with members of this chamber, both the Democratic and Republican side of the aisle, because, certainly, there are a lot of businesses who support House Bill No.5408 as it came to this chamber. The majority party in this chamber talks about working together. The majority party needs to talk with minority members of this chamber to come up with a solution to our budget woes. If we continue to do one-time fixes, shifts, and raids of restricted funds, it's not in the best interest of the state of Michigan. This chamber raided $70 million out of the revolving petroleum fund. That was a restricted fund. Just today, I read a survey that concluded that Michigan per capita spends less money than any other state on environmental issues. We're going down a road, my friends, and it's a road that we should not be so proud of. We talk about working together. We should actually come together, work together, come up with a solution, and go home and enjoy our families. I would encourage members on both sides of the aisle to work together to come up with a reasonable solution.

Senator Cropsey's statement is as follows: I find it interesting some of the comments that have been made. The service tax, or the tax on services, was obviously proposed by the Governor. It was a bill that came out of the House of Representatives. It was supported by almost every Democrat in the House of Representatives, opposed by almost every Republican in the House of Representatives, and the same thing happened over here in the Senate. It was a tax that the Democrats uniformly supported, except for one. I believe that it was a tax that the Republicans uniformly opposed, except for two or three of us, and it was signed by the Democratic Governor. The service tax is a Democrat tax, pure and simple. It is also a tax that the business community hated. People hated it. It was a new tax. Everybody knew that once it was implemented as a brand-new tax that whenever the government decided it could not control its spending, as it has not been able to control its spending now for several years, then they would keep expanding the tax to bring in new people all the time. It was a tax that needed to go. The fact is, I want to commend the Finance Committee for holding a hearing this last week; having a good hearing which the business community came in and mentioned vehemently that this tax needed to go. I wanted to thank the Senators from the 25th and 28th Districts for coming up with a very good alternative on this that we have just sent back over the State House of Representatives today. Obviously, the service tax was going to have a devastating effect upon the business community, upon the job providers of this state. One thing we don't need to do is drive more job providers out of this state. The fact is, this tax was so bad that even though the Governor had proposed it and signed it, the Governor has wanted to have it eliminated. Even though it passed with almost unanimous support from the Democrats in the House of Representatives, they have seen the error of their ways. They have passed legislation over here to eliminate that service tax. We passed legislation back eliminating the service tax. Now there are changes and differences between the House and the Senate. But, yet, obstructionists on the other side are saying they don't like the idea of conference reports. That's part of the process. Let's be grown-up. We know we've been around here for a long time and that the way you settle differences between the two bodies is you go to conference committee reports. That is what we are doing. It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is not here today so that we can have the conference committee meet right away and go into serious negotiations on how we are going to get rid of this dreadful, dreadful service tax. I don't think the idea of attacking the idea of conference committees is the way to do that. By the way, I just wanted to say to everybody, happy Thanksgiving. Isn't this a great country where we can come together, disagree, debate our disagreements but yet still walk away as friends and as a civil government? It's a government in which, yeah, we did have our disagreements and we do have our disagreements, but yet it is a free country and, boy, it's wonderful to live in a free country where can do this and not be settling things at the end of a gun because we don't like another person's ideas. I am very thankful to God for living in a country as great as this one is

makes you mental midgets think that you can steal money from the good folks still left in this state? The service tax is stealing, adding 13% or so to other overtaxed businesses in michigan will not help our state. Don't you people understand that all taxes are paid by the guy at the bottom? Let me splain it Ricky, if you jack up taxes on any business they just add it to their price, then the consumers (tax payers) cut back on purchases and all you folks at the public teat think that you need to raise the taxes to get the revenue you lost from jacking up the taxes last time. If this is too hard for you to understand I suggest that you go apply at walmart but you better go quick before they leave this state. Cut out the service tax and learn to get by with what you have left. Oh, you say you will have to cut, start cutting like we have all been doing.

Rep. Caswell, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no because I had no time to read the bill before the board was closed. Also no debate or questions were allowed."

Reps. Opsommer and Booher, having reserved the right to explain their nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no on HB 5408 because this bill was passed without giving the minority party the ability to read the bill. This bill was placed on the board for a vote without any debate or explanation to what the practical applications of this bill are. This bill includes an unnecessary tax replacement while there was an alternate plan introduced by Republicans. House Republicans offered a detailed list of government reforms and cost-saving measures that would have allowed the state to repeal the service tax without raising taxes in other areas. The Democrats are playing games and have adjourned until well after the deadline for a fix, forcing the Senate to accept the House's flawed, late-night legislation once again."

Rep. Nitz, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no on HB 5408 because this bill was passed without giving me the ability to read the bill. This bill was placed on the board for a vote without any debate or explanation to what the practical applications of this bill are. This bill includes an unnecessary tax replacement while there was an alternate plan introduced by Republicans. House Republicans offered a detailed list of government reforms and cost-saving measures that would have allowed the state to repeal the service tax without raising taxes in other areas. The Democrats are playing games and have adjourned until well after the deadline for a fix, forcing the Senate to accept the House's flawed, late-night legislation once again."

Another fine example of our legislature at work. Heh, heh. heh, heh. God love em!

repealing the tax and learning to get along without the money? the rest of us have to work that way, why won't our government? because they have big guys with guns to come and take our money away. that's why.

but i don't think he is the one who keeps on ELECTING them. let's stop shooting ourselves in the foot. the problem here is those who vote to get a slice of the state and federal treasury. THEY will keep on shooting us in the foot to get that little slice of heaven. then there are the union slugs who vote for what's best for the union.

Senator Brater moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the Senate substitute be printed as her reasons for voting "no." The motion prevailed. Senator Brater's statement is as follows: It is 4:45a.m. Saturday morning; the public is asleep. About a month ago, we were in this chamber at the same time passing what was supposed to be a correction to an ongoing budget problem. Now we are back here doing the same thing again in the middle of the night. Those of us on the Democratic side came in here a couple of minutes ago, were told what was negotiated, and now we're being asked to vote. I do not want to go home and take those phone calls again from my constituents that say, "Why did you do this in the darkness of night? Why didn't you have deliberations and let the public have their input?" I just protest this procedure, and for that reason I can't support it

Senator Cassis' statement is as follows: I voted "no" on the four year '08 budgets above 2.1percent projected rate of inflation, and "no" on growth of overall general fund increase in spending of 8.2%. I voted "no" against the service tax. The surcharge represents a 22 percent tax increase on Michigan's smaller and medium-sized businesses, and shifts a larger proportion of tax burden to them. I authored the repeal of the service tax, Senate Bill No.838. On November 20, I voted for a 14% MBT surcharge tie-barred to the repeal of the service tax, Senate Bill No.838, and a three year hard date sunset. This morning, December 1, I voted against a 22% MBT surcharge, an almost 8 percent increase, that will be in place for 10 years, the biggest overall tax increase in a generation. No meaningful reforms, no budget reductions, occurred as a result of House Bill No.5408. In my opinion, House Bill No.5408 says, "Yes to some pork, yes to more spending, $119 million left in the BSF, and somewhere around $150 million lapsed funds." The original MBT will be more than just revenue-neutral and now compounds the MBT with a 22 percent surcharge. How does this advance Michigan's competitiveness with other states that have no surcharge? While the service tax represents poison that would kill businesses, the 22 percent surcharge just leaves them maimed. The service tax, brought to us, as was said, in the wee hours of the morning, has now been morphed into the emperor's new clothing in the garb of a "shift and shaft" surcharge tax.

Where are the comments from larry moe and curly?

Just wait, with term limits, they are there somewhere, they just haven't figured out the internet yet.

The 3 stooges would have figured out a resolution by now

the same people who consistantly tromp on constitutional rights are now worried about whats in the constitution? check for pod fragments, what have they done with our politicians?

important repealing taxes becomes when the outcome of the vote is reported on the evening news. when it was just 'politics as normal', they raised taxes left and right. now that the voting public is looking, and promising to vote them out of office at the earliest opportunity, they are all concerned with repealing the tax they voted in. where was this zeal to reduce taxes when they voted FOR this tax to begin with?

Thank you Michigan Government! Time to retire and go to a new state. Hope you can take care of all my patients. Wait, I think my patients will be moving also. Time for a Change.

now is the time to stock up on ammo and provisions.

Rep. Palmer, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I have voted NO on this bill because while I very strongly support the repeal of the services tax, a major 'job-killer' and unacceptable burden on all businesses in the state, I cannot support a 22% surcharge on the MBT. This new tax would be an outrageous 'penalty' for doing business in Michigan for the next ten years, particularly the small to intermediate size businesses that are the back-bone of our state's economy. I believe that the legislature should simply repeal the tax, along with the recent increase in the income tax, with no replacement whatsoever, and that the legislature should make up the 'difference' through both spending reductions, and structural reforms in both the budget and the operations of government, as should have been accomplished at the beginning of the year. Further the language in this bill that attempts to make the legislation 'referendum proof' is an outrageous attempt to subvert the will of the people of this state, and should be resoundingly rejected."

Rep. Garfield, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I can not vote to justify a 22% Tax on the Business Tax. The Service Tax should not have passed or even been considered to justify over spending for a budget. When we did nothing to address the 1.7 billion dollar Structural Deficit we will revisit in a matter of months. Plain and simple,. were overspending. This equates to not only a 1.9 Billion dollar SBT replacement, but an increase to 2.6 Billion dollars. Not including the Income Tax increase."

Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: We can not ask the people or the businesses of the State of Michigan to pay more in taxes when there was no attempt to restructure and reduce spending in State budgets. All taxes are ultimately paid by the end consumer and tax payer in the price of increased goods and services. The government is out of control with spending. This bill will not attract one business to this State. You can't tax this State into prosperity. HB 5408 makes no economic sense for this State- cuts do!"

Rep. Knollenberg, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted 'no' on the substitute for HB 5408 because it replaces a damaging tax with another damaging tax. Michigan has the worst economy in the nation and this plan will do nothing to help it. It will not create one new job or stop one home foreclosure. This tax increase was not necessary. The FY08 budget included $760 million in increased spending. Additionally, House Republicans have introduced reforms to eliminate our budget gap without additional taxes, but these proposals have been ignored by Democrat leadership in the governor's office and House of Representatives."

Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted 'no' on the substitute for HB 5408 because it replaces a damaging tax with another damaging tax. Michigan has the worst economy in the nation and this plan will do nothing to help it. It will not create one new job or stop one home foreclosure. This tax increase was not necessary. The FY08 budget included $760 million in increased spending. I support the repeal of the services tax and the tax on business-to-business transactions which was applied arbitrarily on top of all the other taxes still in place. However, I cannot support the new Michigan Business Tax (MBT) and the surcharge which is attached to it. The MBT is still a gross receipts tax and still contains the Personal Property Tax which penalizes businesses investing in their business to produce jobs. Every state around us has gotten rid of their Personal Property Tax. We are the only state in the Midwest which has not eliminated it. Michigan must fundamentally change its taxation system, if it ever hopes to become competitive."