Michigan Votes Forum

 This is exactly what we need to do to help usher new businesses (and new jobs) into the state.  Its high time we give these folks a tax break rather than breaking them with taxes!

Senators Gilbert and Sanborn, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 777.

Senator Gilbert moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Gilbert’s statement, in which Senator Sanborn concurred, is as follows:

Every time we turn around, it seems we are passing another one of these refundable tax credits. I have heard of other areas of the state that may have companies interested in a battery credit. Of course, unless we treat them in the same generous fashion, we are told that they will go elsewhere. How many of these credits can we afford?

I would like to point out that this credit before us today in this bill isn’t the only one being proposed for this project. They may be eligible for numerous other credits such as MEGA’s brownfields and anchor credits and may be designated a renaissance zone. It’s interesting that as our unemployment rate rises; the number of these credits have increased dramatically. I am not saying that these credits are a cause of our high unemployment, but they are obviously not the answer.

Why don’t we try some broad-based tax relief that would create jobs and treat everyone equally? One of these tax credits affects one company or three or four. A cut in surcharge would help 100,000 companies—small, medium, and large. All of these refundable credits come at the expense of individuals and businesses that are already established in Michigan paying taxes and employing people—some who have made a commitment to Michigan for decades.

We are told repeatedly that we cannot fix the MBT surcharge, the tax on the tax and the gross receipts, or increase the compensation allowance for small businesses because we can’t afford it. We are always asked how are you going to pay for it?

In addition, we have cut funding for state troopers who serve to protect residents of our state—the most fundamental function of government. It has been proposed that we cut funding for Medicaid provider rates, clothing allowances for the poor, and early childhood education programs. Refundable tax credits directly affect our ability to pay for these program. On top of all of this, there have been proposals to increase existing taxes and create new taxes, such as a tax on bottled water and live entertainment, to help balance our budget.

I am well aware that these credits are pushed to some outyears, but there is no indication that our economy will be any better then. This year alone, we are paying out roughly $350 million in refundable tax credits. When will we ask how we are going to pay for these tax credits, just as we do with any other tax cut? Let’s do something for our home team for a change.

Senator Cassis’ statement is as follows:

As chair of the Senate Finance Committee and as the Senator who hopefully will be seeing a mothballed Ford Motor plant turned into a rejuvenated, reclaimed energy park, this battery bill is certainly the first step in doing that. We applaud these efforts to create jobs.

But I also want to raise an important point. Linked to what we are doing today—although not directly to this bill, but it surrounds it and embraces it—is the issue of transparency. Transparency will allow us as legislators to have adequate data before us when we try to make decisions and not just uninformed guesses. I see a possibility which has come up in these discussions this week. We may need even further steps. One would be this: I would want to clearly state that our state should not ever, ever be accused of potentially changing its standards for a credit in the midst of a company coming in and asking and going on the premise that there were other credits of a similar nature afforded, but then the rules are being changed.

I would urge our Legislature to take another approach, and that is if there are to be any kind of rule changes, it be done on a go-forward basis. Otherwise, I’m concerned, as others are, that we would be sending a very chilling message to those businesses which might want to come here to Michigan because it affects credibility. It affects whether they can have confidence and whether or not the rules will remain the same. But if you do it on a go-forward basis, then everyone knows the standards and the rules that will apply.

So I raise this as a future challenge as we go forward.

 Tax break,hell-we're going to give them money. The more accounting tricks they use to lower their tax liability, the more money we will send them. Did you miss the part where WE send THEM a check? This really sucks. Where is the State going to get this money?

Anyone want to bet that when this subsidy runs out, they will threaten to leave until we give them something else? 100 megabucks over 4 years for 300 employees equals 83,333 per year per employee. It will be pretty hard for them to give that up. Why would they even want to show any tax liability during those 4 years? They can invest any profits in new equipment and then take it with them when they leave the state and move their operation to Mexico.

I agree with Senators Sanborn and Gilbert. More broad based tax cuts for Michigan businesses seems a much fairer way to keep and grow business in our state.

 How much money are we going to poor into "green" energy to supposedly create jobs?  We have to pay higher utility rates to pay for green energy now, plus more and more subsidies to companies like this.  How about tax cuts across the board to create jobs?

Rep. Miller, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of Senate Bill No. 777, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

It is ironic to me that on the very day we are struggling to balance the state budget, fund our priorities, and fix a structural deficit problem we are forking over another $25 million dollars in a targeted tax cut to benefit a single enterprise. While advanced battery technology may well be a part of Michigan’s future economy, this carve-out is as much an expenditure of taxpayer resources as any line item in the state budget and one I think we cannot afford right now. Put it into early childhood education instead. “

It's not about green energy.

It's about the color green$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$