Michigan Votes Forum

Without my labor, and the labor of others, business would not have a product to sell.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed; that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor." Abraham Lincoln

Again, taxing pensions to increase revenue while giving tax breaks to business is unfair. Taxing pensions because retirement  investments are taxed is punitive. Rather than supporting taxing pensions, oldvet should be lobbying to exempt retirement investments as well as pensions. Isn't that the Republican, aka Tea party, creed, reduce taxes?

 That is my point exactly , less taxes less goverment . You continue to make my point !!!!  Even though you keep bringing business into the mix. I still think you have a convoluted view of business which provided you with the pension you do not want taxed . Isn't that the Democrat ,aka Socalist Party ,creed, increase taxes ( as long as it is not mine ).

If you think I am making your point, you really have no idea what your point is. Although I have tried to cut the fog of your confusion, I fear you are still lost. Either lost or hiding.

How can you be for less taxes and less government, and still support taxing pensions? Even for one as confused as yourself, it should eventually become obvious that taxing pensions that are not presently taxed is MORE taxes, not less, and also MORE government, not less. Your reference to having to pay taxes on your retirement investments reveals your motive for supporting a bill that by your own admission is against your political ideology. 'Fess up oldvet, you just want pensions taxed because your investments are.

Business did not "provide" me with my pension. It was part of the price they agreed to pay me for my services. I fulfilled my end of the contract, and they their's.

 Quote by Gypsy  " I also ,like most fairminded people believe the tax burden should be proportioned fairly " 

 

Now that your special pension exemption has been repealed , and the new tax rules are in place the tax burden is  " proportioned fairly"

 

 

If you think it fair the business tax be repealed and only a third of Michigan's corporations will pay income tax, and to make up the shortfall, retiree's pensions will be taxed, your sense of fairness needs a wee bit of adjustment. Although you see this discussion only in the context of taxing retirement investments and pensions, there is a wider picture to consider.

By the way, my pension, even under the new rules, will not be taxed. I know that may disappoint you. Sorry.

 I am happy that you under the new rules will not have to pay income tax, that is the benifit of the repeal, and all seniors when they reach the age of 67 will be exempt from income tax regardless of income source, $20,000 single filer $40,000 joint filers. That is why I say this is a good step forward in Michigan Tax  Reform. The bill does not address the Business Tax , if you would like to discuss that I would be happy to show you the benifits in that also. As far as the shortfall you mentioned less spending will take care of that.

I'm sure you know that the version of the pension tax bill passed is not the version Snyder first proposed. It is the result of backpedaling once Republicans saw the enormous opposition to taxing pensions, and started counting votes.

Of course this bill doesn't address the MBT or corporate income tax, but like the food you eat, it all ends up in the same place. It is impossible to ignore the fact that the tax burden is being shifted from businesses to private citizens.

Less spending means cuts in programs benefiting the private citizens of Michigan, the very people Republicans are shifting the tax burden to.

 You fail to understand that taxing business is taxing consumers, a business must make a profit to survive, and added cost whether in direct or indirect tax is passed on. So your tax shift is baseless. What Gov. Sndyer did was make the pension tax fair to all retirees. the only ones that will pay taxes are the ones who retired early because of generous pensions. If you leave the work place at age 50 with a large pension you should pay income tax until they turn 67. Gov. Snyder did no back pedaling but came up with a fair resoulotion to and unfair tax break. I am also surprised that you are against any tax ( not really all progressives wan't more taxes as long as it is not their's) to help support your beloved programs. To qoute another Republican '' Republicans celebrate the Fourth of July every day Democrats celebrate April15"    ~ Ronald Reagan

Actually, you fail to understand the basics of economics. Businesses charge for their products or services what the market will bear. Taxes have minimal effect on setting prices. During the Clinton years, taxes were much higher than they are now, and business thrived, thanks to new technology and low unemployment.

Snyder did backpedal, that is a matter of record. His original proposal was to tax all pensions. Look it up. Early retirements are actually good for the economy, since they open jobs to younger workers. Just what do you consider a "generous" pension? Snyder considers it anything over $20,000.00. Please.

I am just as surprised you are in favor of a new tax. I thought  all Republicans were against any tax increases. Maybe they just meant tax increases for the wealthy and businesses. I am for taxes that pay to provide services to the public, not taxes that allow businesses to increase profits, while shipping jobs to low wage countries.

 

 "Acutally" after 37 years owning my own business and a few college classes in enonomics I think I have more than a basic understanding of economics.

 A marginal tax on the sellers of a good will increase the price paid by the consumer, and decrease the price recieved by the sellers.

 A marginal tax on consumption will increase the price paid by consumers and decrease the price recieved by  the same amount as if the tax had been imposed on the seller.

 The end result is that no matter who is taxed ,the price sellers recieve will decrease and the price consumers pay will increase. This is basic "Economics 101 ".

Now explain to me how taxes allow business to increase profits.  If there is no profit who would ever start a business?

  By the way Clinton signed NAFTA into law.

A marginal tax on the sellers won't change the publics desire for a product. A marginal tax on consumption will increase the price paid by consumers, but not decrease the price received by the seller.This is basic economics, common sense, and reality. Maybe you can get your money back for that economics course.

Taxes don't allow businesses to make a profit, but neither do they hinder them from doing so. Maybe your business plan has not been successful for other reasons than taxes. Or if it has been successful, even with taxes, maybe you have a product that the public desires. Either way, taxes haven't been the deciding factor in your success or failure.

Clinton did sign NAFTA. Your point? He also was President during the greatest expansion of our economy since the fifties.

 

 Gypsy ~ You , my friend have continued to try to insult my intelligence. you might want to read a little on economics before you start spewing your  " I hate business "rhetoric. You have a great lack of knowledge on how a business runs  ,or what it takes to run a business. You have been a union minion and have drank the " kool aid ": Maybe you should have used some of your union dues to go to school, before you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself .

Taxes are always a drag on the economy . All taxes are eventually paid by the consumer ,they are a cost of doing business.Embedded taxes in supply prices are bad for business because they increase the cost of product and that cost must be passed on to the end user.

 I sold my business and retired from the endless Goverment regulations, taxes, and interference. The business is now in it's 42 yr.  So maybe it has been a successful plan,despite taxes,and Goverment regulation.

My point on NAFTA , by the way I agree with it, was in reference to your comment on business moving outside of the country. 

You forget that Clinton inherited an expanding economy that was already on a roll ,the "technology bubble" and in 1995 got a Republican controlled Congress that was responsible for bringing the budget in balance.He also left office with the economy in a recession.

 

Glad we're still friends oldvet, but we certainly do not agree on the effect of taxes on business. I never said I hate business, since I have worked in, and managed one. I have also been a union member, so I have seen both sides of the coin, so to speak. Additionally, I don't like "kool-aide". Too sweet. I do like an occasionally shot of brandy. As for my education, my union dues helped pay for a portion of it, and I paid for the rest. It has served me well.

Taxes are not always a drag on the economy. Taxes pay for our children's educations, our infrastructure, our fire and police protection, and our national defense. They are what makes it possible for business to function in our society. Without taxes and regulations, our economy would resemble Somalia's.

The fact you were able to have a successful business and retirement, despite all those troublesome taxes and regulations, is very telling.

Spin it anyway you want, but Clinton inherited a budget deficit from George H. W. Bush, and left a surplus for George W. Bush, who quickly turned it into a deficit, and left it, along with near collapse of our economic system and a huge recession, to Barack Obama.

As John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things."  Just a note, Reagan tried to quote this but mispoke, saying facts are stupid things. Maybe you took him seriously.

 

 Managing a business is not owning one. You have no skin in the game.

A typical Democrat would "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"

Under Clinton we had a" Projected Surplus" it never really happened. Check Treasury.Gov. Clinton had a 4.4 trillion defecit  when he took office and left with a 5.5 trillion defecit. All this dispite the highest tax revenues in modern history ,via the dot.com boom and  borrowing from the Social security Progarm.

Thats why I say less taxes ,less goverment. One will not work whithout the other. Lower taxes always spurs the economy forward, which even with less taxes raises Govt. revenue. Less Govt. means less spending . Less spending plus higher revenue means less debt. We cannot spend our way out of the mess we have let our politicans get us into.We must cut spending now.

That is why making the business tax fair and more competive will attract more business and create more jobs which will create more tax revenue , without raising individual taxes.

 Even if you remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while. You can spin and twist all you want, but as Mr. Adams said, facts are stubborn. Check it out on factcheck.org. On second thought, don't bother. You will not be convinced by facts anyway. You are stuck in your world of ideology, damn the facts.

Lower taxes have been in effect for years under George W., and the economy has tanked, yet you say lower taxes always spur the economy forward. Another afront to reality.

I'm all for making the business tax fair, but it will not create more jobs or increase tax revenue. Only demand for a product will spur a business to produce more, thus hire more. Economics 101. Lower taxes mean nothing unless a business has a product that sells. Raising taxes on the consumer, like retirees, will not create jobs.

 I find it interesting you suggest the left leaning factcheck.org. run by the Annenburgh Fondation . with direct ties to Bill Ayers ,the unrepentant terrorist  and Barack Obama.  

Apparently Teasury. Gov and its cold hard numbers do not meet your views.

Yes lower taxes during the Bush Admin. did create economic growth at a rapid rate , unfounately the Housing Bubble created by the CRA came crashing down during a Democrat Congress. That in which we are still fighting to get out of.  With no help from our  present Admin.

At the beginning of this thread I said this bill HB4480 is a good bill ,it levels the tax on retirement income for retired people of retirement age . The only people who will pay more taxes are the early pension retirees.

I will always be for " Less  Goverment " and  " Less taxes ".

Treasury.gov doesn't have to "meet my views", since unlike yourself, I don't distort facts to fit my view. You quote not one single number, date, or fact that can be researched, but question my sources. You can find the facts on the CBO site, but I suspect you will reject those as leftist propaganda. I don't know what kind of a business you were in, but mine required me to produce numbers, not opinion.

Lower taxes on the wealthy, combined with two wars, one of which was fought based on a falsehood, during the W. administration, increased our national debt substantially. I am not alone in this opinion. In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureates, signed a statement opposing the Bush tax cuts. They sent it to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income." History has proven them right. Denying the facts will not change them.

This bill, combined with Snyder's entire tax bill, will drop the number of businesses obligated to pay corporate income tax from 136,000 to 41,000. It freezes the individual income tax rate at 4.35% until Jan. 1, at which time it will drop to 4.25% and remain there. The tax originally was scheduled to drop until it reached 3.9% in 2015. Along with taxing pensions, it decreases the earned income credit from 20% of the federal credit to 6%. A typical family that now gets about $430 from the state credit will now get about $130.

This is typical of the republican goal of shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor. The truth oldvet is you are for less government and taxes only when it benefits yourself, or you think it does.

 Have you heard?  Michigan has a new moto (Empty Pockets)  Vote Snyder out !!!

Frannie:

Vote Snyder out !!!

Yes, let's!  Maybe we can get Jennifer Granholm back.  We could change the term limits laws, maybe find them inconvenient...I mean unconstitutional.  That would fix everything.  She just didn't have enough time to fix things.  After another 8 years we could probably climb from 47th to 50th on the list of economically unviable states.

Or maybe we could all share in the pain until the economy recovers, as it will, rather than Snyder's idea of putting the the lion's share of the burden on retirees and lower income citizens while giving the wealthy and businesses tax breaks.

just can not take take for serious. Ugg Outlet

best mouse traps This is a echt couth foreclose for me, Unoriginality cultivated that you are one of the jaunty blogger I e'er saw.Thanks for visor this consultatory say.

This money should not be taxed at all. I am not sure what they are trying to do here. This money has never been taxed and does not need to. Working in PR