Economy

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

citizen concerned — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:42:18 GMT

We would like to express our concern on yet another tax on a service that is already taxed (in some cases) to a point that the addition fees or taxes are more than the original service. In our household we manage our budget based on our income. We don't ask for more income when we spend beyond our means. We are opposed to this Bill 4852!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Send people home

Anonymous Citizen — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:05:55 GMT

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.

GRABYERMONEY GRANHOLM

Anonymous Citizen — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:49:43 GMT

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!

GRABYER$ GRANHOLM & DEMS

Anonymous Citizen — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:29:40 GMT

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.

Show Me One

Anonymous Citizen — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:18:40 GMT

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.

no overtime!

Anonymous Citizen — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:18:20 GMT

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.

Disturbed? Uneducated?

Anonymous Citizen — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:04:46 GMT

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.

The Threat Is Baloney Anyhow

Anonymous Citizen — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:17:22 GMT

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.

Disband The State Revenue Dept.

Anonymous Citizen — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:15:03 GMT

Keep the crime lab until a few private ones can get up and running.

small tax

Anonymous Citizen — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:44:49 GMT

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.

using the daughter threat

Anonymous Citizen — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:32:11 GMT

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.

Answers

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:07:41 GMT

"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.

cop slamming

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:25:06 GMT

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.

daughter on the highway

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:48:01 GMT

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.

confusing and incoherent

pfschaffner — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:56:48 GMT

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.