Michigan Votes Forum

Discuss issues, ideas and legislation related to the Great Lake State.
Welcome to Michigan Votes Forum Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Latest post 05-10-2008 11:12 AM by Anonymous Citizen. 10 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (11 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 01-01-2001 12:00 AM

    2004 House Bill 6074 (Retain motor fuel "regulatory fee" )

    Introduced in the House on July 6, 2004, to extend for an additional two years the 7/8ths cent-per-gallon fuel "regulatory fee" (tax) levied for the cleanup of underground fuel tanks, and use $50 million in the underground tank cleanup fund to avoid making spending cuts in the 2005 budget. Under current law, the tax would have ended on Sept. 30, 2004. Extending it will increase the tax paid by motorists by approximately $30 million a year. A new commission will advise what to do with that money. Note: A pending lawsuit against the state contends that the authority to levy this tax was eliminated once there was enough money to pay off the underground tank cleanup program's debt

    The vote was 87 in favor, 13 opposed and 9 not voting

    (House Roll Call 705 at House Journal 65)

    Click here to view bill details.
  • 07-08-2004 9:11 PM In reply to

    worse idea ever

    MUSTFA is over and so should the tax. MUSTFA was for an "insurance policy" for the state USTs owners. The state mishandled and the fund went broke screwing many tank owners. No to this bill, don't take our taxes
  • 07-08-2004 9:56 PM In reply to

    Nice try.

    Sounds like a backdoor attempt to locate another "new" source of revenue for the spendaholics in Lansing. There's a damn good reason why sunset provisions are included in bills such as these. The "learned" representative is obviously ignorant of this simple fact. This should die in committee.
  • 07-08-2004 10:16 PM In reply to

    absolutely terrible

    At a Spring 2004 conference, one of the main suits at the MDEQ was licking his chops at the $60 Million this tax generates a year and thought it would go a long way to help the DEQ budget. There is one problem, that not what it was meant for. The MDEQ suit finally found a newby to listen. Notice it is not anyone in the environment committee. hopefully they will be wise of these tactics and turn it down in committee
  • 07-09-2004 10:25 AM In reply to

    gas tax should be for roads

    Time to re-write part 213 and 215. No more gas tax except for roads
  • 07-16-2004 10:56 AM In reply to

    House rips off motorists with unconstitutional tax

    Of the $1.90 or so that Michigan drivers are paying for each gallon of gas or Diesel fuel these days, 7/8 of a cent is a "regulatory fee" that repays the bonds sold to finance the grossly-mismanaged underground storage-tank cleanup program of the late 1980's. (Unscrupulous contractors bilked the state of much of this money.) Enough money to cover that debt has now been collected, so under the law the 7/8-cent tax should have come off in 2003 or 2004. Petroleum wholesalers have filed suit to stop paying the tax, and want a refund of $60 million or so that may have been illegally collected. Of course, all that money was actually paid by Michigan motorists, farmers, contractors, and homeowners, who won't see a dime of the refund, if it is made. In the current bill, the House proposes to continue the underground-tank tax at least through 2006, while abolishing the pollution-cleanup program for fuel tanks. The bill creates a 9-person committee to recoemmend how to spend the $120 million that will be collected in the next two years, presumably on remediating contaminated fuel-tank sites. But this is just window dressing: the legislature is not required to spend the money on anything having to do with underground tanks. Rather, the tax is clearly to balance the Fiscal 2005 budget. Because the overwhelming majority of petroleum products subject to the 7/8-cent tax are fuel for highway use, this bill violates the intent, if not the exact letter, of Article IX, Sec. 9 of the state Constitution, which restricts motor fuel taxes to road construction and public transit, excepting only "regulatory fees." House Speaker Rick Johnson has told the Republican caucus that this tax is being extended explicitly to balance the General Fund budget. I hope the court is reminded of this when the constitutionality of this tax is challenged. If this bill passes, it will be the third unconstitutional raid by this legislature on motorists' road-use fees. (The first two were the $2.25 surtax on license plates that is going to the State Police, and the $10 "late fee" on plate renewals that is going to the General Fund.) If motorists do not start objecting to these rip-offs, state officials will continue to stretch the definition of "regulatory fee" until large portions of the DEQ and State Police budgets are being charged to motorists. When your state representative asks for your vote this summer, ask him why he thinks you should pay to balance the budget every time you fill your tank or buy heating fuel.
  • 11-05-2004 4:10 PM In reply to

    Another Tax Increase

    Thanks for raising my taxes yet again. I hope you citizens are paying attention. Almost everytime the legi-crats have a short-term, temporary tax for some new crisis, it gets extended. They figure that we are used to it, and we might as well keep it going rather than make any kind of a hard decision.

     

  • 11-05-2004 4:12 PM In reply to

    Thanks for tax increase

    I appreciate you raising my taxes again. I was afraid I'd have to decide how to spend my money all by myself.

     

  • 11-05-2004 4:16 PM In reply to

    Thanks for trying

    Joe Hune, thanks for voting against raising my taxes in the final bill. I guess I didn't make a mistake voting for you this time. As for the rest of you plunderers, your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries. Go away or I will taunt you a second time.

     

  • 11-06-2004 11:56 AM In reply to

    Motor fuel regulatory fee

    A new twist to the old hide and switch game. Rob the public insted of cutting services. When will our representative have the guts to cut services that money is not available to support. You have taken 30 million out of consumer spending and reduced the chance of an economic recovery. Great job.
  • 05-10-2008 11:12 AM In reply to

    mdeq

    Mdeq wastes alot of cash on nothing.
Page 1 of 1 (11 items)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems