Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 25, 2007, to adopt the Senate Republican SBT replacement proposal, which would take in $400 million less than the $1.9 billion the SBT now takes. The so-called “BEST” plan (Business and Economic Stimulus) would impose a 1.5 percent profits tax and and 0.54 percent modified gross receipts tax (sales minus purchases of tangible goods from other firms) on all businesses with more than $15 million in annual receipts. Firms between $350,000 and $15 million in annual receipts could elect to pay either the modified gross receipts or the profit’s tax (firms below that level are exemted.) Insurance companies would be subject to a 1.0735 percent premiums tax, and financial institutions to a 0.225 percent levy on capital or net worth. There would be a 25 percent credit against property taxes paid on industrial and commercial business tools and equipment (“personal property tax”), and going forward new industrial tools and equipment would be exempt from property tax. The proposal contains a variety of other credits for investments that create new jobs, for locating a headquarters in Michigan, small businesses, restaurants that prohibit smoking, and more. This bill contains the gross receipts tax provision

The vote was 20 in favor, 17 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 86 at Senate Journal 41)

Click here to view bill details.

Variable tax rates? Compensation still, after all the problems the SBT had? How about this idiocy: Every state in the union taxes rental property at 8 x current rent. What does this propose? 7 x complicated average rents over various years. Do you even understand the meaning of the word "simplify"? A variable tax rate determined every year based on prior years' receipts? Businesses want certainty. The only thing worse than complicated, high taxes are unknown taxes. Put yourself in the place of a company like Pfizer. If you don't like the complexity and effect of the SBT that's bad enough. Given the politics and stupidity of you legislators, and it were my company, I wouldn't trust what you might come up with next. Granholm's proposal dumped on insurance companies. Maybe yours will dump on drug manufactures, who knows? I wouldn't risk my company's assets on the unknown. Maybe that's why we lost 3400 jobs. Take a chance. Don't replace this tax. Cut spending as suggested by the Mackinac Center.

A privilege tax? A franchise tax? You want to tax the capital that business needs to expand and hire our unemployed? You are going to punish business for staying in Michigan? You give business a chance to pick their poison once every three years while you change the rate every year? You must enjoy hearing the sound of businesses following Comerica and leaving the State. Why don't you call it the "You are going to pay 1.51 Billion no matter what tax."

Why stop there? Why not a tax break for using mono saturated fats to deep fry with, fat free, unsalted snack foods, or better yet....a break for NOT serving alcohol. What the hell is FREE about this country if policies like this dictate rules that force people to structure their businesses as the govenment wishes. sure, its not MANDATORY, but there is 'incentive' to do things the governmentally approved way. YOU PEOPLE SUCK. This bill has all kinds of problems, but it makes it look like your 'doing something'. I am leaving this state as soon as I finish my bankruptcy proceedings.

:-(

Senator Switalski's statement is as follows: The budgets we have been voting on and approving in Appropriations represent higher levels of spending over the current fiscal year '07 level. As we all know, the current budget is about a billion dollars in the hole. Now the majority is offering an SBT replacement plan today that cuts revenue by $500 million--according to the Senate Fiscal Agency--and also a PPT cut that starts at $100 million and grows to maybe $700 million, and a flurry of other recent amendments that cut bank taxes and other credits and add more red ink. In fact, Mr.President, I was very glad to see us stop the amendments because every time we did one, we lost more money. So a reasonable person, like some nice young woman on Wall Street might ask, "Well, how does Michigan plan to pay for fiscal year '08 budgets that are higher than '07 levels, when '07 was a billion dollars in the hole and the Senate fixed the SBT problem by cutting another billion in revenue?" There is no good answer to that question. I will vote "no" on Senate Bill No.94.

Senator Prusi's statement is as follows: Earlier in debate on this issue, there was talk of whether the status quo are doing the same things over and over again was a proper path. I would put before you the proposition that we are doing the same things over and over again, something which obviously did not work because many of you served at the same period of time as I did back in the House of Representatives when Michigan's economy was booming. We had the No.1 site selection per new jobs and start-ups. I must confess I voted for the first round of tax cuts under the previous administration because we did have a budget which was growing at four percent annually, and we did have the revenue to maintain the programs which the people of the state of Michigan have come to depend on and which they need so desperately. After all of those tax cuts, the personal income tax, and the single business tax and the statements being made that we had cut taxes over 30 times here in Michigan, you would think our economy would have continued to boom. All of those tax cuts have not, obviously, made Michigan prosper. What they have made is a state government which has been cutting its budget and cutting vital services for the past five budget cycles. I put before you that if we continue down that path of cutting, it's not going to stimulate the economy any more than the first round of tax cuts stimulated the economy. What it's going to do is continue to dig that giant hole which we discussed earlier in this debate. It's going to continue to diminish the services. It's going to continue to send our education system on a downward spiral. Senate colleagues, I cannot in good conscience continue to dig that hole. I cannot in good conscience vote to send Michigan down that spiraling path to mediocrity. We need to fund the services in the state of Michigan. This tax plan once again takes a big bite out of that necessary revenue stream, and I urge a "no" vote on final passage.

Senator Whitmer's statement is as follows: We hear over and over and over again from businesses that what they care most about is having a well-trained workforce and an infrastructure to support their activity. In other words, businesses are willing to pay their fair share for roads, water, police, and fire services. What they are not willing to do is take on risk. And the further we go down the road of voting in so-called fixes which just leave holes in our budget, the more uncertain services become and the more volatile our tax structure becomes. It took six weeks for us to finally see the Republican version of balancing the budget, and even though many would argue their plan from last month balances it on the backs of those who can least afford it in our state, their plan today just knocks it back out of whack without explaining what else you are going to cut in the state budget. Now it's becoming pretty clear that we are going to have a bigger problem to deal with to the tune $200 or $300 million less than what we initially expected. And still, you want an additional tax cut? Did Monday's proration letter do nothing to demonstrate the urgent manner of the crisis which we are facing? Schools, local communities, and health care providers are all still reeling to try to get their heads around the consequences of what those cuts will do to our state, and here you are blowing another $400 million hole in the budget. This plan will cost the state $400 million today, and it will cost local communities another $800 million each year once this is fully phased in. We're talking about funding for schools, for police and fire, and protecting the sick and the elderly. I hope my colleagues realize the long-term consequences of what this proposal does. It seals our fate of endless budget shortfalls, disinvestment in the things which make us great, and we owe it to our citizens to do better. Some of my colleagues may be willing to sacrifice schools and safety to shift taxes away from business, but I most certainly am not. So I've got to tell you, never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined these words would pass my lips, but I'm with Rich Studley on this one. I'm with the State Chamber on this one. This is not the best plan. Seeing that this is the eighth substitute, I'd say that maybe it's the eighth-best plan. Business in our state and those considering coming to our state need to know what our tax structure is. What they don't need is a bunch of posturing. Let's take up the Michigan Business Tax Plan and let's get this done.

Senator Jacobs' statement is as follows: I, too, rise in opposition to the bill and ask to speak to the package. I hope that some members have had a chance to review the Senate Fiscal Agency report on this bill. It says two things: This plan will only raise about $1.43 billion, and it might not even raise that much in the future because of the way the rollback provision works. Please let us compare this to what the SBT raised in the late 1980s and the late 1990s. Remember when things were good here in Michigan? Back then, the SBT raised about $2.7 billion in current dollars. Those numbers come straight from the Citizens Research Council. That's almost double what the current bills would raise. Now everyone in the state knows we are running a structural deficit. We are hearing every day from our mayors and our schools. They're hurting. They oppose these bills. And I'm dismayed that the response from this chamber will be tough or too bad or cut more or we are only trying to scare the public. Now this bill shouldn't be called the BEST plan unless it's supposed to mean "Bills to Eliminate Schools and Teachers." A proration letter went out to Michigan schools on Monday, and here we are on Thursday running bills which we know--that we know--will cut teachers, cops, and support staff. This just doesn't make sense. I'm not always against targeted tax cuts, but I'm certainly not willing to stop asking business to pay its fair share when our needs are so great. Perhaps one of my colleagues who is going to support this bill can tell me how to explain to my schools and my mayors what we are doing to them.

Senator Cassis' statement is as follows: As they say, the first step is the most important step in a long journey and we still have more steps to take. The most important and impressing challenge today is to restructure in a fundamental way to heal an ailing economy and bring back jobs and businesses to help, not a temporary bad Band-Aid fix to continue this malaise. The Senate plan today before you is aimed specifically at a long-term economic development. The Senate tax plan recognizes the all-important, historical manufacturing roots of our state. The Big 3 all will see reductions in their liability under this plan, made better than the previous single business tax. We'd also believe that this plan will forge a healthy future for our manufacturing sector, especially moving in the direction of high tech and the fact that all personal property taxes going forward will be eliminated. I must say that all plans have parts that have merit. The Senate plan stands out, however, with its focus on economic growth, job creation, and the principles of fairness and equitability. Ninety percent of all businesses in our state are helped and especially those often overlooked that are the backbone of our economy and the major job providers in our communities all over the state. These are the small and medium-size businesses, many that have little or no personal property. We know them personally. They're members of Rotary, our local chambers, Kiwanis, and Lions Clubs. They are mom-and-pop stores of every single variety, our local grocery stores, our local clothing store like the one in Traverse City which our own Senator Allen has a very strong interest in, and our independent businesses, our restaurants like that owned by Senator Thomas, our corner drug stores, our local dry cleaner, hardware store, our neighboring bank, the barber or hair dresser we visit, the accountant we need or the lawyer we need to consult with, and architectural and engineering consulting firms--all of these will be benefited. These are the excellent reasons to vote "yes" today and continue the process of reform and restructuring toward a healthy Michigan.

Senator George's statement is as follows: I would like to explain why I will be voting for Senate Bill No.94. For the past six years, I have heard from my businesses regarding our current single business tax structure, all the problems that they see in it--that it is complicated, that it taxes business growth and expansion with an addition of new employees, and the provision of benefits such as health care. I have heard from my businesses and we responded. Then I heard from the naysayers. The naysayers said thatour secret agenda was to get rid of the single business tax and not find a replacement. The naysayers said we didn't have the political will or the skill or the knowledge to come up with or to craft a replacement, and the naysayers are wrong. With Senate Bill No.94, we offer a plan to move Michigan forward. This single business tax replacement, the BEST plan, meets the three criteria that I set for my vote in supporting a business tax, and that is, that it be simpler and easier to calculate than the existing tax that it stops punishing businesses for growth and for the addition of new employees and importantly, that it stops punishing businesses for providing benefits such as health care. This proposal meets those three criteria. It does all of those things, and it gets to the root cause of Michigan's economic woes, which is not a taxation deficit but job losses. This positions Michigan and Michigan's businesses for job growth. This puts us in a position to turn around our job losses, which are at the core of our economic problems. So I will be proudly casting my vote in favor of Senate Bill No.94.

Well at least we now know what the rate is going to be. With the revisions it will help business expand and hire more of our unemployed without punishment. With more people working the shortfall would be limited by the additional income tax paid by people going back to work and the reduction in unemployment benefits paid out. To Mr. Switalski there is a good answer to your question. You cut your 2008 budget the same way every Michigan family has been required to do for the past 5 years. The State cannot realistically expect to increase it's revenue every year when everyone else in the state has had revenue reductions. Welcome to the club Mickey! You might want to reveiw the State employment figures. You have more employees than we have in manufacturing. Your State should not be your biggest employer. Here's a couple of cost cutting ideas that wont affect health care. How about we cut the number of school districts so the kids get the money and not the admininstrators? How about getting the teachers salaries and benefits in line with the rest of the country? Why don't we coordinate their pensions with their social security benefits? How about we eliminate the un-necessary use of State owned autos? How about we put you guys back on a part time basis? If you had to open a business or get a job you could relate to the taxpayers in a more meaningful way! At least now this bill makes sense and that is precisely why the Governor will never sign it!

Perhaps you can explain to me why we pay twice as much to build a school as we do a private building. Or why typical school employee and government employee benefits are 50% more expensive than private industry? Give me a break!

As a business owner I take risks every day. The biggest risk lately is simply being in business in Michigan and wondering what you fools are going to do to screw us next. The government is an inefficient mess and you have the nerve to imply everything has been cut to the bone. You make me sick!

"Perhaps you can explain to me why we pay twice as much to build a school as we do a private building." It's real easy when it's someone else's money. Even easier when you just go confiscate some more when the pile gets low, and if anyone objects, put on your happy-face mask and lie, "It's for the *children*."

"As a business owner I [snip]" Dear Anonymous Taxslave, Shut your hole. You aren't a business owner. We don't allow ownership or private property here [shudder]. Instead, we use you for what you really are: a source of plunder we need to keep the "public" dependent and obedient anesthetized, so that we get to stay in power and line our pockets. And feast on your spoils. Now get back to work you dumb slave before we regulate you six feet under. (Selfish pigs, sheesh.) Sincerely, Modern Government

This is the problem there is no need for a replacement.The thing is government should make cuts all the way around and stop hammering business and citizens.The tax revenue here is higher than most states and they seem to get by.I still say the only way you will stop the ignorace and complete disregard for tax payers need of relief is to boot these idiots out of office all of them from the governor right down the line send them all packing there bags. I mean we the citizen's are suppose to be the boss we shouldn't have to beg and plead with our government to stop ignorant spending and slowly little by little chip at our rights and make us into a big nanny state.

"the only way you will stop the ignorace and complete disregard for tax payers need of relief is to boot these idiots out of office " I totally agree but until you can come up with some kind of poll test the dems/socialists will keep the class warfare and vote buying train running at full steam. I would love to be a fly on the wall at a private dem/socialist cocktail party. If the ignorant voters could hear the disdain that these oportunists hold them in they would never vote communist again.

If you think this is simple, I'd love for you to come prepare our business returns for us.

Steve Bieda is an absolute idiot- whomever allowed this moron to become tax chair and introduce his crap legislation is an even bigger moron (ie. Andy Dillon). The guy is a socialist and has the support of the socialist party (google his last name). Between him and Granholm, they'r bound and determined to turn us into a socialist state.

OPiuM...OPM...Other Peoples Money

When the citizens of this state voted to abolish the SBT we did it because: 1. Business taxes were too high 2. The return was too complicated 3. Michigan tax structure was unfriendly to business These proposals 1. Are "revenue neutral" meaning total taxes paid are still as high as ever. The failure to cut spending as proposed in many of the other suggestions for the replacement tax is disappointing to say the least. 2. Require TWO different calculations of tax bases, gross receipts and income. To cut the burdensome rates the tax is reduced by a myriad of arcane, convoluted, onerous, detailed, and useless credits. This has nothing to do with simplification or transparency and everything to do with pork giveaways to favored businesses. This is as bad as the IRS AMT structure. The property tax reduction is limited and does not remove the tax filing requirement, so nothing much is added there. 3. As horrible as the tax is, businesses can at least make decisions based on a constant rate and rule of law. These proposals do not provide for this. Gross receipts taxes make no economic sense for business. The credits program distorts business and economic activity. 4. The complete failure to reduce spending holds the threat of almost certain increases in this tax rate, or the individual tax rate, or the sales tax rate, or all three. Our state government has failed us. If your legislator votes for this bill, make sure they never have a chance to do it again.

Senator Thomas asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal. The motion prevailed. Senator Thomas' statement is as follows: I, too, rise in support of the Cassis substitute. It creates key points of difference necessary to continue this process moving forward. While it doesn't necessarily get us to the final deal, it does create the doorway to get us there. It is a framework for completion of our work that we hope we can do in the next week. With that in mind, I will also support this sub and the bill so that we can send it back to the House and go to a very agreeable conference committee.

has failed to do is take fiscal responsibility for it's past spending excesses. it has also failed to economize, preferring instead to continue to steal from the people to continue their high maintenance lifestyle.

Rep. Meekhof, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Michigan needs an aggressive plan to attract jobs. As a replacement for the job-killing SBT, the proposed Michigan Business Tax doesn't do enough to turn our economy around. We need real reform that will promote economic growth and bring back jobs. The MBT is flawed in several ways. It fails to provide the overall tax relief businesses need to bring back jobs. Because the plan is structured around gross receipts, companies that do not make a profit could still end up having to pay taxes. The cap on revenues is not permanent; it only lasts for three years meaning the government could end up collecting far more than originally intended and will have a blank check to spend more taxpayer money. Workers and business owners in our community deserve better. I will continue to fight for a plan that is beneficial to everybody. We need a plan to attract jobs and I'm committed to making sure we have it."

Rep. Meltzer, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: After carefully considering my vote on SB 94, I have decided that I simply cannot endorse the bill as presented. While I recognize there has been a lot of work effort put into this budget plan from both sides, I have significant concerns. Of great concern is the uncertainty of how much revenue the plan is projected to generate. A 'trigger' set at 5% over the FY 08 base will be set. From that 5% point the government will keep half of the remaining overage while refunding the other half to the taxpayer. This could potentially be a huge windfall for government and an overall tax increase. This revenue brought in by the trigger is said to be mainly paid by other states, however the constitutionality of that proposal is a concern as Ohio is now involved in litigation for its similar tax construction which taxes businesses from outside states differently than in state. SB 94 also fails in the following objectives: broad based, simplification, tax equity, create a system which is easy to adhere to, and make it inviting and competitive to attract new businesses to Michigan. These were the goals both parties and the governor agreed should be part of the replacement plan. Broad based means the plan should be similar to other states. The similarities fail to exist not in the type of taxes, but that no other state requires all of these taxes. SB 94 is not simplified. In fact the proposed plan provides a third tax where the SBT had two. Different tax requirements between in state v. out state means the taxes are not equal. Because of all the carve outs and exceptions SB 94 is extremely complicated. And finally, although the personal property tax exemption is substantial in comparison to our existing code, in comparison to other states where they have no personal property tax liability, SB 94 may fail to attract new business. The simple fact is that Michigan needs to enact a dramatic reform to its' business tax structure in order to stay competitive in the global marketplace of the 21st century. Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced that SB 94 accomplishes this goal."

Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I cannot vote for Sb 94, because it will not help the state of Michigan. The creation of separate taxation systems runs rough shot against the supposed goals of simplification and equity in taxation of all businesses in Michigan. Establishing a base gross receipts tax rate and giving credits to in-state, but not out state businesses, so as to export a greater tax liability to out-state business is great idea, but it will be challenged as an abridgement of the Commerce Clause, because we are taxing out-state business differently than in- state. Ohio did many of the things Michigan is considering and has been challenged in court and it looks as if they will have to redo their plan. Trying to put the Senate and House plans together, which are comprised of four different taxes, with only one overlapping business income tax, is not good tax policy; it is politics at its worst. It remains to be seen, who will be better off with the new taxation system. No matter how they duct tape the House and Senate plans together or how many additional carve outs and exceptions they create to make it work and to cut a deal, Michigan's Business Tax Structure will be a mess and even more complicated than it was before. We will still have a Gross Receipts Tax of .75% or more (which the people rejected when they over-rode the Governor's veto of the SBT), a Personal Property Tax (which every state around us has gotten rid of), with 'potential' credits for some businesses that range between 24% - 46%, if you can qualify; and we will now add a third business tax, a Business Income Tax, which ranges from 1.85% for companies generating receipts under 20 million and 5% for those above 20 million. The goals which were set three years ago were: broaden the base, simplification, tax equity, create a system which is easy to adhere to, and make it inviting and competitive to attract new businesses to Michigan. I fear what will be passed will do none of these things and that we will have made things worse not better. So what have we really accomplished? We have simply painted the room, re-arranged the furniture and called it tax reform. The Michigan Fair Tax Proposal (House Joint Resolution L) would be the best tax structure for the state of Michigan and would guarantee revenue sharing for townships, cities, and counties by making all revenue sharing constitutional. The Michigan Fair Tax Proposal is transparent, simple and easy to understand, easy to adhere to, it would tax in-state employers and out-state employers the same, regardless where they are headquartered. It is competitive and would attract new business, and it is equitable and taxes all economic activity equally. If the House/Senate tax plan is enacted, the Michigan Fair Tax Proposal will be Michigan's get out of jail card. The time has come for policy to trump politics. Michigan doesn't simply need a plan, it needs the right plan. The Michigan Fair Tax Proposal is not the Republican plan or the Democratic plan. It existed long before our present crisis; it has simply been adjusted to meet Michigan's needs, just as it has in Missouri and Georgia, where it has already been introduced earlier this year. The Lansing bureaucracy and those who live off the tax revenues do not want to lose control of how it is collected, who pays more and who pays less. Their goal is not equity, simplicity, or more competition, their goal is revenue and who controls it. The Michigan Fair Tax Proposal would strip the control from the government bureaucracy and put it into the hands of the people. It would constitutionally restrain government from imposing any new statewide taxes without a vote of the people, it would make government subject to the same economic up turns and down turns as its businesses and its citizens, and people would only pay tax on what they purchased. Now what could be fairer than that?"

Rep. Ward, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: This new Michigan Business Tax is a serious mistake. It contains special carve-out treatment for certain businesses and it is more complicated than the burdensome Single Business Tax it replaces. It is likely passage of this bill will result in a several hundred million dollar tax increase on Michigan's job providers. Our single state depression will only be worsened by the new MBT. A simplified business tax based on profitability would have been much fairer and less riddled with special interest provisions."

Rep. Emmons, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: The Michigan Business Tax, as passed, fails to provide tax relief businesses need for job creation. Because the plan is based on gross receipts, a business that does not make a profit could still pay taxes, similar to the former Single Business Tax. This is not an improvement to the business climate in this state. This is not a plan that will attract business and consequently the jobs they create."

Senator Cassis' statement is as follows: I rise to make a statement on the passage of Senate Bill No.94, the Michigan business tax. John Steffler is a master plumber. He lives with his wife and two children in Novi. John was putting the sweat of his brow into raising his family. Hard times in Michigan came and John lost his job. He tried valiantly to work on his own servicing selected friends. Bills accumulated and mortgage payments increased. John made a very difficult decision. He applied and got a job in a very dangerous place--Iraq. For the last six months now, he sends the checks to his wife to pay overdue bills. Colleagues and residents of Michigan, this is a true story about real people. There are many John Stefflers in Michigan. This is a day of mixed emotions, sadness, and yet, one of hope. Throughout the process of writing a new and more relevant tax code, I, along with many of you, have spent days, months, and years in deliberation, research, discussion, and hearings to come up with this compromise agreement. I've always had certain principles that I carried with me throughout the process: to put together a fair, equitable, and competitive business tax that is pro-job creation and pro-economic growth. I have fought for the hardworking, small- and medium-size business taxpayers who compose the bulk of our economy. They are mostly close and at hand stewards of their businesses, reaping the rewards and suffering the losses. These men and women are truly the backbone of our economy, the job creators who are our constituents. Economists tell us it is a small business sector where growth so vital to our economy is occurring, and as a political process evolves, hard and, at times, difficult compromises had to be made. One of the hardest was to let go of a stimulative overall tax cut in the BEST plan, and I've made these decisions as many of you have. I always tried my best to uphold the bedrock of cherished principles that I believe elected me to this noble office: supporting a healthy, vibrant, and efficient economy; and to do so, remembering to leave more of our taxpayers hard-earned dollars in their pockets to use as they see fit, and as we have seen, their money spent will plow back into the economy, and after all, it's their money. Many people were involved in today's outcome; specifically, let me thank the team, the hard work of a workgroup of eight legislators, our Treasurer and members of his staff, and our respective very competent policy staffers on both sides of the aisle. Personally, my appreciation to two outstanding professors and economists: Dr.Gary Wolfram from Hillsdale College and Dr.Richard Vedder from my alma mater Ohio University. While no solution is perfect, nor do we expect it to satisfy everyone, the crafters of Senate Bill No.94 did their very best to earn the public trust and move Michigan forward; benefiting Michigan's legacy as a dynamic leader with deep and precious roots.

Question: Why do Michigan taxpayers have nothing but contempt for our legislators? Answer: "The new tax has several components, many credits subject to many conditions, and in the aggregate will take as much or possibly more from businesses as the SBT." This will not reduce unemployment and it will not increase new business in Michigan! A lost opportunity, ladies and gentlemen.

"I've always had certain principles that I carried with me throughout the process...." Supposedly like never raising taxes. "One of the hardest [compromises that had to be made] was to let go of a stimulative overall tax cut...." That's a compromise? That's abandonment of one's principles, assuming one believes in lower taxes. "I always tried my best to uphold the bedrock of cherished principles that I believe elected me to this noble office...remembering to leave more of our taxpayers hard-earned dollars in their pockets to use as they see fit...after all, it's their money." Ahh, she does believe in lower taxes. Except she just voted to raise them. I, for one, eagerly await Sen. Cassis's forthcoming explanation for this abandonment of her principles. DeRoche would make a fine senator from Novi. Perhaps she'll explain herself for him.

I wonder if Mr. Steffler lost his job due to the tax burden on his company. The minimum wage increase you passed may have made it harder to employee people. The licensing requirements for plumbers are small, but every little chomp at Mr. Steffler hurts. I'm sure Mr. Steffler tried valiantly to work on his own servicing selected friends. Too bad that the registration fees, licensing fees, self-employment tax, property tax, and building permits were too onerous to let him prosper at self-employment. Pretty sad that there is more job opportunites in a war-torn, lawless country than in Michigan. "I've always had certain principles that I carried with me." I'm sorry that you couldn't see your way clear to keeping them. There is no business tax that is pro-job creation and pro-economic growth. "Small business is the backbone of our economy." How many licensing requirements have you proposed eliminating? You haven't reduced the net tax on business by one dollar. Minimum wage laws hurt small businesses especially hard. "One of the hardest was to let go of a stimulative overall tax cut" So why did you? "I always tried my best to uphold the bedrock of cherished principles that I believe elected me to this noble office: supporting a healthy, vibrant, and efficient economy; and to do so, remembering to leave more of our taxpayers hard-earned dollars in their pockets to use as they see fit, and as we have seen, their money spent will plow back into the economy, and after all, it's their money." I agree. It is Mr. Steffler's money. So why didn't you let him keep more of it? To quote Chariots of Fire, "Compromise is the language of the Devil." You could have not passed a business tax. You could have made serious cuts to the bloated state spending budget. You could have kept to your principles. What would have happened? Who knows? Maybe we would have had chaos. Maybe the governor would have passed a greatly reduced state budget, allowing for no business taxes at all. That would attracted job-creating businesses. I guess we will never know. We should be electing representatives of principles. Ones who do not waiver. Someone like Ron Paul of Texas. I wish we had state and federal legislatures full of Ron Paul clones. Then maybe we'd have more of Nancy's principles actually followed.

Section 503 states that a fiscal year ending before 12/31/2008 should use a prorated or actual basis. If my tax year is 6/1/2007 - 5/31/2008, then I know how to calculate 1/1/2008-5/31/2008 (as laid out in the new law), but how do I calculate the 2007 period from 6/1/2007 to 12/31/2007? I've been searching the 2007 SBT filing requirements, but so far, no luck. Can anyone shed some light on this situation?