How did we get into this economic mess that started in 2008? Why did Wall Street melt down? What can we do to create more fairness for the 99 percent?
Moveon.org volunteers are hosting two events this weekend in and near Livingston County as part of the group's 99% Spring Training program taking place across the nation. Many groups are collatorating on the 99% Spring Training, and moveon.org is coordinating the registration process, so the events vary.
One will be Saturday, April 14, in Fowlerville, at 2 p.m. at a private home at Nicholson and Sargent Road.
According to the email from moveon.org urging sign-ups for the event:
"Our movement will be holding huge rallies in every major city on Tax Day to call out the 1% who refuse to pay their fair share. We'll be gathering massive crowds to confront CEOs and top executives at annual shareholder meetings of Wall Street banks, dirty energy polluters, and corporations that refuse to treat workers fairly. And we'll be doing everything we can to call out the corrupting influence of corporate money on our elections.
"At the training in Fowlerville, you'll get prepared to take part in these bold actions and to build connections with other progressives who want to see a 99% Spring in America.
"We'll practice telling the story of what happened to our economy and what a different future could look like, we'll learn the history of nonviolent direct action, and we'll train and plan to take direct action ourselves—in the footsteps of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.—to win change.
"By the end of the training we'll be ready to join the legacy of people using direct action to transform the political landscape in this country."
An event on Sunday, April 15, will educate the public about the causes of the recession that we are climbing out of. It will be held from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the South Lyon Library, 27005 S Milford Rd., South Lyon.
People will have a chance to talk about how they have been impacted by the economic melt down and receive training in problem solving.
This is a great way to learn how to raise the issue of tax and economic fairness in an effective way so that it becomes part of the debate for the 2012 election.
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Low Standards for Grading Snyder
Rick Snyder drew an easy grader when the Detroit Free Press recently decided to editorialize about his first year in office.
The newspaper graded Snyder in several categories regarding his performance, including "Jobs," "Kids," and "Leadership."
For some reason, the editorial writer thought Snyder deserved a "B" for his policies regarding the health and welfare of Michigan's children. That is hard to fathom when you look at the record.
The editorial has a vague reference to "strict new four-year limits on cash welfare." Translated, that means some 12,000 children in families who will lose cash assistance if a court challenge fails. That's a heartless decision that will have devastating consequences on the "health and welfare" of those children whose families suddenly will have no money for rent, few prospects for employment in a slowly-recovering economy, and few resources to fall back on.
For children in working families, Snyder slashed the Earned Income Tax Credit from 20 percent of the federal amount to 6 percent. Those dollars helped families get by when paychecks just won't stretch to cover everything and Snyder's action raised taxes by $330 million on nearly 800,000 working families, including many with children. The tax credit meant an average of $432 for working families who were on the edge of poverty even with a job. Without the tax credit, some 14,000 children may cross the line into poverty, despite having parents who are working. And businesses will lose customers, since ever $1 spent on the Earned Income Tax Credit generated $1.67 of economic activity in Michigan.
Snyder also tried to make it harder for people to qualify for food stamps by trying to force families to sell their cars. That counterproductive policy would have made it harder for people to get to work, look for work, or go to school so they can find a better job and not need food stamps.
And for this Snyder gets a "B." What does a guy have to do to earn a failing grade?
The newspaper graded Snyder in several categories regarding his performance, including "Jobs," "Kids," and "Leadership."
For some reason, the editorial writer thought Snyder deserved a "B" for his policies regarding the health and welfare of Michigan's children. That is hard to fathom when you look at the record.
The editorial has a vague reference to "strict new four-year limits on cash welfare." Translated, that means some 12,000 children in families who will lose cash assistance if a court challenge fails. That's a heartless decision that will have devastating consequences on the "health and welfare" of those children whose families suddenly will have no money for rent, few prospects for employment in a slowly-recovering economy, and few resources to fall back on.
For children in working families, Snyder slashed the Earned Income Tax Credit from 20 percent of the federal amount to 6 percent. Those dollars helped families get by when paychecks just won't stretch to cover everything and Snyder's action raised taxes by $330 million on nearly 800,000 working families, including many with children. The tax credit meant an average of $432 for working families who were on the edge of poverty even with a job. Without the tax credit, some 14,000 children may cross the line into poverty, despite having parents who are working. And businesses will lose customers, since ever $1 spent on the Earned Income Tax Credit generated $1.67 of economic activity in Michigan.
Snyder also tried to make it harder for people to qualify for food stamps by trying to force families to sell their cars. That counterproductive policy would have made it harder for people to get to work, look for work, or go to school so they can find a better job and not need food stamps.
And for this Snyder gets a "B." What does a guy have to do to earn a failing grade?
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Is Rogers Looking Out for You? Certainly Not
Time flies, but it seems like just a few weeks ago that Rep. Mike Rogers was giving speeches decrying the "uncertainty" that small business owners must deal with due to something or other President Obama's administration has done. Was it too many federal regulations, the traditional boogey-man of the Republican Party? Or maybe it was uncertainty of whether taxes would go up, which they haven't under Obama.
Whatever it was that was causing the "uncertainty," Rogers was certain that "uncertainty" was what is holding the economy back from recovery. And he was certain that Obama was behind the "uncertainty."
Thanks to Rogers and his fellow Tea Party Republicans in the U.S. House, business owners big and small, working people, people on unemployment, and bealth care providers who treat Medicare patients are all facing a whole lot of real uncertainty, as opposed to the kind dreamed up by Rogers.
The source of the uncertainty now is the Republican House's refusal to go along with a tax cut for working people that was already passed by the Senate. The two-month extension of the payroll tax cut was included in a bill that also includes an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed and heads off a big cut in reimbursement rates for health care providers under the Medicare program. Although 39 Republicans in the Senate voted for it, the Tea Party Republicans in the House are refusing to even bring it up for a vote. Instead, they pulled a parliamentary maneuver designed to put the measure into conference committee. And now they've gone home.
Did Rogers and the Tea Party Republicans create more uncertainty for business owners who don't know how much to withhold in their employees' wages? Did they create more uncertainty for health care providers, for people on unemployment, for workers who don't know whether they will lose $1,000 out of their paychecks next year?
I'm certain they did.
Whatever it was that was causing the "uncertainty," Rogers was certain that "uncertainty" was what is holding the economy back from recovery. And he was certain that Obama was behind the "uncertainty."
Thanks to Rogers and his fellow Tea Party Republicans in the U.S. House, business owners big and small, working people, people on unemployment, and bealth care providers who treat Medicare patients are all facing a whole lot of real uncertainty, as opposed to the kind dreamed up by Rogers.
The source of the uncertainty now is the Republican House's refusal to go along with a tax cut for working people that was already passed by the Senate. The two-month extension of the payroll tax cut was included in a bill that also includes an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed and heads off a big cut in reimbursement rates for health care providers under the Medicare program. Although 39 Republicans in the Senate voted for it, the Tea Party Republicans in the House are refusing to even bring it up for a vote. Instead, they pulled a parliamentary maneuver designed to put the measure into conference committee. And now they've gone home.
Did Rogers and the Tea Party Republicans create more uncertainty for business owners who don't know how much to withhold in their employees' wages? Did they create more uncertainty for health care providers, for people on unemployment, for workers who don't know whether they will lose $1,000 out of their paychecks next year?
I'm certain they did.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Don't Let the Grinch Steal the American Dream!
Tis the season to be on the lookout for the Grinch. Not the holiday season, but any time when the Michigan Legislature is in session considering bills that will steal the American Dream.
The Grinch already has taken millions from K-12 education, from higher education, and from needy families. The Grinch has raised taxes on our senior citizens, in order to give a tax break to business, chipping away at the American Dream of a secure retirement. The Grinch is trying to take away rights of workers, especially teachers who want to be able to negotiate for fair wages and decent class sizes.
We Are the People is organizing a rally to ask Santa to restore those cuts. Come and help show your opposition to the Grinch, at a special Holiday Rally to Save the American Dream. Come Wednesday, Dec. 14, at 4 p.m., to the Mill Pond Gazebo in downtown Brighton. For more information, ontact Debby Buckland, organizer for We Are The People, at 810-599-2128 or debbybuckland@gmail.com.
The Grinch already has taken millions from K-12 education, from higher education, and from needy families. The Grinch has raised taxes on our senior citizens, in order to give a tax break to business, chipping away at the American Dream of a secure retirement. The Grinch is trying to take away rights of workers, especially teachers who want to be able to negotiate for fair wages and decent class sizes.
We Are the People is organizing a rally to ask Santa to restore those cuts. Come and help show your opposition to the Grinch, at a special Holiday Rally to Save the American Dream. Come Wednesday, Dec. 14, at 4 p.m., to the Mill Pond Gazebo in downtown Brighton. For more information, ontact Debby Buckland, organizer for We Are The People, at 810-599-2128 or debbybuckland@gmail.com.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Payroll Tax Cut is Classic 1 Percent Over 99 Percent
Mike Rogers' Republican Party just can't help itself. Right now, they seem to be doing everything they possibly can to help millionaires and billionaires instead of working people. And they aren't even hiding it anymore.
That's clear from the debate over extending President Obama's payroll tax cut, which expires at the end of this year. The tax cut has saved working families an average of $1,000 a year. With the economy slowly recovering, now is not the time to take money out of the pockets of working people.
President Obama has proposed extending the current 2 percent payroll tax cut and increasing it 3.2 percent. That would mean up to $1,500 a year in the pockets of working families, giving a further boost to the economy.
Rather than add to the deficit, President Obama would pay for the tax cut with a surtax on the wealthiest sliver of Americans. You can click here to find out what the tax plan means for you.
So far, Republicans in the Senate have voted against the payroll tax cut in order to protect the 1 percent richest Americans. Let's hope Mike Rogers gets his chance to vote on the payroll tax cut for his constituents in the 8th Congressional District, even if it means Congress is still in session on New Year's Eve.
That's clear from the debate over extending President Obama's payroll tax cut, which expires at the end of this year. The tax cut has saved working families an average of $1,000 a year. With the economy slowly recovering, now is not the time to take money out of the pockets of working people.
President Obama has proposed extending the current 2 percent payroll tax cut and increasing it 3.2 percent. That would mean up to $1,500 a year in the pockets of working families, giving a further boost to the economy.
Rather than add to the deficit, President Obama would pay for the tax cut with a surtax on the wealthiest sliver of Americans. You can click here to find out what the tax plan means for you.
So far, Republicans in the Senate have voted against the payroll tax cut in order to protect the 1 percent richest Americans. Let's hope Mike Rogers gets his chance to vote on the payroll tax cut for his constituents in the 8th Congressional District, even if it means Congress is still in session on New Year's Eve.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
And Don't Forget Their Pensions Are Taxed Now
Senior citizens in Michigan are struggling with poverty, with one-third of them "economically insecure."
That's according to a report from Wayne State University's Institute of Gerontology published Thursday (July 21, 2011) in the Detroit Free Press.
The study found that the median income for those hosueholds with someone 65 and older is $32,392. Matching that with an index that measures the costs of items essential to the elderly, such as health care premiums and prescription drug copayments, the report found many seniors struggling.
Unmentioned, of course, is that on top of all their other bills, many of those seniors now will pay higher taxes, thanks to Rick Snyder's taxes on pensions that paid for tax cuts for businesses. During the debate on that pension tax this spring, the focus was on senior citizens living the good life with fat, untaxed pensions.
Where was this report when we needed it?
That's according to a report from Wayne State University's Institute of Gerontology published Thursday (July 21, 2011) in the Detroit Free Press.
The study found that the median income for those hosueholds with someone 65 and older is $32,392. Matching that with an index that measures the costs of items essential to the elderly, such as health care premiums and prescription drug copayments, the report found many seniors struggling.
Unmentioned, of course, is that on top of all their other bills, many of those seniors now will pay higher taxes, thanks to Rick Snyder's taxes on pensions that paid for tax cuts for businesses. During the debate on that pension tax this spring, the focus was on senior citizens living the good life with fat, untaxed pensions.
Where was this report when we needed it?
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Hune Sacrificing Children to Tax Ideology, Cigarette Companies
Republican Joe Hune has given himself a pretty narrow job description, and his proposal to encourage smoking and then cut health care is the latest example of it.
As he said in the Livingston Press and Argus, "'I wasn't elected to protect what's in government coffers. I was elected to protect what's in the pocketbook of my constituents and the people I serve.'"
What about protecting children from harm? Isn't that part of the job description of a state senator in Michigan? Not for Hune.
Hune wants to cut the state's $2 a pack cigarette tax in half, which will drastically increase smoking, especially among young people. The tobacco industry's own documents show that cigarette use among young people is highly sensitive to price.
Researchers who examined those internal documents concluded: "These documents clearly support the findings from academic and other research that demonstrate that price is a key determinant of overall cigarette smoking, that price increases lead to significant reductions in overall smoking, increases in smoking cessation, and reductions in smoking prevalence, with relatively large effects on young people." In other words, the lower the price, the more young people smoke or start smoking. The higher the price, the fewer who start.
So Hune's proposal to cut taxes and lower prices will lead to more smoking, especially among young people who might otherwise never start because of the cost.
And once they are smokers and begin to experience the health problems associated with smoking? Hune will make it harder for them to get health care by cutting eligibility for Medicaid.
Hune's response is that if smoking is so bad, it should be banned -- a totally unworkable proposal and he knows it. If Hune is worried about cigarette smuggling now, how much worse would it get with a ban on cigarettes?
Hune says he is protecting the pocketbooks of "my constituents and the people I serve." Joe Camel may not be a constituent, but that's who Hune is serving.
As he said in the Livingston Press and Argus, "'I wasn't elected to protect what's in government coffers. I was elected to protect what's in the pocketbook of my constituents and the people I serve.'"
What about protecting children from harm? Isn't that part of the job description of a state senator in Michigan? Not for Hune.
Hune wants to cut the state's $2 a pack cigarette tax in half, which will drastically increase smoking, especially among young people. The tobacco industry's own documents show that cigarette use among young people is highly sensitive to price.
Researchers who examined those internal documents concluded: "These documents clearly support the findings from academic and other research that demonstrate that price is a key determinant of overall cigarette smoking, that price increases lead to significant reductions in overall smoking, increases in smoking cessation, and reductions in smoking prevalence, with relatively large effects on young people." In other words, the lower the price, the more young people smoke or start smoking. The higher the price, the fewer who start.
So Hune's proposal to cut taxes and lower prices will lead to more smoking, especially among young people who might otherwise never start because of the cost.
And once they are smokers and begin to experience the health problems associated with smoking? Hune will make it harder for them to get health care by cutting eligibility for Medicaid.
Hune's response is that if smoking is so bad, it should be banned -- a totally unworkable proposal and he knows it. If Hune is worried about cigarette smuggling now, how much worse would it get with a ban on cigarettes?
Hune says he is protecting the pocketbooks of "my constituents and the people I serve." Joe Camel may not be a constituent, but that's who Hune is serving.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Senate Dem Video Sums Up Snyder, Without Saying a Word
Tax overhauls can get pretty complicated. Dropping this tax credit, raising this rate, exempting people above a certain age. Look at what happened with Rick Snyder's pension tax, with its three-tiered approach to socking it to older people in Michigan.
Regardless of the details, the overall story can be pretty simple, as in Snyder's case -- take from the people and give it to business.
Senate Democrats devised a video that underscores the unfairness of Snyder's plan with stark simplicited. It is the most effective video I've ever seen from the Democratic legislative caucuses.
After watching the video, if you'd like to sign up to help recall Snyder, you can sign up through Daily Kos, as Michigan Liberal points out, or you can check out Recall Rick on Facebook.
Regardless of the details, the overall story can be pretty simple, as in Snyder's case -- take from the people and give it to business.
Senate Democrats devised a video that underscores the unfairness of Snyder's plan with stark simplicited. It is the most effective video I've ever seen from the Democratic legislative caucuses.
After watching the video, if you'd like to sign up to help recall Snyder, you can sign up through Daily Kos, as Michigan Liberal points out, or you can check out Recall Rick on Facebook.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Gardening Advice for Rick Snyder
"Plant your peas on St. Patrick's Day and you'll harvest them on Memorial Day," my grandmother told me once.
As a farm wife, Grandma knew a thing or two about making things grow. And she meant that advice literally. I did exactly what she said a couple years and did in fact have fresh peas in late May.
Of course, Grandma -- and I -- both knew that while you could plant peas on St. Patrick's Day, you wouldn't dare do that with tomatoes or sweet corn. Different crops, different planting schedule. There's no one-size fits all when it comes to growing things.
But when it comes to growing businesses, Rick Snyder seems to think one size does fit all. His approach -- no taxes for most businesses and hope they create jobs -- is far removed from what most states are doing and what Michigan has been doing -- targeting incentives to growth industries.
Snyder won't even promise that his approach will create jobs. Even if it were to create jobs, it will do nothing to diversify Michigan's economy by making it a center for a new industry, such as wind power or the film industry.
And Snyder does not seem to care. He is perfectly content to ride the resurgence of the auto industry back to prosperity and let it go at that. If a film studio happens to locate here, that's OK with him, but he's not going to do anything to make that happen.
Why would a film studio locate here now? Because of low taxes? Businesses thrive on synergy, on a community of like-minded people in the same field. Having a critical mass of people in the same field leads to professional organizations where ideas are shared, ties with colleges and universities that train the people you need to hire, a culture that values and promotes what you do. Kind of like Silicon Valley. In the computer software field. And aren't computers supposed to be what Snyder knows a lot about?
Michigan was well on its way to developing new industries like wind energy, film, and advanced batteries until Snyder's budget pulled the rug out from under them.
The state is now back to the equivalent of planting all the crops on St. Patrick's Day and hoping something besides peas survives by Memorial Day.
As a farm wife, Grandma knew a thing or two about making things grow. And she meant that advice literally. I did exactly what she said a couple years and did in fact have fresh peas in late May.
Of course, Grandma -- and I -- both knew that while you could plant peas on St. Patrick's Day, you wouldn't dare do that with tomatoes or sweet corn. Different crops, different planting schedule. There's no one-size fits all when it comes to growing things.
But when it comes to growing businesses, Rick Snyder seems to think one size does fit all. His approach -- no taxes for most businesses and hope they create jobs -- is far removed from what most states are doing and what Michigan has been doing -- targeting incentives to growth industries.
Snyder won't even promise that his approach will create jobs. Even if it were to create jobs, it will do nothing to diversify Michigan's economy by making it a center for a new industry, such as wind power or the film industry.
And Snyder does not seem to care. He is perfectly content to ride the resurgence of the auto industry back to prosperity and let it go at that. If a film studio happens to locate here, that's OK with him, but he's not going to do anything to make that happen.
Why would a film studio locate here now? Because of low taxes? Businesses thrive on synergy, on a community of like-minded people in the same field. Having a critical mass of people in the same field leads to professional organizations where ideas are shared, ties with colleges and universities that train the people you need to hire, a culture that values and promotes what you do. Kind of like Silicon Valley. In the computer software field. And aren't computers supposed to be what Snyder knows a lot about?
Michigan was well on its way to developing new industries like wind energy, film, and advanced batteries until Snyder's budget pulled the rug out from under them.
The state is now back to the equivalent of planting all the crops on St. Patrick's Day and hoping something besides peas survives by Memorial Day.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
No More Excuses -- It's Time to Hire
OK, Michiganj businesses, you got your way. Now it's time to give Michigan residents want they want -- jobs.
Rick Snyder Wednesday signed into law huge tax increases for Michigan senior citizens and the poor in order to pay for eliminating taxes on most businesses. Rick Snyder promises that will create jobs, although he won't say how many or when.
So now it's time for customers of all those tax-free Michigan businesses to demand the jobs. From now on, if you have to wait too long to be served at your local restaurant, ask to see the manager and demand he or she hire more wait staff and kitchen help with his tax savings.
Standing 15 minutes in the check-out lane at the grocery store? March to the customer service counter, ask to talk to the manager, and tell him or her you want more check out lanes opened with some of that $1.7 billion in tax cuts.
Can't find anyone to wait on you at your favorite department store? Do the same thing -- complain and demand they hire more people.
After all, they promised us jobs and we're paying for those jobs through our taxes on pensions, lost tax credits for charitable donations, cuts to the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on.
It's time consumers get what we paid for.
Rick Snyder Wednesday signed into law huge tax increases for Michigan senior citizens and the poor in order to pay for eliminating taxes on most businesses. Rick Snyder promises that will create jobs, although he won't say how many or when.
So now it's time for customers of all those tax-free Michigan businesses to demand the jobs. From now on, if you have to wait too long to be served at your local restaurant, ask to see the manager and demand he or she hire more wait staff and kitchen help with his tax savings.
Standing 15 minutes in the check-out lane at the grocery store? March to the customer service counter, ask to talk to the manager, and tell him or her you want more check out lanes opened with some of that $1.7 billion in tax cuts.
Can't find anyone to wait on you at your favorite department store? Do the same thing -- complain and demand they hire more people.
After all, they promised us jobs and we're paying for those jobs through our taxes on pensions, lost tax credits for charitable donations, cuts to the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on.
It's time consumers get what we paid for.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Everybody Likes a Sale
I went shopping for clothes recently and the minute I entered the store, a rack labeled "50 perfect off" caught my eye and drew me like a magnet.
It's the same when I buy groceries. Somehow the items that are on sale find their way into my cart, regardless of what was originally on my list.
Judging by the television ads touting Kroeger's sales and the newspaper circulars that arrive on Sunday, I'm not alone.
Everybody loves a sale. From time to time, stores try to buck that discounting by offering "lowest prices all the time," but somehow that never seems to last.
So I wonder how Rick Snyder's approach to selling the state of Michigan to business prospects is going to work. How can Michigan get anyone's attention with its "lowest prices all the time" approach while all the other states are offering tax credits targeting specific businesses or activities?
The reality may be starting to dawn on Snyder's administration. It has gone from promising that eliminating taxes on businesses (and shifting the burden to poor people and old people) would create jobs, to saying that they can't "quantify" how many jobs it will produce.
It's the same when I buy groceries. Somehow the items that are on sale find their way into my cart, regardless of what was originally on my list.
Judging by the television ads touting Kroeger's sales and the newspaper circulars that arrive on Sunday, I'm not alone.
Everybody loves a sale. From time to time, stores try to buck that discounting by offering "lowest prices all the time," but somehow that never seems to last.
So I wonder how Rick Snyder's approach to selling the state of Michigan to business prospects is going to work. How can Michigan get anyone's attention with its "lowest prices all the time" approach while all the other states are offering tax credits targeting specific businesses or activities?
The reality may be starting to dawn on Snyder's administration. It has gone from promising that eliminating taxes on businesses (and shifting the burden to poor people and old people) would create jobs, to saying that they can't "quantify" how many jobs it will produce.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Will Snyder's 'Shared Sacrifice' Soon Be Even Less Popular?
When your approval rating is 60 percent negative, you might think the only way to go is up. But in Rick Snyder's case, that may not be true. We may not have seen the bottom yet.
That's because Snyder is signalling that he wants to go ahead with slashing school and university funding and raising taxes on senior citizens and poor people, regardless of whether the state really needs to or not.
The news has received relatively little focus in the media, but Michigan officials will meet on Monday to issue an up-to-date estimate of the state's revenues for the year. Some lawmakers are suggesting the state could take in some $500 million more than expected just a few months ago.
Snyder's response? "I don't want to speculate on us having more dollars."
In other words, Snyder doesn't sound interested in backing off his "balance-the- budget-on-the-backs-of-kids-senior citizens-and-the-poor" orders to the Legislature.
According to the EPIC-MRA poll, 71 percent of likely voters in Michigan don't like Snyder's cuts to education and his pension tax.
Michigan voters are going to like those proposal a whole lot less if they find out the state has $500 million -- or even $250 million -- more than expected and that Snyder still wants to go ahead with the cuts and tax increases.
Some lawmakers who voted for the taxes this week may wish they hadn't done so, too. But it will be too late.
Snyder started the year selling "shared sacrifice" to Michigan voters, then pulled a bait and switch to "sacrifice for the poor, kids, and senior citizens." How will people react when they find out the state could be facing a surplus, on top of the $500 million surplus already in the school aid fund that Snyder won't spend on schools?
That's because Snyder is signalling that he wants to go ahead with slashing school and university funding and raising taxes on senior citizens and poor people, regardless of whether the state really needs to or not.
The news has received relatively little focus in the media, but Michigan officials will meet on Monday to issue an up-to-date estimate of the state's revenues for the year. Some lawmakers are suggesting the state could take in some $500 million more than expected just a few months ago.
Snyder's response? "I don't want to speculate on us having more dollars."
In other words, Snyder doesn't sound interested in backing off his "balance-the- budget-on-the-backs-of-kids-senior citizens-and-the-poor" orders to the Legislature.
According to the EPIC-MRA poll, 71 percent of likely voters in Michigan don't like Snyder's cuts to education and his pension tax.
Michigan voters are going to like those proposal a whole lot less if they find out the state has $500 million -- or even $250 million -- more than expected and that Snyder still wants to go ahead with the cuts and tax increases.
Some lawmakers who voted for the taxes this week may wish they hadn't done so, too. But it will be too late.
Snyder started the year selling "shared sacrifice" to Michigan voters, then pulled a bait and switch to "sacrifice for the poor, kids, and senior citizens." How will people react when they find out the state could be facing a surplus, on top of the $500 million surplus already in the school aid fund that Snyder won't spend on schools?
Sunday, May 8, 2011
To Sell Snyder's Tax Plan, Media Re-Defines 'Rich'
It's Rich Snyder's job to sell the regressive, punish-the-poor tax plan that he is foisting onto Michigan residents, but the media seems to think that has become its job.
Take Friday's editorial in the Detroit Free Press titled "The rich feel some tax pain, too, but not like the working poor."
According to the editorial, "the rich" are being forced to shoulder a larger share of the tax burden so Snyder's plan to tax senior citizens and take away the lifeline for the working poor known as the Earned Income Tax Credit is really a "progressive" tax plan. The elderly and poor just haven't noticed.
According to the editorial, tax breaks for single people with more than $75,000 a year will be eliminated that will raise $90 million a year. Personal exemptions and homestead property tax exemptions will be phased out for them. For example, according to the newspaper:
"Finally, the proposed tax regime dramatically scales back the homestead property tax credit, which is now available in full up to $73,650 in household income, phasing out at $82,650. Under the new plan, no household with an income above $50,000 would be eligible. And those whose home's taxable value exceeds $135,000 won't qualify for the credit no matter how little they earn."
So according to the Free Press, "the rich" includes people whose household income is $50,001 a year. Household income. That could be two people earning $25,000 a year, and those people are now considered "rich" by the Detroit Free Press. Now "rich" is relative. Certainly, those households making $50,000 a year are "richer" than those making $25,000 a year, but they are not rich. They are barely middle class.
What the Free Press has done is define everybody whose taxes are being raised as "rich" in order to make Snyder's scheme to end taxes for business look fair. Newspapers should let Snyder do his own dirty work.
Take Friday's editorial in the Detroit Free Press titled "The rich feel some tax pain, too, but not like the working poor."
According to the editorial, "the rich" are being forced to shoulder a larger share of the tax burden so Snyder's plan to tax senior citizens and take away the lifeline for the working poor known as the Earned Income Tax Credit is really a "progressive" tax plan. The elderly and poor just haven't noticed.
According to the editorial, tax breaks for single people with more than $75,000 a year will be eliminated that will raise $90 million a year. Personal exemptions and homestead property tax exemptions will be phased out for them. For example, according to the newspaper:
"Finally, the proposed tax regime dramatically scales back the homestead property tax credit, which is now available in full up to $73,650 in household income, phasing out at $82,650. Under the new plan, no household with an income above $50,000 would be eligible. And those whose home's taxable value exceeds $135,000 won't qualify for the credit no matter how little they earn."
So according to the Free Press, "the rich" includes people whose household income is $50,001 a year. Household income. That could be two people earning $25,000 a year, and those people are now considered "rich" by the Detroit Free Press. Now "rich" is relative. Certainly, those households making $50,000 a year are "richer" than those making $25,000 a year, but they are not rich. They are barely middle class.
What the Free Press has done is define everybody whose taxes are being raised as "rich" in order to make Snyder's scheme to end taxes for business look fair. Newspapers should let Snyder do his own dirty work.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Snyder's Pension Tax Deal Isn't About Fairness
Did Rick Snyder finally find some compassion for Michigan senior citizens and decide to modify his cruel tax on pensions?
No, he didn't. Somebody just explained the politics of it to him.
Originally, Snyder wanted to tax all pensions in Michigan in order to fund the $1.8 billion tax cut to Michigan businesses. Michigan senior citizens let him know what they think of that, (hint, in case you haven't been paying attention: they hated it) and they probably let their state senators and state representatives know that, too.
So Republican legislative leaders came up with a compromise. People age 67 and over won't have their pensions taxed. People 60 to 66 will get a $20,000 a year exemption ($40,000 for a couple), and people under 60 will still be screwed.
So why is it fair that people under 60 will pay the full tax and the others will get full or partial exemptions? There is no explanation for that. People under 60 are likely to have hefty bills after being forced into early retirement, years before they expected to have to retire. They may even still have children at home or in college, mortgages and car payments they were expecting to pay off in their last years of working while they added to their nest eggs. Instead, they got shoved out the door early by their employer, who calculated that their pensions would be tax free in telling them what they would have to live on. Now Snyder has pulled the rug out from under them.
So why stick it to some retirees and not others? Let's see, what age group comprises the most reliable voters? Wouldn't that be senior citizens? Of those between 65 and 75 registered to vote, 78.1 percent voted in 2008, according to the U.S. Census. And 76.6 percent of those 75 and over. Of those 55 to 64. it was still 76.6 percent.
So my exempting entirely those 67 and over, Snyder is mollifying a big chunk of those most likely to vote. The exemption for the middle group amounts to throwing them a bone and assuming they won't get too upset because in a year or two they will be 67 and home free.
And the younger retirees, well, the divide and conquer calculation was that there weren't that many of them to worry about at the ballot box.
In other words, fairness had nothing to do with it. It was all political calculation.
.
No, he didn't. Somebody just explained the politics of it to him.
Originally, Snyder wanted to tax all pensions in Michigan in order to fund the $1.8 billion tax cut to Michigan businesses. Michigan senior citizens let him know what they think of that, (hint, in case you haven't been paying attention: they hated it) and they probably let their state senators and state representatives know that, too.
So Republican legislative leaders came up with a compromise. People age 67 and over won't have their pensions taxed. People 60 to 66 will get a $20,000 a year exemption ($40,000 for a couple), and people under 60 will still be screwed.
So why is it fair that people under 60 will pay the full tax and the others will get full or partial exemptions? There is no explanation for that. People under 60 are likely to have hefty bills after being forced into early retirement, years before they expected to have to retire. They may even still have children at home or in college, mortgages and car payments they were expecting to pay off in their last years of working while they added to their nest eggs. Instead, they got shoved out the door early by their employer, who calculated that their pensions would be tax free in telling them what they would have to live on. Now Snyder has pulled the rug out from under them.
So why stick it to some retirees and not others? Let's see, what age group comprises the most reliable voters? Wouldn't that be senior citizens? Of those between 65 and 75 registered to vote, 78.1 percent voted in 2008, according to the U.S. Census. And 76.6 percent of those 75 and over. Of those 55 to 64. it was still 76.6 percent.
So my exempting entirely those 67 and over, Snyder is mollifying a big chunk of those most likely to vote. The exemption for the middle group amounts to throwing them a bone and assuming they won't get too upset because in a year or two they will be 67 and home free.
And the younger retirees, well, the divide and conquer calculation was that there weren't that many of them to worry about at the ballot box.
In other words, fairness had nothing to do with it. It was all political calculation.
.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Tasteless Appeal by Tea Party Group
One would think that trying to save lives would be something that could be done without injecting politics into it.
But if you're talking about something tea-baggers do, that would not be the case.
Livingston County tea-baggers are organizing blood drives, a worthy thing to do and something local Democrats have done in the past. But they couldn't just let it go at that. They had to make it political by using the theme, "Donate Blood, Before the IRS Bleeds Us Dry."
First of all, the tea-baggers vastly exaggerate the tax burden in this country. They ignore the fact that the overall tax burden in the U.S. is at the same level as 1950 and that federal taxes under President Obama are 13 percent lower than when George Bush was president. The decline is due in part to tax cuts included in President Obama's stimulus package -- something that tea-baggers conveniently forget when they attack the measure for adding to the deficit. So the appeal is not even accurate. The IRS is not bleeding anyone dry.
One wonders if the only way the tea-baggers could get their members to do a good deed for someone else was to resort to a bald-faced political lie as motivation.
Furthermore, what are the limits to injecting politics into saving lives? Will the Red Cross, which is supposed to be non-partisan, start allowing groups to designate their blood only for "red-blooded Americans," leaving out undocumented residents or gays or Muslims, for example?
Trying to save lives should be something all Americans can agree on. It should be done in a way that unites us, not divides us. Sooner or later, we all need help, and when we're helping each other we should help each other as human beings, not because we want to make a political point. Using someone else's misfortune to score political points is tasteless.
But if you're talking about something tea-baggers do, that would not be the case.
Livingston County tea-baggers are organizing blood drives, a worthy thing to do and something local Democrats have done in the past. But they couldn't just let it go at that. They had to make it political by using the theme, "Donate Blood, Before the IRS Bleeds Us Dry."
First of all, the tea-baggers vastly exaggerate the tax burden in this country. They ignore the fact that the overall tax burden in the U.S. is at the same level as 1950 and that federal taxes under President Obama are 13 percent lower than when George Bush was president. The decline is due in part to tax cuts included in President Obama's stimulus package -- something that tea-baggers conveniently forget when they attack the measure for adding to the deficit. So the appeal is not even accurate. The IRS is not bleeding anyone dry.
One wonders if the only way the tea-baggers could get their members to do a good deed for someone else was to resort to a bald-faced political lie as motivation.
Furthermore, what are the limits to injecting politics into saving lives? Will the Red Cross, which is supposed to be non-partisan, start allowing groups to designate their blood only for "red-blooded Americans," leaving out undocumented residents or gays or Muslims, for example?
Trying to save lives should be something all Americans can agree on. It should be done in a way that unites us, not divides us. Sooner or later, we all need help, and when we're helping each other we should help each other as human beings, not because we want to make a political point. Using someone else's misfortune to score political points is tasteless.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Imagine!
Imagine for a moment that you are an entrepreneur, and a successful one at that. Let’s pretend that you own a chain of coffee shops that you have built up over time so you have $10 million invested in them. Before this economy, your business was very profitable and your taxes were minimal (under Bush). Now, in this economy, your sales have decreased drastically, but you are still doing relatively well. Let’s say you are going to make $400,000 this year in profit for yourself.
Under Obama’s tax policy, let’s guess that your taxes will be an additional 10% (so 40% rather than 30% just to make the numbers easy), so your after tax income will be $240,000 rather than $280,000. Not what you’re used to, but still a comfortable amount. Now Obama is going to take that extra $40,000 (or the entire $160,000 if you want to think of it that way) and use it to pay people to do a public work. For this hypothetical, we’ll say that the money goes to fund road construction in your area.
Now those people who then get hired to build that road will have an income they otherwise wouldn’t. And now that they have expendable money, they begin to purchase things they used to before the recession, like coffee. So your sales go back up, and your profit slowly returns.
Let’s see what would happen under the policy of low taxes. Let’s even take it to the extreme and say no taxes. So you make $400,000 this year and don’t pay any taxes. The conservatives argue that you will then use that extra $160,000 towards new investment and creating new jobs, but I am going to assume you’re a rational businessman. In this economy, any investment in expanding a business is risky-- more risky than investing in gold at least. Even if you aren’t risk adverse, you would require a sizable potential return on investment to take on that risk. Currently though, you’re return on investment is 4% (ROI = profit/investment = $400k/$10mil). To invest and expect more than a 4% return is illogical.
Now normally, you’d be able to take out a loan to leverage your investment money to get a better ROI. You would go to a bank and get a $640,000 loan, so you could invest $800,000 and expect to increase profits by $32,000 (for an ROI of $32k/$160k = 20%). But remember, we’re in the scenario where the conservatives get their way. And if that’s the case, the banks aren’t getting their bailout, so they aren’t lending money. Good luck finding one who would give you $640,000 for what is still a relatively risky investment. So no new investment, no new jobs, but at least you get to keep that extra $160,000. Until next year of course, when even less people have jobs and your sales drop further.
And remember, you aren’t paying any taxes in that scenario. So no one else is either. Imagine for a moment what that would do.
Jordan Genso
Under Obama’s tax policy, let’s guess that your taxes will be an additional 10% (so 40% rather than 30% just to make the numbers easy), so your after tax income will be $240,000 rather than $280,000. Not what you’re used to, but still a comfortable amount. Now Obama is going to take that extra $40,000 (or the entire $160,000 if you want to think of it that way) and use it to pay people to do a public work. For this hypothetical, we’ll say that the money goes to fund road construction in your area.
Now those people who then get hired to build that road will have an income they otherwise wouldn’t. And now that they have expendable money, they begin to purchase things they used to before the recession, like coffee. So your sales go back up, and your profit slowly returns.
Let’s see what would happen under the policy of low taxes. Let’s even take it to the extreme and say no taxes. So you make $400,000 this year and don’t pay any taxes. The conservatives argue that you will then use that extra $160,000 towards new investment and creating new jobs, but I am going to assume you’re a rational businessman. In this economy, any investment in expanding a business is risky-- more risky than investing in gold at least. Even if you aren’t risk adverse, you would require a sizable potential return on investment to take on that risk. Currently though, you’re return on investment is 4% (ROI = profit/investment = $400k/$10mil). To invest and expect more than a 4% return is illogical.
Now normally, you’d be able to take out a loan to leverage your investment money to get a better ROI. You would go to a bank and get a $640,000 loan, so you could invest $800,000 and expect to increase profits by $32,000 (for an ROI of $32k/$160k = 20%). But remember, we’re in the scenario where the conservatives get their way. And if that’s the case, the banks aren’t getting their bailout, so they aren’t lending money. Good luck finding one who would give you $640,000 for what is still a relatively risky investment. So no new investment, no new jobs, but at least you get to keep that extra $160,000. Until next year of course, when even less people have jobs and your sales drop further.
And remember, you aren’t paying any taxes in that scenario. So no one else is either. Imagine for a moment what that would do.
Jordan Genso
Thursday, November 20, 2008
POVERTY BY THE NUMBERS IN AFFLUENT LIVINGSTON COUNTY
What do numbers mean? What do dollars mean? In the recent election campaign, the Livingston Republicans put up billboards and ran TV ads boasting about how they kept taxes low and attained an AA bond rating by their one-party rule. But all is not well in Livingston County
.
In the Press & Argus, Rich Perlberg: By the Numbers Your Help Is Needed, Nov. 16, 2008, the General Manager of the P&A gives numerous statistics that prove the existence of grueling, awful poverty in this affluent county.
This is not news to those of us who understand that poverty exists along with affluence. It can be seen by those who open their eyes. If those of us who ran for the State House didn’t know it, we heard about it when we attended the Livingston County Human Services Collaborative Body forum last September 24. That is, we heard about it if we bothered to attend. Bill Rogers was evidently too busy counting tax monies to make it.
Perlberg writes:
“Those are some of the harsh numbers. They put into perspective the personal stories most of you hear — the neighbor who got laid off, the co-worker whose home is in foreclosure, the family that moved because there was no work here.
“The agencies that produced this report stressed how they are working together by seeking efficiencies, leveraging efforts for state grants and publicizing services, especially for those who have never before found themselves needing financial help.
“But they need your help, your money and your time. Look at it this way. If 3,000 homes were in foreclosure, that means 50,000 or more were not. Now more than ever, those are the folks who need to look past the numbers and help their neighbors — even, and perhaps especially, those they have never met.”
So what Rich is saying is what we saved on taxes, we should give to charity to feed the hungry, care for children’s medical needs and shelter the homeless. We should even give a little bit more to cover for the people who don’t contribute. Then we can feel good about ourselves playing Lord and Lady Bountiful. Yes, we can be generous and compassionate. What we are not is fair and just. Justice demands that we share resources with others. If we follow justice, the County may even borrow some money to help citizens of Livingston County – I think borrowing is one of the uses of an AA bond rating. Or we may even go so far as to allow our taxes to be raised a mill or two so that we can provide health insurance for the impoverished as well as the County Commissioners.
A new day is coming, a new political climate is blowing in the wind but we still don’t get it in Livingston County. Values are changing. Good government and low taxes are not synonymous.
Wake up! Livingston!
.
In the Press & Argus, Rich Perlberg: By the Numbers Your Help Is Needed, Nov. 16, 2008, the General Manager of the P&A gives numerous statistics that prove the existence of grueling, awful poverty in this affluent county.
This is not news to those of us who understand that poverty exists along with affluence. It can be seen by those who open their eyes. If those of us who ran for the State House didn’t know it, we heard about it when we attended the Livingston County Human Services Collaborative Body forum last September 24. That is, we heard about it if we bothered to attend. Bill Rogers was evidently too busy counting tax monies to make it.
Perlberg writes:
“Those are some of the harsh numbers. They put into perspective the personal stories most of you hear — the neighbor who got laid off, the co-worker whose home is in foreclosure, the family that moved because there was no work here.
“The agencies that produced this report stressed how they are working together by seeking efficiencies, leveraging efforts for state grants and publicizing services, especially for those who have never before found themselves needing financial help.
“But they need your help, your money and your time. Look at it this way. If 3,000 homes were in foreclosure, that means 50,000 or more were not. Now more than ever, those are the folks who need to look past the numbers and help their neighbors — even, and perhaps especially, those they have never met.”
So what Rich is saying is what we saved on taxes, we should give to charity to feed the hungry, care for children’s medical needs and shelter the homeless. We should even give a little bit more to cover for the people who don’t contribute. Then we can feel good about ourselves playing Lord and Lady Bountiful. Yes, we can be generous and compassionate. What we are not is fair and just. Justice demands that we share resources with others. If we follow justice, the County may even borrow some money to help citizens of Livingston County – I think borrowing is one of the uses of an AA bond rating. Or we may even go so far as to allow our taxes to be raised a mill or two so that we can provide health insurance for the impoverished as well as the County Commissioners.
A new day is coming, a new political climate is blowing in the wind but we still don’t get it in Livingston County. Values are changing. Good government and low taxes are not synonymous.
Wake up! Livingston!
Friday, September 21, 2007
Doing the Right Thing
I just read Liberal Lucy's post over at MichiganLiberal -- early this morning, Rep. Chris Ward (R-Brighton) voted in favor of HB 5195, raising the state income tax from 3.9% to 4.6%.
Citing constituent opinion "3 to 1 against tax increase", Ward temporarily stepped aside from his leadership position within the House Republican Caucus because he joined ranks with Speaker Andy Dillon (D-Redford Twp.) and Majority Floor Leader Steve Tobocman (D-Detroit) in voting for this bill.
No one likes higher taxes, but I think people dislike our state's financial mess even more. Let Rep. Ward know you appreciate his vote -- email or call 517-373-1784.
We're in the middle of a constitutional crisis. We have to come together and make a compromise.
I'm going to pay a very heavy political price for doing this. But I feel some solace in knowing I'm doing the right thing.
[skip]
My public schools are feeling a terrible crunch. Cost of public education is sky-rocketing, as are retirement, health care costs, etc. Good public schools mean a lot to me.
I abhor taxes, but this is a fair way to do it with the least impact on state services. This is the first of many, many difficult votes necessary for this chamber to move on from this crisis.
Citing constituent opinion "3 to 1 against tax increase", Ward temporarily stepped aside from his leadership position within the House Republican Caucus because he joined ranks with Speaker Andy Dillon (D-Redford Twp.) and Majority Floor Leader Steve Tobocman (D-Detroit) in voting for this bill.
No one likes higher taxes, but I think people dislike our state's financial mess even more. Let Rep. Ward know you appreciate his vote -- email or call 517-373-1784.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)