Please Remember to Vote May 5

These are  the proposals that will be voted on in Wayne County. A no vote is particularly necessary for taxpayers for the State Proposal and those of Lincoln Park and City of Wayne.

Page 1 OFFICIAL LIST OF PROPOSALS 05/05/2015 – MAY CONSOLIDATED WAYNE COUNTY

STATE PROPOSAL

PROPOSAL 15-1

A proposal to amend the State Constitution to increase the sales/use tax from 6% to 7% to replace and supplement reduced revenue to the School Aid Fund and local units of government caused by the elimination of the sales/use tax on gasoline and diesel fuel for vehicles operating on public roads, and to give effect to laws that provide additional money for roads and other transportation purposes by increasing the gas tax and vehicle registration fees.

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

• Eliminate sales / use taxes on gasoline / diesel fuel for vehicles on public roads.

• Increase portion of use tax dedicated to School Aid Fund (SAF).

• Expand use of SAF to community colleges and career / technical education, and prohibit use for 4-year colleges / universities.

• Give effect to laws, including those that:

o Increase sales / use tax to 7%, as authorized by constitutional amendment.

o Increase gasoline / diesel fuel tax and adjust annually for inflation, increase vehicle registration fees, and dedicate revenue for roads and other transportation purposes.

o Expand competitive bidding and warranties for road projects.

o Increase earned income tax credit.

Should this proposal be adopted?

Page 2 OFFICIAL LIST OF PROPOSALS 05/05/2015 – MAY CONSOLIDATED WAYNE COUNTY

CITY OF LINCOLN PARK PROPOSALS

CITY OF LINCOLN PARK POLICE OFFICERS AND FIRE FIGHTERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM PROPOSAL

Shall the City of Lincoln Park, County of Wayne, Michigan, be authorized to establish a retirement system for the benefit of police officers and fire fighters, create a pension board, and levy taxes annually in amounts sufficient to fund the system, all in accordance with the provisions of Michigan Public Act 345 of 1937, as amended? This proposal shall not become effective unless the electors also approve an amendment to Chapter XVII of the City Charter authorizing cessation of the existing pension system and transfer of its assets to the new Act 345 pension system.

PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT SECTION 1 OF CHAPTER XVII OF THE CITY OF LINCOLN PARK

Shall Sec. 1 of Chapter XVII of the City Charter of the City of Lincoln Park be amended to provide for the transfer of all assets of the existing Policemen’s and Firemen’s Retirement system to a new retirement system established pursuant to Michigan Public Act 345 of 1937, as amended, the cessation of the existing retirement system, and dissolution of the existing retirement board? This amendment shall not become effective unless the electors also approve of the establishment of a new Act 345 pension system.

CITY OF WAYNE PROPOSALS

PROPOSAL NO. 1

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 19.1 AND 19.3 OF CHAPTER 19 OF THE WAYNE CITY CHARTER

Shall Chapter 19 of the Charter of the City of Wayne be amended so that police officers and firefighters are excluded from the retirement system established by the City Charter, effective with the 2015-2016 fiscal year, and instead become members of a separate retirement system under 1937 PA 345, as amended, and that accumulated contributions to the current employee's retirement system made by or on behalf of such officers be transferred to the Act 345 retirement system? This charter amendment shall not be effective unless the electors approve the establishment of a separate retirement system under said Act 345.

PROPOSAL NO. 2

PROPOSAL TO ADOPT AN ACT 345 RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR POLICE OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS

Shall the City of Wayne, Wayne County, Michigan, be authorized to establish a separate retirement system pursuant to Act 345 of 1937, as amended, for the benefit of police officers and firefighters employed by the City, create a board of trustees to manage and operate the system, and be authorized to levy a new tax annually in an amount sufficient to fund the system in an actuarially sound manner, but not to exceed 3.00 mills in any year on each dollar ($3.00 per $1,000) of the taxable value of all property in the City, for a period of 5 years, all contingent upon the approval by the electors of a City Charter amendment authorizing the transfer of police officer and firefighter members from the current employee's retirement system to the new system created under Act 345?

It is expected that approximately 3 mills will be levied in 2015 and will raise the sum of approximately

$1,068,000.00.

Page 3 OFFICIAL LIST OF PROPOSALS 05/05/2015 – MAY CONSOLIDATED WAYNE COUNTY

GROSSE ILE TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS PROPOSALS

GROSSE ILE TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS

BOND PROPOSAL

Shall the Grosse Ile Township Schools, County of Wayne, Michigan, borrow the principal sum of not to exceed Seven Million Four Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($7,435,000) and issue its general obligation unlimited tax bonds for the purpose of defraying the cost of:

· equipping, furnishing, reequipping and refurnishing School District buildings and acquiring buses;

· acquiring and installing technology infrastructure and equipment; and

· improving and developing sites, including playgrounds, structures and outdoor athletic facilities?

The estimated millage to be levied in 2015 to service this issue of bonds is 0.51 mills ($0.51 per $1,000 of taxable value) and the estimated simple average annual millage rate required to retire the bonds of this issue is 1.69 mills ($1.69 per $1,000 of taxable value). The debt millage levy is currently estimated to be 5.69 mills, or .2528 mill over the 2014 levy. The bonds shall be payable in not to exceed ten (10) years from the date of issue. The School District currently has $20,020,000 of qualified bonds outstanding and $0 of qualified loans outstanding under the State School Bond Qualification and Loan Program. The School District does not expect to borrow from the program to pay debt service on these bonds. The estimated computed millage rate may change based on changes in certain circumstances.

Under State law, bond proceeds may not be used to pay teacher, administrator or other employee salaries, routine maintenance costs or other School District operating expenses.

GROSSE ILE TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS

SINKING FUND REPLACEMENT PROPOSAL

This proposal would replace the existing operating millage authority of the Grosse Ile Township Schools approved by voters in 2010 and which would otherwise expire with the 2015 levy to levy a sinking fund millage.

As a replacement of existing authorization which would otherwise expire with the 2015 levy, shall the Grosse Ile Township Schools, County of Wayne, Michigan, be authorized to levy 0.75 mill ($0.75 per $1,000 of taxable valuation) to create a sinking fund for the purpose of the construction or repair of school buildings and the improvement and development of sites, including the replacement of interior doors and hardware, the replacement of lighting with energy efficient LED lighting, brick work repairs and any other purpose permitted by law, by increasing the limitation on the amount of taxes which may be imposed on taxable property in the School District for a period of five (5) years, being the years 2015 to 2019, inclusive? It is estimated that 0.75 mill ($0.75 per $1,000 of taxable valuation) would raise approximately $ 427,064 in the first year that it is levied.

(Under state law, sinking fund proceeds may not be used to pay teacher or administrator salaries.)

Page 4 OFFICIAL LIST OF PROPOSALS 05/05/2015 – MAY CONSOLIDATED WAYNE COUNTY

NORTHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS PROPOSAL

MILLAGE RENEWAL PROPOSAL

BUILDING AND SITE SINKING FUND TAX LEVY

Shall the currently authorized millage rate of .9978 mill ($.9978 on each $1,000 of taxable valuation) which may be assessed against all property in Northville Public Schools, Wayne, Oakland and Washtenaw Counties, Michigan, be renewed for a period of 5 years, 2016 to 2020, inclusive, to continue to provide for a sinking fund for the construction or repair of school buildings and all other purposes authorized by law; the estimate of the revenue the school district will collect if the millage is approved and levied in 2016 is approximately $2,588,047 (this is a renewal of millage which will expire with the 2015 tax levy)?

RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY SCHOOLS PROPOSALS

I. SCHOOL BONDING PROPOSAL

Shall Riverview Community School District, Wayne County, Michigan, borrow the sum of not to exceed Nineteen Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($19,900,000) and issue its general obligation unlimited tax bonds therefor, in one or more series, for the purpose of:

partially remodeling, furnishing and refurnishing, equipping and re-equipping school facilities; erecting, furnishing and equipping additions to the high school, in part, for cafeteria, kitchen and office spaces; acquiring, installing and equipping instructional technology for school facilities; constructing and equipping a pre-school playground; and developing and improving sites?

The following is for informational purposes only:

The estimated millage that will be levied for the proposed bonds in 2015, under current law, is 3.38 mills ($3.38 on each $1,000 of taxable valuation) for a net increase of 2.80 mills. The maximum number of years the bonds may be outstanding, exclusive of any refunding, is thirty (30) years. The estimated simple average annual millage anticipated to be required to retire this bond debt is 5.28 mills ($5.28 on each $1,000 of taxable valuation).

The school district expects to borrow from the State School Bond Qualification and Loan Program to pay debt service on these bonds. The estimated total principal amount of that borrowing is $1,665,921 and the estimated total interest to be paid thereon is $451,099. The estimated duration of the millage levy associated with that borrowing is 30 years and the estimated computed millage rate for such levy is 7.00 mills. The estimated computed millage rate may change based on changes in certain circumstances.

The total amount of qualified bonds currently outstanding is $5,605,000. The total amount of qualified loans currently outstanding is approximately $-0-.

(Pursuant to State law, expenditure of bond proceeds must be audited, and the proceeds cannot be used for repair or maintenance costs, teacher, administrator or employee salaries, or other operating expenses.)

Page 5 OFFICIAL LIST OF PROPOSALS 05/05/2015 – MAY CONSOLIDATED WAYNE COUNTY

RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY SCHOOLS PROPOSALS (cont’d)

II. SCHOOL BONDING PROPOSAL

Shall Riverview Community School District, Wayne County, Michigan, borrow the sum of not to exceed Four Million Seven Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($4,730,000) and issue its general obligation unlimited tax bonds therefor, in one or more series, for the purpose of:

erecting, furnishing and equipping additions to and partially remodeling, furnishing and refurnishing, equipping and re-equipping the middle school for swimming pool improvements; remodeling, furnishing and equipping the high school pool area into a new multi-purpose use; acquiring, installing and equipping technology for the middle school swimming pool; and developing and improving sites?

The following is for informational purposes only:

The estimated millage that will be levied for the proposed bonds in 2015, under current law, is .79 mill ($0.79 on each $1,000 of taxable valuation). The maximum number of years the bonds may be outstanding, exclusive of any refunding, is thirty (30) years. The estimated simple average annual millage anticipated to be required to retire this bond debt is 1.18 mills ($1.18 on each $1,000 of taxable valuation).

The school district does not expect to borrow from the State to pay debt service on the bonds. The total amount of qualified bonds currently outstanding is $5,605,000. The total amount of qualified loans currently outstanding is $-0-. The estimated computed millage rate may change based on changes in certain circumstances.

If both Proposal I and Proposal II pass, the school district expects to borrow from the State School Bond Qualification and Loan Program to pay debt service on these bonds. The estimated total principal amount of that borrowing is $2,600,482 and the estimated total interest to be paid thereon is $2,723,190. The estimated duration of the millage levy associated with that borrowing is 30 years and the estimated computed millage rate for such levy is 7.55 mills. The estimated computed millage rate may change based on changes in certain circumstances.

(Pursuant to State law, expenditure of bond proceeds must be audited, and the proceeds cannot be used for repair or maintenance costs, teacher, administrator or employee salaries, or other operating expenses.)

VAN BUREN PUBLIC SCHOOLS PROPOSAL

MILLAGEPROPOSAL

BUILDING AND SITE SINKING FUND TAX LEVY

Shall Van Buren Public Schools, Counties of Wayne and Washtenaw, State of Michigan, create a sinking fund for the purpose of construction or repair of school buildings and the improvement and development of sites and for any other purpose which may be authorized by law, and be authorized to levy not to exceed 1.13 mills ($1.13 on each $1,000 of taxable valuation) for a period of seven (7) years, 2016 to 2022 inclusive? This levy would renew the sinking fund levy previously authorized by the voters in 2008 for an additional seven (7) years. It is estimated that the revenue the school district will collect if the millage is approved and levied in the 2016 calendar year shall be approximately

$1,715,961 from the local taxes authorized in this proposal. A portion of the revenue collected may be subject to capture by the Van Buren Township Downtown Development Authority.

NO! NO! NO! to the Sales Tax Increase

Legislative Tax Action Day

Wednesday, April 15 at 1:00 pm

Michigan State Capitol in Lansing, Michigan

Mark your calendars. You can go to either or both of these events. At least

try to make it to one. Pass this on to others in your address book.

Protest against Proposal 1 in front of Troy City Hall

Wednesday, April 15 at 5:00 pm

City of Troy, Michigan Government in Troy, Michigan

I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of being talked to like I am a child.  There really are a lot of people out there who are gullible, but I would like to think that I am not one of them. Those of us who know better have an obligation to share with those less informed. Not as a test of our superior intellect, because we all have our short comings, but because if they go down we go down with them.  

How people can have faith in their elected officials after they have lied to them over and over again Is beyond my understanding. No matter how good something looks, you need to have a look at what the other side has to say. It is especially important if their are a lot of commercials for one side or the other. Lots of commercials is an indication of how important the issue is and a clue that the results will definitely effect you.

++++++++++++++

 7 Reasons to Vote “NO” on the May 5 Tax Hike Proposal 

1.We can't afford even higher taxes. Michigan residents already pay among the highest gas taxes in the country, and most of that money isn't even spent on roads. We pay a 4.25% state income tax where other states have no income tax. The ballot proposal would raise the Michigan sales tax to 7%, whichwould make it the 2nd highest state sales tax in the nation. The proposal would raise taxes about $200 per year for every man, woman, and child in Michigan. $800 for a family of four. 

2. It doesn't solve the budget problem. Lawmakers increased Michigan's state budget by $4.7 billion in just the last four years. The sales tax hike is only projected to take in $2 billion. Raising the sales tax only pays for part of the growth of government! The problem is too much new spending, not too little taxes. If voters approve these tax increases, soon enough we'll be asked for even more.

 3. We can fix our roads and fund our schools without raising taxes. The state House passed a plan last December that would have increased public school funding $2.5 billion over the next eight years and added about $1 billion in road funding each year – with no net tax increase. 

4. Half of the new tax money isn't even for roads. The proposal's backers insist Michigan's roads need to be fixed, but only half of the new tax money would be spent on roads. The rest goes to various special interests that benefit from the new tax money. (Source: michigantaxpayers.com/ newtaxes.php) 

5. Raising prices makes Michigan less competitive. Raising the sales tax effectively makes all goods more expensive: we all inevitably have less money to spend and save. Essentially, it increases the cost of living in Michigan – people need to earn more to live here – and this affects costs at all stages of production, distribution, sales, and service. Higher taxes hurt us all. 

6. The proposal misleads voters and does a lot more than tax and spend. The proposal passes ten laws and a constitutional amendment, with language totaling over 46,000 words: a novel's worth of legalese. These laws include tax credits for low-income wage earners, affirmative action rules in certain state transportation contracting, funding for reading programs, $102 million in new federal income tax liabilities for vehicle registration, and much, much more not reported on the ballot to voters. 

7. Make Lansing do its job. It's wrong for lawmakers to punt to voters a 46 thousand-word legislative package, kicking off a massive political battle and costing us a $10 million election, because lawmakers couldn't agree on a solution to fund roads. Road funding should be a normal, ordinary, completely standard aspect of budget negotiations. 

Vote “NO” to tax hikes on May 5 because Michigan is T AXED E NOUGH A LREADY

Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan, PO Box 211, Milan MI 48160. Permission to reproduce

Detroit School Board President Opposes Sales Tax Increase

For many years conservatives have taken for granted that support for issues we endorse would not be supported by most in the liberal City of Detroit. We can never plan to win over liberals if we do not make an attempt to explain our positions clearly. Below is a cry for help from former Rep. Lammar Lemmons,presently Presedent of the Detroit Board of Education.


Lamar Lemmons
President of the Detroit Board of Education

"The strategy for Detroit will be different than in other parts of the State. Our rational for opposing the Proposal will be different. We need resources. You can use my name in opposing this Proposal. The elected school Board is ready to come out against this proposal. What is happening? There is not a No Vote presence in the city of Detroit. Meanwhile, I am being inundated with vote Yes literature and T.V. Radio adds."

 You need to come out to the press. You are a stimulus to everyone's resources. Tell us what your reasons are. We are pleasantly interested. Our resources are limited as well and the city residents will be much more responsive to you as an elected official.  You can hardly expect people to give you money without knowing if they can can support your reasons and what you want to do with the money.

Vote NO For Sales Tax Increase May 5

The Board of State Canvassers is scheduled to meet this Thursday to adopt final language for the proposal.

Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan is on the Web athttp://michigantaxpayers.com.

The letter delivered by Rep. McMillin reads:

Christopher Thomas, Director of Elections
Bureau of Elections
430 West Allegan St
Lansing, MI 48933

CC: State Board of Canvassers

Dear Director Thomas:

Thank you for providing draft ballot proposal language to the public this past Friday and providing an additional opportunity for public comment before the language is finalized.

The new language makes many significant improvements over the language suggested by the state House in HCR 39 of 2014. First, it clearly states that the state sales tax is increased to 7%. Second, it notes that the motor fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees are increased. Third, it notes some of the other laws that go into effect if and only if the proposal is passed.

However, there are still several shortcomings in the proposed language in the view of Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan, an organization I represent.

First, while the proposed explanatory language does mention of some of the ten laws activated by the proposal, it remains our position that the effect of all ten of these laws, including affirmative action for transportation companies, must be noted in the proposal language.

Each of these laws was distinctive enough to have its own bill number, its own vote by both chambers of the legislature, and its own governor's signature.

There is no mention of Public Act 473, which requires the Department of Transportation to accord preferential treatment to "disadvantaged" businesses. Voters have the right to know that they are activating affirmative action laws in this proposal.

Second, while the language of the explanatory statement is improved, the title of the proposal itself is still misleading, particularly by noting the repeal of sales taxes on gas while omitting mention of the replacement wholesale taxes found in the ten laws activated by the proposal.

I note that the title refers to these ten laws as: "OTHER LAWS THAT INCLUDE DEDICATING REVENUE FOR ROADS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES."

Yet in the explanation that follows, dedicating revenue for roads is the last point of the second bullet in a list of what these other laws do.

The language of the explanation affirms that the most important aspects of these ten additional laws are the sales tax increase, gas tax increase, and vehicle registration tax increases. Furthermore, to describe the other laws as including "dedicating revenue for roads and other transportation purposes" suggests that each of the laws relates to dedicating revenue for roads, when several of them have nothing to do with roads.

The title should reflect this by saying, for example "OTHER LAWS THAT INCLUDE INCREASED TAXES ON SALES AND FUEL, AND UNRELATED MATTERS."

Third, there is no mention anywhere in the ballot language that a major portion of the revenue is going to mass transit, which is of interest to the large portion of Michigan residents who do not live in an area served by any mass transit (or do live in such area, but feel it is a massive waste of taxpayer money).

The explanatory language comes to exactly the maximum 100 words if each of the four slashes are counted as their own words. Removing the spaces surrounding the slashes reduces the word count to 96. Therefore, it is simple to insert "mass transit" into the bullet point: "Increase motor fuel tax on gasoline/diesel fuel and vehicle registration fees, and dedicate revenue for roads, mass transit, and other transportation purposes."

Fourth, regarding the earned income tax credit, it would be more specific to note it is doubled, not just increased.

Fifth, there is no mention that the vehicle registration fees will no longer be tax deductible for federal taxes, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. This is an important cost for voters to be aware of.

Sixth, it is an oversimplification to note the proposal requires competitive bidding and warranties for road projects, which applies only in particular circumstances.

Seventh, the language mentions dedicating money for the SAF, but not increasing money to schools.

Eighth, a statement of the total tax/revenue increase, per the Senate or House fiscal agency, would be appropriate to convey to voters the total cost of all the tax increases contained in the proposal.

While I applaud your efforts to improve upon the language of the proposal from what was recommended by the state House and other actors interested in raising these taxes on Michigan, more is needed to present voters with an accurate presentation of the effect of the proposal.

At the minimum, it should be clear that the taxes on fuel being replaced, not simply "repealed" or "eliminated." Each of the ten laws, including the law requiring affirmative action for road projects, must be mentioned, as must the increased funding for schools and public transportation.

Failing these changes, we must maintain that the language misleads voters by omitting these important facts.

Thanks again for your continued work on this issue. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance.

Best regards,
Rep. Tom McMillin (ret.)
Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan

###

Copyright © 2015 Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan, All rights reserved.
You were signed up for this list via MichiganTaxpayers.com, opposing tax hike schemes in Michigan.

Our mailing address is:
Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan
Paid for by Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan
PO Box 211
Milan, MI 48160

Add us to your address book

unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences

Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan – Stop the 7% Sales Tax

MICHIGANTAXPAYERS.COM

Vote NO

Suffer NO Fools

Along with a discussion of the efforts that are gathering steam to oppose a constitutional amendment to raise the sales tax from 6% to 7% and a few other current events, we will be presenting a video about Walter Williams at 7:00 pm at our January 28, meeting at Leon's Family Dining on Michigan Ave.just east of Telegraph.

This video was first presented on public television and is an interesting autobiography as well as a primer on economics.

I was lucky enough to attend a dinner at which Mr. Williams spoke and he distributed videos to those in attendance.

Please extend an invitation to your friends and family. I have seen the video and I think that everyone will enjoy it.

A note from a friend

As one of my favorite people, Rosanne Roseannadanna, often said, “It just goes to show ya, it’s always something!”  I don’t think she realized at the time that truer words were never spoken.  Every day it’s something.  I wish I could say it was something good.  It’s gotten to the point where every turn in the road leads to lies and deceit.  Are you uneasy with the state of our country?  I’m filled with disbelief that we Americans have allowed a small percentage of bureaucrats, protestors, activists, racists and political hacks to shove their agendas down our throats.

What is going on?  Are we afraid of these people?  Do we not care anymore what happens to our country?  Has eliminating God from all things important to us made our lives better?  Hello!  Is no one listening?  Take a look around you; the VA now has to cover religious statues etc. so as not to offend those who are not Christians.  In Texas, a mayor now wants to see all sermons by pastors to be sure they are not offensive to those who do not believe the words of the Bible.  There are even those who are pressing for the phrase “Under God” in our Pledge of Alliance to be replaced by “Under Allah”. 

Our present administration has had one scandal after another and yet we sit idly by and allow these crooked politicians to continue on their merry way; after all, we’re nothing but a bunch of dumb hicks who don’t care about much except free contraceptives and recreational marijuana.  Nixon was impeached for a lot less than any of these government atrocities.  It’s time to clean out the House and the Senate.  Get rid of every last one of those self-serving politicians.  None deserve to keep their seats and I’m tired of listening to their party line blathering.  I firmly believe most of us want what’s best for our country but that takes hard work and perseverance and we’ve become a nation of lazy and complacent do-nothings. 

We are now saddled with the Ebola virus and a lot of finger pointing as to who caused it.  Democrats say it’s the Republicans; Republicans say it’s the Democrats.  I say it’s OUR fault.  We have allowed our government to strip medical research funding for life threatening diseases without batting an eye.  What do we give our tax dollars to?  How about “determining if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior;” or the “National Institute of Health spending our hard earned money to study the impact of a “genital-washing program” on men in South Africa”.  Or here’s a real pressing issue, “funds to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly”.  We allow our politicians to tell us that they have cut spending as much as they could; those darn superfluous programs like medical research.  President Obama continues to calm the hysteria over an Ebola outbreak by assuring us (wink, wink) that all is under control and we need not worry. 

For goodness sake, people, WAKE UP!  Is anybody home?  We’ve got mid-term elections coming up and unless we begin to voice our discontent in the voting booth, we’re going to be in for a lot worse than we’ve already encountered.  You’re right, Roseanne Roseannadanna; “It just goes to show ya, it’s always something!”

Diane L. Schabo

511 West F Street

Iron Mountain, MI  49801`

I'm Convinced NO on Proposal 1

I have read the Policy Brief put out by the Mackinac Center, the Citizen Research Center Report and reread SB 821 and I am still more convinced than ever that this is bad for individual taxpayers.

From the Mackinac Policy Brief:
"The Use tax is similar to a sales tax — both are assessed on the price of a purchased product. The difference is that a sales tax is levied on the sellers of goods and services, whereas a Use tax is levied on the
user of a good or service. Some items that are subject
to Michigan’s Use tax include vehicles, boats,
snowmobiles and aircraft, in addition to goods
purchased over the Internet or via catalog."

This means they can come after you instead of the business.

There is also a description of the duties of the Authority responsibilities in SB 821 I think you should read. Just ask and I will send you the bill. Believe me when I say I am not anti business. But, if they are going to do this they should do it right.

Proposal 1 August 5, Primary

Wayne County Taxpayers Association Position Paper

Proposal 1

APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AMENDATORY ACT TO REDUCE STATE USE TAX AND REPLACE WITH A LOCAL COMMUNITY STABILIZATION SHARE TO MODERNIZE THE TAX SYSTEM TO HELP SMALL BUSINESSES GROW AND CREATE JOBS

The amendatory act adopted by the Legislature would:

1. Reduce the state use tax and replace with a local community stabilization share of the tax for the purpose of modernizing the tax system to help small businesses grow and create jobs in Michigan.

2. Require Local Community Stabilization Authority to provide revenue to local governments dedicated for  local purposes, including police safety, fire protection, and ambulance emergency services.

3. Increase portion of state use tax dedicated for aid to local school districts.

4. Prohibit Authority from increasing taxes.

5. Prohibit total use tax rate from exceeding existing constitutional 6% limitation. Should this law be approved?

************(*

I want to state that the Personal Property Tax is a horrible tax and a burden to business and employment. If I were to say to the average taxpayer that their stove, refrigerator, washer, dryer and any other appliance or furniture were all subject to personal property tax for 10 years after purchase with a reduction each year for depreciation, we would have a revolt.

Anyone wishing to understand how the tax works and its effects can go to Personal Property Tax Reform in Michigan The Fiscal and Economic Impact of SB 1065-SB 1072, Anderson EconomicGroup  http://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/SearchAEG/tabid/59/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/8021/Personal-Property-Tax-Reform-in-Michigan-The-Fiscal-and-Economic-Impact-of-SB-1065SB-1072.aspx or the Citizen Research Council at  https://crcmich.org/TaxOutline/index.html

This is not just an elimination of the Personal Property Tax for some small businesses. It is about much more.  It is my estimation that it was not necessary to place anything on the ballot to allow the reduction of that tax. Everything they needed is presently included in the State Constitution as defined in the Headlee Amendment.

Article IX  Michigan Constitution

§ 25 Voter approval of increased local taxes; prohibitions; emergency conditions;

repayment of bonded indebtedness guaranteed; implementation of section.

Sec. 25. Property taxes and other local taxes and state taxation and spending may not be increased above the limitations specified herein without direct voter approval. The state is prohibited from requiring any new or expanded activities by local governments without full state financing, from reducing the proportion of state spending in the form of aid to local governments, or from shifting the tax burden to local government. A provision for emergency

conditions is established and the repayment of voter approved bonded indebtedness is guaranteed.

Implementation of this section is specified in Sections 26 through 34, inclusive, of this Article.

§ 26 Limitation on taxes; revenue limit; refunding or transferring excess revenues;

exceptions to revenue limitation; adjustment of state revenue and spending limits.

Sec. 26. There is hereby established a limit on the total amount of taxes which may be

imposed by the legislature in any fiscal year on the taxpayers of this state. This limit shall not

be changed without approval of the majority of the qualified electors voting thereon, as

provided for in Article 12 of the Constitutio n……. If responsibility for funding a program or programs is transferred from one level of government to another, as a consequence of constitutional amendment, the state revenue and spending limits may be adjusted to accommodate such change, provided that the total revenue authorized for

collection by both state and local governments does not exceed that amount which would have

been authorized without such change.

§ 29 State financing of activities or services required of local government by state

law.

Sec. 29. The state is hereby prohibited from reducing the state financed proportion of the

necessary costs of any existing activity or service required of units of Local Government by

state law. A new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activity or service beyond

that required by existing law shall not be required by the legislature or any state agency of

units of Local Government, unless a state appropriation is made and disbursed of Local Government for any necessary increased costs. The provision of this section shall not apply to costs incurred pursuant to Article VI, Section 18 to pay the unit. 

There are 10 Senate Bills connected to this proposal. Nowhere in the ballot language is a Personal Property Tax mentioned specifically. The bills range from SB821 through SB830. For brevity and simplification I will address SB822 which must be passed for most of the others to take effect.

 .

We start our problem with the establishment of yet another Authority which would be granted enormous power. Since this new Authority would not be elected by the voters, there would be no true accountability but they would have the responsibility of handling a huge amount of our money.   

“BEGINNING ON OCTOBER 1, 2015, THE SPECIFIC TAX LEVIED UNDER SUBSECTION (1) INCLUDES BOTH A STATE SHARE TAX LEVIED BY THIS STATE AND A LOCAL COMMUNITY STABILIZATION SHARE TAX AUTHORIZED BY THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED SECTION 2C AND LEVIED BY THE

AUTHORITY, WHICH REPLACES THE REDUCED STATE SHARE AT THE FOLLOWING RATES IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATE FISCAL YEARS”

Legislation then goes on to define the state’s portion of “THE LOCAL COMMUNITY

STABILIZATION SHARE TAX RATE TO BE LEVIED BY THE AUTHORITY IS THAT RATE CALCULATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY ON BEHALF OF THE

AUTHORITY… THE STATE SHARE TAX RATE IS THAT RATE DETERMINED BY SUBTRACTING THE LOCAL COMMUNITY STABILIZATION SHARE TAX RATE FROM 6%.”

The state then declares the revenue portion from 2015-2016 through 2029 without knowing the accuracy of the amount listed. They will also be committing future legislatures to a dollar amount.

This Authority would be granted an enormous responsibility. That cannot be good for taxpayers.  The line in the proposal that limits the used/sales tax to 6% does not address the expansion of the sales tax to, for example, internet purchases or fines or penalties for failure to comply. It does not address other things that they may choose to include as taxable by the sales tax which they seem to think they have the authority to adjust.

Whatever your feelings on taxes, this proposal does not give the taxpayer more security. The language does not reflect the full nature of the outcome if it passes.  If you have concerns, I will be glad to forward copies of the bills.  Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.  wctaxpayers@comcast.net .  313-278-8383.

The Wayne County Taxpayer Association suggests vote NO on Proposal 1

Until Next Time

I am sorry to announce that the Part Time Legislature Committee has informed me that they will not be able to collect enough signatures to place the issue on the ballot. For the hundreds who received petitions from the Wayne County Taxpayers Association  I am asking that you destroy the petitions.  It is their intentions to try for the 2016 elections but those petitions you have are dated and can not be used. There are a number of reason why they were not successful but they hope to have those problems worked out for the 2016 election.

Gun Rights

On September 25th,1994 the Jon Coon, Libertarian for US Senate campaign hosted a "Brass Roots" rally, honoring both the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and Article I, Sec. 6 of the Michigan Constitution. The 10,000 Michigan gun owners who attended contributed hundreds of pounds of spent brass "from firearms they vow to never give up" that was melted down and cast into a 4' x 6' plaque.

Shortly after its creation, state representative, Leon Drolet, got legislation to install the plaque on the Capitol grounds adopted by the House on a 104-0 vote.  Unfortunately, the bill was not taken up by the senate. 

We are now making a second attempt to finally put this monument to our cherished right to keep and bear arms in a deserved place of honor -- where it will serve as a continuing reminder to both public officials and the public generally of the one right upon which all the others depend.

Rep. Martin Howrylak, along with 15 cosponsors, has introduced HB 5595 to accomplish this long-sought goal -- hopefully in time for a dedication ceremony on the 20th anniversary of the original "Brass Roots" event. 

Any help you might provide in this effort would be greatly appreciated.  Please take a moment to call your state rep and urge support for HB 5595.  Then forward this e-mail to every other Michigan gun owner you know.  Thank you.

Yours for liberty from one who was there,

Tim O'Brien

LATEST PENSION “REFORM” FAD THREATENS TO DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD

by Justin Mordarski

The latest sortie into fixing our broken system is a push by some to assume an artificially low rate on investment returns.This sounds innocuous, perhaps even prudent…right?

Not even close. Even a very small difference in the assumed rate of return can have a massive effect on forced taxpayer contributions. A recent report on the pension system of Rhode Island illustrates the danger in manipulating the assumed rate of return. Lowering the rate by less than 1%, from 8.25% to 7.5%, increases the shortfall by over $2 billion, from $4.7 billion to $6.8 billion!  Lowering it to 6.2%, increases the amount taxpayers owe by $4.5 billion.

     
 What does this mean for a Michigan city or township?  While it varies by the size of the fund, lowering the assumed rate of return by even 1 percentage point could translate into several millions of dollars per year in additional, required payments by the city or township.

The pension fund’s assumed rate of return, or discount rate, is one of the primary variables in determining its funded ratio and it is ultimately the funded ratio that determines the bulk of the amount that taxpayers are required to contribute to the fund. It is expressed as a percent, usually between 7.5% and 8.0% and it is used discount the liabilities (what is owed) that are presented on the fund’s financial statements, so if it is too low, the liabilities appear artificially high and, most importantly, the required taxpayer contribution toward said liabilities is much higher than it needs to be.

The exact value of the discount rate should be based on the fund’s historic, long-term average rate of return in its investments.  Generally, this period should be rather long, usually 20 to 30 years; provided, of course, the pension boards has accurate records going back that far.
The latest fad in pension “reform” is to lower this rate, sometimes considerably.  The belief in is that doing so will somehow be “safer” or “more cautious”, which is why a lot if well intentioned, thought misinformed, conservative activists have been drawn to it.
The problems of artificially lowering the rate of return are significant and real, while the benefits are questionable at best.

First problem is higher taxes.
There is a direct link between the rate of return used and the amount taxpayers much contribute every year: the lower the rate used, the more residents and businesses must pay.  There is no way around this relationship. So understand that if some well-intentioned bureaucrat wants to lower it be even 1%, the taxpayers in that city or township would then be forced to increase annual payments to the fund, which, depending on the fund size, could be an extra million dollars a year or more.

This extra money can really only come for one of two places, higher property taxes or service reductions; so either homeowners and businesses pay more property taxes or needed services, such as road repair, are cut.
For most areas, the fragile housing market is just now starting to recover, the last thing we need to do is stunt its recovery by large property tax increases.

 While I strongly support closing local pension systems to new entrants, understand that this does not magically make existing unfunded liabilities go away – they must be paid and the assumed rate of return determines how much taxpayers will be paying.So even under the scenario where a traditional pension fund is replaced by the 401 (k) style plan, local residents and businesses could still end up paying hundreds of extra dollars a year in property taxes if too low an assumed rate of return is used to calculate the remaining balance.

Second, there exists a real danger to the taxpayers in overfunding. Pension boards in Michigan have quite a bit of autonomy and are, as a practical matter, usually controlled by the employee groups; and it this autonomy which confers upon them a good deal of discretion in how to deal with any overfunding; overfunding which becomes “extra” money to the board, who historically find a way to spend it to enrich their supporters. 

Perhaps the best known example is the infamous 13^th Check paid by Wayne County.  Even though not required by any contract, the 13^th Check was a bonus paid annually to existing retirees.  One of the main justifications for doing so was that there was “extra” money in the pension fund, so why not spend it. 

More commonly, the “extra” money in the pension fund is allocated to existing employees in the form of enhancements regarding how their pensions are calculated.  One frequent methodology is to allow unlimited overtime or unused vacation time to be included in their final average compensation; thereby increasing or “spiking” their pensions considerable. 

Another disastrous use of this “extra” money advocated by pension boards is a DROP, or Deferred Retirement Option Program, which allows employees to collect a full pension while still working. As long as pension boards are allowed to treat overfunding as “free money”, overfunding can be just as costly to taxpayers as underfunding.

Third, it is simply wrong and not supported by the available data. 

The assumed rate of return is supposed to be based upon real data, namely, decades of investment return data by the fund or similar funds.  It is not supposed be based on outliers (a few bad or good year), but on a long-term average.  Nor, should it be based on or influenced by the investment experiences of individual persons.  I mention this last point since many well-meaning activists like to suggest that since they only make 1% in back CD’s or their personal portfolio only made 4% last year, the pension should reduce its rate in kind.  Pension funds have a diverse investment pool including foreign currency, stocks, real estate and exotic investment products too myriad to list, and employ complex hedging strategies to achieve a fairly consistence average return rate over diverse economic conditions.  A pension fund is nothing like the investment products used by most individuals.  Another mistake many individuals make is to focus on bond yields (currently very low) and use this as a reason to reduce a rate of return for a pension fund.  Traditionally, stock and bond yields move in opposite directions, so when bond yields go down, fund managers just move assets from bonds and into stocks.  A recent report by JP Morgan indicated that US corporate pension funds increased their funding status from approximately 77% to almost 100% in just two years, primarily due to gains in the stock market.

The data over the last several decades strongly supports the 8% average rate of return used by most pension funds both in Michigan and throughout the nation.  According to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, the median, average annual rate of return for all public pension funds was 8.5% in the 25 year period 1986 to 2011.  The average for the state of Massachusetts’s pension funds has been 9.6% since 1986.  Even the much maligned CalPERS (one of largest funds in county) posted a 8.38% average 20 year return.  These returns are reported by the funds themselves, so perhaps it is healthy to be skeptical.  Even sources outside the pension funds themselves support the 8%.  The Standard and Poor’s Composite Index retuned 10.14% for the period 1926 to December 31, 2013.  Even the Wall Street Journal recently reported that the 30 year annual return of a large bundle of stocks selected by Morningstar was 11.1%.  The data is pretty conclusive that an 8% projected rate of return is more accurate than the 4% or less some are suggesting.

Forth, this is distracting us from the real issues and does nothing to fix the underlying problems with most municipal pension funds.  The demise of a municipal pension fund in our state usually follows a simple, basic path: the municipality will contribute to the fund based upon an employee’s base salary, say $50,000; then, usually just before retirement, an enhancement is added (this can take the form of allowing overtime to be included, unused vacation pay, a ceremonial promotion, or any of a number of things) and these enhancements now increase the pension to say $80,000.  It is the gap between the $50,000 pension the funding was predicated upon and the actual pension of $80,000 that produces the shortfall.  This $30,000 may not sound like much, but it paid every year the person receives his or her pension; so $30,000 a year for 40 years is a $1.2 million shortfall in the fund for just one person!

The other problem starting to afflict more and more pension funds relates to mortality assumptions: retirees are simply living longer than the pension board had predicted. Every incident of pension distress I have seen here in Michigan came from one, or both, of these causes.  I honestly cannot find one fund where distress was caused by investments not achieving an appropriate, long-term return on investments. 

(If you know of any, please send me an email , because I have been looking and still cannot find even one.)

              
This brings us the so-called Grand Bargain in Detroit and the desire by some to use almost $200 million in state money to bail-out Detroit.  So why are they asking citizens from Grand Rapids, Plainwell, Graying and every other city and township in the state to contribute their hard earned tax dollars to Detroit?  It seems all this money is going toward the two Detroit pension funds since Orr wants to lower the rate of return to around 6.5 % for each fund.  As demonstrated earlier, all lowering this number does is increase the amount of money the taxpayers are forced to contribute.  Another issue with the $200 million Orr wants state taxpayers to spend is that it is based on old valuations of the funds, valuations that likely do not reflect recent gains in the stock market.  It seems rather plausible that is Orr used a rate of return based upon historical averages (closer to 8%) and applied to a more recent valuation, the $200 million in bail-out money would not even be needed.

 In summary, there is no need to pay higher taxes to fix a problem that does not even seem to exist.  Instead, we should focus on the true and proven problems in our pension system, such as pension spiking, and address those. This current fad of trying to manipulate the rate of return in pension funds for political reasons needs to go the way of other past fads such as popped collars on dress shirts.

Contacts in All 83 Counties are Now a Reality for Part Time Legislature Petitions

Collecting signatures on a petition for a Part Time Legislature is really easy. Very few people will turn you down. Well, maybe some legislators,their staff and their relatives. Maybe a few other self serving lobbyists and there is also a few people who don't care or don't know the facts. Don't let that deter you. You can now get petitions in all 83 counties through county coordinators. Simply click on This Link and you will be able to click on your county and be able to contact your county contact.

 I thought I would answer a few questions that a few people ask.

 Q. How will they be able to get their work done?

 A. They only work 120 days as it is and half the stuff that they are working on should not even be on their agenda. We are only one of four states that have a Full Time Legislature - New York, California, Pennsylvania and Michigan. This should tell you almost all you need to know. The Texas legislature only meets every other year.

 Q.It says that the governor can call emergency sessions, How doe we know that this power will not be abused?

 A.That language is the same as the language that exists in our present constitution and it doesn't happen now. For one thing the legislators would not like being called back and if the governor or his party ever expects to get elected again I don't believe they would want to play that game unless it really was an emergency.

 Q. How can we get quality people to run for office if we pay them so much less?

 A. We did it for 127 years before they decided to rewrite the constitution in 1963 and it was all or nothing for the voters. Quality people will run for office. Look at all these people who are out there working for better government and don't get paid a thing. (I hope we can include you.)

 Q. How will I know what to do to collect signatures?

 A. If you have never done this before, it is as simple as reading the directions on the flap of the petition. It is as simple as asking your friend, family, church or social group members to sign or if you are really dedicated to stand in front of a store or post office or walk your block to get signatures. You can also contact your county contact for events they might have scheduled so that people may sign the petition.

 If you have more questions, we will try to answer them. In the meantime, remember to sign as the circulator at the bottom and that you can collect signatures from all counties but all the signatures on sheet must be from the same county.

Making Full Time a Part Time Reality.

The Wayne County Taxpayers Association will have Part Time Legislature Petitions available at the meeting at Leon's Family Dining on Michigan Ave just east of Telegraph on Wednesday March 26, and May 28, between the hours of 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm.  If you are not able to attend but wish to obtain petitions call 313-278-8383 and we will work out a way to get you petitions.

The weather is warming and spring is almost here. Each day will make it easier to make contact with people after their winter hibernation. Please help us and get a few petitions to circulate. You can also make a request at wctaxpayers@comcast.net . It doesn't take much to ask your friends and family to sign a petition. If we all do a little, it will make the job easier for the rest of us.

Obamacare Strikes Again

President Obama and his administration behave more like thugs everyday.  They behave like we are criminals that need to be watched and intimidated to bring us into compliance with their idea of what is right. We have to put a stop to this before we become the shadow of other countries who are taking to the streets with violence.

There are not just one or two issues to concern ourselves with but a large number of fronts on which he and his administration should be confronted. We have a constitution to which he swore an oath. Our legislators took the same oath to protect and defend it. We need to become relentless in our efforts to hold them accountable.

Please don't let this go unaddressed. If you feel this is not a problem to you now, you can rest assured that it will be a significant personal problem in the future.