Earlier this week, published reports suggested that Michigan's governor is open to moving from a flat tax to a graduated scale that will resemble the federal income tax code.Governor Granholm suggests that a progressive tax system could replace the Michigan Single Business Tax, which was passed last year and has been terribly unpopular in the commerce community.
Michigan's bleak financial outlook would be hurt by this transition. The federal tax code's graduated scale, where those who make the most money pay a much higher rate is seen by many as fair (I don't count myself among them, but I suppose that's a different issue) and this has been accepted for many years. My personal feelings aside, the federal income tax is unbelievably intricate, and it is this complexity that encourages both errors and dishonesty. The simple principles of a flat tax, where everyone pays the same rate, make it much harder to confuse or cheat. A flat tax is more straightforward and far more efficient.
A more prudent option for Michigan may be to lower the flat tax rate and eliminate deductions. If the rate were dropped from 4.35% and deductions were eliminated, a tax form could be the size of an index card, and could be completed without the help of an accountant or Turbo Tax. This smaller form could show taxable earnings, money withheld, and the amount owed/overpaid. Instead of making the state income tax more difficult, why not make it easier?
This is not only a question about taxes, it's about leadership. State government needs individuals who will look at new ideas and make things more efficient for citizens.
I'll close with a quote from Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, a conservative, who once said "I like to pay taxes, with them I buy civilization."
I'd give the money back and liquidate the assets, we are in a cash strapped situation and at times like these you need o raise capital, sometimes you have to give up the future value of an expected asset to raise capital so that you can stay true to your core competencies. So that you can get back to doing what you do best. in the case of government it is serving the people. Not providing benefits and services. You know my position on things like this, DPS? WTF happened there? A clear example of a failed system that does nothing but "Spend" the budget every year, so much so they have paid for fake computers that don't exist so they can ask for more money for more computers that don't exist but are actually needed.
ReplyDeleteHere is a generalization, but think about it. Government funded services, and benefits are encouraged to spend their entire budget and never give anything back, then stick your hand out for more. (With the false notion that you are providing a better service ) They are never encouraged to return what they don't need so the funds can be reallocated to someone who needs them more.
Think of it like a fat kid, he's encouraged to eat more, because if he doesn't we lead him to believe that he might starve,(if people gave back this wouldn't happen) so he eats and eats, and gets fatter, and fatter, and unhealthier, and unhealthier. Hmmmm Sounds vaguely familiar to every government program I've ever seen................
Somewhere you lose me. On the one hand, you seem to argue that government needs to get back to serving the people, which is done through government programs, then, you suggest that government programs and non-profits give money back. What does "getting back to what they do best" in the case of government actually look like? To me, it's leaving people alone, building roads, and delivering the mail, keeping away from social engineering.
ReplyDeletePart of me thinks your calling for non-profits that receive government funding to be more efficient and based more on some of the principles you'd find in the private sector, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Yes I am suggesting local governmenets and non-profits give money, to let it be appropriated to areas that need it more. The basis for those needs are debateable. The whole fact they are receiving government funds is debateable to me.But if I had to choose between public and private benefits I would choose private. Making people uncomfortable in their desperate situation is what motivates them to get out of that situation. Making them comfortable in it is what perpetuates the situation. BIG Gov't NEEDS poor people more than poor people need BIG Gov't. Do you think people would just stop eating? Or stop learning? Or stop living? Or choosing to live a less expensive healthy natural lifestyle? No people have existed for years without gov't intervention in their daily lives. Giving back what they don't need to keep these people in their less fortunate situation would help those who truly need the help...those who can't feed themselves, are disabled and not capable of getting themselves out of a desperate situation, sometimes physical, sometimes mental. Not for regular Joe's to say well I can take the bare minimum because that's what was given to me. I'm definately against letting people starve, or freeze, but don't you think someone will figure out how to help them if the gov't didn't?
ReplyDeletePart2: Yes, non-profits that receive funds should be more efficient, who wouldn't want that. Instead they are encouraged to be less efficient by asking for more out of fear they will be left out.