Proposal One: Reasons to Vote No, Reasons to Vote Yes

[XLFD]

I love to be able to exhibit the great minds of our area making profound observations and statements, even if I do have to borrow the material from the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) when they publish a good letter from the readers.  A letter to the editor from Constance Andersen has been featured on the Torch before (http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/ron-boji-and-the-boji...) making a good argument against the placement of the proposed data center (remember that). 

 

This time she uses her own experience as a public official to educate the public on issues involved with Proposal One, on the ballot this August.

 

 

The points she raises are legitimate questions and concerns over a mild-looking proposal that could have far-reaching ramifications.  It seems like the proposal has been rushed to make the August primaries, where such ballot questions usually get a lot less scrutiny than in November.

 

But, under the aegis of fairness, the COLDNews in the same July 31, 2014 edition of that paper, has an editorial by the board of editors of the newspaper that expresses support, while 'keeping it simple':

 

 

Such a ringing endorsement based on the proposal looking to be better than doing nothing.  Elegant, no.

[AQUAMAN]

"Elegant, no?" The "our view/our gang" people are the outlanders here that don't know business nor people, just their own warped agendas of progressive liberalism. It consists of Benoche, Klevorn, and the editor usually. All outsiders from other states with agendas unfavorable to locals. 

[XLFD]

Proposal 1 has a lot of support from many Republicans and Democrats, support from the Chamber of Commerce, AARP, and many other diverse groups.  What the supporters are generally consistent on is that they prefer 'big government solutions' and corporate welfare programs, which should be cautionary to those who are confused with the language.  The wording on the ballot also says that there is a limit of 6% on the tax this new agency can levy, but there actually appears to be no limit. 

I see this new authority eventually becoming an agency that would divert a lot of this public money from the public uses it should be used for.  Much like Downtown Development Authorities (especially Ludington's) already do. 

[Willy]

The truth of the matter is that businesses don't provide the money to pay PPT. Their customers do. The cost of doing business which includes taxes is passed on to the customers and patrons who support businesses. So a no vote on Prop. 1 does nothing but continue the status quo. Establishing another layer of bureaucracy is not a good thing and the uncertainty of where the new taxes will come from and if it will be enough to compensate for the loss of the PPT is to big of a risk to take. You can bet that businesses will not be lowering prices for goods and services if the PPT is eliminated and we also know that taxes on citizens will have to be raised somehow to make up for the lost revenues provided by the PPT,  so the taxpayer, again,  will be paying substantially more out of their pockets if this risky proposition is passed.

[stump]

So this proposal will give out government a open book on what they are going to tax us on which means everything!!!!! And nobody is saying anything about internet sales tax??????? e-bay, craiglist or catalog sales????? There's a lot of people shopping on the internet just to get better deals, and of coarse avoid taxes.

[AQUAMAN]

Very well said guys, hit the nail squarely for sure! They have been wanting to put many more taxes on internet sales for years, and sadly, may yet? I sure hope not...

[XLFD]

Of course, the fear factor is also in play here with this tax shift.  Proponents say if this this fails to pass, then the legislature will get rid of the PPT and will replace it with something that is even worse than what this proposal allows for.  Don't believe it; they put this out as a proposal because this setup would be called into question big time if it was strictly set up by the MI legislators, and every time these local authorities raised taxes could be claimed as illegitimate as regards the MI Constitution.  It's harder to claim illegality when the people of Michigan passed it in an election.   

Stump, those all could be passed by an appointed board with little oversight.