SLP Badge Transparent.png
Read the
State Legislative Tracker
New edition available now!




Michigan Use Tax and Community Stabilization Share, Proposal 1 (August 2014)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Proposal 1
Flag of Michigan.png
Quick stats
Type:State statute
Referred by:Michigan Legislature
Topic:Taxes on the ballot
Status:On the ballot

The Michigan Use Tax and Community Stabilization Share, Proposal 1 is on the August 5, 2014 ballot in Michigan as a legislatively-referred state statute. The measure, upon voter approval, would activate a package of legislatively approved bills that would do the following:[1]

  • Phase out the Personal Property Tax or PPT on all industrial personal property and a portion of commercial personal property.
  • Split the State Use Tax into two taxes, the State Share Tax and a Local Community Stabilization Share Tax.
  • Create a Local Community Stabilization Authority to administer the Local Community Stabilization Share Tax.
  • Replace the revenue local governments would lose without the PPT with revenue from the Local Community Stabilization Share Tax.

The “Personal Property Tax” (PPT) has been described as having a “misleading name” and being "an inaccurately named levy" because the tax is not levied on an individual's personal property, as the tax's name would suggest.[2][3] The PPT is an annual business tax levied on productive business assets, such as equipment and machinery, and other property, including furniture, display racks, computers, shelving and so on.[4] Proposal 1 would phase out the tax on all industrial personal property and a portion of commercial personal property by 2023. Businesses with total personal property valued at or below $80,000 would be able to file for exemption from the PPT immediately, rather than waiting for the phase out to be completed. Some municipalities rely heavily on revenue from the PPT.[1]

The measure would replace the revenue local governments would lose without the PPT with revenue from a Local Community Stabilization Share Tax. The new tax would be created by splitting the state's current use tax into two taxes - (1) a Local Community Stabilization Share Tax and (2) a State Share Tax.[5] The state use tax is levied at a rate of 6 percent and the two new share taxes would be levied at a combined rate of 6 percent. Therefore, there would be no tax increase under Proposal 1.[6]

The State Share Tax would be administered by the state, while the Local Community Stabilization Share Tax would be administered by a Local Community Stabilization Authority.[1] The authority would receive revenue from the tax and distribute such to local governments. Revenue would be distributed for the purposes of funding school districts, fire protection, police officers and emergency services.[5]

The local community stabilization share tax rate would be determined annually by the Michigan Department of Treasury. The department would calculate the rate based on revenue targets. The following are the revenue targets laid out by Proposal 1:[7]

MichiganPA80RevenueTargets.png

Since the local community stabilization share tax and state share tax cannot exceed a combined rate of 6 percent, the state share tax rate would follow a simple formula:

State share tax rate = 6 percent - local community stabilization share tax rate.[8]

Proposal 1 was forced onto the ballot by Section 31 of Article IX of the Michigan Constitution, which requires voter approval for any new taxes levied by local governments. The Local Community Stabilization Authority, the proposed body that would administer the tax, is classified as a "local unit of government."[1]

If approved, the proposal would take effect on January 1, 2015.[5]

There is no organized opposition to Proposal 1. Nonetheless, proponents have expressed concern that the proposal may be defeated anyway due to “the complexity of the issue” and the ballot measure's "virtually incomprehensible" language.[9][2] Proposal 1 supporters, such as Ford and Dow Chemical, are hoping to clear up confusion through a well-funded campaign. Proponents have raised $5,730,310, despite having no organized opposition.[10]

The act was known as Senate Bill 822 in the Michigan Legislature.[5]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot text reads as follows:[5]

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?
[ ] YES
[ ] NO [8]

Background

Use tax history

Michigan's use tax was adopted in 1937 via Public Act 94 at a rate of 3 percent. The use tax rate was increased by law to 4 percent in 1960. In 1994, voters approved Proposal A, a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment which increased the use tax rate to 6 percent. The 2 percent increase was put in Section 8 of Article IX of the Michigan Constitution. Therefore, the use tax, unless the constitution is changed, must be at a rate of at least 2 percent. That 2 percent is deposited into the state school fund. The rest of the tax is deposited into the school aid fund in an amount equal to revenue lost from tax exemptions implemented in 2014. Proposal 1 reorganizes the use tax into the State Share Tax and Local Community Stabilization Share Tax.[7]

The following graph illustrates use tax revenues in Michigan from 1938 to 2012:[7]

MichiganUseTaxRevenueHistory.png

PPT cut of 2012

In 2012, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed legislation to phase out the PPT, but the legislation did not provide municipalities with any alternative source of revenues.[11] Warren's budget, for example, was 15.25 percent comprised of revenues from the tax and River Rouge's was even higher at 56.8 percent. Proposal 1 is intended to alleviate municipal budget problems arising from the tax phase out.[12]

If Proposal 1 is defeated, the entire PPT phase out will be halted.[13]

Bill package

Proposal 1 is part of a “bill package” made up of ten bills: Senate Bills 821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829 and 830. Together the ten bills will continue to phase out the personal property tax on business - a tax on business equipment and furniture - while guaranteeing reimbursement for local governments who rely on revenue from such tax to provide local services, including fire fighters and police officers.[14] SB 825 was an alternative ballot question to SB 822, but became defunct with the legislature's enactment of SB 822.[15] All the bills, except SB 823, will not go into effect unless voters approve SB 822 in August. SB 823 will only partially go into effect without the approval of SB 822.

Support

Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities 2014.png

Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities is leading the campaign in support of the measure.[16]

Supporters

Officials

The following legislators sponsored the amendment in the Michigan Legislature:[5]

Other officials who support the measure include:

Former officials

Cities

Organizations

  • Michigan Municipal League[40]
  • Michigan Association of Counties[41]
  • Michigan Townships Association
  • Michigan League for Public Policy
  • West Michigan Policy Forum
  • Michigan Farm Bureau[42]
  • Michigan AARP[43]
  • Michigan Association of School Administrators
  • Michigan Association of School Boards
  • Michigan Community College Association
  • Michigan Library Association
  • Michigan Sheriff's Association[44]
  • Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police
  • Police Officers Association of Michigan
  • Fraternal Order of Police
  • Michigan Association of Fire Chiefs
  • Michigan Professional Fire Fighters Union
  • Michigan Food & Beverage Association
  • Michigan Restaurant Association
  • Michigan Grocers Association
  • Michigan Soft Drink Association
  • Michigan Retailers Association
  • Michigan Infrastructure & Transportation Association
  • Associated Petroleum Industries of Michigan
  • Michigan Concrete Association
  • Business Leaders for Michigan
  • Michigan Business & Professional Association
  • National Federation of Independent Business – Michigan
  • Michigan Association of Realtors
  • Great Lakes Bay Manufacturers Association
  • Lake Superior Community Partnership[45]
Chambers of Commerce
  • Michigan Chamber of Commerce[41]
  • Alpena Area Chamber of Commerce
  • Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti (A2Y) Regional Chamber
  • Battle Creek Area Chamber of Commerce
  • Berrien County Manufacturers Council
  • Blue Water Area Chamber of Commerce
  • Detroit Regional Chamber
  • Flint & Genesee Chamber of Commerce
  • Grand Blanc Chamber of Commerce
  • Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce
  • Howell Area Chamber of Commerce[46]
  • Hudsonville Area Chamber of Commerce
  • Jackson County Chamber of Commerce
  • Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce
  • Livonia Chamber of Commerce
  • Ludington & Scottville Area Chamber of Commerce
  • Michigan West Coast Chamber of Commerce
  • Northern Michigan Chamber Alliance
  • Petoskey Regional Chamber of Commerce
  • Plymouth Community Chamber of Commerce
  • Saginaw County Chamber of Commerce[47]
  • Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce
  • Waterford Area Chamber of Commerce

Businesses

  • Michigan Sugar Company[47]
  • Lake Michigan Mailers, Inc.[48]

Arguments


A Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities’ campaign video titled “Jobs.”

Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities broke down their argument in support of the proposal into a section on "the problem" and a section on "the solution." The following is an excerpt from their analysis of "the problem:"

Michigan Prop 1 2014 Support Problem Argument for Local Communities.png

The problem for local communities: Michigan communities have struggled for years to pay for essential services like police, fire, ambulances, schools, roads and jails. Communities also battle for annual legislative appropriations in Lansing to fund other services, including roads and libraries, through revenue sharing.

How it's collected: Currently, the personal property tax is collected by local municipalities according to local millage rates. This means businesses with multiple locations in multiple jurisdictions pay multiple personal property tax bills at varying rates. For some smaller municipalities, the cost of assessing and collecting this tax is almost more than they collect.

Michigan Prop 1 2014 Support Problem Argument for Businesses.png

Double-taxing small businesses: For decades, Michigan has unfairly double-taxed small businesses with a business equipment tax – known as the personal property tax – on all equipment. Most neighboring states don’t tax business equipment at all, which makes Michigan much less competitive when it comes to creating jobs and attracting business investment.

A tax that never goes away: Each year, equipment is assessed a taxable value and the owner pays a tax based on the local millage rate. In addition to the 6 percent sales tax paid for most items purchased or sold in Michigan, small businesses pay additional personal property taxes on that equipment every single year just for owning it – that tax never goes away, no matter how old the equipment is.

An antiquated, obsolete tax: This antiquated, double-tax has been on the books since the 1800s. Other states in our region have eliminated these antiquated taxes or have dramatically lowered rates, making it difficult for Michigan to compete.

This tax limits investment: Only businesses, including small businesses, pay personal property taxes on their equipment. Taxes on business capital are considered by economists to limit investment, making Michigan less competitive than other states.

Reforming this tax will create jobs and increase investment: Eliminating the Personal Property Tax will create up to 15,000 jobs and $450 million in additional investment. In fact, no other state in our region taxes business equipment the way Michigan does – and no state except one in our region taxes it at all, which puts Michigan at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to job creation and business investment. [8]

—Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, [49]


A Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities’ campaign video titled “Hurts.”

The following is an excerpt from their analysis of "the solution:"

Michigan Prop 1 2014 Support Solution Argument for Local Communities.png

Stabilizing Services In Your Community: Proposal 1 creates a stable, reliable funding system for communities in Michigan to pay for police, fire, ambulances, jails, senior services, schools, libraries, roads and other community services.

Local Control Guarantees: Proposal 1 comes with two guarantees: 100 percent of the funding for local community services will be returned directly to your community for police, fire, senior services, ambulances, jails, schools, roads, libraries and other community services.

No More Playing Politics With Local Communities: 100 percent of this dedicated funding for local community services is no longer subject to the uncertainty and instability of annual legislative appropriations or political gamesmanship in Lansing.

Michigan Prop 1 2014 Support Solution Argument for Businesses.png

Gives small businesses a fighting chance: Proposal 1 ends the unfair double tax on small businesses to give them a fighting chance and help them create more jobs. It keeps in place the legislature’ work to end this unfair double tax on personal property.

No tax increase - for anybody!: Proposal 1 doesn’t raise tax rates. Instead, it is paid for by eliminating special corporate tax loopholes that the legislature has already voted to end, and by establishing a statewide Essential Services Assessment that is only paid for by manufacturers that receive a Personal Property Tax reduction.

Small businesses are already seeing benefits: Small businesses stopped paying the double tax on personal property effective January 2014. Manufacturing businesses, large and small, will see this antiquated uncompetitive tax phased out over time, beginning in 2016.

Proposal 1 will create jobs and boost investment in Michigan: The U.S. Small Business Administration found that nearly two-thirds of net new jobs over the past 15 years were created by small businesses. Personal Property Tax reform will free up money that can be used for job growth. Eliminating the Personal Property Tax will create up to 15,000 jobs and $450 million in additional investment.

Proposal 1 creates an environment for economic growth: Finally, Proposal 1 won’t increase taxes. Instead, it will create an environment that attracts employers to Michigan while ensuring important local services are protected with stable funding sources. [8]

—Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, [50]


A Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities’ campaign video titled “Fifteen.”

Maureen Krauss, vice president of economic development for business attraction at the Detroit Regional Chamber, said one primary reason that businesses do not move to Michigan is the PPT. She noted, "I hear it in every state the Detroit Regional Chamber travels to: “Get rid of the personal property tax — then let’s talk.” That’s the reaction from potential investors across the country as they consider moving their operations and jobs to Michigan." Krauss continued, saying:

A “yes” vote on Proposal 1 is a game-changer. It removes the outdated tax known as the personal property tax and makes Michigan more competitive in attracting jobs and investment. With Michigan’s reinvention well underway, taking that comeback to the next level requires attracting more investment from outside the state.

Unfortunately, when businesses consider locating in Michigan, they have to face paying the PPT on equipment they use to do business, every single year, on the very same piece of equipment.

So that advanced manufacturing equipment they purchase to produce high-tech automotive parts or medical devices could cost them the same tax, year after year, for decades. That’s not exactly a welcome mat.

The PPT also impacts businesses and communities across Michigan.

Businesses here pay that cost, putting them at a tremendous disadvantage when their competitors in neighboring states don’t have to.

That’s money that could be used to expand and create jobs. At the same time, Michigan’s local communities have struggled for years with the unpredictable revenue fluctuations the PPT produces. [8]

—Maureen Krauss, [51]

Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, who originally voted against the bill in the Michigan Senate, came out in support of the measure following analyses of the proposal:

Unfortunately, I didn’t have the assurances I needed to answer those questions as the legislation was hurried through without the opportunity for any real debate, leading me to be one of only two senators to vote against it at the time.

Since then, however, the analyses done by local government officials and fiscal agencies have answered my questions and addressed my concerns. Now that I have those assurances, I’m confident Proposal 1 is right for Michigan.

Michigan communities will be reimbursed for 100 percent of the estimated PPT revenue lost for local services. Essential local services such as police, fire and ambulances, along with schools, libraries, roads and jails, will receive the same level of funding that the PPT provided.

Proposal 1 is paid for entirely by eliminating some of the billions of dollars in corporate tax breaks the state hands out and by a statewide Essential Services Assessment paid only by manufacturers receiving a PPT reduction. The resulting revenue stream for local services will be much more reliable than the PPT, which has been notoriously unstable.

I am confident Proposal 1 is good for local communities and good for local businesses. [8]

—Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, [52]


A Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities’ campaign video titled “Facts.”

Tom Watkins, who served as the Michigan Superintendent of Public Instruction from 2001 to 2005, deemed Proposal 1 a “win-win-win.” He listed several reasons to support the ballot measure:

  • The current PPT is a drag on small business. By eliminating it, we incentivize companies to invest in spiffing up their businesses, buying new equipment and creating more jobs.
  • Our neighboring states do not have a similar tax; currently, it is actually a dis-incentive to attract new business to Pure Michigan.
  • Eliminating this tax will help Michigan’s effort to recruit new businesses by eliminating a reason for businesses to flee the state.
  • This positively impacts Michigan’s business climate without touching your personal taxes. Proposal 1 does NOT increase taxes for you or for businesses.
  • The proposal creates a more stable funding system for communities by eliminating special corporate tax breaks and re-dedicating existing tax dollars to local governments via reimbursement of lost revenues.
  • Proposal 1 guarantees the reimbursement of 100 percent of any lost revenues for local services including police, fire, ambulances, schools, libraries, jails and other local services.
  • Supporting Proposal 1 helps with Michigan’s fragile turnaround.

[8]

—Tom Watkins, [23]

Other arguments in favor of the proposal include:

  • Speaker of the House Jase Bolger (R-63) said, “We are getting rid of a job-killing tax and replacing it with a job-creating solution. For years, our state lost out on jobs to neighboring states that do not punish their employers for investing in new equipment. Well, today those states no longer have that advantage and will have a front-row seat to watch as Michigan attracts new and better careers.”[17]
  • Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-18) stated, "We finally got it right. You will see, I think, a lot of broad bipartisan support. We can both modernize our tax structure and make sure our local communities have a stable revenue stream long into the future."[21]
  • Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel (D) concluded, "A yes vote for Proposal 1 solves two major problems for Michigan and Macomb County without raising taxes. Proposal 1 replaces 100 percent of the estimated revenues lost by eliminating the Personal Property Tax for important services like police, fire, schools, ambulances, roads, jails and libraries. Second, a yes vote on Proposal 1 supports local small businesses and manufacturers by reforming the uncompetitive Personal Property Tax."[18]
  • Amy Clickner, CEO of Lake Superior Community Partnership, said, “As an economic development organization, we see the value in eliminating the cumbersome tax and believe it will be especially positive for small business. However, we were not willing to support the tax elimination if it meant a negative financial impact to our local municipalities, which has been corrected in the passed legislation.”[45]
  • A Pittsfield Township business owner, who remained unidentified, stated, "I paid about $200 for the computers I have and not much more for the furniture. But the assessed value was about $4,000. I pay about $100 a year (in PPT)."[53]

Campaign contributions

Total campaign cash Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png
as of July 15, 2014
Category:Ballot measure endorsements Support: $5,730,310
Circle thumbs down.png Opposition: $0

As of July 15, 2014, the Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities committee has received $5,730,310 in contributions.[54]

PAC info:

PAC Amount raised Amount spent
Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities $5,730,310 $418,882
Total $5,730,310 $418,882

Top 6 contributors:

Donor Amount
Ford Motor Company $2,000,000
Michigan Manufacturers Association $1,568,415
Dow Chemical $1,500,000
Dow Corning $250,000
DTE Energy Co. $50,000
Masco Corp. $30,000

Opposition

No organized opposition to Proposal 1 exists.[9]

Opponents

Officials

The following legislators voted against putting the proposal on the ballot in the Michigan Legislature:[55]

Note: Sen. Whitmer opposed the bill in the legislature, but came out in support of the proposal in July 2014.[18]

Organizations

  • Wayne County Taxpayer Association[56]

Arguments

Timothy J. Bartik, senior economist at the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, offered critical commentary of Proposal 1. Bartik said the proposal may exacerbate the state's budget issues:

The main problem with Proposal 1 is the lack of adequate replacement revenue. The $600 million in funds for local governments are provided in part by a new, smaller statewide tax on business personal property, which would eventually provide about $100 million annually.

The remaining $500 million that would eventually be needed for local governments is not financed by new revenue, but rather would be diverted from the state’s general fund, which supports health care programs, the criminal justice system, higher education, and human services programs.

Some Proposal 1 proponents argue that the remaining $500 million is financed by expiring business tax credits. However, these expiring business tax credits were already scheduled to expire, and should not be counted as “new revenue”.

Michigan faces a long-run budget problem. The state’s tax revenue grows slower than the state economy, while spending pressures grow faster than the state economy. Proposal 1 worsens this problem by about $500 million per year. This loss in revenue could reduce state services, which could worsen the state’s economic competitiveness, even with lower personal property taxes.

Voters face this choice: if Proposal 1 passes, the state’s budget situation will deteriorate and services are likely to suffer. If Proposal 1 is voted down, it is possible that the state legislature will re-enact personal property tax elimination without replacement revenue for local governments…

Regardless of what happens to Proposal 1, Michigan faces significant long-run budget challenges. The news media, outside public interest groups, and state policymakers need to focus more on the long-term budget issues facing the state, and possible tax and budget reforms to deal with these issues. We can’t keep kicking the can down the (pothole-strewn) road. [8]

—Timothy J. Bartik, [57]

Other arguments against the ballot measure include:

  • The Wayne County Taxpayer Association said the association opposes the PPT, but also rejects a Local Community Stabilization Authority. The organization argued, "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 [sic] 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."[56]

Media editorial positions

2014 measures
Flag of Michigan.png
August 5
Proposal 1
November 4
Wolf Hunting Referendum
Natural Resources Commission Referendum
Endorsements
Local measures
See also: Endorsements of Michigan ballot measures, 2014

Support

  • Crain's Detroit Business said, "The PPT has been unpopular for a long time. Businesses don't like it because it's hard to figure out and it's not charged by most nearby states. Local governments haven't liked it because the assessments are constantly under appeal by businesses. The current proposal addresses the concerns of both businesses and municipalities and doesn't raise anyone's taxes."[58]
  • Detroit Free Press said, "Ultimately, if voters don’t approve Prop 1, the personal property tax will go back into effect, along with the bureaucratic mess it causes businesses and cities... We haven’t always agreed with [Gov. Snyder's] decisions, but on this one, we’re all in. Municipalities need steady funding; both businesses and municipalities need less overhead in the taxation process. Take the time to read the ballot language, and information about the tax replacement, and vote yes on Aug. 5."[59]
  • The Detroit News said, "Everybody wins if Prop 1 passes. Voters should not get caught up in the awkwardly worded language of the proposal, nor in suspicions that it’s a backdoor business tax break. It isn’t."[60]
  • Gannett Company, owner of Observer & Eccentric, Battle Creek Enquirer, Port Huron Times Herald and Livingston Daily, said, "A proposal that helps Michigan businesses without hurting local governments and schools is a good deal for everyone, including homeowners. That’s why voters should support Proposal 1 during the Aug. 5 state primary."[61][62]
  • The Herald-Palladium said, "There really isn't much to dislike about the proposal, other than the cockeyed ballot language. We hope voters educate themselves about the proposal and understand its benefits. A "yes" vote really would help move Michigan forward."[63]
  • Holland Sentinel said, "Proposal 1 may sound like a technical, inside-government issue, but it’s important to everyone in Michigan. It is a rare and gratifying example of legislators addressing a real problem and working together to fix it."[64]
  • Lansing State Journal said, "It is a rare occurrence in Michigan when a reform effort wins broad support from a coalition that draws large and small business, labor, government, Democrats and Republicans. Yet that’s what has happened with Proposal 1, a statewide question that will appear on the Aug. 5 primary ballot."[65]
  • The Michigan Daily said, "Prop. 1 includes an effective method to regain tax money. Allowing arbitrary and outdated business tax to expire is a commendable initiative."[66]
  • Midland Daily News said, "Everyone under the sun is saying that citizens should vote yes on Proposal 1, which would eliminate the state personal property tax, described by Lt. Gov. Brian Calley when he was in town last week as antiquated, outdated, burdensome and anti-investment. Yes, it is all those things."[67]
  • MLive said, "The fact that there is no organized opposition to the proposal is rare and telling. In fact, the greatest threat to the proposal is voter skepticism and mistrust of government. We think skepticism is healthy, but we also believe this is the best solution available right now."[68]
  • Petoskey News-Review said, "With no tax increases included, we see this as a fairness issue that makes perfect sense. Government officials and economic leaders in Northern Michigan say they are working hard to attract good jobs to the region. How can we expect them to succeed if they’re saddled with this personal property tax disadvantage?"[69]

Path to the ballot

See also: Legislatively-referred state statutes in Michigan

A simple legislative majority was needed to refer the statute to the ballot. SB 822 was approved by the Michigan House of Representatives on March 25, 2014. The bill was approved by the Michigan Senate on March 27, 2014. The act was signed by the governor on March 28, 2014.[55]

House vote

March 25, 2014 House vote

Michigan SB 822 House Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 104 95.41%
No54.59%

Senate vote

March 27, 2014 Senate vote

Michigan SB 822 Senate Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 35 94.59%
No25.41%

See also

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

External links

Basic information

Support

Additional reading

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Citizens Research Council of Michigan, "Statewide Ballot Issues: Proposal 2014-1," accessed July 15, 2014
  2. 2.0 2.1 Michigan Radio, "This ballot proposal is critical to Michigan's economy, but most people won't bother to vote on it," July 15, 2014
  3. Holland Sentinel, "Our View: Proposal 1 is a good deal for everyone in Michigan," July 6, 2014
  4. City of East Lansing, "Business Personal Property Tax," accessed July 15, 2014
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Michigan Legislature, "Enrolled Senate Bill No. 822," accessed March 28, 2014
  6. Michigan Department of Treasury, "Use Tax," accessed July 2, 2014
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 Citizens Research Council of Michigan, "Outline of the Michigan Tax System," April 2014
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  9. 9.0 9.1 MLive, "Personal property tax ballot proposal won't face opposition, so why do supporters still fear failure?," May 30, 2014
  10. MLive, "Michigan primary 2014: $5.6 million raised to battle confusion about statewide ballot proposal," July 23, 2014
  11. The Republic, "Michigan Legislature sends Snyder bills ensuring municipalities not harmed by business tax cut," March 27, 2014
  12. 12.0 12.1 Detroit Free Press, "Michigan Senate OKs plan to eliminate personal property tax," March 4, 2014
  13. MLive, "Gov. Snyder signs law repealing taxes on industrial business equipment; vote to be held in 2014," December 20, 2012
  14. Lansing State Journal, "Michigan legislature passes bills eliminating personal property tax for business," March 27, 2014
  15. Michigan Legislature, "Enrolled Senate Bill No. 825," accessed March 28, 2014
  16. Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, "Homepage," accessed July 1, 2014
  17. 17.0 17.1 MLive, "Michigan House moves to repeal 'job-killing' personal property tax, replace local revenue," March 25, 2014
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 Battle Creek Enquirer, "Michigan Citizens for Strong & Safe Communities: Proposal 1 puts Michigan on the right track," July 11, 2014
  19. MLive, "Guest view of state Sen. Mike Green: Proposal 1 a win for business, workers, communities," July 23, 2014
  20. MLive, "Genesee County officials gather to rally support for Proposal 1 on the Aug. 5 ballot," July 28, 2014
  21. 21.0 21.1 MLive, "Michigan personal property tax reform plan hailed as 'win-win' for businesses, local governments," February 25, 2014
  22. Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, "Former Attorney General Frank Kelley endorses Aug. 5 ballot proposal," May 15, 2014
  23. 23.0 23.1 Dome Magazine, "Strong Schools Require a “Yes” Vote on Proposal 1!," July 4, 2014
  24. Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Frankenmuth Resolution," June 3, 2014
  25. Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Fremont Resolution," May 19, 2014
  26. Michigan Citizens for Strong & Safe Communities, "Grand Rapids City Commission urges YES vote on Prop 1 on Aug. 5 statewide ballot," July 25, 2014
  27. Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Grayling Resolution," May 12, 2014
  28. Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Hartford Resolution," May 19, 2014
  29. MLive, "Resolution supporting elimination of Personal Property Tax OK'd by Kalamazoo City Commission," July 8, 2014
  30. Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Madison Heights Resolution," May 27, 2014
  31. Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Mattawan Resolution," May 12, 2014
  32. Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Middleville Resolution," June 10, 2014
  33. Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Mount Pleasant Resolution," June 9, 2014
  34. Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Northville Resolution," May 22, 2014
  35. Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Norton Shores Resolution," May 20, 2014
  36. Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Pleasant Ridge Resolution," June 10, 2014
  37. The Saline Reporter, "Saline City Council passes resolution in support of Proposal 1," July 25, 2014
  38. Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Walker Resolution," June 9, 2014
  39. Michigan Municipal Leauge, "Yale Resolution," June 9, 2014
  40. Michigan Municipal League, "Michigan Communities Urge Residents to Vote YES on Proposal 1; Pass Resolutions in Support," June 26, 2014
  41. 41.0 41.1 Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, "Supporters," accessed July 1, 2014
  42. Michigan Farm Bureau, "Ballot Initiatives," accessed July 1, 2014
  43. WKZO, "Michigan AARP supports ballot proposal to eliminate state personal property tax," June 17, 2014
  44. Midland Daily News, "Michigan Sheriff's Association backs Proposal 1, which would benefit Midland, Midland County," June 25, 2014
  45. 45.0 45.1 The Mining Journal, "LSCP backs proposal to eliminate personal property tax," April 15, 2014
  46. Livingston Daily, "Howell chamber endorses Proposal 1," June 26, 2014
  47. 47.0 47.1 MLive, "Business, government leaders join hands in Saginaw to campaign for statewide ballot initiative," April 3, 2014
  48. PRWeb, "Lake Michigan Mailers, Inc. Endorses a “YES” vote on Proposal 1 on the August 5th Michigan Ballot," June 30, 2014
  49. Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, "The Problem," accessed July 1, 2014
  50. Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, "The Solution," accessed July 1, 2014
  51. The Detroit News, "Eliminate personal property tax, make Michigan more competitive," July 28, 2014
  52. The Detroit News, "Whitmer: Yes on Proposal 1," July 16, 2014
  53. MLive, "Proposal 1 would give businesses tax relief with no impact on residents," July 24, 2014
  54. Michigan Secretary of State, "Michigan Committee Statement of Organization," accessed April 28, 2014
  55. 55.0 55.1 Michigan Legislature, "Senate Bill 0822 (2014)," accessed March 28, 2014
  56. 56.0 56.1 Wayne County Taxpayer Association, "July 2014 Newsletter," accessed July 26, 2014
  57. MLive, "Guest column: Proposal 1 solves some problems but may create long-term budget issues," July 24, 2014
  58. Crain's Detroit Business, "Don't let wording confuse PPT issue," May 25, 2014
  59. Detroit Free Press, "Editorial: Vote yes on Proposal 1," June 8, 2014
  60. The Detroit News, "Editorial: Vote yes on Prop 1," June 29, 2014
  61. Observer & Eccentric, "Vote yes: Proposal 1 helps improve jobs climate," June 23, 2014
  62. Livingston Daily, "Proposal 1 helps Mich. jobs climate," June 16, 2014
  63. The Herald-Palladium, "In our opinion: Proposal 1," July 20, 2014
  64. Holland Sentinel, "Our View: Proposal 1 is a good deal for everyone in Michigan," July 6, 2014
  65. Lansing State Journal, "Editorial: Pass Proposal 1 on Aug. 5 ballot," May 31, 2014
  66. The Michigan Daily, "From the Daily: Better for business," June 11, 2014
  67. Midland Daily News, "Our view: Joining the chorus: Vote yes on Proposal 1," July 16, 2014
  68. MLive, "MLive Media Group: Vote yes on Proposal 1 to preserve local funding," July 25, 2014
  69. Petoskey News-Review, "Don't let Proposal 1 language confuse you, it's good for all," July 17, 2014