Comments on: City Income Tax: Maybe Later

By: Fred Posner

Fred Posner — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:04:16 +0000

I’d say great reporting, but there is always great reporting here… so instead, thank you for continuing to post great in depth articles like this.

One thing immediately stood out at me… “On the other hand, an income tax, said Crawford, would stabilize things.”

It seems pretty odd to consider income tax stable when the state leads the nation in unemployment. I still think a sales tax is the way to go, and if the state doesn’t allow it, it’s time to make them reconsider. I for one will fight tooth and nail against any tax levied on my family’s income when done so by an agency that does not allow me representation. It’s been fought before and lost, but it’s a new day and new arguments, and I’m certain it can prevail.

Of course I am also stating that the City has been unacceptably absent in major reductions of expenditures which should be exhausted before any new tax is levied… ever.

By: BecomingJaded

BecomingJaded — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:17:44 +0000

I’m trying to figure out why no one is addressing the continued frivolous expenditures by the city right in the midst of these emergency financial crises. The recent “temporary” hike in Michigan’s state income tax, and this proposal for raising property taxes or instituting a city income tax are, I presume, to combat a tremendous financial strain on the city. Why, then, have we not seen any kind of reigning in of pie in the sky projects like the new “gateway to Ann Arbor” project, which looks to be a glorified train station about 200 yards from the current train station, the latter of which I’ve never seen overburdened by visitors. Why the recent study conducted by a contracted third party to determine the feasability of a trolley car system in downtown Ann Arbor? Why the two hundred something thousand dollar loss on planning phases for some kind of improvements to the farmer’s market area (which were then scrapped)? When the citizens are in just as much a financial emergency as the city, and are already beaten about the head and shoulders by the EXORBITANT property taxes, all while driving by the new city hall under construction, why is the institution of a NEW tax considered before anyone has thought about a halt to non-vital operational spending? How about we stop doing hugely expensive studies for ridiculous things and stop signing on for hugely expensive projects, and stop forging ahead on hugely expensive planning phases for scrapped projects that weren’t critical to the operation of the city to begin with? Let’s see how much money THAT saves, and then consider the hole that’s left after THAT. Sheesh.

By: Tim Rhhoades

Tim Rhhoades — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:28:36 +0000

Great reporting.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:41:55 +0000

To continue that thought, we can consider what corporations would do with their “savings” if an income tax were instituted. Much of it would go into wages, and some might go to shareholders, depending on the type of corporation the business is. So it seems that over the long term the only corporate-sector “leak” in the system (other than scofflaws) would be non-resident shareholders.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:33:35 +0000

The question of who pays how much could better be considered in terms of the business as a whole, rather than as “corporations”. A business is composed of a corporation as well as an owner or owners and also employees. If the owner(s) and employee(s) would need to pay income tax, the picture wouldn’t be as simplistic as the “burden” chart shows. The corporations would most likely need to compensate somewhat for the new tax on the people who work there.

By: DRW

DRW — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:39:02 +0000

This will have a very negative impact on startups that can’t pay much, and their employees. It won’t affect larger companies with long term leases or their own buildings, but the startups will flee.

By: Joel Batterman

Joel Batterman — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:17:24 +0000

That’s an excellent question, which applies to many other Ann Arbor employees as well. Would this constitute a regressive tax? The issue should be at the forefront of our discussion.

I also think it’s one more reason why we need more housing, and more affordable housing, within the City itself.

By: anna ercoli schnitzer

anna ercoli schnitzer — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:10:52 +0000

RE: Commuters, I have a couple of simple (or simple-minded perhaps?) questions:

How do we take into consideration the numerous lower-paid University of Michigan Hospital employees who cannot afford to live in Ann Arbor but must commute from relatively distant sites where they can afford housing? And there are many of them! These folks would not have a vote on whether or not they want a city income tax, so could this be considered “taxation without representation”?

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:31:53 +0000

I’m thinking my 4th Ward rep might not want an income tax proposal on the ballot in November when she is running for reelection. Just a guess.

By: John Weise

John Weise — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:04:44 +0000

Sorry if I missed it, but I’m wondering what it will cost to administer a city income tax if approved. Will it create any new jobs in the City offices (e.g., tax accountants)?