Comments on: Run it like a Business

By: Alex Luvall

Alex Luvall — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:26:31 +0000

Hi–I enjoyed the sound application of reason in your article. I am convinced that if we continue to ‘trap’ ourselves in ‘tax fighter’ jargon, matters will worsen.

Read from today’s Free Press the concern of a mother of two school age children:

Marilyn Rolfe, a parent of two children in the Center Line school district, said she will consider leaving Michigan if things don’t improve. FP 11/6/09

Her comments are in response to shrinking educational dollars, brought on by the ‘tax fighters for good business crowd.”

So because we ‘might’ lose businesses if we tax, we vainly ignore this mother’s plea and her resolution that she ‘will’ leave, if things do not improve. You are on point! A. Luvall

By: Richard Cole

Richard Cole — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:59:58 +0000

I realize that the notion of generating revunue to be used for investing in the future is controversial, and I expected blow back. But you need to examine the facts. Our business taxes, even by the estimates of conservative think tanks, are near the midpoint. Check out the Tax Foundation numbers if you don’t believe me. I think the notion of relying on trickle down economics — what Bernie Klein described as feeding the cows so the flies can eat — has not been particularly successful as a means to finance the development of a 21st century infrastructure for Michigan. A temporary income tax increase, well spent (writ large) on the necessary components of an economy built on knowledge work, is the only answer short of shutting down the state. George Romney was facing the same kind of financial Ludditism when he took charge of the constitutional convention in the early 60s, and he emerged as a gubernatorial candidate with a plan that included creating a state income tax — clearly the largest tax increase we have ever experienced. That tax was not temporary, but we have had temporary increases to that original base since then. The only way we will get out of his hole is to build a ladder. That will take money we currently do not have. To get and keep businesses who want to come and stay here will require a culture and environment that appeals to others than survivalists.

By: Tom White

Tom White — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:16:58 +0000

Rick raises many good points. How will Michigan look to business considering locating here if our roads are shoddy, our universities are deteriorating, we have fewer police on the road, and hundreds of our school districts are in bankruptcy? Does that paint an inviting picture? I like the notion of creating a vision of an achievable future, which will include investing in getting us from here to there. If low taxes were the only answer, why do New York and Chicago continue to attract businesses? Yes we should pay attention to tax rates but that should not be the driving, singular force in what we do. If we have visionary leadership and a realistic path to a better future people can/should make the investment to get us there. Low taxes are not the only answer – quality of life and environment, a quality, well educated workforce, and safe, clean and engaging community in which your business and employees reside all matter too. Those cost something… an investment in our future.

By: John Truscott

John Truscott — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:35:38 +0000

Rick, you missed a big point on taxes. We’re competing with other states with much lower tax burdens. Add to that a regulatory burden that is less than ours and certainty in the regulations. Businesses make rational decisions based on long term plans based on many factors. If we can’t compete now on taxes, how will raising them help the cause. When you grow revenue by growing jobs, then you can invest in the programs you advocate. Until then, Michigan is squeezing revenue from a shrinking pot of taxpayers, who are increasingly making the decision to leave.

By: Blaine Lam

Blaine Lam — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:09:47 +0000

good stuff, Rick. I think you’d enjoy “The Art of the Turnaround” by Michael Kaiser.

By: Michael W. Rogers

Michael W. Rogers — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:55:19 +0000

Dave’s comment is spot on. Members of the Small Business Association of Michigan tell us all the time that they will not accept new taxes — particularly when they perceive that those taxes will be used to perpetuate business-as-usual at the state capitol. Real structural budget reform is what’s needed and is what most of the state lawmakers (exception: Senate Republicans) strongly resist.
Raise taxes and you reduce/diminish whatever it is you are taxing (see tobacco taxes.) Do we really want to increase the tax burden on struggling small employers who are responsible for half of Michigan’s workforce?

By: Dave Lambert

Dave Lambert — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:06:13 +0000

I’m not sure which business bureaucrats Mr. Cole is talking to but he might want to listen to the small businessperson who is, on a daily basis, finding ways to cut expenses. Yes, government is necessary for the functioning of our state and localities. However, “enhanced” revenues for the welfare state will not create a viable future for Michigan.