The contentious May issue is complicated, but understandable. It just takes time.

There is a ton of information to be shared on the road funding issue.

RightMi.com has pointed out many of the flaws, and the bad policy associated with the late night lame-duck session passed monstrosity voters will be asked to approve May 5th.   We pointed out the obvious in a graphic (to the right)  only 24 hours ago, and as of this writing, the graphic has been viewed over 2200 times on Facebook alone.  (still climbing fast) We invite those who are here looking for information on this constitutional disaster to sift through a few pages on our site for all you need to know about the single biggest tax increase many of Michiganians will face in their lives.

And the argument is fierce. On one side we have the shills for the road industry pimping the YES vote, and the other side we have families who don’t much feel like picking out the switch so ‘daddy’ government can beat them down with an additional $500 a year in taxes.

Then there are the studies.  Like the one published by the Mackinac Center’s James Hohman:

“Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Transportation and Bureau of Labor Statistics, the typical Michigan household could expect to pay between $477 and $525 more in state taxes in 2016 as a result of Proposal 1. What taxpayers can expect to pay in increased taxes beyond that will depend on the average wholesale price of fuel, inflation and the growth in purchases of taxable goods”

Or the report by the Citizens Research Council:

“However, the language included in Public Act 468 of 2014 to effectuate this earmark appears to be flawed.  The language specifies that “the first $400,000,000.00 received and collected under this act” in FY2016 and “the first $800,000,000.00 received and collected under this act” in FY2017 would be distributed through the state funding formula. But, revenue “received and collected under this act” includes not only the new revenue from the recent legislative changes, but all existing revenue as well. As such, a literal reading of the language would suggest, for instance, that around $1.7 billion (the $800 million intended earmark plus current baseline fuel tax revenue of around $900 million) would be earmarked for debt reduction in FY2016.  Under that reading, FY2016 funding available for formula distribution would actually go down by around $500 million from current levels.”

Oops.

Stay tuned, stay involved, and return often as we collect more on this.

You Betcha! (17)Nuh Uh.(1)