You all were warned.
Tag Archive for Headlee Amendments
Conservative News, Cronyism, Democrats, Detroit, Fees, Fees, Flint Water Fiasco, Government Incompetence, Michigan, Michigan Politics, Republicans, Taxes
Rip Off
by 10x25MM • • 2 Comments
Weaver/McCormick Flint-GLWA Deal Transforms Water From Obscene Tax To Outright Theft
Flint Mayor Karen I Love Rizzo Weaver and Great Lakes Water Authority CEO Sue McCormick have reached a 30 year deal for Flint to purchase water from the Great Lakes Water Authority. The City of Flint had signed up to purchase its water from the nascent Karegnondi Water Authority in March 2013 and the State of Michigan concurred in April. Everyone in Flint City government, save one councilman, has agreed to source Flint’s water from the KWA. Even Mayor Weaver. Until this week.
The Weaver/McCormick deal has GLWA paying Flint at least $ 7 million a year to cover Flint’s share of the bonds issued to finance the KWA. A total of $ 210 million over the 30 year contact period.
Where will that $ 210 million come from? GLWA is not the Federal Reserve, they cannot just create money out of thin air. GLWA will extract the money from the victims ratepayers in the other communities it ‘serves’.
Mayor Weaver and CEO McCormick will transform GLWA water rates into yet another exaction imposed upon most of Southeastern Michigan to subsidize Flint. Without any input from those victims ratepayers. A blatant fee as tax evasion of Headlee. Governor Snyder, of course, approves wholeheartedly.
This is government theft, Headlee evasion, and a rich fount of future corruption.
Cronyism, Democrats, Fees, Michigan, Michigan Politics, Rent Seeking, Republicans, Taxes
Another Deceitful Michigan Tax Scam Exposed
by 10x25MM • • 4 Comments
Desperate Local Politicians Seek to Preserve Surreptitious Business Activities Tax
Less noticed during this year’s roads tax furore, a roiling commercial property tax dispute has exposed a widespread, sub rosa business activities tax hidden in commercial real property taxes. A hidden tax you have been paying with every purchase at big box chain retailers who occupy stores they themselves own. Big box retailers have been exposing and successfully challenging this corrupt assessing practice through the Michigan Tax Tribunal and local units of government are howling over the loss of their ill gotten revenue. Michael B. Shapiro of Honigman, Miller has been leading the charge against these bloated assessments.
Local units of government are demanding the Michigan Legislature overturn long standing real estate valuation principles and the Michigan court rulings which hold that assessed true cash value (i.e. fair market value) for tax purposes be based upon what a property would be sold for at arm’s length. They want true cash value to effectively incorporate the retail success of current owner-occupants. This artificially jacks up the property’s true cash value, its taxes, and the prices you pay at the store. Remember that businesses don’t pay taxes, customers of those businesses – in this case you – do.
Michigan’s nitwit media have deceitfully relabeled traditional true cash value assessment the ‘Dark Stores Loophole’. Local government organizations are screaming about lost revenues. Even MoveOn.org is right in there with a petition to support their favorite spenders. This is a devious effort to stampede our state’s legislators into codifying creative assessment methods solely intended to extract surreptitious revenues from shoppers. A follow on to the more blatant ‘Amazon Tax’ campaign of 2014. The State of Michigan got into your pocket last year, now it is your local government’s turn.
The term ‘Dark Stores Loophole’ was created to suggest that vacant big box stores have lower, fire sale values when compared to occupied stores. True enough, but we are discussing assessments used to determine real estate, i.e. property, taxes. Not taxes on business activity. The two creative assessment methods used most often to loot shoppers are ‘construction cost‘ and ‘imputed lease‘ calculations. Each might be valid under some very limited circumstances, but both are entirely invalid when assessing big box retailers.