As Gov.-elect Rick Snyder was in Colorado and California last week immersed in high intensity workshops, the questions about Michigan’s tax revenues loomed large in Michigan.
The state faces an estimated one billion dollar deficit in the coming year, and proposals from both parties could add as much as another $1.5 billion to the deficit.
The problem, which Gov. Jennifer Granholm and the legislature had repeatedly pointed out, is a need for structural reform in the state’s tax system. Right now, the state has a revenue problem resulting from an out of balance taxation system which is a patchwork of income taxes, business taxes, property taxes and sales taxes.
Peter Luke over at MLive.com has an indepth analysis of the various options to right the taxation ship and create a more stable flow of revenue into state coffers.
Luke talks about lowering the sales tax and expanding it to services, something Democrats and Granholm fought for in the last two budget cycles but were blocked by the Republicans. He also examines the idea of replacing the dreaded Michigan Business Tax and Business Surcharge, as well as looking at balancing out the property tax receipts by shifting from taxation on the state valuation to the actual value of the property.
The property tax issue could be sticky, considering that it was created in the early 90s because many seniors were finding themselves paying more in property taxes than they could afford. As a result the state created and passed Proposal A, which shifted school funding to a partial sales tax and a partial property tax, which was capped. At the time, no one expected the state economy to collapse under the weight of the flailing auto industry and the upside down elements of housing bubble burst and subsequent mortgage crisis.
Ultimately, massive tax reform is coming, Luke notes.
A modern tax system constructed on the additional revenue it generates would not only balance the budget, but spur economic growth. An overhaul with a broader base and lower rates allows some to pay less, but requires others to pay more. But it would be more fair, more stable in the short run and more able in the long run to capture revenue for future investment.
It also wouldn’t be easy to assemble and pass. Then again, big change isn’t.