Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 13, 2019, 07:25:42 pm
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  1974 Michigan Proposal C
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: 1974 Michigan Proposal C  (Read 1346 times)
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,634
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 20, 2014, 10:16:44 am »

I just uploaded the results of Michigan's Proposal C in 1974, which removed the state sales tax on food and prescription drugs.  One of the things I noticed is that the more conservative/Republican leaning counties opposed it.  I wonder why they would have opposed an anti-tax measure like this.  Anybody have any guesses?

For reference, here's the map:

Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,858
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2014, 01:45:41 pm »

Sales tax is a flat tax which effects the poor more. Conservatives love flat taxes.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,634
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2014, 02:36:02 pm »

Sales tax is a flat tax which effects the poor more. Conservatives love flat taxes.
I doubt that's why.  But I can understand why they would be worried about a graduated tax, since those are more harmful to business.
Of course, I'm conservative, and while I believe in low taxes for all income levels, I don't think I'd support a flat tax.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2014, 02:42:11 pm »

Sales tax is a flat tax which effects the poor more. Conservatives love flat taxes.

Sales tax is actually regressive, nobody likes regressive taxes. I don't know why people, especially conservative leaning people, would oppose it.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,858
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2014, 03:04:17 pm »

Well, I can't explain why the conservative public would love sales tax, but I know conservative politicians love it (as an alternative to income/corporate taxes of course)
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,469


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2014, 04:10:45 pm »

Be careful about ascribing today's motives to issues that are decades old. The question should be about how the proposal was framed during the debate. Was it part of a swap to other taxes that would then rise? Was seen as a give away to Detroit? Would ag programs be impacted by the change?
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,211
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2014, 11:55:41 pm »

Be careful about ascribing today's motives to issues that are decades old. The question should be about how the proposal was framed during the debate. Was it part of a swap to other taxes that would then rise? Was seen as a give away to Detroit? Would ag programs be impacted by the change?
INITIATIVES AND REFERENDUMS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN OF 1963 (pdf)

Citizens Research Council of Michigan - Publications

State Ballot Issues - 1974 (pdf)

It appears that most of the constitutional referendum from that era were related to taxation: limits on property taxes, impose a graduated income tax, etc.   I'd like to see the vote on November 1972 Proposition D, if the OP has a data source.

Under the Michigan Constitution at the time (and perhaps still), local governments were guaranteed a per capita share of sale tax revenues.  This may avoid the situation where cities compete for sources of sales tax revenue, either through annexation or recruiting retailers.

It might have also represented a transfer from Detroit to western Michigan.  People in that area would have access to apples and cherries, which they could can, and might also have home vegetable gardens, and have venison for meat.  People in Detroit would probably buy highly processed food, which has a high cost per food value.  The cost of potato chips is much more than an equivalent cost of potatoes.

The measure would have increased the percentage of sales tax revenues transferred to local governments to make up for the decreased the sales tax revenue.

It would have also cut out about 20% of sales tax revenues, leaving a big whole in the state general fund.

So the responsible burghers of western Michigan may have perceived the measure as (a) an ill-conceived populist measure that would require replacement by higher property or income taxes; and/or (b) a nefarious conspiracy by big-government liberals in Ann Arbor, Lansing, and Detroit to force imposition of a graduated income tax.

The Yes vote was especially high along the Wisconsin line of the Upper Peninsula.  I bet Wisconsin had lower sales taxes on food, and there was a perception or reality that this was costing merchants in Michigan business.  The same might be true for Cass County, where it would be an easy trip into South Bend for groceries, though this might also be due to food selection and prices.
Logged
Nhoj
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,165
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.52, S: -7.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2014, 01:02:55 pm »

Be careful about ascribing today's motives to issues that are decades old. The question should be about how the proposal was framed during the debate. Was it part of a swap to other taxes that would then rise? Was seen as a give away to Detroit? Would ag programs be impacted by the change?
INITIATIVES AND REFERENDUMS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN OF 1963 (pdf)

Citizens Research Council of Michigan - Publications

State Ballot Issues - 1974 (pdf)

It appears that most of the constitutional referendum from that era were related to taxation: limits on property taxes, impose a graduated income tax, etc.   I'd like to see the vote on November 1972 Proposition D, if the OP has a data source.

Under the Michigan Constitution at the time (and perhaps still), local governments were guaranteed a per capita share of sale tax revenues.  This may avoid the situation where cities compete for sources of sales tax revenue, either through annexation or recruiting retailers.

It might have also represented a transfer from Detroit to western Michigan.  People in that area would have access to apples and cherries, which they could can, and might also have home vegetable gardens, and have venison for meat.  People in Detroit would probably buy highly processed food, which has a high cost per food value.  The cost of potato chips is much more than an equivalent cost of potatoes.

The measure would have increased the percentage of sales tax revenues transferred to local governments to make up for the decreased the sales tax revenue.

It would have also cut out about 20% of sales tax revenues, leaving a big whole in the state general fund.

So the responsible burghers of western Michigan may have perceived the measure as (a) an ill-conceived populist measure that would require replacement by higher property or income taxes; and/or (b) a nefarious conspiracy by big-government liberals in Ann Arbor, Lansing, and Detroit to force imposition of a graduated income tax.

The Yes vote was especially high along the Wisconsin line of the Upper Peninsula.  I bet Wisconsin had lower sales taxes on food, and there was a perception or reality that this was costing merchants in Michigan business.  The same might be true for Cass County, where it would be an easy trip into South Bend for groceries, though this might also be due to food selection and prices.

Wisconsin has no sales tax on unprepared food.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC