A better idea for tax relief

To the editor:

I question the recent Gazette editorial endorsing the proposed Republican income tax rate cut. I was curious as to what research was done to declare this proposition a “good idea and it’s fair.” The paper credited Gov. Snyder’s “taxation measures” for ending our deficit.

Republicans and the Gazette believe that a tax rate cut would benefit those “who helped shoulder the burden.” I agree, benefits gained should be returned to those tax payers who sacrificed. But does an across the board tax cut accomplish that goal?

Snyder’s taxation measures involved tax breaks for profitable corporations and an overall tax rate cut. This benefited the wealthiest and was paid for through a large tax increase by reducing the state earned income tax credit, expanding tax on retirement income, increasing state license fees, eliminating tax credits for city income taxes, public contributions to homeless shelters, food banks, and community foundations, as well as medical savings accounts and donations to family development programs. Under the change in policy, taxes increased for the majority of citizens, while the wealthiest actually saw a tax decrease. For example, after the “tax cut” my tax increased $150 on $3,000 less income. Even under the proposed tax cut I will continue to pay more tax each year and the wealthiest will pay less. How is this fair? It doesn’t take much common sense to determine that a simple repeal of the tax measures that actually increased taxes would be the fair solution.

The past couple of years Michigan’s economic recovery has been paid for by those of us whose taxes increased as a result of Snyder’s policies. Democrats have been pushing for a repeal of those policies, and a return of tax money to those whose burden increased because of them. Simply cutting the rate, as proposed, would benefit those who gained during the recovery period, and it will harm the majority of tax payers who will continue to pay more tax. It would be fair to reinstate the deductions dropped, instead of reducing the tax rate. This would compensate those who actually paid, not those who gained.

Robert Darling

CHASSELL