I suspect there is more than enough revenue to accomplish the purposes of government; if we first examine the purposes, determine how best to achieve the purposes for the present and future context, and, finally, determine how much it will cost to achieve the purposes.

It is not our purpose to incarcerate as many people as possible for as long as we can; we are trying to promote public safety. One action is reactive, the other is proactive. Choose the one that costs the least – in the long run.

It is not our purpose to scrimp and save on infrastructure maintenance and improvement. We are trying to improve health and welfare for all of our citizens, a noble, and in the long run, a far less expensive achievement.

It is not our purpose to complain bitterly about the poor state of education while continuing to throw money at the bureaucracy in hopes a miracle will happen. It is our hope to create an environment within which our children can learn and grow emotionally and cognitively. It makes more sense to include the children in the preparation for their futures than to focus on command and control, top down, psuedo scientific twelve year test preparation – and less expensive too.

When the cost of achieving the real purpose has been determined then, and only then, unleash the accountants and financial wizards on the creation of simple and understandable methods to raise the funds to pay for the achievement of purpose.

Stop trying to fix a system of revenue generation that is dsyfunctional and defective. When it is all added up individuals earning an income pay a significant tax penalty to support the waste and benign ignorance that populates the tax revenue system in this state.

Be leaders folks, not “sheeple” and create a better way to do it. It may require the most difficult of efforts, letting go of the past and all the things you are comfortable with; and swallowing some of your fear.

1. We do not have a flat tax today when the higher your income the lower your effective tax rate.

2. We should not equate “pension” with someone being over age 65. Many of the Michigan taxpayers getting a pension today are those who are significantly below age 65 (maybe even only 50) and getting a pension supplement that equates to a social security benefits “bridge” from retirement to age 62 when social security benefits start for them. This is a result of the buyout programs that many employers in Michigan have used in the past ten years to reduce their work force.

3. With the pension benefit subtraction on Schedule 1 being indexed, the exclusion is $81,840 in 2007 from Michigan taxes for married taxpayers and growing each year. Only 3 other states exempt as much as what Michigan exempts of a private pension (Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, “State Personal Income Taxes on Pensions and Retirement Income: Tax Year 2007. ” July, 2007.) Many other states exempt little or none of this income.

4. The exclusion of income not taxed in Michigan for all reasons for taxpayers with federal adjusted gross income of more than $50,000 is $21 billion in 2005 (latest information available). If we taxed that at the same rate as other income, this exclusion alone would bring in over $1 Billion in tax revenue on 2005 incomes.

5. Given the huge increase in early retirements in the past three years, the lost revenue from the exclusion has grown immensely.

6. Because the adjusted gross income for the “pensioner” is lower than what their taxable income was when they were working, these same people not paying income tax are also eligible for a property tax rebate in many situations.

We as a state are going broke and don’t realize it or elect to ignore it. Either way is not good. And the solution sure is not to increase the tax rate to the rest of us who are paying. I wish we would quit ignoring the elephant in the room and get some serious dialog going on this matter.