The Michigan Daily-Sunday, November 5, 1978-Page 11
Paid Political Advertisement-
Proposal D May Affect You For 3 Years
You'll
Pay
46
Taxes
F RE ER
The
real
you
Michigan Association of REALTORS® , an association of 23,000 small independent businessmen and women in
estate, has paid for this ad to provide you with information on several ballot questions we've studied - and let
know and encourage. you to share our position on them.
Proposal A:
PROPOSAL RELATING TO CALLING A CONSTITUTIONAL CONvEN-V
TION
Shall a convention of elected delegates be called for the purpose of
a general revision of the Michigan Constitution, any such revision
to be submitted to the voters for ratification? (This is the actual
ballot language:).
If Proposal A is approved, a special election would
be called to elect 148 Constitutional Convention
delegates. The delegates would convene to draft a
new constitution, which would then be submitted
to Michigan voters for approval.
No serious flaws have been found in our current
constitution in the 15 years since its adoption and
there is widespread satisfaction with it. If
Michigan citizens wish to change portions of their
constitution, they may revise it whenever they
choose without discarding the entire document.
They have done so 7 times.
A Constitutional Convention will cost at least $8 to
$10 million dollars to scrap a very sound docu-
ment and replace it with a totally new constitution!
VOTE
NO
ON A
C
Proposal C:
PROPOSAL TO PERMIT THE DEPOSIT OF STATE FUNDS IN SAV-
INGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS AS WELL
AS IN BANKS.
The proposed amendment would:
Authorize the deposit of state funds in savings and loan
associations and credit unions as well as in banks. (This is
actual ballot language.)
Currently state tunds may be deposited only in
chartered banks. Proposal C will allow the state to
deposit funds in Savings and Loan Associations
'and Credit Unions. This will allow the state to seek
the highest yield on its funds - your tax dollars.
Also, because S & L's invest heavily in the mor-
tgage market, Proposal C will make more loans
possible fQr prospective home buyers.
VOTE
YE S
ON C
Proposal E:
E
PROPOSAL FOR TAX LIMITATION
The proposed amendment would:
1 Limit all state taxes and-revenues, excepting federal aid, to its
current proportion of total state personal income and to
provide for exception for a declared emergency.
2. Prohibit local government from adding new or increasing
existing taxes without voter approval.
3. Prohibit the state from adopting new or expanding present
local programs without full state funding.
4. Prohibit the state from reducing existing level of aid to local
governments. taken as a group.
5. Require voter approval of certain bonded indebtedness.
(This is the actual ballot language.)
Proposal E WILL also prevent property taxes from
rising faster than inflation unless local voters ap-
prove more taxes. When property values rise
faster than the consumer price index (inflation
rate), Proposal E will require a millage roll back,
allowing government budgets to grow with infla-
tion, but no faster, Additional increases could be
made - but ONLY WITH VOTER APPROVAL.
Proposal E WILL prevent the state from cutting the
current share of the state budget going to local
units of government and require the state to fully
fund any new programs they require local units to
provide. In recent years, while the state budget
grew much faster than our economy, the share of
the state's budget going to education has drop-
ped. (From 54% in fiscal 1966/67 to 41% in
fiscal 1978/79.) This abandonment of education
placed greater pressures on property taxes and
tuition. Proposal E will prevent this abandonment
of education.
Proposal E WILL prevent all state taxes from in-
creasing faster than the total personal income of
Michigan's citizens. (In the past ten years, state
spending increased by 235 percent, almost dou-
ble the growth in the overall personal income of
the people of Michigan.)
Proposal E will limit increases in state taxes to
their current share of Michigan's economic pie.
Future tax revenues would be tied directly to the
total personal income of the people. As the
economy expands and personal income grows,
the legislature would have rrare money to work
with, but, state government could not enlarge its
slice of the economic pie WITHOUT VOTER AP-
PROVAL. This will give the state a strong incentive
to encourage full employment and a healthy
economy.
VOTE
YES
ON E
14-'
h.
y
r.'
,
c
a
n,
b
~ ~
AMOUNT LEFT
I (O NPIfOUICUAr
TAXPAYER ERAL & OTHER
GOVEROEAT /
STATE SHR
SHARE
Proposal E WILL allow the state
up to about 9/2% of the
Michigan's citizens. This is the
state is currently operating, NO
REQUIRED. The limit could be
governor and the legislature
emergencies.
- -
/ AMOUN'TLEFT
TO E4OiViOUAL
TAXPAYER
FEOEPAL& OTHER
S GOVERNMENT J
J - SHARE /
I /
n STATE
/ GVERNMENT /
SHARE
HOT THIS
to tax and spend
total income of
level at which the
CUTS WOULD BE
exceeded by the
to meet specific
Proposal H:
and
PROPOSAL TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR
SCHOOL OPERATING EXPENSES AND TO ESTABLISH A VOUCHER
SYSTEM FOR FINANCING EDUCATION OF STUDENTS AT PUBLIC
AND NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS.
The proposed amendment would:
1. Prohibit the use of property taxes for school operating
expenses.
2. Require the legislature to establish a program of general state
taxationr for support of schools.
3. Require the legislature to provide for the issuance of an
educational voucher to, be applied toward financing a
student's education at a public or nonpublic school of the
student's parent's or guardian's choice.
(This is the actual ballot language.)
Proposal J:
PROPOSAL TO REDUCE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS: TO
ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM OF 5.6% ON THE RATE OF THE STATE
INCOME TAX: TO PROHIBIT LEGISLATURE FROM REQUIRING
NEW OR EXPANDED LOCAL PROGRAMS WITHOUT STATE FUN-
DING: AND TO ALLOW SCHOOL INCOME TAX WITH VOTER AP-
PROVAL.
The proposed amendment would
t. Reduce real and personal property tax assesments to 25%
of true cash value of property
2. Limit state equalization increase to 2 5% for any year.
3. Establish a maximum of 5.6% on the rate of the state
income tax.
4. Allow legislature to authorize school districts to levy up to
1 % income tax with local school district voter approval.
5. Prohibit legislature from requiring new or expanded local
programs unless fully funded by state.
(This is the actual ballot language.)
VOTE
NO
ON H
VOTE
NO
ONJ
Both Proposals H, the educational voucher, and J, the Tisch Tax Cut, would shift taxes. Proposal H would in fact raise total
taxes by about $300 million a year to finance education at private schools. Neither H nor J will actually cut or control overall
state and local taxes. School funding and control of education would be shifted to the state.
REMEMBER TO VOTE ON THESE PROPOSALS