About two dozen people gathered at The Old Theater last Wednesday to hear a presentation from Karla Wagner, founder of the Ax MI Tax proposal. She is currently leading an effort to get the initiative on the 2026 ballot.
“What we’re trying to do is to eliminate the ability of the government to tax and seize our property,” Wagner told Lowell’s First Look before the presentation.
There was an attempt to get the proposal on the 2024 ballot, but it fell short of the nearly 450,000 signatures needed for approval in that year. Wagner attributes that to delays at the Michigan Board of Canvassers, which reviews petition language.
“They would not approve our petition because they did not want to approve us for the 2024 election cycle,” according to Wagner. She believes that’s because it was a presidential election which would have resulted in a higher voter turnout. A news report from the time states the board chair voted against it, in part, because the actual petition form was not submitted,
However, Wagner is not deterred and is on the road drumming up support for the proposal which has until next spring to collect enough signatures to be placed on the 2026 November ballot.
Proposal Would Replace Property Tax with Revenue Sharing
The Ax MI Tax proposal would do the following if placed on the ballot and approved by voters:
- Prohibit taxes on all real property and personal property. Real property is land as well as buildings and equipment permanently affixed to it. Personal property tax is paid by businesses for other equipment and furniture.
- Require 60% of voters to approve local taxes. This requirement applies to the number of total voters in an area, not simply 60% of those who turn out for an election.
- Require 2/3 of the Michigan House and Senate to approve any state tax increase expected to raise revenue by more than 0.1% over a five-year period.
- Increase state revenue sharing to local communities. This increase would result in the following distribution of revenue:
- 20% of state sales tax revenue to municipalities
- 10% of state sales tax revenue to counties
- 10% of income, marijuana, alcohol and tobacco taxes to municipalities
- 10% of income, marijuana, alcohol and tobacco taxes to counties
- Require revenue sharing dollars only be used for essential services. The proposal defines essential services as:
- Public safety and first responders, law enforcement, fire prevention and response
- Courts and court personnel
- Emergency management personnel, EMTs, 911 call center employees
- All workers and vendors that support law enforcement and emergency and emergency management operations and services
- Utilities, including power generation, electronic security and life safety services
- Flood control
- Operation of dams, airports, ports, roads and highways, mass transit, public water and wastewater services
- Provisions of the proposal shall go into effect within 12 months of its adoption.
As written, it does not appear that communities could use revenue sharing – which would account for most of their funding – for elections, administrative services, legal fees, facility upkeep, sidewalks, planning or zoning.
When asked how communities might fund items not deemed essential, Wagner suggested a 1% county surcharge on the sales tax could be one option. User fees for parks might be another. When it comes to trails, where there is no single access point, she said, “A lot of these things have to be done on the honor system.”
“We just need to get creative,” according to Wagner. “It’s better than people losing their house for services they don’t use.”
While poverty exemptions are available to those with low income and assets, those without an exemption could be subject to foreclosure if they fail to pay their property taxes.
Presentation Says Property Tax Isn’t Needed
Wagner spent the bulk of her presentation discussing why she didn’t think property taxes were necessary for the government to function.
Using a handout from the House Fiscal Agency, she noted that property taxes accounted for only $2.71 billion of the state’s $19 billion School Aid appropriations for 2023-24. Noting Michigan’s low national ranking for education, she didn’t think losing this money would make much of a difference to school districts.
Attendees were provided copies of Wagner’s summer and winter tax bills for Cannon Township, and she noted that the state education tax was only one of several education-related taxes on the bills. Among the others was a millage to build a football stadium and improve playgrounds for the local school district.
“You’re telling them, yes, I am willing to collaterize my house to buy a slide,” Wagner said. Speaking about school millages in general, she added, “Stop throwing good money after bad crap.”
Wagner also took issue with millages for early education, veterans services, the zoo, Grand Rapids Community College and Kent District Library. She was concerned that several millage proposals included language stating that downtown development authorities could capture a portion of the revenue raised by the millage.
“Show me the book in the library that is worth someone losing their home because they can’t afford to pay this millage,” Wagner said.
According to her tax statement, the Kent District Library millage assessed 1.1 mills for a total of $280.38 on her property. One mill is equal to one dollar per $1,000 of taxable value, and for a median valued property in Kent County, the library millage would cost approximately $145 per year.
“They sell us on a bill of goods and because we’re not paying attention or because we don’t think we can do anything, it passes,” Wagner said, while advocating that attendees vote no on all millage requests.
Critics: Losing Property Tax Would Cripple Services
The Michigan Municipal League, an association that represents the state’s cities, said in 2024 that the proposal would cut $17 billion in state and local funding, and the increased revenue sharing would only replace $3.899 billion of that money.
According to MML calculations, the Ax MI Tax proposal would result in the following loss of revenue for various entities in the state:
- Cities: 69% loss of revenue
- Townships: 21% loss of revenue
- Villages: 58% loss of revenue
- Authorities, such as downtown development authorities: 100% loss of revenue
- Counties: 25% loss of revenue
When asked her response to the MML’s funding concerns, Wagner said, “I beg to differ.” She believes the government can make do with less money.
As an example, she notes that her township spent $100,000 to build pickleball courts and then needed a millage to pay for a fire truck. She says if the pickleball courts weren’t built, the township could have used that money for a fire truck.
Wagner also believes that government spending on recreation is detrimental to local businesses. “People aren’t going to buy a membership (to MVP Sports) if they can go to the local park for free,” she said.
Ultimately, Wagner said she wishes people would focus less on the loss of revenue and more on protecting houses, farms and businesses.
“How are we going to pay for police and fire?” Wagner said during her presentation. “I don’t know. Just don’t take my home.”
More information about the proposal can be found on the Ax MI Tax website.
More information about concerns regarding loss of revenue can be found in this MML document.
Leave a Reply