It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No kidding: Facts show Brownback’s tax cuts caused Kansas’ revenue plunge

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
No kidding, another example of trickle down economics gone wrong:


Gov. Sam Brownback and his supporters have blamed the huge revenue shortfalls in Kansas on a lot of things in the past year or so.

Among them: President Barack Obama’s policies. Faster income tax returns. Corporate income tax failings. And on Thursday, when Brownback further sliced educational spending, he blamed lower sales taxes.

But as any thinking Kansan can pretty much figure out, the massive income tax cuts first put in place in 2013 actually are causing the state’s financial headaches. As a result, cuts are being made to funding for roads, education and pensions now, with even more reductions on the way.


Read more here: www.kansascity.com...

-Income tax receipts down $700 million+ since Brownbacks tax cuts 2013 (same article above)
-Kansas is lagging behind national job growth
www.taxpolicycenter.org...
-Kansas has one of the worst tax rates for average americans.


As a share of income, the poorest families in Kansas paid 310% what the wealthiest 1% of families paid in state and local taxes, the ninth highest such ratio nationwide.


Read more: 10 States With the Worst Taxes for Average Americans - 24/7 Wall St. 247wallst.com...

Need we be reminded about how wonderfully the Reagan and Bush tax cuts worked out for us as well? It certainly did wonders for bridging the gap between the rich and working classes:


The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise).

www.pewresearch.org...

Why do people continue to delude themselves about cutting taxes that favor the rich? And people have the nerve to trod around tax reform that only serve to benefit the wealthy further. Oh let's introduce a flat tax as well right? Meaning we'll save the wealthy millions more, do little to change the tax system for the poor, and just hope again the wealthy will magically create more jobs like we have for the last 3-4 decades? And the income gap will disappear? How long are we going to continue on with this delusion? Wake up.




posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
They cut taxes for everybody. Not just "the rich." But I guess letting the average folks keep more of their money doesn't count.

Kansas also have one of the lowest levels of unemployment. So something is working out well somewhere.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

How is the state having less revenue a bad thing? What's not to celebrate?

Yay for Kansas!

edit on 7-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I thought this subject was chopped and channeled a few weeks ago?



Some wrong and hyperboled comparisons I thought.




posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Something else to consider with the recent round of so-called cuts, is that they are actually lower than projected spending increases. You can't cut spending that never took place to begin with.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Southern Guardian

How is the state having less revenue a bad thing? What's not to celebrate?

Yay for Kansas!


And wishing you declining revenues as well....



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Boy, don't I wish. Unfortunately, Massachusetts revenue has been growing by about a billion every year.
edit on 8-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

How is the state having less revenue a bad thing?


It isn't a bad thing, as long as your nation has balanced budgeting and isn't massively indebted.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Southern Guardian

How is the state having less revenue a bad thing? What's not to celebrate?

Yay for Kansas!


And wishing you declining revenues as well....


Not to mention the fact that Brownback is slashing all kind of spending. Like on schools. And infrastructure. But, hey, trickledown will save Kansas! The Koch Brothers told him to say so!



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColCurious

originally posted by: greencmp

How is the state having less revenue a bad thing?


It isn't a bad thing, as long as your nation has balanced budgeting and isn't massively indebted.


I can see how it might seem to be beneficial to have a balanced budget but, I don't think it is a relevant factor in measuring the effectiveness or desirability of any administrative bureaucracy.

If you tax 99% of the wealth of your citizenry and spend 100% of it, you have a balanced budget.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Southern Guardian

How is the state having less revenue a bad thing? What's not to celebrate?

Yay for Kansas!


And wishing you declining revenues as well....


Not to mention the fact that Brownback is slashing all kind of spending. Like on schools. And infrastructure. But, hey, trickledown will save Kansas! The Koch Brothers told him to say so!


Yes! Those are all fantastic things to stop paying for, privatize everything and eliminate to the greatest possible extent all vestiges of the professional public sector. I guess the Mario brothers told you to defend corruption.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Southern Guardian

How is the state having less revenue a bad thing? What's not to celebrate?

Yay for Kansas!


And wishing you declining revenues as well....


Not to mention the fact that Brownback is slashing all kind of spending. Like on schools. And infrastructure. But, hey, trickledown will save Kansas! The Koch Brothers told him to say so!


Yep, knew this was coming. You aren't slashing spending if the spending hasn't happened. He is cutting the projected spending for the upcoming year.

So if your boss says, "I think we might be able to give you a 5% raise depending on the numbers." And later says, "When we finalized the numbers, your raise wound up being 3.75%." Did your boss slash your wages? Of course not.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Personally I'm all for the lowest taxation possible, but this also implies to cut spending accordingly, AND pay for yesteryear's festivities first. THEN you can cut taxes.

A balanced budget doesn't just "seem to be beneficial" - it is #ing crucial!

Seems like everybody wants to have it the greek way recently...



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ColCurious

Our budget has never decreased, ever (potential hyperbole alert!). Despite going under or over budget and regardless of the level of national debt.

I see no other motive force than lack of funds to prompt the eventual elimination of most public sector spending.

This is a little fuzzy because this thread is about a state and not our federal government but, the principals should be just as applicable.
edit on 8-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
I see no other motive force than lack of funds to prompt the eventual elimination of most public sector spending.


Ah. Now I understand.
Well I hope for the sake of your country that this is not true.
A little more economic rationality should do the trick aswell - and you'd still be solvent to pay your debts.


originally posted by: greencmp
This is a little fuzzy because this thread is about a state and not our federal government but, the principals should be just as applicable.


Sorry about that. It was not my intention to obfuscate the topic.
The terminology for states / the federal government is a little different here.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ColCurious

No worries, if there is a solution it really should work at any scale.

Most Americans still think that we can manage our situation. I do not think we can.

I am entirely certain that we cannot rely on government to limit itself, our founders agree with me.

Starving the thing is our only option.
edit on 8-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Why do people continue to delude themselves about cutting taxes that favor the rich?


Well, based off just the few replies so far; people don't care about other people. It's a good thing when government barely has enough money to function. It's not about a better, more efficient government to them, it's about no government.

The argued concept behind the tax cuts: More money for the average citizen means more money for the state economy. What that argument specifically ignores but is made plain by some in this thread: less money for government.

Kansas' constitution requires a balanced budget. So if there's a shortfall, it has to be made up. That's why the government cuts are all coming after the tax cuts.


How is the state having less revenue a bad thing?


It means the state residents have less money. Isn't the idea that, if people have more money they'll spend more money? If people aren't spending more money to create more demand for more jobs for greater tax revenue at lower cost to the population then what's so good about tax cuts?

So the state having less revenue is a reflection on the earnings of the population, less. It's an entirely regressive system as well. For every $1 that the richest Kansans paid in taxes the poorest paid $310.

The only thing that Brownback has done is make the rich richer and the poor poorer all while gutting the state government.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: links234
It means the state residents have less money. Isn't the idea that, if people have more money they'll spend more money? If people aren't spending more money to create more demand for more jobs for greater tax revenue at lower cost to the population then what's so good about tax cuts?


How does taking money away from people make them have more money?

If we eliminated the federal income tax alone it would give an instant annual 'raise' of $5000 or more for the average low wage worker.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

You're missing a key point. Less state revenue means the residents have less money to pay in taxes. The idea pushed behind tax breaks is that the tax base will grow when people have more money to spend, thus, increasing government revenue.

Super simple example: Tax two employees at $50 each generates $100 in government revenue. Lower the taxes by half allowing another two employees to be hired because the original two are spending more money, causing more demand. So now you have four employees paying $25 in taxes each, generating $100 in government revenue. That's not what happenings though, people are paying less in taxes but aren't spending any more and the government is losing money at an alarming rate. So much so that now they're forced to make deep, deep cuts in government programs and services.

Kansas all but eliminated taxes on small businesses. Those small businesses owners didn't hire more people, they just kept the money themselves. They didn't raise wages, they increased their own personal wealth.

The only thing the Brownback tax cuts have produced is making the already wealthy people more wealthy and decimating state budgets.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Thanks for the clarification, I am actually in favor of the state having very little in revenue.

All of the savings (let's start with 50% say) would be retained by the taxpayer.

I guess it comes down to which will win, the desire for dignity and easement of personal discomfort (laissez-faire) or the willingness to tolerate an increase in discomfort for the purpose of vengeance against perceived evil capitalists (socialism or its antecedent philosophy, interventionism).

I do not represent a popular opinion around here so, I really do appreciate it.


edit on 9-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join