A Q for the Wealth Creators
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/opinion/kansas-ruinous-tax-cuts.html?
The 2012 cuts were among the largest ever enacted by a state, reducing the top tax bracket by 25 percent and eliminating all taxes on business profits that are reported on individual income returns. (No other state has ever eliminated all taxes on these pass-through businesses.) The cuts were arrogantly promoted by Mr. Brownback with the same disproven theory that Republicans have employed for decades: There will be no loss of revenue because of all the economic growth!
“Our new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy,” he wrote in 2012. “It will pave the way to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs, bring tens of thousands of people to Kansas, and help make our state the best place in America to start and grow a small business.”
But the growth didn’t show up. Kansas, in fact, was one of only five states to lose employment over the last six months, while the rest of the country was improving. It has been below the national average in job gains for the three and half years Mr. Brownback has been in office. Average earnings in the state are down since 2012, and so is net growth in the number of registered businesses.
Comments
-
The New York Times editorial comes from an assumption that the needs of the state government come before the individual. Personally, I have a different assumption, that increasing the right of individuals to keep more of their money, or property, is always positive and is in itself a moral good. Two different value systems.
-
-
Leaving aside the deontological value of the value system you describe, in the real world Kansas is starving its state universities and primary education system. Education is the primary mode of social mobility. So poor and working class Kansan children are losing their opportunity to climb the social ladder.
-
Moody's >>>>>>> The New American
Oh, and this seems to contradict the New American as well:MikeDamone said:
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article635575.htmlWhile that’s a small sum, Kansas was one of only five states in the nation to shed employment over that time.
All of Kansas’ neighbors have done far better since November, led by Colorado (up 41,000 jobs), Missouri (up 15,400) and Oklahoma (up 13,800). -
The problem is decades of expansion and misplaced priorities. If public education is a primary function of state government, the money is there to fund it. Funding is being sucked away by a myriad of agencies and programs that no one remembers establishing but no one is willing to let go. It's the same as going from a $200k/year job to a $100k/job. You probably still have enough money for your mortgage. It's the financed pair of jet skis, 3 car payments, a timeshare, and golf club membership that is dragging you down.AZDuck said:Leaving aside the deontological value of the value system you describe, in the real world Kansas is starving its state universities and primary education system. Education is the primary mode of social mobility. So poor and working class Kansan children are losing their opportunity to climb the social ladder.
-
Grundle, I know we disagree on this, but I'm of the belief that more money sloshing around in the economy is good for everyone. Even paying useless fucks like me a government salary is good because I spend most of it and the money continues to slosh around the economy - paying other useless fucks at the liquor stores and massage parlors.
Spending goes down as income rises, and Laffer has been disproven. Also, the structures established by government are notoriously difficult to dismantle - part of the reason why every tax-cutting Republican administration has left ruinous deficits in their wake at the national level, and Brownback is about to crash Kansas into the fucking mountain. -
GrundleStiltzkin said:
The problem is decades of expansion and misplaced priorities. If public education is a primary function of state government, the money is there to fund it. Funding is being sucked away by a myriad of agencies and programs that no one remembers establishing but no one is willing to let go. It's the same as going from a $200k/year job to a $100k/job. You probably still have enough money for your mortgage. It's theAZDuck said:Leaving aside the deontological value of the value system you describe, in the real world Kansas is starving its state universities and primary education system. Education is the primary mode of social mobility. So poor and working class Kansan children are losing their opportunity to climb the social ladder.
financed pair of jet skis, 3 car payments, a timeshare, and golf club membershiphookers and blow that is dragging you down. -
I'm telling you, hookers and blow are good for the overall economy. But then again, I'm a Keynesian.
-
Expect to hear a lot about Kansas in the coming months leading up to November, what a fucking dreckfest.
-
Couple poonts.AZDuck said:Leaving aside the deontological value of the value system you describe, in the real world Kansas is starving its state universities and primary education system. Education is the primary mode of social mobility. So poor and working class Kansan children are losing their opportunity to climb the social ladder.
1) What the fuck is deontoligical? Is it an STD? A dinosaur?
2) The lottery is the primary mode of social mobility.
Glad I cleared that up. -
Deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules.[1] It is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" or "rule"-based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty."[2] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism[3] and virtue ethics. Deontological ethics is also contrasted to pragmatic ethics. In this terminology action is more important than the consequences.
-
I hear ya. The sloshing in gubment bucket is a problem because that bucket has a lot of handles and a lot of holes.AZDuck said:Grundle, I know we disagree on this, but I'm of the belief that more money sloshing around in the economy is good for everyone. Even paying useless fucks like me a government salary is good because I spend most of it and the money continues to slosh around the economy - paying other useless fucks at the liquor stores and massage parlors.
That is the very crux of it. They're all statists. Nothing ever goes away.AZDuck said:Spending goes down as income rises, and Laffer has been disproven. Also, the structures established by government are notoriously difficult to dismantle - part of the reason why every tax-cutting Republican administration has left ruinous deficits in their wake at the national level, and Brownback is about to crash Kansas into the fucking mountain.
-
This thread taught me that Grundle is smarter than he lets on, and I am quite dumb.
-
Thanks for putting in a definition where I only understood half the words. I'm going back to Mom's basement to sulk. Might look at porn as well.AZDuck said:Deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules.[1] It is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" or "rule"-based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty."[2] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism[3] and virtue ethics. Deontological ethics is also contrasted to pragmatic ethics. In this terminology action is more important than the consequences.
-
Free pub!11!!11 And please, we're all friends in this thread, call me Assneck.Swaye said:This thread taught me that Grundle is smarter than he lets on, and I am quite dumb.
-
This is the primary social mobility in Kansas, amiright? #RedState #Flyover #HillbillySwaye said:
Couple poonts.AZDuck said:Leaving aside the deontological value of the value system you describe, in the real world Kansas is starving its state universities and primary education system. Education is the primary mode of social mobility. So poor and working class Kansan children are losing their opportunity to climb the social ladder.
1) What the fuck is deontoligical? Is it an STD? A dinosaur?2) The lottery is the primary mode of social mobility.
Glad I cleared that up.
-
Moody's? isn't that the ratings service that would take pooled mortgage loans originated on 100% LTV, made to borrowers with no job, no assets and a Sears Credit Card that's 2 years old with a $1,000 limit... and rated them AAA so they could be purchased by pension funds and as legal reserves by Insurance companies??
-
Laffer has been disproven? This should be good.AZDuck said:Grundle, I know we disagree on this, but I'm of the belief that more money sloshing around in the economy is good for everyone. Even paying useless fucks like me a government salary is good because I spend most of it and the money continues to slosh around the economy - paying other useless fucks at the liquor stores and massage parlors.
Spending goes down as income rises, and Laffer has been disproven. Also, the structures established by government are notoriously difficult to dismantle - part of the reason why every tax-cutting Republican administration has left ruinous deficits in their wake at the national level, and Brownback is about to crash Kansas into the fucking mountain.
-
Still better than Mike's source.sarktastic said:
Moody's? isn't that the ratings service that would take pooled mortgage loans originated on 100% LTV, made to borrowers with no job, no assets and a Sears Credit Card that's 2 years old with a $1,000 limit... and rated them AAA so they could be purchased by pension funds and as legal reserves by Insurance companies?? -
PurpleJ said:
Laffer has been disproven? This should be good.AZDuck said:Grundle, I know we disagree on this, but I'm of the belief that more money sloshing around in the economy is good for everyone. Even paying useless fucks like me a government salary is good because I spend most of it and the money continues to slosh around the economy - paying other useless fucks at the liquor stores and massage parlors.
Spending goes down as income rises, and Laffer has been disproven. Also, the structures established by government are notoriously difficult to dismantle - part of the reason why every tax-cutting Republican administration has left ruinous deficits in their wake at the national level, and Brownback is about to crash Kansas into the fucking mountain.
probably not citrus -
1. Cutting tax rates only results in increased tax revenue if you're on the right side of the curve. I'm pretty sure we aren't on the right side of the curve.
2. The ideal result of taxation isn't to maximize tax revenue, but to maximize economic growth. All the Laffer Curve illustrates is the point where taxable revenue is maximized. Maximum levels of growth occur on the left side of the curve, with rates below that of the revenue maximizing point.
3. Even if that survey was valid, it wouldn't prove shit. Those are opinions. -
The ultimate question: Who can spend money more efficiently. The government or the private sector. I believe in the private sector. However, it can't just be about taxes.
Here in Texas we have low taxes, however, we also have other factors that create a "surround sound" of savings. Tort laws are very much in favor of the business community, property is abundant and there is not a lot of regulation to prevent growth. Unions are kept in check, which allows for a business dollar to go farther.
We also have a large population, which helps. And we have a great family draw. Cities are clean, vibrant, and our education system is strong.
Let's face facts. People aren't anxious to move to Topeka, Kansas. And if they move to Kansas City, there is a good chance they end up in Missouri.
I am also amused we are assuming Kansas' success/failure after only one year.
If we use that measuring stick Reagan would never had seen a second term ...
-
The key is, as always, what is the most efficient allocation of resources. Spot on.topdawgnc said:The ultimate question: Who can spend money more efficiently. The government or the private sector. I believe in the private sector. However, it can't just be about taxes.
Here in Texas we have low taxes, however, we also have other factors that create a "surround sound" of savings. Tort laws are very much in favor of the business community, property is abundant and there is not a lot of regulation to prevent growth. Unions are kept in check, which allows for a business dollar to go farther.
We also have a large population, which helps. And we have a great family draw. Cities are clean, vibrant, and our education system is strong.
Let's face facts. People aren't anxious to move to Topeka, Kansas. And if they move to Kansas City, there is a good chance they end up in Missouri.
I am also amused we are assuming Kansas' success/failure after only one year.
If we use that measuring stick Reagan would never had seen a second term ... -
I haven't analyzed Kansas in any detail. I'm not sure the state of their economy before this occurred. When did they tax affect? Was it at the start of 2013? So 18 month?
There are many reasons economies do well and why others do not. Tax policy is one of the reasons. It's easy to cherry picking events as examples. There are a few examples high-tax states that do better than average, and low tax state that don't do as well. The devil is in the details.
But there is an irrefutable correlation between economic freedom and wealth creation. The data over decades shows an unmistakable pattern that low taxes, light regulation, and property rights, and freedom to trade, have become magnets for people and businesses and jobs.
We know that states that on average sates without an income tax have had double the population growth and more than double the income growth of states with very high income taxes over the last 10 years.
We know that Texas (with no income tax) gained 1 million jobs over the last five years, California (high income tax), lost jobs. Florida gained jobs, New York lost jobs. Illinois raised taxes and according to Moody's has a lower credit rating than Kansas.
To come out 18 months after the tax cuts went into affect and pick Kansas as the example that proves less government intrusion doesn't create growth is intellectually dishonest and certainly political.
I'm sure you'll attack the source or these references rather than understand them, but that's your choice:
rationalmind.net/2002/12/10/the-relationship-between-economic-freedom-and-prosperity-around-the-world/
freetheworld.com/2012/EFW2012-exsum.pdf
freetheworld.com/2012/EFW2012-complete.pdf
filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/human-rights-quote-67-economic-freedom/
heritage.org/index/
freetheworld.com/efna/3EFNAch3.pdf
-
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/09/14/the-laffer-curve-debunked-part-one/
[T]he problem is, something very destructive happened in the translation of this economic theory into political language and policy. In the popular conservative version of the Laffer Curve, no debate over the location of Point A is even tolerated, because cutting tax rates is said to ALWAYS generate more government revenue.
Purp - the thing is that as a matter of policy, nobody seems to want to discuss the utility of the curve. Since a bunch of trained economists don't think that it can be used to guide policy, the Laffer Curve probably shouldn't be used to formulate policy.
In effect, Region B, the part of the curve in which lower tax rates produce sharply lower government revenue, has simply been banished from the discussion.
Once you do that, however, the Laffer Curve no longer functions as a curve at all (see Figure Three). If lower rates always produce more revenue, as the right likes to claim, the Laffer Curve becomes the Laffer Line, and Point A, the sweetspot, stands at a tax rate of zero.
While that makes no sense mathematically, politically it is an enormously appealing notion. It’s like telling someone with an obesity problem that the best way to lose weight is to always eat more ice cream — more times than not, their eagerness to believe overwhelms any skepticism. -
Mike said:
We know that states that on average sates without an income tax have had double the population growth and more than double the income growth of states with very high income taxes over the last 10 years.
Not the case.
We know that Texas (with no income tax) gained 1 million jobs over the last five years, California (high income tax), lost jobs.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-job-growth-beats-rest-of-us-ucla-anderson-forecast-says-20140613-story.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_may_2014/features/oops_the_texas_miracle_that_is049289.php?page=all
But this model of economic development, which also combines a highly regressive tax system with minimal levels of public investment, has not allowed Texas to keep up with America’s best-performing states in per capita income or rates of upward mobility. And that’s what most people, including in Texas, most want the economy to deliver.
-
I left Maryland and moved to Virginia after I retired for a number of reasons, but chief among those was taxes. Single example I know, but I cannot think that I am alone in searching out states that give me more economic freedom. I was willing to move everything I own for it. Who wants to pay a tax for the economic impact of their roofwater runoff? Yes, that's correct, MD taxes the rain that hits your roof. Fuck Maryland.
-
Where is the U.S. currently on the Laffer curve? Does anyone know? The laffer curve also demonstrates that at a point, tax cuts will result in less revenue. It doesn't say cutting all taxes to zero will generate more revenue. It simply states there is a level that at which raising or cutting taxes will generate the most revenue. Would a 100% tax rate increase revenue? The whole thing is too simplistic, but if your going to "disprove" it, at least acknowledge what it is trying to communicate.AZDuck said:PurpleJ said:
Laffer has been disproven? This should be good.AZDuck said:Grundle, I know we disagree on this, but I'm of the belief that more money sloshing around in the economy is good for everyone. Even paying useless fucks like me a government salary is good because I spend most of it and the money continues to slosh around the economy - paying other useless fucks at the liquor stores and massage parlors.
Spending goes down as income rises, and Laffer has been disproven. Also, the structures established by government are notoriously difficult to dismantle - part of the reason why every tax-cutting Republican administration has left ruinous deficits in their wake at the national level, and Brownback is about to crash Kansas into the fucking mountain.
probably not citrus -
Swaye - that's fine. Nobody likes paying taxes. And your circumstances as a retiree are significant because you lost untaxed income in the form of BAH and BAS and are on a limited (and fixed) income as a retiree. States like Florida, Arizona and, I guess, Virginia have made a decision to capture retirees.
-
Where is the U.S. currently on the Laffer curve? Does anyone know?
Nobody does. That's my poont. And we never will.
