Kansas tax cuts killing the state...

HoustonHusky

or so we were told over and over by some FS poasters here a while back.

Apparently not the case...go figure considering the original source...

investors.com/politics/brain-trust/laffer-and-moore-sweet-supply-side-revenge-for-tax-cutters-in-kansas/

HeretoBeatmyChest

Paywall. Its written by some supply side hacks so I doubt its truthful.

Heres the other side which confirms my suspicion:

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article58549653.html

Tax cuts are always great but these supply side economists are like religious zealots. They think tax cuts are the #1 answer and the only answer to everything. They were proclaiming how great the Bush economy was (private sector growth was actually the worst ever, weaker than Obama) literally a year before it fell off a cliff.

greenblood

Many of these guys think tax breaks increase jobs. It's true to some extent, but not enough to sustain it. Ideally you want a combination of tax breaks with increased opportunities because of market growth. People get hired when businesses can't keep up with demand.

For instance, if I hire two people and I can keep up with jobs, tax breaks will only go into my pocket. But if market growth calls for a needed expansion, tax breaks gives me more flexibility to hire additional people. If I'm cash poor I might not be able to keep up with new demand and waste growth opportunities. It's a balance we need.

Swaye

If I drank a beer every time I read a sentence in this thread I didn't understand, I'd be drunk already. I think I have found a new game to make HH even more enjoyable.

2001400ex

HoustonHusky said:

or so we were told over and over by some FS poasters here a while back.

Apparently not the case...go figure considering the original source...

investors.com/politics/brain-trust/laffer-and-moore-sweet-supply-side-revenge-for-tax-cutters-in-kansas/

You actually pay to read that shit.

2001400ex

greenblood said:

Many of these guys think tax breaks increase jobs. It's true to some extent, but not enough to sustain it. Ideally you want a combination of tax breaks with increased opportunities because of market growth. People get hired when businesses can't keep up with demand.

For instance, if I hire two people and I can keep up with jobs, tax breaks will only go into my pocket. But if market growth calls for a needed expansion, tax breaks gives me more flexibility to hire additional people. If I'm cash poor I might not be able to keep up with new demand and waste growth opportunities. It's a balance we need.

Not one business hires and fires based on their tax rate. They hire and fire based on expected demand for their product. The Boeing example is perfect, they got billions in a tax cut then went to the Union and froze the pension.

Consumer confidence is the best thing to help the economy and drive growth. Not direct government involvement. Given that 70% of the economy is consumer spending.

2001400ex

Swaye said:

If I drank a beer every time I read a sentence in this thread I didn't understand, I'd be drunk already. I think I have found a new game to make HH even more enjoyable.

That's why I'm stoned all day... Except I play with bong hits.

greenblood

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

Many of these guys think tax breaks increase jobs. It's true to some extent, but not enough to sustain it. Ideally you want a combination of tax breaks with increased opportunities because of market growth. People get hired when businesses can't keep up with demand.

For instance, if I hire two people and I can keep up with jobs, tax breaks will only go into my pocket. But if market growth calls for a needed expansion, tax breaks gives me more flexibility to hire additional people. If I'm cash poor I might not be able to keep up with new demand and waste growth opportunities. It's a balance we need.

Not one business hires and fires based on their tax rate. They hire and fire based on expected demand for their product. The Boeing example is perfect, they got billions in a tax cut then went to the Union and froze the pension.

Consumer confidence is the best thing to help the economy and drive growth. Not direct government involvement. Given that 70% of the economy is consumer spending.

Correct. What I'm saying is that tax cuts with increased demand is ideal. This wouldn't even be for large businesses. Businesses with over 50 employees are rarely cash poor. But small businesses can be. Tax breaks for small businesses I think goes a long way.

Sledog

* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
* You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
* You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

2001400ex

greenblood said:

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

Many of these guys think tax breaks increase jobs. It's true to some extent, but not enough to sustain it. Ideally you want a combination of tax breaks with increased opportunities because of market growth. People get hired when businesses can't keep up with demand.

For instance, if I hire two people and I can keep up with jobs, tax breaks will only go into my pocket. But if market growth calls for a needed expansion, tax breaks gives me more flexibility to hire additional people. If I'm cash poor I might not be able to keep up with new demand and waste growth opportunities. It's a balance we need.

Not one business hires and fires based on their tax rate. They hire and fire based on expected demand for their product. The Boeing example is perfect, they got billions in a tax cut then went to the Union and froze the pension.

Consumer confidence is the best thing to help the economy and drive growth. Not direct government involvement. Given that 70% of the economy is consumer spending.

Correct. What I'm saying is that tax cuts with increased demand is ideal. This wouldn't even be for large businesses. Businesses with over 50 employees are rarely cash poor. But small businesses can be. Tax breaks for small businesses I think goes a long way.

Yeah the small business deal is tough. Most small businesses under 50 employees are not taxed on income at the business level, they are taxed on the personal tax returns. And the median income is like $40,000 a year. Here's the thing tho, those same small business owners run vehicles, cell phones, country club memberships, Seahawks tickets, insurance, etc. through the business. So if the business makes $40k, the owner really made like $60k, and paid less than $3k in income taxes. That's a pretty low rate.

That being said, I know a business with 10 employees and the owner makes $500k a year (professional services company). He pays a boatload in taxes, but he also puts almost $50k into retirement a year that is tax deductible (along with an Escalade for his wife and a few other things). His $900k house he bought 5 years ago will be paid off by this summer, etc. So giving him a tax break really doesn't help the economy either.

I guess my point is, the government shouldn't manage the economy through tax rates. Let's just leave taxes where they are, find some meaningful ways to reduce spending, and move on.

PurpleJ

Sledog said:

* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
* You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
* You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

*shrugs*

HoustonHusky

2001400ex said:

HoustonHusky said:

or so we were told over and over by some FS poasters here a while back.

Apparently not the case...go figure considering the original source...

investors.com/politics/brain-trust/laffer-and-moore-sweet-supply-side-revenge-for-tax-cutters-in-kansas/

You actually pay to read that shit.

No...the daily articles are not pay, although its telling figuring out who is slow enough not to figure this out.

HoustonHusky

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

Paywall. Its written by some supply side hacks so I doubt its truthful.

Heres the other side which confirms my suspicion:

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article58549653.html

Tax cuts are always great but these supply side economists are like religious zealots. They think tax cuts are the #1 answer and the only answer to everything. They were proclaiming how great the Bush economy was (private sector growth was actually the worst ever, weaker than Obama) literally a year before it fell off a cliff.

I'll take Laffer and Moore over the hippy in this link. Just perused his twitter...funny guy, but more in a laughing at than laughing with kinda way.

And I do like the moving goalposts...Kansas' tax cuts went from the worst thing in the world to now (by their critics) sure we are doing good but we aren't quite as good as Nebraska like these guys claim. And I love how the "huge budget cuts" are really 2% budget cuts to keep the govt growth rate in line with inflation.

dflea

Does anyone actually give a fuck about Kansas?

RaceBannon

I'm as corny as Kansas in August, high as a kite on the 4th of July.

Name that musical. I'm not gay but I did have a bit part in it in a local production several decades ago

dnc

RaceBannon said:

I'm as corny as Kansas in August, high as a kite on the 4th of July.

Name that musical. I'm not gay but I did have a bit part in it in a local production several decades ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_dXjL15ZI8

PurpleJ

Awfully early for old man music Friday.

greenblood

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

Many of these guys think tax breaks increase jobs. It's true to some extent, but not enough to sustain it. Ideally you want a combination of tax breaks with increased opportunities because of market growth. People get hired when businesses can't keep up with demand.

For instance, if I hire two people and I can keep up with jobs, tax breaks will only go into my pocket. But if market growth calls for a needed expansion, tax breaks gives me more flexibility to hire additional people. If I'm cash poor I might not be able to keep up with new demand and waste growth opportunities. It's a balance we need.

Not one business hires and fires based on their tax rate. They hire and fire based on expected demand for their product. The Boeing example is perfect, they got billions in a tax cut then went to the Union and froze the pension.

Consumer confidence is the best thing to help the economy and drive growth. Not direct government involvement. Given that 70% of the economy is consumer spending.

Correct. What I'm saying is that tax cuts with increased demand is ideal. This wouldn't even be for large businesses. Businesses with over 50 employees are rarely cash poor. But small businesses can be. Tax breaks for small businesses I think goes a long way.

Yeah the small business deal is tough. Most small businesses under 50 employees are not taxed on income at the business level, they are taxed on the personal tax returns. And the median income is like $40,000 a year. Here's the thing tho, those same small business owners run vehicles, cell phones, country club memberships, Seahawks tickets, insurance, etc. through the business. So if the business makes $40k, the owner really made like $60k, and paid less than $3k in income taxes. That's a pretty low rate.

That being said, I know a business with 10 employees and the owner makes $500k a year (professional services company). He pays a boatload in taxes, but he also puts almost $50k into retirement a year that is tax deductible (along with an Escalade for his wife and a few other things). His $900k house he bought 5 years ago will be paid off by this summer, etc. So giving him a tax break really doesn't help the economy either.

I guess my point is, the government shouldn't manage the economy through tax rates. Let's just leave taxes where they are, find some meaningful ways to reduce spending, and move on.

It also depends on the business classification. Individual/Sole Props do have those business write offs which help, but they also have to pay self employment tax which is a major blow.

2001400ex

greenblood said:

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

Many of these guys think tax breaks increase jobs. It's true to some extent, but not enough to sustain it. Ideally you want a combination of tax breaks with increased opportunities because of market growth. Businesses hired when businesses can't keep up with demand.

For instance, if I hire two people and I can keep up with jobs, tax breaks will only go into my pocket. But if market growth calls for a needed expansion, tax breaks gives me more flexibility to hire additional people. If I'm cash poor I might not be able to keep up with new demand and waste growth opportunities. It's a balance we need.

Not one business hires and fires based on their tax rate. They hire and fire based on expected demand for their product. The Boeing example is perfect, they got billions in a tax cut then went to the Union and froze the pension.

Consumer confidence is the best thing to help the economy and drive growth. Not direct government involvement. Given that 70% of the economy is consumer spending.

Correct. What I'm saying is that tax cuts with increased demand is ideal. This wouldn't even be for large businesses. Businesses with over 50 employees are rarely cash poor. But small businesses can be. Tax breaks for small businesses I think goes a long way.

Yeah the small business deal is tough. Most small businesses under 50 employees are not taxed on income at the business level, they are taxed on the personal tax returns. And the median income is like $40,000 a year. Here's the thing tho, those same small business owners run vehicles, cell phones, country club memberships, Seahawks tickets, insurance, etc. through the business. So if the business makes $40k, the owner really made like $60k, and paid less than $3k in income taxes. That's a pretty low rate.

That being said, I know a business with 10 employees and the owner makes $500k a year (professional services company). He pays a boatload in taxes, but he also puts almost $50k into retirement a year that is tax deductible (along with an Escalade for his wife and a few other things). His $900k house he bought 5 years ago will be paid off by this summer, etc. So giving him a tax break really doesn't help the economy either.

I guess my point is, the government shouldn't manage the economy through tax rates. Let's just leave taxes where they are, find some meaningful ways to reduce spending, and move on.

It also depends on the business classification. Individual/Sole Props do have those business write offs which help, but they also have to pay self employment tax which is a major blow.

LLCs have those same write offs. And the professional services example is an S Corp with an LLC election. Which means full write off of social security on his wage, and no SS/Medicare on distributions to him. And he gets all those write offs.

Not to mention you can write off stuff through unreimbursed partnership expenses. Which is why I own a fast food restaurant. Don't have to add cash to the business and can write that other stuff off.

It's important to structure the business properly.

dnc

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

2001400ex said:

greenblood said:

Many of these guys think tax breaks increase jobs. It's true to some extent, but not enough to sustain it. Ideally you want a combination of tax breaks with increased opportunities because of market growth. People get hired when businesses can't keep up with demand.

For instance, if I hire two people and I can keep up with jobs, tax breaks will only go into my pocket. But if market growth calls for a needed expansion, tax breaks gives me more flexibility to hire additional people. If I'm cash poor I might not be able to keep up with new demand and waste growth opportunities. It's a balance we need.

Not one business hires and fires based on their tax rate. They hire and fire based on expected demand for their product. The Boeing example is perfect, they got billions in a tax cut then went to the Union and froze the pension.

Consumer confidence is the best thing to help the economy and drive growth. Not direct government involvement. Given that 70% of the economy is consumer spending.

Correct. What I'm saying is that tax cuts with increased demand is ideal. This wouldn't even be for large businesses. Businesses with over 50 employees are rarely cash poor. But small businesses can be. Tax breaks for small businesses I think goes a long way.

Yeah the small business deal is tough. Most small businesses under 50 employees are not taxed on income at the business level, they are taxed on the personal tax returns. And the median income is like $40,000 a year. Here's the thing tho, those same small business owners run vehicles, cell phones, country club memberships, Seahawks tickets, insurance, etc. through the business. So if the business makes $40k, the owner really made like $60k, and paid less than $3k in income taxes. That's a pretty low rate.

That being said, I know a business with 10 employees and the owner makes $500k a year (professional services company). He pays a boatload in taxes, but he also puts almost $50k into retirement a year that is tax deductible (along with an Escalade for his wife and a few other things). His $900k house he bought 5 years ago will be paid off by this summer, etc. So giving him a tax break really doesn't help the economy either.

I guess my point is, the government shouldn't manage the economy through tax rates. Let's just leave taxes where they are, find some meaningful ways to reduce spending, and move on.

I suspect you are a wwooosssshhhh account from one of the other fucktards here saying what you really feel.

Kaepsknee

greenblood said:

Many of these guys think tax breaks increase jobs. It's true to some extent, but not enough to sustain it. Ideally you want a combination of tax breaks with increased opportunities because of market growth. People get hired, overseas, when businesses can't keep up with demand.

For instance, if I hire two people and I can keep up with jobs, tax breaks will only go into my pocket. But if market growth calls for a needed expansion, tax breaks gives me more flexibility to hire additional people. If I'm cash poor I might not be able to keep up with new demand and waste growth opportunities. It's a balance we need.

Crisped.

greenblood

salemcoog said:

greenblood said:

Many of these guys think tax breaks increase jobs. It's true to some extent, but not enough to sustain it. Ideally you want a combination of tax breaks with increased opportunities because of market growth. People get hired, overseas, when businesses can't keep up with demand.

For instance, if I hire two people and I can keep up with jobs, tax breaks will only go into my pocket. But if market growth calls for a needed expansion, tax breaks gives me more flexibility to hire additional people. If I'm cash poor I might not be able to keep up with new demand and waste growth opportunities. It's a balance we need.

Crisped.

If they manufacture overseas. But lets be honest here. Most companies don't go overseas because of tax alone. They go overseas because of the combination of taxes and labor costs. If I can save $10/hour with a 2,000 employee manufacturing plant in Mexico vs the US, that's roughly 52 million dollars a year in savings. We could charge zero taxes, and it's hard to make up that difference.

Fire_Marshall_Bill

Laffer? Isn't he the fraud who came up with trickle down economics? Next...

allpurpleallgold

Sledog said:

* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
* You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
* You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.

But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. Brother, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.

dnc

allpurpleallgold said:

Sledog said:

* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
* You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
* You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.

But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. Brother Sibling, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.

doogsinparadise

dnc said:

allpurpleallgold said:

Sledog said:

* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
* You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
* You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.

But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. Brother Sibling, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.

Male sibling, can you spare a dime?

RaceBannon

Non gender specific non traditional tribal unit member

allpurpleallgold

RaceBannon said:

Non gender specific non traditional tribal unit member

"Member" has phallic implications.

PurpleThrobber

I didn't even read the thread - all I know is Kansas is one of, if not the most fucked up state in this union. Bunch of fucking mouthbreathing lying motherfuckers, not unlike the Seattle City Council but I digress.

That place is F-U-C-K-E-D.

DugtheDoog

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

Paywall. Its written by some supply side hacks so I doubt its truthful.

Heres the other side which confirms my suspicion:

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article58549653.html

Tax cuts are always great but these supply side economists are like religious zealots. They think tax cuts are the #1 answer and the only answer to everything. They were proclaiming how great the Bush economy was (private sector growth was actually the worst ever, weaker than Obama) literally a year before it fell off a cliff.

The problem is that they teach in schools and promote economic thought that would work if you were playing legos and there were no variables involved. I majored in econ and it's all theory of how shit should work if the world was a test lab. Austrian economics or it's all bullshit.

whlinder

DugtheDoog said:

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

Paywall. Its written by some supply side hacks so I doubt its truthful.

Heres the other side which confirms my suspicion:

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article58549653.html

Tax cuts are always great but these supply side economists are like religious zealots. They think tax cuts are the #1 answer and the only answer to everything. They were proclaiming how great the Bush economy was (private sector growth was actually the worst ever, weaker than Obama) literally a year before it fell off a cliff.

The problem is that they teach in schools and promote economic thought that would work if you were playing legos and there were no variables involved. I majored in econ and it's all theory of how shit should work if the world was a test lab. Austrian economics or it's all bullshit.

+1

Loved my Econ major, taught me critical thinking and analysis skills, but the underlying assumption of rational behavior doesn't exist in the world. If I could go back in time I'd add in some behavioral economics.