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*