Kansas tax cuts killing the state...
Comments
-
No...the daily articles are not pay, although its telling figuring out who is slow enough not to figure this out.2001400ex said:
You actually pay to read that shit.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/ -
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.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.
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. -
Does anyone actually give a fuck about Kansas?
-
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 -
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 -
Awfully early for old man music Friday.
-
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 said:
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.greenblood said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.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.
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.
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. -
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.greenblood said:
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 said:
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.greenblood said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.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.
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.
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.
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. -
I suspect you are a wwooosssshhhh account from one of the other fucktards here saying what you really feel.2001400ex said:
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.greenblood said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.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.
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.
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. -
Crisped.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.
