Started By
Message

re: Want Proof Tax Cuts Don't Stimulate the Economy? Look at Kansas

Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:20 am to
Posted by Aubie Spr96
lolwut?
Member since Dec 2009
41151 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:20 am to
quote:

Please, do a little research and see how both parties want to frick you then tell you how the other party is to blame.



This guy gets it.
Posted by 90proofprofessional
Member since Mar 2004
24445 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:21 am to
quote:

it's over. keynes won


Actually even Keynes would disagree with this drooler of an OP.

Per basic Keynesian IS-LM, tax cuts stimulate growth. If you don't agree with his claim there, then you don't believe that government spending can stimulate growth either. That's because government spending can only act thru the demand-side mechanism, while tax cuts can work through both the demand-side AND the supply-side.
Posted by rintintin
Life is Life
Member since Nov 2008
16184 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:21 am to
Are we using just a single metric to measure these things now? That's some deep research.

That's like me getting a raise, going out and buying a yacht, and telling you the raise didn't make me richer.
Posted by Arksulli
Fayetteville
Member since Aug 2014
25203 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:27 am to
As someone posted in this thread just recently in this case its probably the crop prices torpedoing the Kansas economy at the moment. Contard, Libtard, or garden variety tard, when the industry that overwhelmingly brings in the most money for your state rolls over and plays dead your state is screwed.

Raising or lowering taxes is not a magic cure all for what ails an economy. Taxes that are too high or too low can come back to bite you in the butt, but sometimes you can have the perfect tax rate and still be hosed.
Posted by Scoop
RIP Scoop
Member since Sep 2005
44583 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:28 am to
I've read some about this Kansas situation and my take away is always that government in 2014 is a ravenous, hungry beast that has to be fed at all cost and violently resists a diet. It will either get every dime it thinks it needs from the sweat of the private sector or it will take everything down in it's fight to stay fat and happy.
Posted by Jagd Tiger
The Kinder, Gentler Jagd
Member since Mar 2014
18139 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:36 am to

apparently we're debunking that somehow people who earn money should have any say in spending it, as if it's theirs or something!

I know I know...

"You Didn't EARN That!"

Posted by WeeWee
Member since Aug 2012
40139 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:41 am to
quote:

So revenue fell drastically on the local, state and federal levels after the crash of 2008, yet you contards never take that into consideration when speaking of the debt.


That makes it even worse. Revenues fell, but gov spending decrease did not match. That is why during the first few years of Obama's term there was a record deficit. Do you know the difference in deficit and debt?

Also contard just doesn't sound right. There has to be a better term for you lefties to use.

quote:

That said, there's a fundamental difference in the way the two sides believe this should be handled. On the federal level the stimulus was 28% tax cuts, about a third in help to local and state govts with their deficits and the rest in various actual "stimulus" projects.thats another thing you guys don't mention.


It was a complete failure. We spent a almost a trilion $'s and still exceeded the projected unemployment of not spending the $ and had a slower recovery than predicted if we didn't spend it. We should have just sat back, put some more funds into unemployment plans, but not all the extensions.
quote:

You and I can argue which is the best approach, but for it to be an honest debate, you'd have to acknowledge what really happened and that Democrats were not actually practicing "economic terrorism" as Sentrius (and others) claimed.


We can argue, but if you can't see how the dramatic decrease in ag products are going to have more of a negative impact on Kansas's budget than tax cuts have there is no point. It would be like Louisiana's budget having a huge hole if oil prices fell from $100/barrel to $50/barrel in 2 years.
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57296 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:42 am to
quote:

Trickle down economics debunked once and for all.
so in your mind there is only ONE variable to the KS economy? Your view of an entire economy is a one-variable model?



How intellectual. Deep thinker!
This post was edited on 10/28/14 at 9:45 am
Posted by Cruiserhog
Little Rock
Member since Apr 2008
10460 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:43 am to
quote:

yup

one state and 1.5-2 years of data

it's over. keynes won


actually we have Reagan and Bush as examples as well. Reagan tripled the debt and Bush...enuf said.

Posted by 90proofprofessional
Member since Mar 2004
24445 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:43 am to
quote:

Also contard just doesn't sound right. There has to be a better term for you lefties to use.

I believe one of the more popular current terms is "reptiles".
Posted by 90proofprofessional
Member since Mar 2004
24445 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:45 am to
quote:

and Bush...enuf said

You're referring to the time he cut taxes, and both the economy and tax revenues grew, and this was sustained for a period much longer than the window examined in the OP?
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
98887 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:47 am to
quote:

actually we have Reagan and Bush as examples as well


You mean the Reagan/Bush economy that Bill Clinton gets credit for?
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57296 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:49 am to
quote:

Reagan tripled the debt and Bush...enuf said.
another one-variable modeler. Reagan also had the fastest growing post-war economy during his term, and some the fastest post-recession job recovery growth in history. And it probably could have happened without the spending that Congress kept putting back in the budget. Simple question... How many PBR's did Reagan submit that had net spending increases?
Posted by BobABooey
Parts Unknown
Member since Oct 2004
14292 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:51 am to
quote:

And once and for all, please explain how the poor provide jobs?


The poor definitely create jobs. Three quick examples:

Government agencies that exist to provide goods and services (e.g., welfare, public defenders, health clinics, etc.) to the poor would not exist without the poor.

The poor have a low propensity to save and fuel production of consumer products such as televisions, cellphones, fast food, etc.

Someone has to foot the bill for the benefits provided to the poor. People with a good work ethic and pride will seek jobs to stay off of as many government programs as possible.
Posted by WeeWee
Member since Aug 2012
40139 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:54 am to
quote:

Reagan tripled the debt and Bush...enuf said.


Oh you mean the Bush that decreased taxs, have record government revenues and tried to stop Clinton's snowball clusterfrick of a program that was guranteeing loans to ppl that could not pay them back.
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57296 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 9:57 am to
quote:

The poor definitely create jobs. Three quick examples:

Government agencies that exist to provide goods and services
Those programs only exist because of taxes taken from almost exclusively from "the rich". It's the very epitome "trickle down".

FAIL.

quote:

The poor have a low propensity to save and fuel production of consumer products such as televisions, cellphones, fast food, etc.
Who supplies these goods?

FAIL.

quote:

Someone has to foot the bill for the benefits provided to the poor.
Only because the government has the power to steal.
This post was edited on 10/28/14 at 10:34 am
Posted by UncleFestersLegs
Member since Nov 2010
10839 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 10:32 am to
quote:

or make sure the middle class and poor get a better piece of the pie? or more for the elite?

Which directly affects the middle class more: quantitative easing and zero interest rates or the payroll tax cut?
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67116 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 10:54 am to
quote:

So revenue fell drastically on the local, state and federal levels after the crash of 2008, yet you contards never take that into consideration when speaking of the debt.



Because the drop in revenue did not equal the rise in the deficit, it was greatly dwarfed by the spending increase.

quote:

and the rest in various actual "stimulus" projects.thats another thing you guys don't mention.


This would have been fine if the majority of the money had gone where it should have gone, infrastructure improvements, but in reality, much of it went to random earmarks and private companies like distilleries and artificial rubber tire manufacturers as kickbacks for political contributions. Although Libertarians would have opposed the stimulus on philosophical grounds, most republicans would have embraced it if the money had actually gone to what it was sold as going to, "shovel ready" infrastructure improvements, something that badly needs funding still.

quote:

You and I can argue which is the best approach, but for it to be an honest debate, you'd have to acknowledge what really happened and that Democrats were not actually practicing "economic terrorism" as Sentrius (and others) claimed.


It will be debated ad nauseum until the end of time while Nero Fiddles, Rome burns, and Bama wins another National Championship while Les leads another #1 recruiting class to the Duck Commander Independence Bowl.

It wasn't economic terrorism, it was just corruption, giving kickbacks to campaign contributors and ear marks to needed congressional allies in return for support in elections and on policy decisions. Nothing more, nothing less.
This post was edited on 10/28/14 at 10:59 am
Posted by Jim Ignatowski
Louisiana
Member since Jul 2013
1383 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 10:57 am to
quote:

Want Proof Tax Cuts Don't Stimulate the Economy? Look at Kansas


...I don't give a frick if they don't stimulate the economy.....it's MY fricking money that the government is taking....and that is just WRONG!!!
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
69313 posts
Posted on 10/28/14 at 11:01 am to
quote:

The top 6.45% bracket for income over $30,000 has disappeared while rates on individuals earning more than $15,000 have fallen to 4.8% from 6.25% and to 2.7% from 3.5% for those making less. These rates will slide to 3.9% and 2.3% by 2018.As a result all itemized deductions save for charitable contributions will be reduced by half over the next five years.


quote:

Tax-reform critics complain that revenues (as expected) declined this year and that receipts were $235 million—or about 4%—below the state's estimate last year. However, predicting revenues was particularly challenging this year because federal tax changes encouraged investors to shift income to 2012 from 2013. Revenues missed the mark in numerous states including Iowa ($185 million; 3%), Missouri ($308 million; 4%) and Oklahoma ($283 million; 5%).


quote:

In May Moody's MCO +0.67% downgraded the state's credit rating, citing the state's $16.7 billion unfunded pension liability and school funding growth. But the rating is still four notches higher than Illinois's.


quote:

Contrary to liberal folklore, Mr. Brownback hasn't taken a meat-cleaver to schools. Total per-pupil spending has increased to $12,885 from $12,283 over four years. State education spending has risen by about 2% annually since 2010 and is set to jump 4% this year—which doesn't include a 10% bump for teacher pensions.

quote:


Kansas's rate of private job growth between January 2013 and June 2014 averaged 167% of that in Nebraska, 105% of Iowa and 61% in Oklahoma. That compares to 61%, 85% and 42%, respectively, between 2004 and 2012.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 9Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram