- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Want Proof Tax Cuts Don't Stimulate the Economy? Look at Kansas
Posted on 10/30/14 at 1:48 pm to samson'sseed
Posted on 10/30/14 at 1:48 pm to samson'sseed
Now that we've heard what that mouthbreather michaelsamsseed has to say. Let's look at an actually intelligent article that is capable of actually researching rather than parroting the talking points.
LINK
LINK
quote:
Much of the political spotlight across the country is focused on the economies of two Midwestern states – Illinois and Kansas.
These two states have adopted opposite economic growth and jobs strategies. In Kansas, Republican governor Sam Brownback cut income tax rates in 2013 on workers and small businesses, while in Illinois, in 2011 Democratic governor Pat Quinn raised the personal income tax rate to 5 percent from 3 percent with the corporate tax climbing to 9.5 percent- one of the most punitive rates in the nation. This was the biggest tax increase in Illinois history.
quote:
Both of these governors have come under attack nationally for their policies. So it’s worth examining which model has worked better.
Start with jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the last twelve months (ending with August 2014) Kansas has increased private sector employment by 1.13% compared to just 0.66% for Illinois. Data for the year so far show Kansas gaining more private sector jobs than Illinois (7,800 vs. 6,200), even though Illinois’ population is more than four times larger. The growth of employment since January 2013 through August of 2014 was 72 % higher in Kansas compared to Illinois (0.78% vs. 0.46%).
quote:
On economic growth, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that Kansas’ real GDP increase was up 1.9 % last year – slighter higher than the national average of 1.8%. Illinois crept up 0.9%.
Admittedly, it’s hazardous to draw any sweeping conclusions from such short term trends. But the left trashes Mr. Brownback for not creating enough jobs in Kansas, while they ignore the much worse jobs performance in Illinois.
Mr. Brownback has also taken heat from critics at home and around the country for a claim that his tax cuts would be instant adrenaline for the Kansas economy. That may not have been a very smart thing to say, because the point of the tax cuts is to improve long term prospects for growth. Still, the Kansas economy has grown at about an average pace and clearly outperformed its tax hiking neighbor.
quote:
Mr. Brownback is also under the gun for unexpected revenue declines this year. The credit rating agencies recently downgraded Kansas bonds. But even with the unexpected revenue dip, the state will finish the year with a positive reserve fund.
Contrast that with Illinois. Three years after Mr. Quinn’s new income taxes, the state finished FY 2014 with nearly $4 billion in unpaid bills. Vendors have to wait months to get paid what they are owed by the state government. Instead of one credit downgrade, Illinois has suffered nine. It now has one of the worst bond ratings of the 50 states.
The extra tax money for Springfield was supposed to help finance and improve the public schools – but it hasn’t happened. Reverend James Meeks, a long-time Democrat and head of Salem Baptist Church in Chicago, recently received publicity throughout the state by saying: “Our schools are still broken and getting worse. We’re last in employment or business. Our neighborhoods are deplorable,” he added.
quote:
The real lesson of Illinois and Kansas is that tax policy does make a difference. Illinois has tried to tax its way back to economic health which is like bleeding a patient to heal him. Kansas is no economic race horse, but it is making a steady comeback while Illinois is one of the nation’s worst performers. That’s the taxing lesson of these two states.
This post was edited on 10/30/14 at 1:50 pm
0
Posted on 10/30/14 at 1:51 pm to Duke
Duke they are tapped out because they need a break not multi millionaires and Billionaires who live on invested money taxed at 15%. In the 50's the golden age of American capitalism the highest rate was 90%. Now I realize that no one paid 90% but they paid there share. I know you hate that phrase fair share. But what made the 50's a boom was the spending power of the middle class. I asked "what taxes" and he answer I got was taxes as part of the ACA and a reference to some Bush 2 tax increases. People actually believe that Obama has increased their income taxes. If you think the largesse of the wealthy can stimulate a 17 trillion dollar economy well, I just don't know what to say. The american worker needs help and we will all benefit from that. It works. Balancing federal budgets and comparing them to the family budget is just about the dumbest shite I've ever heard. Thank God the Tea Party did not have he chance to do to America what they did to Kansas. If you want to think lower crop prices are to blame then fine - that is called cognitive dissonance. Didn't you guys predict that commodities were going through the roof with Obama's policies? What happened with that? You don't get much right for someone who is so damn sure of themselves.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 1:55 pm to crawdaddy52
quote:
crawdaddy52
Read the link i posted above. Compares Illinois with Kansas. 2 philosophies of economy. Kansas isn't in the dire straits Seed claimed. Don't believe what the resident libtard tells you.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:04 pm to crawdaddy52
Obama has had 431 tax increases. COMMIE BOY.
I have 3 business WHOOPI DOO0.
Brainwashed idiots love forking over other peoples money, but then try and find every loophole in the book not to pay taxes.
Why don't you donate more to to feds ?
I have 3 business WHOOPI DOO0.
Brainwashed idiots love forking over other peoples money, but then try and find every loophole in the book not to pay taxes.
Why don't you donate more to to feds ?
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:06 pm to crawdaddy52
quote:
If you want to think lower crop prices are to blame then fine - that is called cognitive dissonance.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:07 pm to BugAC
I read it and I've read several articles about Kansas. It was terrible tax policy. Yeah that had some set backs with farm prices and Boeing but it was bad government. What frustrates me is everything is so alienating. I mean if you disagree with someone they aren't a patriot or a real american. History will judge Obama but the ridiculous opinions they people have: "he wants to destroy the economy because he's a muslim" and all the crap that goes with that sort of sentiment. That's John Bircher kind of paranoia. If you even know what a John Bircher is. Don't make excuses for bad policy. If you don't think a big mistake was made by the Governor of Kansas and his party I don't know what to say
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:13 pm to crawdaddy52
quote:
In the 50's the golden age of American capitalism the highest rate was 90%. Now I realize that no one paid 90% but they paid there share.
How do you know?
quote:
In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.
quote:
In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically—to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s.
LINK
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:24 pm to crawdaddy52
quote:Not sure why you brought that up, I didn't mention anything about them, but ok... Let's look at both real and perceived tax increases. Real increases from the ACA include not only the 3% medical device tax, but a "tax" in the form of increased OPEX for nearly business in the country. There is also a 3.8% investment Income surtax, elimination of deduction for prescription insurance provided employers, reduction in the deduction for individual medical expenses,And an additional tax on biofuels. And that's just ones I consider significant from the ACA.
What Obama tax increases?
Second, let's account for perceived tax increases. This last 8 year have resulted in spending increases, and debt accumulation at alarming rates. Any finance guy will tell you, debt today, means reduced cash-flow in the future. That all debt is -- it shifts time.
Even Ray Charles can see that the future will hold higher tax rates--not only for the rich-- because they don't have enough to cover the deficits, even if you take ALL of their income. The future hold significantly higher taxes for the middle class. Like triple current effective rates. And a lot of people that currently don't pay anything will be finding themselves paying a significant part of their income to the government.
What was it you said... Oh yeah!
quote:
By the way rich people don't increase employment - the middle class with cash in their pocket does.
How are they going to put cash in their pockets when government will be taking it out? (See the time shift?)
Smart people know this is coming. And they are investing appropriately for it. More accurately, they aren't investing for it. Certainly not domestically, any way.
Obama has effectively kept money scared from being put to risk. The constant "get the rich" rhetoric and incursion of future liabilities to fund current wasteful spending cannot be underestimated.
The longer it continues, the harder it will be to reverse.
quote:They said it would be enough to overcome a precipitous decline in commodity prices? Link?
Look the Tea Party said this was "an incubator" for the miracle of lowering tax rates on the wealthy and balancing the budget.
quote:how many businesses do you run? I run two. One involves a fair amount of financial modeling for people that have a lot of money on the sidelines.
Why aren't you capitalists out starting companies instead of whining on this board everyday with over 10 K posts next to your name. Cause your all mouth and theoretical
For all the reasons noted above. We have more demand for our services than we can fill. And we've chosen to stay small. We canceled hiring plans the day the ACA passed.
And guess what? I have no obligation to expand so I can give away more money to the leeches our government has empowered to steal from me.
quote:How many do you pay more for than they produce?
By the way, never paid an employee the minimum wage in my life. Everybody makes a living wage and I pay for insurance.
This post was edited on 10/30/14 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:26 pm to Taxing Authority
Tax increase do not hurt nor harm an economy, for the money is put back in one way or another
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:27 pm to crawdaddy52
quote:
What frustrates me is everything is so alienating. I mean if you disagree with someone they aren't a patriot or a real american.
You mean like this?
quote:
No Jeff you're just a punk. Things don't go exactly your way and you hit the road. Glad I'm not a family member. We educated you, you got all the benefits of being a US citizen, and you leave. I'm sure you're still taking advantage when it suits your cowardly, self-centered little self. If it was up to me you would never get back inside the country.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:28 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
What i don't understand is how the left thinks uncontrollable large government is better than people keeping what they earned.
It's common sense. If you tax people less, they have more money to spend. If you tax businesses less, they have more capital to expand and CREATE JOBS.
In order for their to be a demand, people must have money to buy that product. If people are taxed too highly, they do not have the disposable income to purchase goods. More disposable income = more goods purchased. More goods purchased = more business revenue = more production = more workers. More workers = more taxpayers = more taxes received.
Now, let's look at the "corporations don't create jobs" meme that the left espouse.
A statement of fact, corporations employ MILLIONS around the country. The corporate tax rate we have is one of the highest in the world. Ergo, corporations have the fluid capital to setup show in foreign countries with lower corporate tax rates. By reducing corporate tax rates, corporations (which are really large businesses) will seek to come to the US. Reduced taxes = more corporations. More corporations = more jobs, and massive local spending. = more jobs = more workers = more tax revenue.
It's staggering how liberals oppose taxcuts for ALL businesses. Businesses are THE JOB CREATORS. The Government does not create a job. The government operates at a loss. They sell no product. They produce no goods. They simply spend taxpayer money. They are notorious about wasting taxpayer money and simply losing taxpayer money. Yet you want to give them more. You want to take money out of the producers of goods, services, jobs, and taxes, and give more to the government that you know will mishandle that money.
It's common sense. If you tax people less, they have more money to spend. If you tax businesses less, they have more capital to expand and CREATE JOBS.
In order for their to be a demand, people must have money to buy that product. If people are taxed too highly, they do not have the disposable income to purchase goods. More disposable income = more goods purchased. More goods purchased = more business revenue = more production = more workers. More workers = more taxpayers = more taxes received.
Now, let's look at the "corporations don't create jobs" meme that the left espouse.
A statement of fact, corporations employ MILLIONS around the country. The corporate tax rate we have is one of the highest in the world. Ergo, corporations have the fluid capital to setup show in foreign countries with lower corporate tax rates. By reducing corporate tax rates, corporations (which are really large businesses) will seek to come to the US. Reduced taxes = more corporations. More corporations = more jobs, and massive local spending. = more jobs = more workers = more tax revenue.
It's staggering how liberals oppose taxcuts for ALL businesses. Businesses are THE JOB CREATORS. The Government does not create a job. The government operates at a loss. They sell no product. They produce no goods. They simply spend taxpayer money. They are notorious about wasting taxpayer money and simply losing taxpayer money. Yet you want to give them more. You want to take money out of the producers of goods, services, jobs, and taxes, and give more to the government that you know will mishandle that money.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:30 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Tax increase do not hurt nor harm an economy, for the money is put back in one way or another
Obamacare has lost. I repeat, lost over $400,000,000. Billions are being lost or misplaced by the federal government. That is not being put back. That is irresponsibility at its highest form, and you want to reward them for that?
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:35 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:"Fairness".
In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.
quote:By any measure the "middle class" has been getting a hell of a deal. Math says it can't continue, though.
In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:38 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:Silly. It matter what you put the money into. See the dirt example. See the broken window fallacy.
Tax increase do not hurt nor harm an economy, for the money is put back in one way or another
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:41 pm to gatorrocks
quote:
And once and for all, please explain how the poor provide jobs?
Consumers spend money. Isn't that core to capitalism?
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:41 pm to samson'sseed
quote:..............you guys really suck.....how about splitting the nation in half and let D have 1/2 and R take 1/2....and we will see who wins the economic war
In about 2 years Kansas went from a $700 million surplus to a $300 million deficit. Kansas has been 1 of the 5 slowest states in job growth and economic growth since the tax cuts were enacted. Trickle down economics debunked once and for all.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:43 pm to BugAC
quote:From appearance, they se to believe that "the rich", by simply holding wealth, are corrupt, and morally bankrupt.
What i don't understand is how the left thinks uncontrollable large government is better than people keeping what they earned.
Their solution? Have a small group in of people collect, hold and distribute the money.
The (obvious) paradox: if you give the wealth to government to hold--what prevents them from being just as corrupt as "the rich"?
The fallacy lies in presuming that wealth is an indicator of morality.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:44 pm to BugAC
quote:"stimulus."
Obamacare has lost. I repeat, lost over $400,000,000. Billions are being lost or misplaced by the federal government.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 2:46 pm to inelishaitrust
quote:
Consumers spend money. Isn't that core to capitalism?
no! It's called capitalism (not consumerIsm) for a reason. 
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News