- 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: Curious as to board’s opinion on KS austerity...
Posted on 12/20/17 at 11:38 am to ShortyRob
Posted on 12/20/17 at 11:38 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Um, if you run around telling me that I need to pay higher taxes and that if I don't want to, it's because I don't care about helping people
Good thing I never made an assessment of how altruistic you are then I guess
quote:
And, like I said. The deficit is directly driven by NEED.
It's driven by the expenditures of government, which are partially driven by what you call need and not reduced alongside this tax revenue reduction.
And I don't give a frick about why people are "melting their fricking faces off", if they are. I'm not, although I think the tax cut is a bad idea (right now).
quote:
This is just patently false. How do you not understand that if YOU help a person, the government doesn't need to help him as much?
Actually I'm not familiar with any means-tested program that includes charity received as part of its means-testing. Of course this is beside the point.
1
Posted on 12/20/17 at 11:38 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
And that is just one slice of the Kansas budget.
Total expenditures bro
Posted on 12/20/17 at 11:42 am to SleauxPlay
This is kind of a melt, bro.
Compared to some of the porkulus porkatron bills we've come to know and love under Bushbama, this bill is fairly clean. I get that he needed to horse trade a little with people like Flake and Collins, but it's either that or no tax cuts at all. I'll take the tax cuts.
Compared to some of the porkulus porkatron bills we've come to know and love under Bushbama, this bill is fairly clean. I get that he needed to horse trade a little with people like Flake and Collins, but it's either that or no tax cuts at all. I'll take the tax cuts.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 11:47 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Actually I'm not familiar with any means-tested program that includes charity received as part of its means-testing. Of course this is beside the point.
I mean really. Just holy frick.
This is what they've done to America.
Americans literally think they can't help people into not needing help anymore.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 11:54 am to ShortyRob
quote:
mean really. Just holy frick.
This is what they've done to America.
Americans literally think they can't help people into not needing help anymore.
Don't be mad at me for your failure to explain how I can offset the trillion dollar deficit increase by my giving a few thousand to charity Rob.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 11:55 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Total expenditures bro
It’s a function breakdown of expenditures.
You can categorize and slice the data any number of ways. And just as an FYI, Kansas is a net negative federal tax state, they take in more money than they send out in taxes. Part of Kansas’s spending includes federal money.
I’m still not sure what point you are trying to make? If the argument you want to infer is that somehow had Brownback cut more spending, the magic threshold would of been passed and growthand revenue would of sky rocketed, then make the empirical case. Explain what this magical threshold is and why it would of magically proven the hypothesis? And what evidence you have to support that? Because so far, as is with Brownback and national Republicans, the hypothesis is entirely faith based. And the results we have did not prove the hypothesis, the opposite in fact.
This post was edited on 12/20/17 at 11:56 am
Posted on 12/20/17 at 11:59 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
It’s a function breakdown of expenditures.
i took the column total for each year
quote:
I’m still not sure what point you are trying to make?
i was just trying to get some confirmation of your claim of big spending cuts they supposedly made
Posted on 12/20/17 at 12:03 pm to bonhoeffer45
Fwiw Bonhoeffer, there IS a good amount of economic literature that finds excessively high marginal income tax rates are associated with decreased growth
Posted on 12/20/17 at 12:04 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
i was just trying to get some confirmation of your claim of big spending cuts they supposedly made
If you want that then go look at the more granular breakdowns they offer on that site.
Just because you cut 150 million in things like education, pensions, and healthcare, like Brownback did, doesn’t mean total state expenses can’t increase. You still have inflation, you still have aging workers falling into pensions, you still have unexpected needs for the state. And you still have to pay for the basic cost of the agencies and functions you are administering.
What cuts like that are often argued to do is slow cost growth. Brownback just tried to argue that not only would revenue afterwards be fine to offset things, they would produce more revenue than before to put into the general fund or whatever. Which didn’t happen.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 12:08 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
If you want that then go look at the more granular breakdowns they offer on that site.
claims of big spending cuts are hard to believe when total expenditures are increasing
Posted on 12/20/17 at 12:09 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:For liberals, it's a "cut" if you don't increase it as much as THEY planned to.
claims of big spending cuts are hard to believe when total expenditures are increasing
Posted on 12/20/17 at 12:12 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
On the other hand, other states such as ohio, NC, and Utah were almost as bold as Kansas with their tax reform and all saw surpluses and better growth
What do you think accounts for the relatively robust economic impact of tax cuts in North Carolina vs. a state such as Kansas?
Posted on 12/20/17 at 12:21 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
That a very different story than the data appear to tell. Total expenditures, pulled from kansas.gov : 2011 $25,967,946,724.89 2012 $26,438,228,264.19 2013 $26,336,404,096.12 2014 $26,626,277,760.34 2015 $28,932,650,810.51 2016 $30,640,682,256.73 2017 $28,568,688,397.76
Remember...
Slowing rate of expenditure growth is considered a cut in liberal land
Posted on 12/20/17 at 12:21 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Fwiw Bonhoeffer, there IS a good amount of economic literature that finds excessively high marginal income tax rates are associated with decreased growth
The places where that has been the case have been places like former soviet states where marginal tax rates were approaching 100% on high earners combined with under developed economies.
Before Laffer went all paid shill to make rich people feel good about their personal desires for more tax cuts(and further discredited himself with Kansas) even he prefaced his principle as a curve, and prefaced that there is a threshold where additional tax cuts will not produce much growth and will just decrease revenue. And Kansas, insofar as pushing the idea that Kansas was ripe for thatworking has not been borne out.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 12:24 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
claims of big spending cuts are hard to believe when total expenditures are increasing
I mean we aren’t going to get anywhere when you continue to ignore context.
And I’m still kIndia waiting on what this has to do with either substantiating your earlier argument or substantiating Brownback’s? Whether you consider Brownback’s cuts substantial enough is irrelevant to the point Brownback offered. Revenue was to increase compared to the baseline and growth sky rocket. Neither happened.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 12:27 pm to bonhoeffer45
Then why, across nearly the entire industrialized world, are marginal tax rates lower now than they were in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and 80s?
America was not the only nation in the 80s to lower marginal tax rates by a significant amount. Every European nation did same, and leftwing parties have not even tried to restore those rates. Why?
America was not the only nation in the 80s to lower marginal tax rates by a significant amount. Every European nation did same, and leftwing parties have not even tried to restore those rates. Why?
Posted on 12/20/17 at 12:39 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Because trickle-down economics, has been and still is a bunch of nonsense
Posted on 12/20/17 at 12:42 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Feel free to let me know how your graph supports or refutes the point you’ve quoted.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 12:44 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Can someone explain why the high GDP growth is occurring during Democratic presidencies for the most part
Posted on 12/20/17 at 12:44 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
I mean we aren’t going to get anywhere when you continue to ignore context.
is that context the one where you asserted big spending cuts and didn't give me any numbers?
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News