Tiberius Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Sam Brownback facing opposition from his own party. He got the state's bond rating lowered, lol, and Dude, where's the recovery in Kansas? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/07/16/gop-governor-implements-gop-economics-disaster-ensues/ In many ways, Brownback’s term has been a perfect experiment in Republican governance. Take a crusading conservative governor, give him a legislature with Republican super-majorities so he can do pretty much whatever he wants, and let him implement the right’s wish list. The result was supposed to be a nirvana of economic growth and budgetary stability. But the opposite happened. The disastrous results of Brownback’s economic and fiscal policies demonstrate that it’s one thing for your average Republican to go around saying things like “cutting taxes raises revenue!” even if nearly every economist agrees that the idea is absurd (Greg Mankiw, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush, famously called the purveyors of this idea “charlatans and cranks”). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Another stupid article. Cutting taxes isn't going to show short term positive economic results. People and companies aren't going to start moving to Kansas in droves just because of low taxation. It's not the !@#$ing Gold Rush, you moron. No one can turn a battleship around in a phone booth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Another stupid article. Cutting taxes isn't going to show short term positive economic results. People and companies aren't going to start moving to Kansas in droves just because of low taxation. It's not the !@#$ing Gold Rush, you moron. No one can turn a battleship around in a phone booth. You couldn't just ignore this, like the rest of us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 18, 2014 Author Share Posted July 18, 2014 You couldn't just ignore this, like the rest of us? Why should this be ignored? Just ignore Republican failures and clap three times with your eyes closed and hope no one notices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 That clapping three times and hoping doesn't work...you're still posting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Why should this be ignored? Because it's you, you !@#$ing twerp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 20, 2014 Author Share Posted July 20, 2014 Another stupid article. Cutting taxes isn't going to show short term positive economic results. People and companies aren't going to start moving to Kansas in droves just because of low taxation. It's not the !@#$ing Gold Rush, you moron. No one can turn a battleship around in a phone booth. No, you are the moron, as always. While Kansas sits around hoping for the miracle of tax cuts to appear they are dealing with real issues. The bond agency has cut their rating and now they have to spend more to borrow to cover the tax cuts. Idiots! And of course the poor have to pay more in cut services and higher regressive taxes, which is what the GOP wants. You accidentally stumbled upon one nugget of truth, though, it sure as he'll isn't a Gold Rush at all. Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Regressive taxes? Do tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 Regressive taxes? Do tell. Just read, it's in the original article with a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Just read, it's in the original article with a link. I don't see it. Please define "regressive taxes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 I don't see it. Please define "regressive taxes". Oh, well, you could have just asked for that. But you only get one question... I would define it as a tax in which it falls heaviest on those least able to pay. Or a tax that requires a larger share of one's wealth as a percentage to pay. A national sales tax for instance, tariffs and gas taxes are all regressive Why did you ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) Oh, well, you could have just asked for that. But you only get one question... I would define it as a tax in which it falls heaviest on those least able to pay. Or a tax that requires a larger share of one's wealth as a percentage to pay. A national sales tax for instance, tariffs and gas taxes are all regressive Why did you ask? Because those taxes aren't regressive at all. A regressive tax is a tax which emburdens those with lesser earnings of a type in question with a higher tax rate. IE. 0-19k taxed at 40%, 20k-39k taxed at 30%, 40k-59k taxed at 20%, 60k-79k taxed at 10%, 80k or more = tax exempt. It could also be used to describe a tax that is capped as a certain amount of earnings, such as Social Security, which doesn't tax earnings above 117k for the year 2014, up from a cap of $113.7k in 2013; though that's still dubious usage, given that the net amount of taxes paid is far higher by individuals earning more, with earners at the lower end of the scale receiving a far greater benefit than they paid in. (that's a progressive tax by definition). Infact, even flat taxes, and exempted sales taxes are progressive in nature; given that a larger net tax is paid on earnings of $300k than on $30k given a flat rate of 10%. The person paying $30k in taxes, while earning $300k, is paying 1000% more than the individual earning $30k. Infact, you'll note that he is paying, in taxes, an equal amount to what the second individual's total gross earnings; while he is also not consuming 1000% more services. Edited July 24, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Sam Brownback facing opposition from his own party. He got the state's bond rating lowered, lol, and Dude, where's the recovery in Kansas? http://www.washingto...isaster-ensues/ 100 former repug office holders sre endorsing the dem in this race: http://www.npr.org/2014/07/20/333366894/tax-cuts-fallout-put-kansas-governor-on-defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 24, 2014 Author Share Posted July 24, 2014 Because those taxes aren't regressive at all.A regressive tax is a tax which emburdens those with lesser earnings of a type in question with a higher tax rate. IE. 0-19k taxed at 40%, 20k-39k taxed at 30%, 40k-59k taxed at 20%, 60k-79k taxed at 10%, 80k or more = tax exempt. It could also be used to describe a tax that is capped as a certain amount of earnings, such as Social Security, which doesn't tax earnings above 117k for the year 2014, up from a cap of $113.7k in 2013; though that's still dubious usage, given that the net amount of taxes paid is far higher by individuals earning more, with earners at the lower end of the scale receiving a far greater benefit than they paid in. (that's a progressive tax by definition)., even flat taxes, and exempted sales taxes are progressive in nature; given that a larger net tax is paid on earnings of $300k than on $30k given a flat rate of 10%. The person paying $30k in taxes, while earning $300k, is paying 1000% more than the individual earning $30k. Infact, you'll note that he is paying, in taxes, an equal amount to what the second individual's total gross earnings; while he is also not consuming 1000% more services. That is an interesting and creative way of looking at it. You are just labeling all taxes progressive, basically, since a rich person will always pay more in actual dollars no matter the rate. So cutting top rates and making the poor and middle class pay more in taxes and less services still leaves a Progressive system in place so everyone should just be happy,. Gotcha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Another stupid article. Cutting taxes isn't going to show short term positive economic results. People and companies aren't going to start moving to Kansas in droves just because of low taxation. It's not the !@#$ing Gold Rush, you moron. No one can turn a battleship around in a phone booth. brownback sold the tax cuts as "an adrenaline shot to the heart" for the kansas economy. have you ever witnessed an adrenaline shot to the heart? it's pretty immediate when it works (unfortunately, unlike the new cocktail for us executions). he said it, not me or gatorman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) That is an interesting and creative way of looking at it. You are just labeling all taxes progressive, basically, since a rich person will always pay more in actual dollars no matter the rate. So cutting top rates and making the poor and middle class pay more in taxes and less services still leaves a Progressive system in place so everyone should just be happy,. Gotcha Outline where I said that. I simply pointed out the deep flaws in the way you were labeling certain types of taxes. Taxes like the Flat Tax, the Fair Tax, and even a National Sales Tax with carved out exemptions are all progressive taxes. That they may not be as progressive as you would prefer doesn't change that. Edited July 24, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 brownback sold the tax cuts as "an adrenaline shot to the heart" for the kansas economy. Brownback's an idiot. So are you. Big deal. Everyone likes to get caught up in this little game of gotcha. Politicians like to pretend that things as complicated as the economy can be fixed easily, except they can't because of all the dependencies created and the power of special interests. Cutting taxes is rarely a bad thing but there isn't any single thing that can positively change something as complex as a state's economy in the short term. Fixes generally take twice as long as the problems took to fester and require a lot of forethought and planning. Since Democrats and Republicans are involved, we'll get a gigantic dose of neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Brownback's an idiot. So are you. Big deal. Everyone likes to get caught up in this little game of gotcha. Politicians like to pretend that things as complicated as the economy can be fixed easily, except they can't because of all the dependencies created and the power of special interests. Cutting taxes is rarely a bad thing but there isn't any single thing that can positively change something as complex as a state's economy in the short term. Fixes generally take twice as long as the problems took to fester and require a lot of forethought and planning. Since Democrats and Republicans are involved, we'll get a gigantic dose of neither. I'll bet you say that when commenting on Obama's attempt to clean up the 2008 crisis mess, too, right? Yeah, right..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 I'll bet you say that when commenting on Obama's attempt to clean up the 2008 crisis mess, too, right? Yeah, right..... What was Obama's attempt to clean up the crisis? What laws and actions were the cause of the crisis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 What was Obama's attempt to clean up the crisis? What laws and actions were the cause of the crisis? The stimulus. It saved jobs. Stuff was shovel ready, except when it wasn't. I mean, yeah, most of the money was laundered to Obama supporters, and none of it went to helping the problem, but it was a stimulus, and one time Bush did a stimulus and I don't remember you being upset about that, and did you hear what Cheney said because he's a war criminal, and oh, look! Gum drops and sarsaparilla!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts