Archive for Monday, March 10, 2008

Lawmakers say Kansas won’t offer tax rebate

March 10, 2008


— Don't expect the Kansas Legislature to be as generous as Congress this year and offer taxpayers a rebate.

Last month, Congress and President Bush approved a package aimed at stimulating the economy that will result in millions of Americans receiving rebate checks ranging from $300 to $1,200.

Several states are following the example of the feds by proposing their own state tax rebate programs as a way to fight against an economic recession.

In Pennsylvania, Gov. Ed Rendell has proposed a one-time rebate of up to $400 to lower-income, working families. Lawmakers in Connecticut have proposed rebates of $50 to $290.

But Kansas lawmakers, facing a tight state budget, probably won't offer anything like that.

One problem is that the federal rebate action will short Kansas state coffers by $87 million, state officials say.

The federal stimulus package includes acceleration of write-offs for businesses, such as the ability to depreciate the cost of new equipment and machinery. Kansas' tax revenue is affected because it links its tax code to that portion of the federal tax code.

There has been some talk of approving legislation that would "de-couple" that part of the state tax system from the federal one, so that businesses in Kansas, while they would receive a break on their federal taxes, wouldn't on their state taxes.

But Republicans are opposed to that.

"We are not going to de-couple, so we'll be letting that pass on through," said state Rep. Kenny Wilk, R-Lansing and chairman of the House Tax Committee. "That is supporting the federal stimulus package."

While there won't be a state tax rebate, Wilk said one thing that will help Kansans is that the Legislature is sticking to its commitment that started last year to phase in exempting Social Security benefits from state income taxes and the expansion of a homestead property tax refund for low-income seniors.

And, he said, lawmakers are continuing work on readjusting business taxes, which he said is aimed at helping the economy.

House Minority Leader Dennis McKinney, D-Greensburg, said Kansas state government actually jumped ahead of other states in stimulating the economy by phasing out the property tax on machinery and equipment.

"So as far as stimulating investment in productivity, we're several years ahead of those other states," McKinney said.

McKinney said that the federal economic stimulus package would have been better if the money had gone to repairing bridges and highways.

"That way we would've put people to work and produced a long-lasting benefit," he said.

- The Associated Press contributed to this report.


SettingTheRecordStraight 9 years, 7 months ago

Rebates are not the anser. Permanent, deep tax cuts for all wage earners and businesses along with a corresponding reduction in the size and scope of government is necessary and prudent.

KLATTU 9 years, 7 months ago

Who's paying for the war? Who's paying for the record spending? Who's busy selling America to the highest bidder to fill foreign bank accounts? Enjoy your $800 America.

mothernature 9 years, 7 months ago

Who cares about one time rebates. I need some substantial assistance from my government. Two kids and two full time jobs put my husband and I in a place where our government says we make too much money to get help. In reality we barely make enough to survive. There are no discretionary spending funds in my house. We could be taking in the same amount each month if I quite my job and went on well fair. I agree with Marion!

mrpentool 9 years, 7 months ago

Q. Is my stimulus payment taxable?

A. No. You will not owe tax on your payment when you file your 2008 federal income tax return. But you should keep a copy of the IRS letter you receive later this year listing the amount of your payment.

Lots of other FAQs at,,id=179181,00.html

jafs 9 years, 7 months ago

Perhaps we should tax the wealthy and large corporations, remove tax subsidies and loopholes, and invest in small businesses and helping people who need it.

I seem to remember the Clinton administration doing that, and we had a healthy economy and a budget surplus when he left office.

Ralph Reed 9 years, 7 months ago

Oddly enough I tend to agree with Marion's 0737. The rebate is just something to placate the masses. (Frightening isn't that Marion, you and me landing on the same side of the fence on an issue. Did 21 Dec 2012 come early?)

On another note, I read somewhere that the majority of the rebate recipients plan to stash the money rather than spend it, which defeats the stated purpose.

guesswho 9 years, 7 months ago

I also hate how Bush says you will pay less in federal taxes due to his tax cuts - which may be true - but you then have to pay more in state taxes because the state doesn't receive as much in transfers with reduced federal income.

This $12 billion a month war needs to be paid, and not by people making less then $100,000 a year! There are more billionaires then ever before, and CEOs are making ridiculous profits (including oil executives!).

Those who can pay more, should. The rest of us cannot.

Flap Doodle 9 years, 7 months ago

According to Webster: "rebate, a return of part of a payment". A "tax rebate" then would be the government returning some of the money you've already paid in taxes.

Isn't that what the Feds are doing?











Centerville 9 years, 7 months ago

I'm with MotherNature. We need deep, deep permanent tax cuts across the board so both parents don't have to work just to pay the tax bill. We see what kind of "assistance" some Kansas politicians are thinking of: mandatory day care, to keep both parents in harness. Fie on that!

toefungus 9 years, 7 months ago

I would like interest with that loan I gave the State.

christie 9 years, 7 months ago

There is NO EVIDENCE after Bush 1 and Bush 2 that these Tax Cuts stimulate the economy. In fact, evidence shows that they WRECK the economy.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.