Archive for Friday, April 23, 2010

Senate Democrat offers plan to increase taxes on Kansas incomes higher than $200,000

Plan raises rates for wealthy Kansans, reduces levy on lower incomes

April 23, 2010


— In Kansas, a married couple making $60,000 per year has the same state income tax rate as a couple earning $6 million per year.

“To me, that’s inherently unfair,” said Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka.

Hensley has proposed a plan to add three more taxable income brackets to the three that already exist in the state income tax system. And he would reduce the rate for the lower three brackets.

Under his proposal, taxes for 98 percent of Kansas taxpayers would decrease, while those couples earning $200,000 or more would see a 12 percent increase in their tax liability.

The proposal, which surfaced during Senate budget and tax talks, would raise $56 million in the fiscal year that starts July 1.

Kansas legislators return for the wrap-up session on Wednesday facing an estimated $500 million revenue shortfall.

Hensley said Democrats would like to see changes in the state income tax rates as part of any tax package to address the budget crisis, especially if the state sales tax rate is increased.

Sales tax increases are a greater burden on lower-income families because they pay the same rate on necessities, such as food and clothing, as upper-income families.

Establishing graduated taxable rates on income would be more fair, mitigate the effects on low-income families from a sales tax increase and help solve the budget crisis, Hensley said.

Other changes to the state income tax that have been floated include adding a temporary 5 percent surcharge on income tax liability.


BlackVelvet 8 years, 1 month ago

"In Kansas, a married couple making $60,000 per year has the same state income tax rate as a couple earning $6 million per year. “To me, that’s inherently unfair,” said Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka."

Of course, he'd have a different opinion if HE were the one making 6 million per year.

Jimo 8 years, 1 month ago

Not quite at the $6M number myself but I'd be paying more taxes under this proposal and I favor it.

Thinking_Out_Loud 8 years, 1 month ago

Uh, ShePrecedes, he has introduced legislation to that effect.

Cynthia Schott 8 years, 1 month ago

I can see the Kansas Republican majority really going for this. It'll never pass in Kansas, so why bother even reporting it.

LogicMan 8 years, 1 month ago

Adding more tax brackets, within reason, seems like a good idea. What the rate should be for each bracket is a more interesting discussion.

sinedie 8 years, 1 month ago

This is meant to imply that people who make less money don't work hard and don't want better things for their families?

A flat tax (like the sales tax) hits people with less money harder, that's a mathematical fact. If the rate is 50%, someone making $20,000 per year is hurt much more than someone making $200,000, for example. That's why we have a progressive income tax. All this proposal would do is add more brackets to it.

Either way, instead of creating new taxes, I would suggest eliminating sales tax exemptions that already exist. That could save the state billions without raising any taxes at all.

texburgh 8 years, 1 month ago

Good post - accurate description of the inherent unfairness of the so-called flat tax. I note lawrenceguy40 has a brilliant response below - anyone making less than $200,000 must be lazy. I'll bet this guy enjoys the services of plenty of the "a** sitters." The people that clean his hotel rooms or empty his office wastebasket at night or mow his lawn or groom his poodles... Of course, not being HIM, they are not worthy of any consideration.

Maddy Griffin 8 years, 1 month ago

I agree! Taxation will never be "fair" until everyone pays the same percentage of their income. 10% on a 7 figure income hurts less than 10% on a 5 figure income. If everyone paid a straight 10%, there wouldn't be a large deficit. I make approx. $40k by myself but I pay about 25% of that in taxes.

George Lippencott 8 years, 1 month ago

Fair??? Without getting into an argumnet about government expenses, what is fair. Should ability to pay be a factor? If ability to pay is a factor, as it is now, why should ability to pay only apply to the middle? If ability to pay is a criteria than the rich should pay a lot more.

If a flat tax is the goal - then it should be flat - everyone pays. We don't go to a flat tax that applies to half the population while the rest pay nothing. That approach really hits the middle.

Jimo 8 years, 1 month ago

So, let me get this right -- you FAVOR eliminating the income cap on Social Security taxes and taxing the wealthy at the same rate as everyone else right on up to the last dollar? Because that would be "fair" taxation. Yes? No?

I just want to get this straight before the presses role with the headline: GOP favors massive tax increase on wealthy - Social Security to instantly run surpluses as far as the eye can see - 'Bankruptcy' dilemma solved as result of wingnut capitulation

Bob_Keeshan 8 years, 1 month ago

lawrenceguy40, you are free to refuse your tax cut.

Hensley proposes to cut taxes for 98% of all Kansans. Go ahead and tell the state you don't want yours because it is a dummycrat's idea.

thefisherman 8 years, 1 month ago

I am only in favor of decreasing taxes on the lower brackets if the sales tax increase comes along with it. If the sales tax is out, then don't lower anybody's tax rate. Just add the new, slightly higher, tax brackets for the higher income earners. While I will say that I would likely not be affected by the proposed new tax brackets, I am not entirely opposed so long as the tax burden is not actually decreased on the lower income earners.

And BTW, for everybody who keeps complaining that lower income earners are disproportionately affected by sales taxes, particularly on food, remember that Kansas will send that money (food sales tax) back if they meet some very basic criteria. Essentially all you have to do is be over 55, blind, disabled, or have at least one dependent under 18 living in your home whom you claim as an exemption on your taxes, and have a HH income under 31k/yr. Oh, and you have to actually file your taxes. That simple.

Find here:

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

As I have often said, it's the height of hypocrisy to complain about taxes (for the rich) being "unfair" in an economic system that is by design unfair.

The whole point of capitalism is to not treat everyone equally, which it does quite successfully-- more so in this country than any other industrialized democracy, and the single greatest effect of the Reagan Revolution has been a massive transfer of wealth from the lowest 90% of income earners to the top 10%, especially to the top 1%. A more progressive income tax would merely lessen that unfairness to a small degree.

Even if this proposal goes through wealthy people will still be wealthy even after paying their taxes, and poor people will still be poor, even if they pay no taxes at all.

And the stupidest argument of all is the social darwinist idea that poor people are all poor because they are lazy, and that all rich people are rich because they work so hard. Any honest person with any real world experience knows that that's nothing but simplistic drivel.

jayhawklawrence 8 years, 1 month ago

Whenever politicians come up with tax increases, they are almost always too much.

I guess lowering taxes on the lower income levels is designed to get votes.

I would leave the taxes on the lower income the same and increase the taxes on the upper income by 5% or less.

The proposed increase is way too much.

thefisherman 8 years, 1 month ago

When they say an increase of 12%, I seriously doubt they mean moving the tax rate from 6.45% to 18.45%.

It is more likely they will be increasing the tax rate by a factor of 12%. That means 12% of 6.45% (.774%) added onto the original 6.45%, which equals 7.224% tax rate. Not too bad.

Or, if their taxable income happened to be $200,000, at the old rate they would pay $12,900 in state income taxes. Under the new plan they would pay $14,448, which is 12% more.

overthemoon 8 years, 1 month ago

If it were handled the way tax increases for Health Care reform financing was first proposed, it would be a progressive increase in the upper brackets so someone earning 200,001 a year wouldn't be paying a lot more than the guy making 199,999. There's a big difference between 200,000 and 2,000,000. The rate should be somewhat higher the higher the income.

As to being a disincentive to be successful, heck, just make more.

jmadison 8 years, 1 month ago

Rich people can vote with their feet. California has seen an exodus of the high earners since it has been raising taxes on the rich folk. Texas has no state income tax and has weathered the economic downturn better than most states. The proposed revenues from tax increases never materialize as people move away or hire smart accountants who can figure ways to reduce the tax bite. Perhaps a flat tax with one or two tax brackets, with no deductions, would be a fairer way to collect taxes.

Jimo 8 years, 1 month ago

Yeah, Warren Buffet lives in Nebraska and Bill Gates in Washington because those are the low/no tax states. LOL

Kansas could eliminate income tax on the wealthy and even PAY them a stipend and that wouldn't get one billionaire moving into the Sunflower State. I'm about 99.9% sure not one millionaire has any idea what they paid in state income taxes last year. It really is the least of their concerns.

Besides, EVERY state is or soon will be raising taxes, having cut already the "fat" from their budgets.

windex 8 years, 1 month ago

I've never heard of someone making $190.,000. How much is that?

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

"To me, that’s inherently unfair,” said Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka.


'Waaaaaah. They have more than we do and it's just not fair that we can't take it from them. Waaaaaaaah.'

First of all, all of you that think having identical tax rates hurts lower income people more are completely clueless. That couple making $60K doesn't pay taxes on anywhere near their total income after exemptions, deductions, credits, and other allowances. If they end up paying any taxes at all, their effective tax rate is much lower than that of those making $6M, who pay taxes on almost all of their income.

Second, even without that inequity, if both couples paid approx. 7% of their income, the couple making $6M is paying 100 times as much in taxes, and receiving much less in taxpayer-funded services for their money.

Other than the typical liberal class-jealousy so rampant in Looneyville, what was the justification for a graduated tax?

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

Not my fault you didn't understand the point, hammie. Maybe you could get someone to read the big words to you.

feeble 8 years, 1 month ago

Hi Nota, we're discussing state income taxes, where 99% of the stuff you cite (exceptions, credits) do not apply. Try and keep up.

Only someone who never actually pays tax wouldn't realize that the Feds and the State have different tax codes.

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

My, but didn't you pick the perfect screen name.

Here's something you've evidently never seen before, feebs:

Let's see - exemptions? Check. Deductions? Check. Credits? Check. Hmm. Pretty much just what my post said.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, feeble. Too bad you didn't actually look at a tax form (apparently for the first time) before trying to claim I never had. It might have made you look marginally less of a moron.

But I doubt it.

feeble 8 years, 1 month ago

I'll do you one better:

go count up how many apply to a couple making 60K. The dependant exemptions, out of state tax credits and food sales tax credits would not reduce a couple's Kansas state tax liability to zero.

that said, if you're going to insult some one, do it with panache and not like a 10 year-old girl.

Bob_Keeshan 8 years, 1 month ago

So add notajayhawk and barrypenders to the list of people who will be refusing to have their income taxes cut.

The Hensley plan is going to bring in even more revenue than estimated.

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

I'd be proud to have my name at the top of that list, bobbie. Just as you seem so very proud to be standing first in the leech line.

Would I like to pay less in taxes? Of course - who wouldn't? But if it's at the expense of someone else who earned their money just as I earn mine, money I have absolutely no claim on or right to take, than thanks but no thanks.

Of course, after reading far too much of your drivel over the years, it's hardly surprising you'd find it a completely unfathomable and alien concept that there are some of us willing to pay our own share.

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

"But the majority of rich people, don't get their by being hard working."

Ah. So that's an example of 'open' mindedness. Brilliant, hammie.

"Because the majority is middle class and lower class. And majority rules."

Majority rule is three lions and a zebra voting on what's for dinner.

You probably make more than someone else, hammie. And someday, they are going to think that YOU make too much.

Godot 8 years, 1 month ago

Costa Rica is looking better and better every day.

Brian Laird 8 years, 1 month ago

So what do you like about Costa Rica ?- is it the universal health care or the fact that they have no military... or the fact that they have progressive tax rates....or is it the commitment to preserving the environment. Personally, I like the nice beaches and rain forests.

Of course, now that Rush Limbaugh is moving there, this may all change.

del888 8 years, 1 month ago

The problem with the rich is not the income tax they pay, it's the income tax they don't pay. If we eliminate the tax loopholes that allow big corporations to make millions without paying any tax, then we would solve the problem. The "little guy" goes to work, makes his average salary, and has the taxes taken directly out of his check before he even gets it into his own hands. The "rich guy" makes himself into a corporation. The corporation makes millions, goes through legal loopholes to write off every possible expense known to man, and pays very little tax on the remainder. This is called the "not so fair" tax!

tomatogrower 8 years, 1 month ago

They are beginning to do just that. First of all the had to clean up the Bush's SEC. Read this story:

Now the are going after the real people who caused and profited from this economic mess.

And they're increasing the SEC budget to take down these greedy traitors who are ruining our economy so they can get rich. But then I must be suffering from class envy, right? Or maybe I just have some morals.

NoSpin 8 years, 1 month ago

I am seeing a familiar theme. The current WH administration says they are going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. This just means it will shift the burden to the individual states. Then dems want to lower taxes for 98% of Kansans and raise it on those over $200K. Wow! Makes me want to vote for them. They really must care. HA! BTW, Bozo on the T- life isn't always fair. Did you take your fellow classmates' lunch money from them at school to be fair? Have you never noticed on your turbo tax that the tax rates are exponential? You are right after all. It is not fair right now.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

"HA! BTW, Bozo on the T- life isn't always fair."

I noted as much-- and capitalism is designed to keep it that way. But then hypocrites like you want to complain when taxation is "unfair" if wealthy folks are required to pay a little more in taxes, even though they're still wealthy after having paid them.

"Did you take your fellow classmates' lunch money from them at school to be fair?"

How did this stupid question get such currency in the wackosphere? Did you hear this from Rush?

"Have you never noticed on your turbo tax that the tax rates are exponential?"

I have no idea what that means, but that's probably because you don't know what you're talking about.

Brian Laird 8 years, 1 month ago

"Have you never noticed on your turbo tax that the tax rates are exponential?"

2010 tax rates (single)

       0  - 7300         10%
7300- 29700        15%

29700 - 71950 25 % 71950 - 150,150 28% 150,150 - 326,450 33% 326,450 - infinity 35%

For a rise to be exponential, the rate of increase must be proportional to the amount - here the rate of increase slows down with increasing income and eventually levels off - the exact opposite of exponential - it's not even logarithmic, as it levels off - probably the closest mathematical object would be a hyperbolic tangent.

Please do not use words for which you do not know their meaning. Doesn't help your argument.

NoSpin 8 years, 1 month ago

Hey. Things are looking up already. Noticed that it is 62 degrees and FAIR in Lawrence. Guess I just need to spend more time outside.

Bob_Keeshan 8 years, 1 month ago

For those concerned about "paying their share," I suggest

And while there are a few posters around here, such as notajayhawk, who work for employers that rely upon government funding for survival, that really shouldn't be a factor in the discussion.

The Kansas income tax hasn't been adjusted for decades. It's about time somebody stepped up to alter the code and return some progressiveness to it. If you don't like it, tell the government to keep your money.

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

You mean when you include such things as sales taxes? Duh. What exactly does that have to do with income tax rates, again? Oh, yeah - nothing, bobbie.

And none of that changes what a leech you are. Your only argument is 'they have more so you should cut my taxes and make them pay my share'. And the fact that you don't see anything wrong with that speaks volumes.

NoSpin 8 years, 1 month ago

Again, let's talk fairness and math. When the libs roll back Bush's tax cuts, we will learn a lesson about who gained from those tax cuts. The lowest tax bracket is currently 10%. Before Bush, it was 15%. Seems as though Bush cut taxes for the lowest tax paying group by 33%. When it goes back to 15%, a family whose taxable income is $18,000 will have an increase of $900 or $75 per month. Gee, that $900 really has helped that family over $200K per year more than the 18K family. The child tax credit doubled to $1,000 under Bush. That family of four that had a taxable income of $18K gained (500 X 2) $1,000 there. Roll that Bush tax cut back as the libs will and now they are out $1,900 per year (900 +1000) or a little more than $150 per month. Bozo, the tax brackets are 10%, 15%,25%,28%, etc.. Do you notice that 28 % is nearly triple 10%? I'm sure you have. As for hypocracy, you are the expert on THAT subject, Bozo.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

"Do you notice that 28 % is nearly triple 10%?"

True enough, allspin, but that's not "exponential."

And if you're going to argue for the Bush tax cuts by trying to say they were implemented for the poor, you're not going to get very far. They were designed very specifically to cut the tax liabilities of the überwealthy, as have all the Republican tax cuts since Reagan. Any crumbs thrown to the lower and middle classes have been window dressing, as their real incomes have actually dropped since then, while the wealthy have seen tremendous increases in income.

Bush/Reagan (with much help from Clinton/Goldman Sachs) economic and tax policies have caused once good-paying jobs to vanish, and pushed the economy to the brink of collapse. It's folks in the middle and at the bottom end of the economy who are paying the biggest price for that.

NoSpin 8 years, 1 month ago

I do agree that the middle class is taking the hit. The middle class is going to get it worse now because taxes have to be raised to pay the enormous debt. Our politicians hold our checkbook and do not bother to balance it. Neither party has figured it out.

Lacy Mohler 8 years, 1 month ago

Before I get too excited I want to see Hensley's bottom three brackets. They might be 0-10,000, 10,001-20,000 and 20,001 to 30,000. I just don't see 200,000+ being the only group to get the shaft.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 1 month ago

The "fairness" and "reward hard work" issue are straw men. Let's look at reality.

I would rather be making one million dollars a year and paying 40% in tax then making $60,000 a year and paying 25% in tax.

To say that higher taxes on the high end earners discourages hard work is just silly.

How about you? $1 million a year at 40% tax or $60,000 a year at 25%?

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 1 month ago

The "fairness" issue is also bogus. It has nothing to do with fairness. The USA needs money to pay the bills for the military, social programs, roads, schools, etc.

The rich have the most money. So, it becomes a balance of taxing at a level that pays for our country but that does not discourage innovation and hard work. We are far from that balance now.

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

Well - you seem to have topped that, since your post said - well, nothing.

As usual for defender.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

"The "fairness" issue is also bogus."

How's this for an analogy?--

Let's say we institute a toll for crossing the Kaw. If you're poor, it'll only cost you a buck, but you'll have to swim it. If you're rich, it'll cost you $100, but you get to use the bridge.

Is that being unfair to the rich folks?

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

Your analogy, as usual, is ridiculous. It would be more accurate to say the rich get charged $100 to cross despite the fact that they own their own boats, in order to pay for the bridge that the 'poor' pay $1 to use.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

From Boltzman's post above--

2010 tax rates (single)

0 - 7300 10% 7300- 29700 15% 29700 - 71950 25 % 71950 - 150,150 28% 150,150 - 326,450 33% 326,450 - infinity 35%

Here's what I would change it to--

0 - 3700 0% 3701-12,000- 5% 12,001- 20000- 10% 20001 - 35000- 15 % 35001 - 70000- 20% 70,000-150,150- 30% 150,150-300,000- 35% 300,000-1,000,000- 40% 1,000,001-5,000,000 -45% 5,000,001- infinity- 50%

And everyone would pay exactly the same percentage on all their income for Social Security and Medicare for All-- probably the same as now, about 15%.

Any other ideas?

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

Other than the fact that they have it, boohoohoozo, your justification for stealing it was what, again?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

It's not stealing. It's just a matter of whether they want to walk or swim across the river.

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

Taking something from someone else that you have no right to or claim on is generally considered stealing, Herr Klowne.

deskboy04 8 years, 1 month ago

I am in favor of this proposal. I am in favor of lowering my taxes. Do the rest of you really make more than $200,000?

Bob_Keeshan 8 years, 1 month ago

It is sad to see so many commenters completely ignoring that a state's tax policy must be considered as a whole and not as individual pieces.

Yes, you must also consider sales taxes and property taxes. Only a fool would do otherwise. Lots of fools in this discussion, and mainly it is the usual suspects.

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

Well, bobbie, perhaps the reason most of the comments focus on just the income tax is because this story is about a proposed change to: just the income tax. Just a guess, of course.

And, bobbie, maybe the reason the burden of taxation falls mainly on the middle class when you include sales taxes is that there are more purchases made by people in the middle class because there are a lot more of them.

None of which changes anything as far as you're concerned, bobbie. Whether we're talking about the income tax alone, or the entire tax package, you're still just looking for a way to soak those at the top for more to get out of paying your share. Guess that alone doesn't make you a fool - just a leech.

You're right about this thread being rampant with fools, though - the omnipresent whiny, entitled Lawrence contingent that always wants someone else to pay their way - like you.

jayhawklawrence 8 years, 1 month ago

If you can afford to pay more, you should pay more.

Decreasing taxes just to get votes is immoral in my view. Everyone should contribute what they can afford, whether you are poor or wealthy.

We are in the mess we are in because of political chicanery, not because politicians are being responsible citizens. Nobody should get a pass.

In our present system, politics is trumping common sense and becoming a puppet for a political party or a parrot for their rhetoric is not helping.

JustNoticed 8 years, 1 month ago

Fiddling around at the $200,000 level is fine but why not get to the point and seriously tax the very wealthy and corporations who don't pay their fair share. All you have to accept ideologically is the idea of a Commons shared by all and that's in no way terribly radical. We should go all the way back to the pre-Reagan rates. That's when the ruination of the USA began. Hippies haven't caused this mess despite this forum's general hate for them and illusions about how we got here. Reagan started it and every president since has continued the destruction of government and the slide into corporate fascism.

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

"All you have to accept ideologically is the idea of a Commons shared by all and that's in no way terribly radical."

Sadly, with the socialist occupant of the White House we currently have the misfortune to bear, that idea isn't terribly radical any more.

It is, however, called 'communism', and in case you haven't read the papers, it didn't work.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

"Reagan started it and every president since has continued the destruction of government and the slide into corporate fascism."

Reagan started out a committed Roosevelt Democrat, because growing up poor in Illinois, New Deal policies made life bearable for him and millions others like him.

Once he started making big bucks in Hollywood, and was hit with the 90% tax bracket (instituted to help pay for WWII,) all of a sudden he became a rabid anti-communist who believed government is inherently evil, (except when it was working for the benefit of his millionaire political patrons.)

In other words, self-serving, self-absorbed, willing to recite made-up facts to further his agenda of making the country safe for billionaires, and screw everyone else.

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

So, taking someone else's money to support your lazy rear-end isn't self-serving and self-absorbed, Herr Klowne?




just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

You keep going on about my having stolen someone's money, nota.

Now I understand that your frontal lobes, if they ever functioned at all, are badly atrophied, but perhaps buried away in your reptile mind you can positively identify exactly when this said larceny occurred, and who the poor victim was.

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

Oh, I forgot - to Herr Klowne, taking money from the bourgeoisie to give to the proletariat is a noble endeavor, not theft. My apologies, Herr Klowne, forgot who I was talking to.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

I guess this means that there is no search function on your reptilian brain.

Bob_Keeshan 8 years, 1 month ago

For those interested in statistics about the average tax burden on different income groups, remember that those stats are per capita.

The number of people in each income group is irrelevant. It is important to consider the total tax burden because the income tax is supposed to be the progressive component of that total burden.

It's a shame the usual suspects are bringing their boorish behavior into this discussion and attempting to downplay basic facts. Again, they are free to tell the government to keep their money, not tax cut wanted thank you very much.

I'm sure they all did the same with the tax cut they got from the federal stimulus bill.

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

"For those interested in statistics about the average tax burden on different income groups, remember that those stats are per capita."

I apologize for not reading it as thoroughly as I might have.

Then again, neither did you. It's not 'per capita', it's per family.

Which doesn't exactly make it a direct comparison, does it? Then again, there aren't too many direct comparisons in the entire report you cited. It's rife with references to 'the poor', but that's a relative term, since it's the lowest 20% of families in each state. There's a pretty big difference between a family in that lowest 20% in someplace like Stamford, CT, and a family in the lowest 20% in Topeka.

And hey, here's a newsflash for you, bobbie - people that make less money tend to spend a higher percentage of their income on everything. Duh. Got any other exciting altruisms for us?

Maybe you're suggesting the same solution there, too, bobbie? People who make more money should pay more for a car to make yours cheaper? Maybe we should charge them more for groceries. And gas. Hey, how about a graduated property tax?

None of what you continue to blather about changes a single thing, bobbie. No matter how you try to slice it, no matter how much you try to distract and distort and accuse others of 'boorish' behavior, your argument is still that you want people who make more money than you do to pay your bills for you. I'd much rather be a boor than a leech, bobbie, but you seem to have settled comfortably into the latter choice of lifestyles.

George Lippencott 8 years, 1 month ago

Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…

You might want to look at the percentage of all the wealth held by persons by income group. Turns out from the last data I saw (may have been an Obama plant) the richest pay just about proportional to the wealth they hold - no progressivity. Thay pay a high percentage of taxes paid but hold a very high percentage of the wealth.

Maybe taxes should be on your wealth and not your income?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

"Maybe taxes should be on your wealth and not your income?"

The closest we have to that is the estate tax, which fewer than 1% of the population ever pay, but it sure gets the demagogic treatment as a "death tax."

beatrice 8 years, 1 month ago

I love the way notajayhawk tries to condescend to everyone (and for you, nota, condescend means "to talk down to.") It reminds me of listening to a rant about the lack of civility from Glenn Beck. Too funny, nota, too funny.

Instead of just having a tax on the wealthy, why not just raise the tax rate at which income earned from dividends are taxed. It would be the same tax on dividends for those who make $50,000 a year as it would for those who make millions. There, that would be fair for everyone.

Oh sure, those who have more stocks will pay more, but the rate will be the same. It is akin to paying more in property taxes because you live in a larger home. You can't say it isn't fair if the rate is the same across the board, now can you?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 1 month ago

For folks like nota, entertaining any notions of "fairness" is a sign of a very weak inner johnwayneness. This must be avoided at all cost, which requires equating "fairness" with theft, and all manner of other moral depravities.

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

Awww, look, boohoohoozo and bea are buddies. Isn't that cute.

And not a functioning brain between them, too.

Still waiting for either of you - or anyone else - to explain what, other than your monstrous sense of entitlement, gives you the right to anyone else's money just because they have more.

Bob_Keeshan 8 years, 1 month ago

Kudos to those of you keeping the conversation focused on Kansas tax policy and not policies for those eastern states like Connecticut or New Jersey.

Hard to find relevance in that nonsense.

Just to reiterate - the income tax is, by its nature, progressive. It is part of a balanced tax policy, a balance that simply cannot be found in the so-called "flat tax".

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

Well, bobbie, it was your source, after all. You know - the report you cited that gave the relative tax burdens in the 50 states and all.

But you want to focus only on Kansas, bobbie? Where does Kansas rank in the fairness category? Here, I'll save you the trouble of reading the source you cited (apparently for the first time): Kansas' tax policy is pretty equitable already, isn't it? With the exception of the top one percent or so (for whom the burden is never going to be equitable), the burden is pretty much the same across the board, isn't it?

Another nice attempt at distraction, bobbie. Thanks again for playing.

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

Compared to the folks in Lawrence, eddie, Mao Tse-Tung was a right-wing fascist.

Lacy Mohler 8 years, 1 month ago

In Kansas aren't dividends taxed as ordinary income? Don't know if you can get more fair than that? To screw Kansas open a traditional IRA.

I have always felt that Kansas should ban sales and income tax (fuel tax too) and make all levels of government survive off of property tax. Then you would see government hold the line on spending. People hate that property tax bill, but it is deductible on Federal Income Tax. Although I'm sure at some point Pelosi and Obama will try to get rid of all home related deductions--after all not all people can afford to buy a home. We all should be living in government housing. Can't we all just be the same!!!

notajayhawk 8 years, 1 month ago

What? Heresy! Cut spending instead of raising (someone else's) taxes? Why, that's just insane! Just ask any of the entitled leeches in Lawrence - how would they survive if not suckling at the government nipple?

igby 8 years, 1 month ago

Anyone with Six Million dollars should get the heck out of Kansas, anyway! I know that I would!

Stephen Roberts 8 years, 1 month ago

Why doesn't Hensley suggest the following:

  1. Reducing the amount of charitable deductions given to churches by 1/2 allowed on the federal return?

  2. Imposing a tax on Ku Athletics and other "not for profits"

Bob_Keeshan 8 years, 1 month ago

Reading through these posts, can anyone find the poster whose livelihood is dependent upon government funding?

Can anyone find the one poster who is on a daily basis sucking on the government nipple? The one poster who, when the state eliminates funding for mental health centers, will be out of work?

And yes, "sucking on the government nipple" is a hint.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.