Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Brownback says he will push for reducing state personal income tax rate

Kansas governor Sam Brownback disclosed who he considers to be the leading candidate for the Republican party in the 2012 presidential race.

December 13, 2011, 12:20 p.m. Updated December 13, 2011, 4:04 p.m.

Advertisement

Gov. Sam Brownback on Tuesday said he will push to reduce the state personal income tax rate and overhaul the school finance system.

Speaking to reporters and editors at the Lawrence Journal-World, Brownback said growing the state economy is his primary goal as he prepares for his second legislative session as governor. The 2012 session starts Jan. 9.

The state needed to be ready for a “federal storm” of budget cuts from Washington, said Brownback, a former U.S. Senator. Whoever the next president is, he said, “is going to cut.”

Brownback, a Republican, said he wants to lower the state’s individual income tax rate to make it the second lowest in the region, behind Colorado. Kansas now has the second highest personal income tax rate in relation to neighboring states.

He predicted the lowered tax rates would spur economic growth, which then should be plowed back into more tax cuts. At this point, he said, he would not propose lowering the state corporate income tax.

Brownback also reiterated his desire to revamp the school finance formula, saying the current funding system was under constant legal challenge. General concepts of his plan include allowing more local property tax funding of schools, which has raised concerns about increasing the disparity between rich and poor districts.

But he backed off a key part of his proposal, saying he will not recommend allowing counties to raise sales taxes for schools. He said there had been a lot of opposition to that idea. Details of his school funding method are scheduled to be released today. (Wed)

On other issues, Brownback:

• Said the budget proposal he will send to legislators will recommend resumption of state funding of the Lawrence office of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

The city and county picked up the lease costs of the local SRS office after Brownback and SRS Secretary Robert Siedlecki Jr. proposed closing nine offices, including the one in Lawrence.

That closure proposal prompted a public outcry from local officials who said closing the Lawrence office would have created havoc in the community and disrupted services to thousands of needy people.

Later, Siedlecki agreed to a plan for city of Lawrence and Douglas County taxpayers to pay the rent for the SRS building, and he would pursue legislative approval to fund the office in future years.

Asked if he would have done anything differently during the controversy, Brownback said he probably should have asked for advice from former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat. Brownback said Sebelius closed numerous SRS offices without any controversy.

• Called for construction of the controversial, $150 million South Lawrence Trafficway. “This one has got to get done. It is going to get done,” he said.

• Said he planned to revisit his veto of state funding of the Kansas Arts Commission but refused to elaborate. Brownback’s veto of funds made Kansas the only state to not fund the arts and cost Kansas $1.2 million in federal matching dollars.

• Voiced support for a study commission’s recommendation to replace the state’s traditional pension plan for a 401(k)-like plan for new public employees hired after July 1, 2013.

• ­­Continued his support of Texas Gov. Rick Perry for the Republican nomination for president. “He has a great track record,” Brownback said. He said Republican voters have become more conservative and they are “anxious to scared” about the future of the country.

Comments

cato_the_elder 2 years, 10 months ago

This is welcome news. Reducing personal income tax rates is an excellent vehicle for business growth, job creation, and the overall improvement of the economy of Kansas.

0

cato_the_elder 2 years, 10 months ago

Your Pavlovian response is noted.

0

cato_the_elder 2 years, 10 months ago

Do you have something more to add? I was merely commenting on, not responding to, a response to what I had posted by someone who calls himself or herself "pavlovs_dog."

Perhaps the "P" in your moniker also stands for "Pavlov."

0

Jimo 2 years, 10 months ago

This from the job destroyer who said "The notion that the Bush administration is responsible for the state of our economy when Obama took over is the biggest lie promulgated by the Hard Left in my lifetime."

0

cato_the_elder 2 years, 10 months ago

On the contrary, it was, and remains, the biggest lie promulgated by the Hard Left in my lifetime. The state of our economy when Obama took over was caused directly by severe abuses in the mortgage lending market on the part of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, originally engineered by Jimmy Carter and then by Bill Clinton, and fully implemented thereafter by Franklin Raines, Christopher Dodd, and Barney Frank, among others. The Bush administration tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie's practices, to no avail. Raines, Dodd, and Frank all ought to be in jail for what they did.

Of course, that's not what you have been spoon-fed by the Daily Kos, MSNBC, and Michael Moore. Moreover, since you have previously stated on this forum that "The only feudalism we have in America is the concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of a few," your radical views on forced wealth redistribution by government deprive you of any credibility.

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 10 months ago

LOL! The h3!! you say?!?!

CNN; 17 June 2002--Bush aims to boost minority home ownership. "President Bush touted his goal Monday of boosting minority home ownership by 5.5 million before the end of the decade through grants to low-income families and credits to developers."

White House Press Release; 15 October 2002 - President Hosts Conference on Minority Home Ownership. "In June, President Bush announced an aggressive homeownership agenda to dismantle barriers to homeownership by providing down payment assistance, increasing the supply of affordable homes, increasing support for self-help homeownership programs, and simplifying the homebuying process and increasing education. The President also issued "America's Homeownership Challenge" to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to join in his effort to increase the number of minority homeowners by taking concrete steps to tear down the barriers to homeownership that face minority families."

Remember Hank Paulson? Bush's Secretary of Treasury? LOL! Well, he worked for Tricky Dick Nixon before Bush....Anywho, check out what your boy BushCo did! So innocent...all they wanted to do was help the minorities, eh? Get a clue, Sherlock!

In April 2007 Paulson delivered an upbeat assessment of the economy, saying growth was healthy and the housing market was nearing a turnaround. "All the signs I look at" show "the housing market is at or near the bottom," Paulson said in a speech to a business group in New York. The U.S. economy is "very healthy" and "robust," Paulson said.

In August 2007, Secretary Paulson explained that U.S. subprime mortgage fallout remained largely contained due to the strongest global economy in decades.

In May 2008, The Wall Street Journal wrote that Paulson said U.S. financial markets are emerging from the credit crunch that many economists believe has pushed the country to the brink of recession. "I do believe that the worst is likely to be behind us," Paulson said.

On July 20, 2008, after the failure of Indymac Bank, Paulson reassured the public by saying, “it's a safe banking system, a sound banking system. Our regulators are on top of it. This is a very manageable situation."

On August 10, 2008, Secretary Paulson told NBC’s Meet the Press that he had no plans to inject any capital into Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.[24] On September 7, 2008, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went into conservatorship.

Time Magazine puts Bush and Paulson in the top 25 people to blame for the economic crash. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877320,00.html

Two are as crooked as a dog's hind-leg. But, hey, don't let the truth get in the way of that zipper--cato the sucker.

How Paulson Gave Hedge Funds Advance Word of Fannie Mae Rescue. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-29/how-henry-paulson-gave-hedge-funds-advance-word-of-2008-fannie-mae-rescue.html

0

cato_the_elder 2 years, 10 months ago

By all means, don't let the facts get in the way of your BDS. The Bush administration tried multiple times to rein in Fannie and Freddie's excesses once they became apparent, to no avail. That's a fact.

It would be a better use of your time to look up Dodd's and Frank's no-holds-barred assurances to the public that nothing was wrong with Fannie and Freddie, even into 2007. They both received big favors from each of them, and that's why they both should be in jail - as I earlier stated.

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 10 months ago

The point is BOTH sides are to blame... BOTH sides are playing the game. BOTH SIDES! Stop fricking pointing fingers at just one side...They're both responsible. If you've read many of my posts you know I blame both republicrats and democans for the state of our nation. They both have sold out to the banksters and big business. Abandon the partisan BS. You're only helping them continue to rape our country. Wake up. EOM

0

cato_the_elder 2 years, 10 months ago

While the Bush administration had its faults in a number of areas, No Child Left Behind being one of them, it bears no responsibility for the subprime crisis. That crisis was enabled by ridiculous lending policies begun by Carter, put on steroids by Clinton (who also signed into law the repeal of key portions of Glass-Steagall), fully implemented by Franklin Raines and supported by Dodd, Frank, Obama and a number of other politicians on the take.

First learn the history of this, and then get your facts straight, pal.

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 10 months ago

And Hank Paulson bears no responsibility? LOL! Wake the eff up.

0

cato_the_elder 2 years, 10 months ago

The horse was way, way out of the barn by the time Paulson came along.

You obviously know nothing about the history of the subprime crisis. As I said earlier, you need to get your facts straight before exposing your lack of knowledge on the subject.

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 10 months ago

Thanks for catching the right wing zealots in another lie. They seem to have a propensity of manufacturing facts to suit their argument.

0

cato_the_elder 2 years, 10 months ago

"They seem to have a propensity of manufacturing facts to suit their argument."

That describes Barack Obama and his handlers quite well. They've been lying through their teeth on pretty much everything since he took office, and will continue to do so after he leaves office in January of 2013.

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

cato_the_elder 2 years, 10 months ago

You earlier told me to have a short life, and now you speak to me in Latin using language that could be interpreted as a death threat.

I hope you're kidding. If not, you have no business posting on this forum.

0

werekoala 2 years, 10 months ago

Ah, yes, the old canard of how, if it weren't for the mean old gubbermint, each Rugged Individual(TM) could buy his own court system, negotiate his own international treaties, and test his own food and drinking water.

Look, the 20th century showed us all too clearly the dangers of authoritarian government run amok. I just wonder what it's going to take for folks like you to have a similar revelation about the dangers of corporate oligarchies, if the last decade hasn't done it.

0

kochmoney 2 years, 10 months ago

We'll get the services. They'll just be foisted onto cities as property taxes. Thanks for the property rate increase, Brownback.

0

Cant_have_it_both_ways 2 years, 10 months ago

Maybe people should be made to work? How about lets start with taking fat people off of disability, and park them in front of a telemarketing station if all they are going to do is sit around all day anyway? Everyone has something they can do to be productive and put into the system. The lazy way is to pay drunks for being drunk, fat for being fat, lazy for being lazy, career moms for having more kids... you get the picture. Take these moochers out of the system, and there will be ample money for the services for those who really need it.

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 10 months ago

Great idea! We can take all the 'moochers' and turn them into food for the rest.

0

gccs14r 2 years, 10 months ago

The state already can't pay its bills. Reducing revenue won't fix that. If you want businesses to locate here, you need education, healthcare, and culture.

0

kochmoney 2 years, 10 months ago

I'm having a hard time understanding his insistence that federal money is going to be cut, so we need to preemptively lower taxes and cut state services. if federal money were really being cut, shouldn't we do the opposite?

0

Fossick 2 years, 10 months ago

The next President (most likely Obama) is not going to cut anything. If the Federal government can't get rid of public television in a world of 500 channels, they are not going to cut anything that matters or in amounts that matter.

At least not while borrow/print is still an option.

0

Gary Anderson 2 years, 10 months ago

Historically, only 15~20% of the aggregate revenues of all public broadcasting stations have been funded from federal sources...the rest comes from public donations.

0

Fossick 2 years, 10 months ago

If correct, your numbers make the point even better. If the feds can't cut non-critical funding of a non-critical program, they can't really cut anything.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 months ago

Non-critical? An educated populace is indispensable in a democracy. But Republicans have demonstrated quite well that they don't really give a crap about democracy.

0

Fossick 2 years, 10 months ago

Educated populace /= government-funded television. Just in case that was not obvious.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 months ago

Government-funded ≠ bad, evil or even undesirable, either.

Just in case.

0

Fossick 2 years, 10 months ago

Now we are getting somewhere. If you answer my assertion with "either," then you must agree with it. Good, we can throw out the "educated populace" argument.

We can also throw out the "Republicans have demonstrated" argument for 2 reasons. The first is that we still have PBS even after all-Republican government, which proves they want it. And second, I'm not a Republican and have no interest whatsoever in what they want.

So we are back to even "non-critical" spending won't be cut What was your problem with my argument again?

0

Liberty275 2 years, 10 months ago

I always thought schools were for educating the populace. NPR is merely a left-wing mouthpiece. I know because it's all I listen to in the Subaru. I hear the left's arguments before they make them here. That's why I'm never surprised by how dumb they are.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

kochmoney 2 years, 10 months ago

That whole "not since FDR" thing need not apply when your only competition comes from a parade of clowns.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 months ago

"If the Federal government can't get rid of public television in a world of 500 channels,"

But if they ever did, it really would be "500 channels, and nothing's on."

0

texburgh 2 years, 10 months ago

"He said economic growth from the lowered tax rates should be plowed back into more tax cuts."

In other words, cut income taxes to reduce revenue available for education and the social service safety net. Then...IF it results in more jobs and more taxes being paid, cut those taxes more so that we will permanently institutionalize the cuts that education and the social service safety net have already absorbed.

He should go out on the statehouse steps and make a speech: "No money today, no money tomorrow, no money forever!"

0

kochmoney 2 years, 10 months ago

Exactly. He's now talking from magical thinking land and hoping his constituents are too stupid to notice. He's probably right.

0

George_Braziller 2 years, 10 months ago

Fair? For whom? If you're making $25,000 a year it's 2.0% of your entire income.

Making $300,000 a year? It's less than 0.17%

Oh yeah. THAT'S fair.

0

Jimo 2 years, 10 months ago

An excellent suggestion .... if your goal is violent insurrection. "Hmmm.... $500 to subsidize Newt Romney or $500 for an Uzi. So very difficult to choose."

Democracy could never survive such an absurdist scheme to subsidize the wealthy at public expense.

You do realize that if you make less than about $200k a year, you will never pay in lifetime taxes more than the lifetime government benefits you collect back? The average per person deficit for Medicare alone is approaching $300k.

How about we just start eating the babies of the poor? I hear from Gingrich they taste just like veal. And by ending their lives early we guarantee their souls' eternal salvation! Win-Win.

Sorry, the only "fair" tax is one that is collected in proportion to the benefits accorded from our society. If--like the Koch Bros.--you inherited your billions from daddy thanks to our economic, legal, security, social, and political system then you can just pay your share to keep everything going. Don't like it? Move to Somalia where there are 0 taxes and 0 regulations.

0

Fossick 2 years, 10 months ago

"You do realize that if you make less than about $200k a year, you will never pay in lifetime taxes more than the lifetime government benefits you collect back?"

Sounds to me like the not-wealthy aren't paying their fair share.

0

Fossick 2 years, 10 months ago

"pay in lifetime taxes ... the lifetime government benefits you collect back"

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 months ago

Yea, that kid with cerebral palsy who will never even come close to pulling his own weight really chaps my behind. Doesn't he understand how "unfair" that is? What a loser!!!

0

Fossick 2 years, 10 months ago

How about Mr. $199k / yr who does not pay his own benefits as per Jimo's numbers? Mr. $70k? Mr. 50k? Are all of them to be equated with with the helpless too?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 months ago

Not sure where Jimo got his information, so I'm not going to attempt to defend the particulars.

But I'm perfectly OK with a reasonable, progressive approach to taxation.

And as I've said many times, in an economic system that is designed (and even celebrated) to be unfair, the notion that taxes, and only taxes, should be "fair" is clearly absurd.

0

Fossick 2 years, 10 months ago

If his information was correct, would you agree that a person making $200,000 ought to not be getting more benefit from the government than they are paying for? That subsidizing those who will earn $1.6 million dollars over the course of Obama's 2 terms can afford to pay their own way?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 months ago

Well, I don't believe it's correct. Do you?

0

Fossick 2 years, 10 months ago

I haven't the faintest doubt that Jimo would give us the whole truth and nothing but, properly sourced and verified by a pair of AP "fact check" articles.

So how about an answer?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 months ago

Oh,come on. If you want to argue with Jimo about the figures he provided, take it up with him, not me.

But to give you a general answer to the question I can only assume you're trying to pose, I would think that, on average, those persons who earn the equivalent of $200,000 per year for a significant portion of their work lives, should (and probably do) pay somewhat more, on average, in taxes than they get back, on average, in direct benefits.

That, of course, doesn't take into account at all the fact that the richer you are, the more use you get out of all the stuff that's theoretically free to everyone.

0

Fossick 2 years, 10 months ago

"If you want to argue with Jimo about the figures he provided, take it up with him..."

I don't wish to argue them; I accepted them as written and drew the logical conclusion from them - the vast majority of people, not just the crippled, are not paying their own way. It's not coincidental that these are the loudest screamers that those who pay for nearly everything are not paying their "fair share."

But since it was you who jumped in and asked me to define 'fair,' I could only assume that you wished to discuss it. My bad. I would only say that I have no expectation that those with cerebral palsy, or only 1 leg, or an IQ under 80 pay for their own benefits. But I expect it's only fair that everyone else does.

0

kochmoney 2 years, 10 months ago

They can cry in their gold-plated beers.

0

overthemoon 2 years, 10 months ago

You'd really like a corporate fascist state, wouldn't you?

0

Centerville 2 years, 10 months ago

If taxpayer money is still used for radio and TV, we can easily afford a huge tax cut.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 months ago

Hey, Jesus fed a few thousand people with a couple fish and a loaf of bread. Sam's just trying to do the same thing with taxes. Only thing is, if you ain't rich already, Sam won't be dishing anything up on your plate.

0

Jimo 2 years, 10 months ago

'He said economic growth from the lowered tax rates should be plowed back into more tax cuts."

A) Tax rates have little connection to economic growth.

B) That's "tax cuts" for wealthy people since income taxes are taxes on wealth - a key point.

C) So ... when the economic growth fails to materialize (again) and the state's revenues fall short (again) what's the plan to balance the budget? Why the pie-in-sky, tax fairy optimism? Why doesn't Brownback announce right up front the future spending programs that will have to be eliminated in a few more years?

D) Can Brownback cite a single reputable economist who'll say this scheme will work? (No, Art Laffer ain't a reputable economist! Sorry, Newt, economist, not historian.)

0

Amberella83 2 years, 10 months ago

AMEN to that! Unfortunately, unless our neighbors who only listen to tradition and their parents' views and are incapable of educating themselves on this situation decide to speak up or vote for someone who is not a right-wing nut job next term, I'm afraid this is our future in KS. Sad.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 months ago

Drown them in the bathtub is how the God of Awful Government puts it.

0

Kate Rogge 2 years, 10 months ago

Just how much individual responsibility do you think children have? How about physically and mentally handicapped people? How about the mentally ill? Is it your view that everyone receiving social services is a liar and a fraud? How very convenient for you. Everyone's a thief and you're just calling them out on it, huh?

0

Kate Rogge 2 years, 10 months ago

Oh, for heaven's sake. If we agree that neither of us supports hurting kids and the handicapped, then we both agree that our community - that's you, me, and the rest of us - will help them when necessary. If your actual complaint is that able-bodied adults who are not the sole caretakers for needy children or handicapped should be working rather than receiving aid, well then I say I agree with you there, too.

0

LogicMan 2 years, 10 months ago

Reduce, no! Not unless spending is cut even more.

But do clean up the tax brackets and rates. Propose more brackets to better match the Federal ones, with a low percentage at the bottom and gradually increase it to the top bracket.

0

kochmoney 2 years, 10 months ago

The top bracket is ridiculously low, and the rate is far too flat, but fat chance Brownback will touch it.

0

kochmoney 2 years, 10 months ago

I hear they have that rate in Somalia.

0

kochmoney 2 years, 10 months ago

When the government is truly small enough to drown in a bathtub, the effective rate is zero no matter what the theoretical rate may be. Well, other than the "taxes" at gunpoint by robbers and rebelling militant groups.

0

Fossick 2 years, 10 months ago

But it's really good cheese.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 months ago

I'm sure you can come up with a final solution.

0

Orwell 2 years, 10 months ago

Sure, sure... Because other states couldn't possibly play "Name That Rate" and undercut any Kansas reduction.

Instead, let's try a flat reduction – every Kansan gets a refundable tax cut of X dollars. Stimulate demand, increase sales tax revenue, retain population and keep the money in state.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 months ago

I like it. I mean, if everyone gets the same thing, it's "fair," right?

0

Ockhams_Razor 2 years, 10 months ago

Bring back flogging, stockades, and collateralized debt obligations.

0

Jan Rolls 2 years, 10 months ago

Rick perry the guy that doesn't even know how many supreme justices there are? That's right he can surround himself with experts that can tell him the answer. Sorry DUMMIE you aren't going to be a vice presidential nominee.

0

Cant_have_it_both_ways 2 years, 10 months ago

Or Obama not knowing how many states there are in the Union.

0

average 2 years, 10 months ago

Last I checked, Kansas had a lower unemployment rate than Colorado. Yep, in fact it does, by more than a full percentage point. Lower crime rates, slightly lower childhood poverty. Better test scores.

Texas? Colorado? Why are we so dead-set on following the lead of states that are doing WORSE than we are? Innate inferiority complex? Or just an absolute fixation on growth for growth's sake as the only valuable measure?

0

Katara 2 years, 10 months ago

Awesome, Brownback. Shove all the responsibility to the local level and force the local level to raise property taxes.

The end result will be increased foreclosures as people will be taxed out of their homes.

As we all know, foreclosures have stimulated the economy oh so well. They bring the jobs in, you know.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 10 months ago

So you're willing to pay 18% of assessed value per year in real estate taxes? (That's the going rate in TN, which has no income tax.) It seems income taxes (especially progressive ones) would be cheaper, even if you were a gazillionaire.

0

bad_dog 2 years, 10 months ago

Perhaps Jane rents rather than owns?

0

jafs 2 years, 10 months ago

Yes, but if property taxes go up, then you'll pay more in them instead of more income tax. And, of course, one hopes that the value of one's home doesn't in fact stay the same, but increases over time.

cait's post suggests that in states without income tax, people pay at least as much in property taxes, and possibly more.

If that's the case, then you'd be better off with income tax than property tax.

0

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 10 months ago

Brownback claims his goal is to spur economic growth. His stated strategy is tax cuts followed by more tax cuts. Tax cuts NEVER result in tax cuts. Taxes are invested in things the economy needs like public education, law enforcement, highways, etc. His real goal is to cripple state government with something like TABOR which most politicians in Colorado now wish they didn't have. He wants this because the Koch brothers believe taxes prevent them from raping the land for profit...not just the taxes they pay but also the taxes all of us pay. Restructuring state agencies plays into all of this as well.

0

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 10 months ago

I meant tax cuts never spur economic growth...detracted typing isn't as dangerous as distracted driving...

0

pace 2 years, 10 months ago

Why is King Brownback call the Koch bros income tax, personal. Is he filling out the form for them. I bet there is a job for every 50,000 tax break they get. I don't mean a job but the thought of a job.

0

pace 2 years, 10 months ago

Hi liar, you going to apologize for lying? Your voice and words stand for nothing. You live in fear, that is why you resort to lies rather than argument.

0

mloburgio 2 years, 10 months ago

As Tea Party Koch Brothers Earned An Extra $11 Billion In Recent Years, They Laid Off Thousands

However, at a time when the Koch brothers were enjoying spectacular financial gains, Koch Industries laid off well over 2,000 people. Using the same approximate “jobs multiplier” Koch Industries used in its study last week, that means Koch Industries extinguished nearly 8,000 jobs in recent years: http://www.dirtandseeds.com/the-koch-brothers-fund-the-tea-party-make-billions-lay-of-workers/

0

Alexander Smith 2 years, 10 months ago

Proof that giving massive tax breaks to big corps...that money ends up going into the wallets of the stock holders.

0

pace 2 years, 10 months ago

Are you suggesting the giant tax breaks given to the wealthiest aren't creating jobs. The natural result is the wealthiest just pocket the money and the burdens of infrastructure fall unfairly on the not wealthiest. My gosh, I think you got it.

0

kochmoney 2 years, 10 months ago

Fair enough. So if tax cuts don't create jobs, why are we handing them out as if they do?

0

mloburgio 2 years, 10 months ago

Comparing pensions

A legislator retiring with an annualized pay of $85,820.52, and with 10 years' service, would have an annual KPERS benefit of $15,018.60, for a monthly benefit of $1,251.55, according to KPERS. If the retiring legislator had 20 years' service, the annual benefit would be $30,037.20, and monthly, $2,503.10.

The News asked some KPERS retirees about their pension benefits. Their answers varied widely.

A state employee who was a supervisor for juveniles on probation retired after 34 years with an annual benefit of about $25,000. A municipal wastewater treatment plant superintendent, with 24 years' service, estimated the earned benefit at $2,300 to $2,400 monthly.

A state social services worker in a supervisory role retired in 1995 after 15 years and draws a monthly KPERS benefit of $524. That is equal to the monthly benefit for a county-level commercial appraiser who retired at 65, vested at nine years with KPERS.

'Insult"

http://hutchnews.com/Todaystop/kpers-and-leg-2--2

0

mloburgio 2 years, 10 months ago

Comparing pensions

A legislator retiring with an annualized pay of $85,820.52, and with 10 years' service, would have an annual KPERS benefit of $15,018.60, for a monthly benefit of $1,251.55, according to KPERS. If the retiring legislator had 20 years' service, the annual benefit would be $30,037.20, and monthly, $2,503.10.

The News asked some KPERS retirees about their pension benefits. Their answers varied widely.

A state employee who was a supervisor for juveniles on probation retired after 34 years with an annual benefit of about $25,000. A municipal wastewater treatment plant superintendent, with 24 years' service, estimated the earned benefit at $2,300 to $2,400 monthly.

A state social services worker in a supervisory role retired in 1995 after 15 years and draws a monthly KPERS benefit of $524. That is equal to the monthly benefit for a county-level commercial appraiser who retired at 65, vested at nine years with KPERS.

'Insult"

http://hutchnews.com/Todaystop/kpers-and-leg-2--2

0

mloburgio 2 years, 10 months ago

Kansas leaders to consider settlement in Phill Kline case TOPEKA | Gov. Sam Brownback and Kansas legislative leaders expect to consider a proposed settlement Wednesday of a lawsuit against former Attorney General Phill Kline that was filed by a woman who claimed he fired her from a county prosecutor's office for complaining about sex discrimination.

The governor and the Legislature's eight top leaders were set to meet as the State Finance Council, which must approve settlements of lawsuits against state employees. The claims against Kline arise from his actions as Johnson County district attorney in 2007, but he still was considered a state official.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/12/13/3318219/kansas-leaders-to-consider-...

you have to love christian republicans , they hate in the name of god!

0

ljwhirled 2 years, 10 months ago

Awesome! The Bush administration proved that cutting taxes spurs job creation and economic growth.

Look at how much our nation's economy grew and prospered from 2000 to 2008.

Can't wait to see that kind of growth and prosperity here in Kansas!

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 10 months ago

US GDP Real Growth Rate

1998 4.355 1999 4.826 2000 4.139 2001 1.079 2002 1.814 2003 2.541 2004 3.468 2005 3.07 2006 2.658 2007 1.913 2008 -0.337

0

Don Whiteley 2 years, 10 months ago

What reducing taxes does, especially Bush's, is create massive government debt. What it also does is move debt burden from us to our children to our grandchildren and on out. Somewhere in grade school we learned that 2 take away10 creates a negative number. Unfortunately, many government economists never graduated.

0

kochmoney 2 years, 10 months ago

The chart does not say what you think it says. It lists spending as a percentage of the GDP. Unemployment goes up during recessions, and the GDP goes down. The same dollar amount of spending will be a higher percentage of the GDP during a recession, even if it stays at exactly the same level. Looks to me like that chart actually says that people get unemployed during recessions. Who knew?

0

firebird27 2 years, 10 months ago

Without taking a liberal or conservative stance, I believe there are some matters that merit agreement.

1) We need to eliminate any state deficits and to reduce the national deficit. 2) Tax breaks should serve both private and public interests. A tax break for a wealthy person makes sense if that tax break is tied to jobs that the wealthy person creates. Allowing a tax break to someone who strictly invests in stock market portfolios does not directly create a job, and many companies in those portfolios are not based in the USA. 3) We should not allow the real poor to be desolate, whether we help them publicly or privately. 4) We should be very careful as to how we fund this nation's military. We have become the world's policemen while other countries do not pay their way, either in funds or deaths, as does the USA. This is a likely place to reduce spending (but like all federal cuts, reducing spending will reduce jobs). But the public burden to provide health care for future veterans would be significantly reduced. 5) If we make the funding of local schools increasingly a local responsibility, we will have to address the consequences of western Kansas not having sufficient funds to educate children in the area, probably causing a further erosion of population in that region. Should we do this or not?

Government funding is inextricably linked to private outcomes. Deciding on what outcomes we want has much to do with what we decide to tax or not to tax to reach (or not reach) legislated ends.

0

Don Whiteley 2 years, 10 months ago

All I want to know is when will you be running for office? Any candidate seeking election with this platform has my vote, my dollars, and all of my support!

The only thing I would add is making sure corporate tax breaks do not apply for creating jobs outside the U.S. borders. The old addage of what was good for business was good for America flew out the window with globalization. When government support results in increased business and the jobs associated with that business are created off-shore, the only ones in America who benefit are corporate executives.

0

JackMcKee 2 years, 10 months ago

How is this fair to the elderly that played by the rules, planned and now have investments that are exempt from income taxes so they can afford retirement. Now you're telling them that THEY have to pay more taxes for other people's kids to go to school when they have been paying into the system their entire lives. Why should they live on less so the richest 2000 Kansans can take an extra trip to Paris each Spring? The same goes for the person on SSD. You're going to ask them to pay more taxes so the Kochs can afford another private jet? This plan isn't fair in the least.

0

kochmoney 2 years, 10 months ago

It's especially unfair since they'll tax the cash poor retirees but exempt the fast food chains.

0

William Weissbeck 2 years, 10 months ago

We already know that scientific evidence is a foreign concept to the GOP. Now we can add mathematics. Bush's tax cuts did not spur any increase in GDP. People forget that Reagan first lowered, then raised rates, before we had a boom. It wasn't the lower of tax rates, but the jaw boning of interest rates by the Fed. So why does the governor think that the formula has some how changed?

0

KS 2 years, 10 months ago

About time! Less taxation is better.

0

motercyclejim 2 years, 10 months ago

Brownback should run for ofice in 2012!!! He would win becuse hes a cristian and he dosnt think peeple should pay any taxxes and i agree!!!! Imaggine how muhc more money you would have rite now if you didnt have to pay taxxes it woudl be great!!!!!!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.