Letters to the Editor

Tax exemptions

February 19, 2011


To the editor:

There are two reports all Kansas taxpayers should read: “Sales Tax Erosion in Kansas” by Dr. John D. Wong and “Erosion of the Tax Base in Kansas” by Kansas Action for Children. Both of these reports are available online.

There has been a concerted effort to reduce our state’s income. We are told, due to the state’s sluggish economy, there are fewer funds available for public schools, for Head Start, for the Kansas Neurological Institute, and many other important and necessary services. However, it is the Legislature eroding the tax base that has placed our state in a dire budgetary predicament and required cuts to vital services.

The Kansas Department of Revenue estimates tax exemptions cost the state more than $4 billion annually, which is more than the amount collected in sales and use taxes each year. In addition to reducing state revenues, the tax base, which had been progressive in 1995, has become much more regressive due to these tax exemptions. Those Kansans with lower incomes are paying a greater portion of their income in taxes versus those with higher incomes.

Many members of the Legislature have been elected promoting lower taxes. But the system created has not meant a smaller burden for lower-income families and it has not been fiscally responsible.

Kansans need to read these reports, discover the long list of exemptions, examine the data, and determine if this system is fair and delivers prosperity for all or only for the few.


Liberty_One 7 years, 4 months ago

Maybe those services aren't so important, necessary and vital as you think they are. Maybe we are better off without them.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 4 months ago

Which ones do you propose eliminating?

And, please, no sweeping ideological statements about the evil government stealing your money at the point of a gun.

Which services do you propose eliminating, and what would the consequences be? Do these consequences concern you? Do you have plan for mitigating any of these consequences, or do you think that a "Darwinian" readjustment is just the thing we need?

Take the elimination of KNI. Should these folks just be shoved out on the street, and let them fend for themselves? If so, given that most of them would be dead within a couple hours to a couple of weeks, I guess your solution would be as quick as it would be final.

tomatogrower 7 years, 4 months ago

Bozo getting a specific answer from LO would be a miracle. Yes, most libertarians are very Darwinian. I went to the convention in California in '79. Many of them stated that if someone is disabled, they should learn to adapt. People shouldn't adapt to them. They also were preaching that all people who are homeless are there by choice. They are very darwinian. If you can't make it, die. But please don't bother me.

notajayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

Gotta' give him credit for a novel argument, though - 'We're too dumb to decide what to cut so we won't cut anything.'

Richard Heckler 7 years, 4 months ago

Perhaps reducing tax collections every year for the past 15 years is not smart economics.

Where are those tax dollars? Where did they go?

Getaroom 7 years, 4 months ago

And look at the lone star state transplant making yet another irrelevant statement. Isn't there a law against transporting lunacy across state borders? Guess not, too bad.... Go get a job cowboy

svenway_park 7 years, 4 months ago

When do you get to go outside for recess, Liberty? Or does the teacher still have you in study hall?

Liberty275 7 years, 4 months ago

LOL. Post after post attacking the poster and not one refuting his ideas. Liberals are failure incarnate.

John Hamm 7 years, 4 months ago

Would have been nice to see a few of the "exemptions" cited.

kugrad 7 years, 4 months ago

Liberty_One, seriously? We are better off without public schools. Headstart is not 'so important?' You are entitled to your opinion, but I would suggest that it would be difficult for a reasonable person to spend much time investigating the value of Headstart programs and conclude that we are better off without them. The Kansas Constitution gives every Kansan the right to an education in public schools. Again, I don't think a reasonable person could investigate the value of Kansas public schools and conclude that we are better off without them. By the way, do you even live in Kansas? Do you even pay Kansas income and property taxes? If you, perhaps you should say that "you" are better off without them, and leave the "we" to Kansans.

OonlyBonly, your quotations seem to serve the purpose of calling the exemptions into question, as though there is doubt that they are actually exemptions. Rest assured that Kansas really does grant tax exemptions, which is why their were numerous debates about this topic in the legislature last year. A letter to the editor is restricted to 250 words, so the author could not provide a list. However, if you are interested, the author did provide a resource to use to find this information.

The author makes an excellent point. Politicians have used the economy to obscure the roots of our current fiscal crisis. The economy didn't erode the Kansas tax base, the legislature did. Over the last 10-15 years, local property owners have been hit with a number of local taxes. The very taxing authority was provided by the legislature to partially offset the cuts they were making in tax cuts. Put simply, while they were cutting the State's share of revenue to local agencies, they were forcing local officials to increase taxes and sometimes changing laws or rules to allow them to do so. The anti-tax crowd was hiding their tax increases. This creates inequity for Kansans. For example, a 1 mil levy increase in Lawrence will generate more than 10 times a 1 mil increase in a small community in Kansas. This inequity then translates from economic inequity to real inequity in the provision of services I would argue are essential.

M_12 7 years, 4 months ago

Can you offer even one example of a country who's children are educated by a completely private system? I didn't think so...

voevoda 7 years, 4 months ago

kugrad, Liberty_One is against all public education, on principle. He is laboring under the impression that public education is a plot by the "totalitarian state" (that is, in reality, any government that actually governs) to indoctrinate people. He assumes that because he gets his information from radical libertarian websites, he is not indoctrinated himself... I tried arguing with Liberty_One once, but it's no use. His mind is closed.

Brent Garner 7 years, 4 months ago

He does not accept your evidence, ergo, his mind is closed? Presumptive aren't you?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 4 months ago

Just because we don't have the same sugar-plum fairies dancing in our heads doesn't mean we are "blind."

labmonkey 7 years, 4 months ago

I grow tired of people demanding that we give more money to the government (or as Merrill thinks, the government should let us keep less of their money). I also grow tired of hearing about school closings when there are new athletic facilities built in the same town. There is so much waste in education spending. Instead of spending the money to actually teach, money is spent on assistant vice principals, teacher's meetings, athletic facilities when there are workable alternatives, and highly paid football coaches. How many highly paid administrators does a school district really need? Why do teachers who have honed their craft over the years be forced to spend their time at in-service meetings? Why not cap what a football coach in a public school can make?

Brent Garner 7 years, 4 months ago

Those in power will do everything to protect their power and their position even at the cost of destroying the system. This is where we are at today. Barring a massive change of attitude by all people, this party is over! Anarchy or tyranny will follow.

Scott Morgan 7 years, 4 months ago

It's the new church mentality. Every minister coming down the pike wants to build a new one or add a section to the church.

School administrators are no different.

It's fun to play with others money. Did anybody read about the mayor of Topeka putting the kibosh on a 170,000 park bathroom? Common sense, we need more. Perhaps we can hire the fellow to run the T.

Jimo 7 years, 4 months ago

Agreed. One can no more refuse to collect tax revenue and then turn around and plead poverty than the allegorical juvenile parental murderer who throws himself on the court's mercy, as he's an orphan.

Living within your means doesn't implying throwing away all your money first. The situation is indistinguishable from a couple returning from a month long European vacation to tell their children there's no money left to pay for college.

SinoHawk 7 years, 4 months ago

They are not "refusing to collect tax revenue", as you suggest. If you want to compare the government to an individual (as you have done above), then living within one's means is an apt point to make. Individuals attempt to maximize lifetime revenue, while keeping lifetime expenditures within that amount. Many, especially the young, chose to take lower income now for the chance of higher income later (i.e. a job with room for growth potential).

The government of Kansas could eliminate all tax exemptions, raise taxes, and do everything generally in its power to raise revenue to exceed the current expenditures. This action would serve to lower our tax-base in the long-run, however.

I personally adhere to the philosophy that the dollars of Kansas individuals and businesses should remain in private hands unless the State has compelling interests to take funds from them. From my perspective, Kansas "living within its means" means that Kansas needs to realize that they can't realistically extract any more money from the citizenry at the moment, and adjusting expenditures to match this reality.

Bob_Keeshan 7 years, 4 months ago

Fairly certain LO has advocated elsewhere for the elimination of tax exemptions in favor of lowering the tax rate for all.

Steve Bradt 7 years, 4 months ago

According to the report, Kansas tax revenues in 1995 were 3.06 billion, which is about 4.4 billion in inflation adjusted 2009 dollars. In 2009 the state collected 5.4 billion. Then throughout the report there are references to dwindling state revenues. Am I missing something?

usnsnp 7 years, 4 months ago

Easiest way is to cut out all tax exemptions. If the legislature had any guts that is what they would do. Why do corporations that make millions of dollars profit need tax brakes. People complain about subsidizing government programs, but what is giving tax exemptions to buisness doing, it is the same thing, subsidizing buisness. On the federal scale why do corporations need tax money when they are making Billions, example of this is oil companies. By doing away with all exemptions you could lower personnel income tax and the state would still have plenty of money. Conservatives preach free market well lets do away with corporate subsidizes and have a real free market.

deec 7 years, 4 months ago

Stop subsidizing business, including agriculture. Between 1995-2009, Kansas farmers/agricultural corporations received $13.5 billion in farm subsidies. That'll buy a lot of crayons. As an aside kudos to the 32% of Ks. farmers who truly are independent farmers not "tethered to the government's teat."

Brent Garner 7 years, 4 months ago

Perfectly willing to eliminate "corporate welfare", but then let's also get a simplified tax code not only for business but for individuals. A simplified code should also mean an over all lower tax rate which, coupled with lower costs of compliance, should raise the economic competitiveness of the entity in question whether that is the city, the county, the state, or the nation. It would also eliminate special interest impact on the tax code which is another egregious area of tax law.

tomatogrower 7 years, 4 months ago

Your statement was not an opinion, so it was at best factually wrong, at worse a lie. I have a cousin who is working poor. She pays in taxes every pay check. She files taxes at this time of the year, and she gets part of the taxes back, but not all. She buys clothes, food and gas. She pays taxes on all those things. She rents an apartment. She doesn't directly pay property taxes, but you can be sure her landlord is passing the taxes he pays on to her. You all like to say there are some people who pay no taxes, but that's a lie, unless that person is living on the street and standing in line at LINK. And they never buy anything, including alcohol and tobacco.

camper 7 years, 4 months ago

It may be that 40 to 50 % pay no Federal Income taxes. To say 52% of people pay no taxes is a lie. Other federal payroll taxes like social security and medicare are not exempt and not deductible. Everyone who gets a paycheck pays about 7% payroll tax regardless of how much you make. On top of that everyone pays sales tax and other indirect taxes that are included in prices and passed on to the consumer.

Brent Garner 7 years, 4 months ago

In 2009, just before I filed my income taxes, there were several reports showing that as far as Federal Income taxes were concerned somewhere between 52% and 54% of the population did not pay Federal Income taxes. In other words, even if taxes were collected their refunds completely offset those taxes paid and in many cases, due to refundable credits, exceeded the taxes paid. The result being that their effective tax rate was zero.

I have never seen such a report claim that 52% avoided all taxes, i.e., sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc.

camper 7 years, 4 months ago

Federal Income taxes is the key word. If you pay them you can get deductions and credits if you earn enough. These amounts are seen on your w-2 form under box 2 (federal income tax witheld). Yes, these amounts can be offset by exemptions, deductions, and credits. This is where it is true that 50% do not pay federal income taxes.

But box 4 and 6 are federal payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare). These taxes are not deductible no matter if you deliver Pizza as college student or if you are Donald Trump. You pay the 7% up to a ceiling of $108,000 depending on income.

While it may be true that 50% of us do not pay federal income taxes, we all pay into federal social security and medicare at a rate of 7%.

notajayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

"I have a cousin who is working poor. She pays in taxes every pay check. She files taxes at this time of the year, and she gets part of the taxes back, but not all."

If she's "working poor" and doesn't get all of her withholding back, she needs to let someone else do her taxes for her, because she's really scr**ing herself. As for the other things, they're use taxes - you want someone else to pay those for her, too?

tomatogrower 7 years, 4 months ago

I didn't say that. I was trying to show HM that even poor people pay taxes, so his premise is wrong. Maybe my definition of working poor is different than yours. She may not be within the poverty levels set by the government, but she can't afford anything but a studio apartment and an old clunker, that she hopes doesn't need work, because she would have a hard time paying for repairs. I'm not sure how the tax codes have changed in the last 20 years, but I was like her then, only I had kids. And I still didn't get all of my money back.

notajayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

"Maybe my definition of working poor is different than yours."


Someone who's apparently single and has no kids whose income can support her own place to live and her own vehicle (even if it's a studio and a 'clunker') ought to contribute a little bit of it in taxes, ya' think?

As far as what's changed, if her income is what one might surmise from your depiction, than what's different since you were like her 20 years ago is that if she did have kids, she almost certainly would have a negative effective tax rate.

For which, she can thank the Bush tax cuts.

tomatogrower 7 years, 4 months ago

And then you would call her a freeloader. She couldn't win. She's just a low life sponger.

notajayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

So you have a problem with Bush reducing her taxes. Speaking of not being able to win ...

jafs 7 years, 4 months ago

Poverty rates are set way too low, based on emergency food prices from the 1950's, and don't take other costs of living into account.

So I find it completely likely that somebody is making more than the poverty level, but still having difficulty making ends meet at a rather low level.

notajayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

Poverty rates are calculated in a ludicrous manner. They take into account nothing but wages, which means the figures are ridiculously inflated during times of high unemployment. A person who's still able to live off his savings and continue to pay the mortgage on his $500k house during a time of prolonged unemployment still qualifies as below the poverty level. And a family of four at the poverty level gets about 6-7 thousand dollars in refundable federal tax credits; that, as well as what they get in food stamps, section 8 housing subsidies, etc., are not calculated into their income.

Bob_Keeshan 7 years, 4 months ago

The income tax argument is a red herring.

camper 7 years, 4 months ago

Many are mislead by this 52% number. This is federal income taxes. If you and make less than 12$ an hour you probably will not pay much income tax. If you make more than this, and have home mortgage deductions, you may very well not pay income tax.

But everyone pays federal payroll tax (social security/medicare). There is much misinformation that makes it look like half of the population is freeloading, and this simply is not the case.

notajayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

"But everyone pays federal payroll tax (social security/medicare). There is much misinformation that makes it look like half of the population is freeloading, and this simply is not the case."

Although the Supreme Court ruled that payroll taxes are exactly that - taxes - realistically speaking, you get that money back. If you get it back, it's not a "burden" at all. Also, while that money is used by the government while they're holding it until you retire, the bonds have to be paid back (with interest), so payroll taxes don't really pay for the services the government provides. And to say that the percentage that a poor person pays in payroll taxes in relation to a rich person is meaningless. One could also say that the amount received back in retirement benefits is a lower percentage of the pre-retirement income of a rich person than a poor person.

voevoda 7 years, 4 months ago

The legislature plans to reduce by 7.5% the salaries of (the few) state employees who make over $100,000. The rationale is that they make enough that they can afford to take a modest pay cut in order to allow the state to retain necessary services. I agree with Mr. Jarboe; providing for our most fragile fellow-citizens is necessary. If better-compensated state employees can afford to take a pay cut, then better-compensated citizens of Kansas can afford to increase the taxes they pay by 7.5%. Then the state wouldn't need to cut services.
In fact, the tax increase wouldn't need to be 7.5% if every Kansan with an income over $100,000 paid more.
In fact, only the wealthiest Kansans (those making over half a million a year) would need to pay 7.5% more, and the state budget could be balanced without cutting anything. Why isn't the state legislature considering this option, if the situation is so dire?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 4 months ago

The conservative explanation is that if rich people are required to pay more taxes, they'll be demoralized and will decide that being rich just isn't worth the effort and they'll all go on welfare.

While if poor people are given any help with the basics of just surviving, they'll get complacent and even more lazy and won't have any incentive to work.

Brent Garner 7 years, 4 months ago

The bottom line, folks, is that income and outgo are out of balance. One must then make some adjustment. Either one increases income--taxes, fees--or one reduces expenses--budget cuts. One political party always clamors for tax increases. The other always advocates budget cuts. The one ignores the impact on job creation of increased taxation. The other is always painted as an oppressor of the less fortunate. The bottomline is there is not enough money. States, unlike the Federal government, cannot operate budget deficits. The other sad fact is that those in power will use the system to protect themselves. Consequently teachers will be laid off but administrators retained. The number of police will be reduced but the number of supervisors will not. The number of privates will be cut but the number of generals will not. It seems to be a law of organizational behavior.

Solve this problem, and the other may well take care of itself.

tomatogrower 7 years, 4 months ago

"One political party always clamors for tax increases. The other always advocates budget cuts." Yet, a democrat governor came in after a Republican governor and streamlined agencies and sold off a lot of vehicles that were not necessary. She did promote increasing spending on education, and you have to remember that the governor doesn't pass spending bills. He/she just signs or vetoes them. The Kansas legislature has always been dominated by Republicans, so who is really spending all the money?

notajayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

As OonlyBonly mentioned above, it would have been nice if our learned LTE writer mentioned which exemptions he's talking about. Perhaps he doesn't know himself, which apparently wouldn't have kept him - like the usual crowd of class-jealous whiners here - from A$$uming all the exemptions go to corporations and the wealthy.

Um, Mr. Jarboe? How much do you think the personal exemptions for a couple of million working Kansans (and their family members) adds up to?

usnsnp 7 years, 4 months ago

Hey moocher dont know if you have any children in school, but I can tell you that if you do you are not paying enough taxes to cover their schooling, let alone for all the other government services that you use, like fire protection, police, road repair etc. Of course I know that you do not use any of these services. Get your head out of the sand or quit watching television and beliving everything the talking heads tell you. They are just entertainers pretending to be news people. Try going to the library and look up the facts, of course you do not have any use for a library, then go out and buy the book with the real facts in them.

tomatogrower 7 years, 4 months ago

He can't go to the library. It's paid with tax money. He might get contaminated.

tomatogrower 7 years, 4 months ago

Not to mention that the internet on which he is posting would probably never had happened if it hadn't been for government funded research. Aww, time to sell your computer.

notajayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

Do you really believe the internet would not have happened without government funding? Really?

tomatogrower 7 years, 4 months ago

It would not have happened in the business atmosphere of the last 40 years. Businesses don't want long term investments. They want to make money, lots of it, here and now. The internet took a long time to develop through research at public Universities using tax dollars. It wasn't until they had developed it that businesses found a use for it. I'm not talking about the development of search engines, user-friendly operating systems, etc. I'm talking about the original research which was paid for with defense budget monies. MIT, which does a lot of research, may be a private university, but how much of their research funds have come from the government? Lots. Business took the research and ran with it, but the government started it. Sorry to burst your capitalist bubble.

notajayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

So, you think that something that saves businesses trillions of dollars wouldn't have been developed. You think banks would have preferred to keep handling their transactions on paper, corporations wanted to maintain armies of clerks to file tons and tons of documents, boards of directors would have kept taking weeks to complete their deals while paperwork went back and forth through the post office, purchasing agents liked having yards and yards of shelf space covered in paper catalogues ...

What color is the sky on your planet, tomato? The invention of both the telegraph and the telephone were similar quantum shifts in the way business was transacted on a daily basis - how do you explain their creation?

Bob_Keeshan 7 years, 4 months ago

Jarboe clearly references the exemptions he is referring to by directing readers to a pair of reports.

The tax system in Kansas is regressive, and low income Kansans pay a far higher percentage of their income in taxes than high income Kansans. For example, a 2006 study http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/sep... found the lowest income group in Kansas paid 23.6 percent of its income in property taxes, while the highest-income households paid 0.6 percent of their income in property taxes.

It is interesting the group of commenters on here railing against this letter. The main point here is our system of taxation is unfair and riddled with exemptions that place a greater and greater burden on low-income Kansans.

Fairer taxation does not equate to increased spending.

notajayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

"Jarboe clearly references the exemptions he is referring to by directing readers to a pair of reports."

Well, with the little problem that there is no such report entitled "Erosion of the Tax Base in Kansas” to be found on the Kansas Action for Children website. It's possible Mr. Jarboe meant to reference a report entitled "Erosion Of The Kansas Property Tax Base" prepared for for the Kansas Department of Revenue, which is referenced in a few publications found on KAC's site.

I found the Wong report particularly entertaining. You do realize he's talking about the shift in property tax base towards residential real estate - since the 1850's???

"The main point here is our system of taxation is unfair and riddled with exemptions that place a greater and greater burden on low-income Kansans."

Misleading, to say the least. A poor person may pay a larger percentage of his income in taxes if you figure in sales and property taxes. But that doesn't mean he's having a "greater and greater burden" placed on him. Or that he's paying a higher share of the overall tax burden.

Bob_Keeshan 7 years, 4 months ago

"Or that he's paying a higher share of the overall tax burden."

What a canard. A person earning $10 million in a single year who pays 1% of that income in taxes will pay $100,000 in taxes, or the same amount a low income person may earn, before taxes, in 4 or 5 years.

"Higher share of the overall tax burden" is a ridiculous argument, there is no logical basis for it. It is opiate for the delusional masses so they can rant and rave about taxes being high.

Of course somebody earning 10 times as much pays more in taxes. They own more, they earn more, and they spend more.

notajayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

""Higher share of the overall tax burden" is a ridiculous argument, there is no logical basis for it. It is opiate for the delusional masses so they can rant and rave about taxes being high."

'Fairer taxation' is a ridiculous argument, there is no logical basis for it. It is opiate for the delusional masses so they can rant and rave about their taxes being too high and how the government should take even more from someone that's already supporting their lazy *** . There, fixed that for ya', bobbie.

So you think that, say, a person who doesn't use public transportation, doesn't send their kids to public schools, doesn't get Medicaid or Section 8 housing assistance or food stamps, that person should pay the income tax burden of 33 freeloaders who get 'refundable credits' instead of paying their share? That's what you call a system that's based on "logic", bobbie? Yeah, I guess you would.

Bob_Keeshan 7 years, 4 months ago

Ah, that's cute. You think the only taxes are federal income taxes.

The more insulting you get, the more wrong you are. Standard behavior for your one track mind.

notajayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

Ooh, nice try, bobbie, but as usual, no cookie.

Besides the fact that I never used the word "only", would you care to explain what you would do to make the tax system more "fair"? I'm sure we'd all be fascinated to know how you're going to do that without increasing the reliance on the only one of the three major sources of taxation that's progressive.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 4 months ago

The wealthy couldn't truly be wealthy if they couldn't get most of their goods and services provided through the labor of folks who aren't wealthy.

notajayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

Yes, that's right, Herr Klowne, the bourgeoisie would never have anything were it not for their jack-booted heels on the throats of the proletariat.

camper 7 years, 4 months ago

Some of the most conservative and libertarian people I know take governent benefits. Even others are totally dependant on family wealth and stipends. They are so bitter, that even I cannot stand to be around them. Some of them have even died because they were so stuck in there conspiratory line of thinking that they refused to see a doctor. I tried to tell them to do so, but they would not listen. I took them in my car to drive them to the grocery store and they looked like complete death and smelled like it to. They said everyone was ugly and fat, while they looked even worse. One tried to tell me Charles Manson was right, Hitler was good, FDR was bad, smoking was good, doctors are bad, etc.....

I am so sick and tired of my friend I describe above, yet I know he is the epitome of you right wing thinkers. I can do without all of you.

notajayhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

Gee, then you must be one unhappy camper living in these parts, ol' bud. Speaking of "bitter" ...

(And when you say you can do without all of us, please keep that in mind when it comes to my tax dollars.)

johnjhawk 7 years, 4 months ago

Read Dr. Wong's article folks. The exemptions that make up a huge part of his numbers are business to business taxes. Currently our sales tax is tied to consumer sales. He is stating that more sales tax would be generated if we charged sale tax at each transfer to the consumer. In his model, a small company making componet parts for Boeing or any other company, would need to pay use tax when they bought their aluminum or other raw materials. Then that comany would have to charge Boeing sales tax when they deliver the components to the factory. That is two additional tax points before the product is even ready to sell to the public. Boeing would be smarter to just import the products from Mexico and cut out the Kansas subcontractors. Food prices would go up because grocery stores and resturants would be charged sales tax on the foods they buy. Wholesale food suppliers would be charged sales tax on the bread they buy from the bakery and the bakery would have to charge more because that had to pay sales tax on the wheat they bought. If you charge sales tax at each step in the distribution process you will raise prices for everyone. In the end small business would lose out. Huge companies like Mcdonalds would own their own farms and meat packing plants so they wouldn't get hit with taxes two or three times before they attempt to sell to the public.

Richard Heckler 7 years, 4 months ago

Workers NOT killing Economy!

People on the job = a strong economy.

Keeping people out of jobs will bring on a series of tax increases by way of user fees. YES user fees are aka taxes no matter what.

How does putting people out of jobs create economic growth?

BTW it's not unions breaking the economy it is Big Dollar White Collar ENTITLEMENTS, Wall Street crooks, the nations largest banks, the war for oil control and the medical insurance industry!

Big Dollar White Collar ENTITLEMENTS are killing the economy and our wallets http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html



Richard Heckler 7 years, 4 months ago

What to do?

  1. Move Your Money Why put up with megabank megalomania? Here are two websites to help you find a local bank that gives a damn about you and your community: http://www.findacreditunion.com and http://www.moveyourmoney.info/find-a-ba

  2. How much are you shelling out to the medical insurance industry each month or year plus your deductible? Drop your medical insurance and put those thousands of dollars into a money making account that will stand by you!

  3. STOP the war!

And remember what killed the USA economy:

  1. The Reagan/ Bush Savings and Loan Heist( millions out of work) was the initial beginning.

The Reagan/Bush savings and loan heist was considered the largest theft in history at the time. George Herbert Walker Bush then took $1.4 trillion of taxpayers money to cover the theft. http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  1. The Bush/Cheney Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers(millions out of work) Yes, substantial fraud was involved.. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities(Bush admin) ignoring their regulatory responsibilities." http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  2. Only 3 major Financial Institutions were at risk in spite of what we’re told ? "There were just a handful of institutions that were terribly weakened. AIG the insurer, Bank of America and Citigroup, Those three were clearly in very weakened form. http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

  3. The medical Insurance Industry http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html



Flap Doodle 7 years, 4 months ago

Woo hoo! Reagan/Bush citation sighting! Haven't seen that set of links in at least a week. You're slacking off, merrill.

Scott Morgan 7 years, 4 months ago

Our tax system is so complicated hardly anybody understands? Yet, year after year the same system is patched and made law.

Time for a flat tax.

jafs 7 years, 4 months ago

It's definitely too complicated, and could/should be simplified.

I'm not sure a flat tax is the best way to fix it.

tomatogrower 7 years, 4 months ago

Yeah, but then think of all those high paid accountants who would be put out of job. :>)

Commenting has been disabled for this item.