Archive for Monday, July 18, 2011

Brownback wants to change tax structure

July 18, 2011

Advertisement

— Gov. Sam Brownback says he wants to change the state’s tax system, and he has tasked Kansas Department of Revenue Secretary Nick Jordan to come up with some recommendations.

“The bottom line is, how do we grow the economy?” Jordan said.

Asked what he is looking at, Jordan said, “It’s all on the table.”

So far, Jordan has formed a group that has met a couple of times. The group includes Richard Cram, head of policy and research at the Revenue Department; Steve Stotts, director of taxation; the leaders of the House and Senate tax committees; and various state agency heads, according to revenue public information officer Jeannine Koranda.

More people will be pulled into the discussion as talks continue, Jordan said.

Jordan said he hopes to present several tax-change options to Brownback this fall, which would give the governor time to have a plan ready for the 2012 legislative session that starts in January.

Brownback, a Republican, is champing at the bit, mentioning several times the need for changing the state structure, specifically to reduce the state income tax.

Brownback also has noted in speeches that Kansas is losing population to states such as Texas, which has no state income tax. But several tax studies note that Kansas’ income tax is the most progressive portion of its tax structure.

During the last legislative session, House Republicans passed a plan to make permanent reductions in income taxes when state revenues grow. But critics of the plan in the Senate said it would have crippled needed services that have already been hurt by recent budget cuts.

Meanwhile, Democrats, who are in the minority in the House and Senate, have argued for fairer taxes by closing sales tax exemptions. But attempts to shut down these exemptions have failed to gain any traction.

Comments

ivalueamerica 3 years, 11 months ago

I would love to, but we are unfortunate that we can not recall a governor in Kansas simply for being an idiot and ruining the state, we can only do it if he has committed a crime.

Until we the people can prove we are a victim of criminal instead of stupid and negligent activities of the governor, we have to let him screw us until the next election.

ivalueamerica 3 years, 11 months ago

if you want to talk stupid idiotic people screwing our nation...why did you NOT mention Bush jr?

JayhawkFan1985 3 years, 11 months ago

Do you really believe that a barely left of center President is as bad as a far right extremist bent on 1) forcing us all to live in the 1950s and 2) slashing taxes for the super wealthy like the Koch Brothers in Wichita and 3) slashing critical services to the most vulnerable citizens of our state like low income, elderly, young, and disabled?

If so, you're a FOOL! I hope you just are sarcastic.

Armored_One 3 years, 11 months ago

If people are harmed because of his adamant demand to close SRS offices, could that constitute a crime?

curmudgeon 3 years, 11 months ago

You know it... The changes will only help the wealthy, that's all the Republicans care about. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

KS 3 years, 11 months ago

frankfussman and Gandalf: Are your glasses always half empty? You guys start out with a negative attitude.

curmudgeon 3 years, 11 months ago

Has Brownback done anything really positiive?

somebodynew 3 years, 11 months ago

KS - I think their attitude is called "projection based on past performance". Why should this decision be any different than the ones he has already made????

CLARKKENT 3 years, 11 months ago

KS--IF WE JUST LEAVE BROWNBACK ALONE, HE WILL SCREW UP OUR STATE.

rhd99 3 years, 11 months ago

He already has. That's the problem. Reality is hitting us in the face. Most notably, this naive voter who voted this BOOB into office. That, I assure you is a mistake I won't make again. GUARANTEED!

cato_the_elder 3 years, 11 months ago

Since I often work 60-hour plus weeks, then I'm clearly a member of the "working class," and reductions in income taxes present no problem as far as I'm concerned.

I wonder how many of the leftists who regularly post on this forum have any kind of paying job at all.

somebodynew 3 years, 11 months ago

Not too sure I qualify as a "leftist", but even though I am retired I still work full time and my wife works full time, so I think I fit that requirement. No income tax certainly does SOUND like a winner in my book - - once I see the details. I somehow don't think they are going to raise the taxes on the "big guys" to make up for this, so the only thing I can see is that the money lost will be made up on the backs of the working folks (you AND I). I hope I am wrong but am not impressed with this administration's track record so far.

weeslicket 3 years, 11 months ago

easy question for cato_the_elder:
do you take a bath or a shower at the beginning of the day, or at the end of the day?

the answer to this simple question will affirm whether you "have a job" or "go to work".

weeslicket 3 years, 11 months ago

exercising your personal liberty of 1 for the (dis)pleasure of others, i suppose. (but that doesn't make you selfish!)

anywhoos. thanks for answering for 2 people all at 1nce.

pace 3 years, 11 months ago

What an idiotic statement. My leftist's work record is stellar It is the people who want to dodge their fair share of taxes, some who sit around and clip coupons they probably inherited.

beatrice 3 years, 11 months ago

I can imagine that many of the "leftists" posting on here don't have jobs, we have careers.

Jeff Zamrzla 3 years, 11 months ago

I am a socialist. I am a member of the working class; however, I am in the top 5% of earners in the nation as well. I can afford to pay more taxes than the 95% who make less than I do, but because of the tax structure and my long list of deductions, I pay taxes on less than 25% of my income. I am in the 15% tax bracket even though I earn well over 200K a year. The game is rigged for people like me and against the working poor. I can take a loss on some stock and write off part of my income, as well as use a portion of my home's mortgage interest as a write-off along with the property taxes on the house, my 2-year-old cadillac and my new GMC truck. I am not greedy and I use my money to do many things, all of which are deductable.

JayhawkFan1985 3 years, 11 months ago

I too often work well more than 40 hours per week. I'm left of center and proud of it! I actually care about my fellow Lawrencians, Kansans, Americans and Humans. While I'm left of center, I'd define my self as "progressive."

I recall a former President, I think it was Truman, but am not sure saying something like:

A reactionary is somebody with two legs who only can walk backwards. A conservative is somebody with two legs who stands still. A progessive is somebody with two legs who walks forward.

Brownback is not a conservative. He's a reactionary. He wants us all to live in the 1950s when June Cleaver had the dinner on the table for Ward when he returned home from work and was always available to keep Wally and the Beaver out of trouble. The problem is that the 1950s wasn't that rosy. It was a time of segregation for many of our citizens. It was a time when women were not often permitted to work outside the home. Things always look better looking back at them then they were when you lived through them.

The only economic progress he cares about is cutting taxes for the super wealthy like the Koch Brothers and the Stouffer family. He doesn't care how many backs he walks over toward his vision of utopia.

His administration lacks the same transparency that the Bush Jr administration lacked when he was in the White House. That is not democracy. It is one step away from fascism.

usnsnp 3 years, 11 months ago

Lowering state income tax rates across the boards is a farce.. All it will end up doing is raise local sales taxes and property taxes becausem the state will help local governments less. Local governments will end up either having to cut services or raise taxes. But state politicians will be able to claim that they have lowered taxes. As for using Texas as a example, you better check, property taxes are two to three times higher than here, larger portion of house appraisel taxed, also there is a special school tax.

chootspa 3 years, 11 months ago

Plus Texas schools are messed up, and the state is even more broke than ours. Yeah, I don't think we want to emulate Texas anytime soon.

question4u 3 years, 11 months ago

So, the plan is to make crippling cuts to education, prisons, health care, etc., then lower taxes so that those cuts cannot be restored without a HUGE influx of new taxpayers (the low taxes of whom will have to cover the cost of the new schools, additional police officers, new highways, etc. that they will need).

Planning on the creation of enough new jobs not only to replace the missing tax revenue but to increase overall tax revenue is a tremendous gamble, but this is a governor who has stated that tourism in the Flint Hills is about to "pop". No doubt the lack of state support for the arts, no state university among the top 100 in the nation, underfunded public schools, etc. will be overlooked by one business after another because of the natural attractions of Kansas.

What is the benefit of attracting new businesses that will not contribute taxes to the state budget and whose employees will only pay enough in taxes to maintain the existing level of education and state services and not cover the increased costs that come with growth or even those due to inflation? Will that create a Kansas that flourishes or a few individuals who flourish at the expense of Kansas? Clearcutting and strip mining may make the fortunes of some grow, but what will grow on the land in the aftermath?

Forget the dustbowl. There's more than one way to create an unlivable Kansas.

average 3 years, 11 months ago

In his rush to emulate Texas (no income tax, big property tax), has anyone pointed out to Sam that Kansas already has a lower unemployment rate than Texas. And we've had a lower unemployment rate through the entire recession.

Our roads are better. Our schools are better. The only thing Texas has over us is 'growth', but if growth isn't making things better, why are we emulating states that rank below us on so many categories?

rbwaa 3 years, 11 months ago

not to mention that cost of living is higher in Texas...

vuduchyld 3 years, 11 months ago

Not to mention that we're losing population to other states....such as California...where taxes are much higher. Fact is...we're just losing population. Perhaps we're losing population because other states have more perceived opportunities and fewer ideological onslaughts coming from the governor's mansion.

beatrice 3 years, 11 months ago

Texas is facing a $21 billion deficit. Republican legislators, Republican governor for 11 years in a row, no state tax, and massive debt. This is what Brownback wants to emulate?

cowboy 3 years, 11 months ago

This mindless approach to decreasing taxes by the republican " cut & paste book on how to govern " is just ignorant. If you run a business the one thing you do not do in times of challenge is cut your revenues. Witness the damage the Bush tax cuts have done to the country's ability to operate. Use this same logic and businesses should never raise a cost or sale price. Don't see that happening. There is always room for efficiencies and redirection but that isn't what this is about. It's simply the greed of the republican svengali's who have seized the opportunity to direct a group of dim witted republicans to enact their policies of personal gain.

oldvet 3 years, 11 months ago

Then why was obama so hot-to-trot about keeping the Bush tax rates in place? They were set to automatically end, yet he pushed to keep them in place and reduce the tax revenues to the govt. And if there is anybody who wants more tax money to spend it is obama.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

Actually, Obama wanted to keep the breaks for those in the middle and lower classes, but end them for the rich.

Republicans opposed this, and made it an all-or-nothing proposition.

oldvet 3 years, 11 months ago

Ah, you are correct about obama wanting it only for the middle/lower... but he was also opposed by his own party on this idea...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-06/payroll-tax-holiday-on-the-table-as-negotiators-debate-bush-rate-extension.html

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

Your link is about a different issue.

It's about the trade-off of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in exchange for extending unemployment benefits, a deal that Republicans wanted Obama to make.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 11 months ago

Good try, Hal. I think you're starting to get this all figured out. It's a bitter pill, but I hear a little sugar helps the medicine go down.

beatrice 3 years, 11 months ago

Republicans would only support extending unemployment benefits for those who desperately need the help in order that millionaires and billionaires had their tax cuts extended. The president didn't want the people who need help to go without it, so it was his way of making a compromise.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 11 months ago

Well, our New World Order Paramilitary Police Force is the lagest gang in the country, and it's bought and paid for with our tax dollar.

"LOOK OUT! HE HAS A CAMERA! STOP RESISTING! TAZOR, TAZOR, TAZOR!"

Scott Drummond 3 years, 11 months ago

"Elect me! Elect me! I have a plan."

"I got elected, better come up with a plan."

tomatogrower 3 years, 11 months ago

I think Brownback had a plan all along, but people were too blind to see it.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 11 months ago

"'Elect me! Elect me! I have a plan."

"I got elected, better come up with a plan.'"

That describes Barack Obama to to T.

Scott Drummond 3 years, 11 months ago

Really, I thought the big worry a few years ago was that he was implementing a socialist agenda. Now he didn't have a plan. Interesting the intellectual knots some will tie themselves into.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 11 months ago

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

weeslicket 3 years, 11 months ago

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

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

Eliminating the income tax translates to one thing-- increasing other forms of taxation, the net effect of which would be a dramatic increase in taxation on the poor and middle class, and a dramatic decrease in taxation on the wealthy and the corporations they own.

Brownback and the Republicans should at least be honest about that (not that honesty is exactly their strong suit.)

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

Texas has a projected budget deficit in the area of $27 billion.

Doesn't sound like a good model for fiscal responsibility to me.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

Google it.

Last time I did, there were multiple sources with the same information.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

So if Texas, led by Republicans is not a model to follow, what is? We can look to California, led mostly by Democrats and we see a budget crisis every year. Washington, led alternately by Democrats and Republicans, seems to produce it's fair share of budget crisis. So where should we look for guidance?
In matters of tax structure, perhaps it's time to look in a different direction. The very poor have their advocates. And the wealthy buy their advocates. Those in the middle are getting squeezed from both sides. I trust the Democrats as much as I trust the Republicans to come up with a workable solution. I'd be all for a flat tax income tax, one where everyone pays something and no one pays an exorbitant amount. A tax code that can be written on a napkin, no loopholes.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

I agree that neither party is satisfactory on this issue.

And that the tax code should be greatly simplified, and that the middle class shouldn't continue to get squeezed.

Not sure about the flat tax idea though.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

I'd like a system where everyone pays the same percentage. But in the alternative, a system where the wealthy pay 28%, the middle class pays 24% and the poor pay 20%. No loopholes, none.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

Why should people who barely make enough to get by pay taxes on their paltry income?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

Because everyone should be invested in our society. Why should busy people have to serve on a jury? Why should I take time out of my schedule to vote? Why should I pay taxes to educate children who come from parents that produce more children than they can support. They who will suffer from the closing of SRS while I have never stepped foot in there? We're all invested in our society. I should pay for senior services that some day I may or may not need. I should pay for SRS and education of others' children. I should fulfill my obligations of voting and serving on juries and everyone should pay taxes to support our system. BTW - I've always wondered, we know the poor pay little or no income tax. And we know that the poor also vote in much smaller numbers. Are those two facts related? If the poor were more invested in our system, would they have a greater interest in voting? If so, then keeping their taxes where they are is another way of suppressing their vote.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

You're mixing a few things in there.

I vote because I want to, not because I "should".

Similarly with public education, etc. I believe in supporting those things, even if I don't use them personally.

If somebody's barely making it, I see no reason they should pay taxes.

Above a certain level, sure.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

I vote for a different reason. I believe it's part of my obligation to the society I live in. The same is true with jury service. It's a pain in the butt. I serve because it's an obligation. And I pay taxes, even though I would rather not. I pay for things I'm opposed to. Programs I think are a waste. I do it because as a member of this society, I have certain obligations. I even obey laws that I find bothersome. I do these things because we all share a certain responsibility to see that our society functions in an orderly manner. To the best of our ability, I think we should all do those things. I would no more exempt a person from paying income taxes than I would exclude them from having a voice in how those monies were spent. The things I'm mixing is rights and responsibilities, two things that cannot exist without each other.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

I think this is a fundamental difference in the way we see things.

guesswho 3 years, 11 months ago

Don't use California as a model; it has its own brand of bizarre politics - the infamous Proposition 13 (enacted in 1978 when Reagan was governor) has stymied any ability to raise taxes and is one of the main reasons California has been in trouble the last several decades.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

Half right. I lived in California for many years. Prop 13 has been a disaster. No argument there. The influence of public service unions, influence that far exceeds the influence in other states, has done it's fair share of damage to the state. So has the whole system of governing by proposition. So has the massive influx of illegal immigrants. Many factors have contributed to California's problems. Some are the darlings of the left, some are the darlings of the right. Both parties have done their fair share of damage to California's economy.

guesswho 3 years, 11 months ago

right; add to that the requirement that any company has to have its own headquarters in CA (sort of a separate entity -thing) as well as costs for earthquake retrofitting.....no one party is to blame.

tolawdjk 3 years, 11 months ago

Why do we have to look for guidance? Why not bring a Kansas solution to a Kansas problem?

verity 3 years, 11 months ago

Oh, silly person, that would be too sensible.

We need more faith-based solutions---like believing that lowering income taxes creates jobs.

Deleting income taxes entirely would create jobs to infinity.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 11 months ago

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-taxes/2011-budget-shortfall/about/

"A budget shortfall as high as $27 billion is projected as lawmakers work through the 2011 legislative session, according to estimates from economists and the comptroller's office."

These politicians lie, lie, and lie like a rug, as they and their cronies get rich off the backs of the middle class and working poor. And the Rush Limbots can't get enough of it! What IS wrong with Kansas?

Same old stuff, different day. (sigh)

newmedia 3 years, 11 months ago

If you don't feel you are paying enough tax to the state now just sit down and write a personal check to the Kansas Dept. of Revenue. They will be glad to cash it. A win/win for both of us, you get a warm and fuzzy and the rest of us may not get our taxes raised!

SnakeFist 3 years, 11 months ago

If you feel you're paying too much in taxes, stop using the roads, the bridges, the public schools, the public reservoir, the water treatment plant, the sewers, the police, the fire department, etc. All of those things will then require less maintenance and won't need to expand. A win/win for both of us: We get our desired services and you can live in a mud hut down by the river like you've always wanted.

Scott Drummond 3 years, 11 months ago

A river is a shared resource. The true libertarian can't participate in such socialism. Better a mud hut and he can wait on some rain.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

No, under libertarianism, there would be claims of ownership of the river, and then it's just a matter of duking it out one way or another to determine which claims are "legitimate." (never mind that any claims of ownership are all necessarily equally arbitrary.)

Scott Drummond 3 years, 11 months ago

That's right. And it would probably be a pretty darned polluted river too.

gudpoynt 3 years, 11 months ago

"When no one owns something no one protects it"

Then who are those park ranger people and who gave them trucks and badges?

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 11 months ago

The government owns the river as it's the country's natural resource. The government, via the EPA, attempts to protect that river. Robber baron industrialists will pollute that river, and call it an externality, until caught by the EPA. The robber baron will then buy the government official off to avoid heavy penalties. It's just business as usual in the good old USA.

Scott Drummond 3 years, 11 months ago

Yes, Liberty, my home, the water I pay for , the food I buy. They are all polluted so that others can make a buck. No amount of private ownership protects me from the hordes willing to save a buck at my expense your philosophy is given too free a reign.

But those are small injustices, no doubt, you will argue. Yes, no one comes and dumps chemicals in my yard or buries waste in my yard. You know why? Because just as soon as they did I'd be calling my socialistic government employee police officer to travel down our collectively owned public thoroughfares to place any such actor in our community owned jail. And then I'd go to my government court and take advantage of the socialistic laws we have passed to prevent such abuses. Etc.

For now, however, I'll just comment on the hypothetical scenario over these government developed interwebs that are such a fine reminder of the benefit of collective government action we all enjoy.

notaubermime 3 years, 11 months ago

"Is your house polluted? Can I dump my trash and waste chemicals in your living room?"

I wasn't aware that my living room moved downstream. Or maybe you think a river stands still? Perhaps you think that it is okay to vent mustard gas into your neighbor's yard?

notaubermime 3 years, 11 months ago

Nope, just misread. It would appear, though, that you are arguing for the EPA and strict restrictions on how you can dispose of what.

notaubermime 3 years, 11 months ago

The EPA allows release of chemicals below the toxic limit. There is no way that society would exist if we were unable to release any toxic substances. No way to generate electricity, no way to produce plastics, no cars or trucks or planes. It would be chaos, especially if people could sue for the any detectable level of pollutant.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

Do I own the air in my house?

Above my house?

If my windows are open, and air comes through my house, do I own that air, but only when it's inside my house?

If so, if somebody pollutes the air down the block in the middle of the street, which isn't privately owned, and then it makes it's way into my house, then what?

Or they pollute the air above my house, which doesn't get into my house, but gets into the atmosphere and creates environmental issues that are hard to pin down to one location, or cause?

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

The difference is of course that one involves a direct action, ie. throwing the ball, and the other doesn't, but rather involves the wind, which is out of people's control.

And, of course, destroying the ozone layer hurts all of us, but isn't easy to make personal the way you'd like to do with everything.

How about this one - the guy next door is standing out on his back deck, enjoying a cigarette. If the air on his property is his, then he's well within his rights, in fact, you'd protect his right to do so with great gusto. Then the wind shifts, and that cigarette-smoke laden air flows onto my property.

What then?

gudpoynt 3 years, 11 months ago

ah yes, Locke philosophy of ownership. If you invest your labor into the raw materials of nature, and get it to produce something, you have a claim on those materials, as well what you can produce from them.

Ergo..... the Native Americans have no claim on this great land... because they never bothered to start farming it, or to engage in animal husbandry, or cut and mill the forests, etc. etc....

What's that? A new philosophy articulates the justification for insurgency against tyranny?!? Hell yes!!!

What's that? The same philosophy delegitimizes any rights these Indians have over the land we're about to steal?!? Double hell yes!!!

Homework assignment: "Can you find anything wrong.... anything at all.... with Locke's philosophy of ownership?"

You're welcome.

gudpoynt 3 years, 11 months ago

And of course, Locke's assertion that the Native Americans didn't really own the land, combined with your previous statement of "When no one owns something no one protects it." must explain why the nation was so filthy before European colonization :-)

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 11 months ago

Popular and historical concentration on the dramatic horsemen of the plains has clouded the significance of agriculture in Indian history. When Indian agriculture received attention, most dismissed it as a form of gardening or horticulture and thus unworthy of further consideration. Ironically, even after feasting, on maize, squashes, pumpkins, and a variety of beans, most contemporaries and later commentators described all Indians as a hunting culture bound to the trail of the deer and buffalo. In some cases, the observation was correct, although before the horse revolutionized the Indian societies of the Great Plains, few Indians lived, exclusively by the hunt. In fact, agriculture pervaded the history of Indian-white contact.

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agexed/aee501/indians.html

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 11 months ago

"Ironically, even after feasting, on maize, squashes, pumpkins, and a variety of beans, most contemporaries and later commentators described all Indians as a hunting culture bound to the trail of the deer and buffalo."

Those 'later commentators' were today's equivalent of Rush Libowel, Hannity, Beck, Fox News, et al. Who I'm sure were pushing the Manifest Destiny take on the whole story.

gudpoynt 3 years, 11 months ago

Liberty_Side_Stepper, do you agree with Locke's philosophy on property ownership or not? You didn't answer my challenge to find something wrong with it.

According to European law, and Locke's arguments, the Native American's didn't own the land because they didn't use it (not my words, Locke's).

You used Locke's philosophy of ownership to refute the assertion that claims of ownership on natural resources are, more or less, arbitrary constructs created by humans (as a previous author attempted to point out).

I figured by your posting it, that you believed in it at least somewhat. Since Locke's philosophy on property ownership has been criticized thoroughly over the past 300+ years, I was wondering if you were aware of that, and what some of those criticisms are... or if you are just making your usual half-baked arguments while looking down your nose at anybody who doesn't share your dizzying intellect.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you make comments such as "If A harms B, it's not really C's business" which is consistent with Locke's "State of Nature", but if you read on, it doesn't take long before you get to the part about how "the Social Contract" is created when the state of nature proves insufficient in providing adequate protection for the members of the society and the resources those members share.

Not that I'm implying that you are some diehard Lockean... but you ARE the one who brought it up.

gudpoynt 3 years, 11 months ago

@Crazy_Larry - yes, I didn't mean to insinuate that there was no agriculture among Native Americans. Only that Locke (from whom the "Founding Fathers" took much in formulating their philosophies and rationale during colonial times) seemed to think that whatever the Natives were doing with the natural resources of the land, it wasn't enough (i.e. their labor was insufficient) to constitute ownership.

And you're right, this ethnocentric approach was unfortunately used as a pillar in the continuation of Manifest Destiny, whether or not that was his intention. (Although it should be noted that he invested substantially in the African slave trade).

While Locke was certainly an eloquent philosopher, his body of work smacks of hypocrisy -- freedom from tyranny and freedom to own property is the natural right of men... like me. But it's ok if that property is another human. And it's ok to confiscate property from other humans if they are savages who don't know how to use the land "properly".

gudpoynt 3 years, 11 months ago

Racist? Nice one kid. Try reading. Once finished, try comprehending. And once you're finished with that, try thinking before you write.

gudpoynt 3 years, 11 months ago

"Except they did use it. Argument debunked."

Exactly. So Locke should have recognized that the labor of Native Americans justified their ownership in the land. But he didn't. Instead, he qualified "labor", and suggested that whatever use the Native Americans were making of the land, it didn't qualify as the type of labor needed to claim ownership.

Which is total crap if you ask me, and the main reason why I question your reference to Locke when it comes to the justification of claiming property ownership on natural resources... which is exactly what you did several posts ago.

Finding hypocrisy in Locke's assertions isn't debunking my argument, it's debunking yours. Are you attempting to distance yourself from his philosophy of property ownership now that the hypocrisy has been pointed out to you?

gudpoynt 3 years, 11 months ago

You are a child.

Locke claimed the Native's weren't using the land.

Let me repeat that. Locke claimed the Natives weren't using the land.

He used that claim, to justify it's confiscation by white men.

What about that do you not understand?

I will drink you under the logic table any day of the week my boy. Grow up and come back later.

lunacydetector 3 years, 11 months ago

if i didn't have to pay income tax, i'd certainly buy more things. texas has created over 40% of the jobs in the entire nation during obama's depression. they must be doing something right.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

"if i didn't have to pay income tax, i'd certainly buy more things."

But none of those "things" would be able to counter the general decline in quality of life that the dismantling of the state government would bring, and that's the goal behind this proposal.

"texas has created over 40% of the jobs in the entire nation during obama's depression."

source?

Scott Drummond 3 years, 11 months ago

It is george w. bush and the republican's depression. President Obama has only inherited it.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 11 months ago

You are correct, Sir. The 'cons' have a memory problem when it comes to the Bush Co. bankruptcy of Amurikkka. I recall $800 billion give away to his Wall Street owners in October 2008. Who was the Prez in October of 2008? That's right, Dick Cheney was! And let's not forget, the Republicrats voted 8 times to raise the debt ceiling for Gee Dub Bush and Co.

Scott Drummond 3 years, 11 months ago

And that particular dick is the guy who claimed "deficits don't matter" if I recall correctly.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 11 months ago

And the national debt doubles while G. W. Bush (Cheney) was president of the USA. Seems like most people have very short memories...Or perhaps it's just a selective memory.

Smarmy_Schoolmarm 3 years, 11 months ago

I think you've forgotten whose depression this is bub.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 11 months ago

Once again, I ask you to point that lunatic detector at your face! You won't like what you find...Or, maybe you will, and that's the problem.

MyName 3 years, 11 months ago

They also have more oil, more sales, more vehicles, and more land to tax in Texas. If you drop the income tax, you have to pick one of those other three, since oil ain't doing it in Kansas.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 11 months ago

Except that Texas has the highest number of minimum wage jobs in the country...and is tied with Mississippi for the highest rate of minimum wage jobs!! We should admire this...why??? Creating minimum wage jobs is not what I think we should be aspiring to here in Kansas. And I certainly don't think that the middle class will survive with most adults earning minimum wage.

Texas' unemployment rate is higher than Kansas' unemployment rate. Indeed, it's higher than half the states in the country. I don't see that as anything to emulate, either. It's per capita income is lower than that in Kansas. Ditto. Oh, and Texas relied more on stimulus funding than any other state in the nation! Hmmm.

Plus Texas is last in students getting high school diplomas, 3rd in teen pregnancies, 1st in repeat teen pregnancies, 50th in mental health services, 44th in education achievement. Why on earth do we want to be like Texas?????

By the way, you say you'd buy more things if you didn't have to pay taxes. But would those things made by American workers? I mean, if your 'more things' are made in China, then how are you helping the American economy? Through corporate taxes? Hmmm.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 3 years, 11 months ago

Makes sense to me. If you only have half your teeth, then you should make 100k/Year. That is the way I do the math!

nativeson 3 years, 11 months ago

Texas has a unique situation given taxes on natural resources that are produced in the state. It is just not relevant. There are so many issues to consider when attracting employers, and tax structure is not at the top of list. Avaliable workforce, education, transportation and many others are as critical.

If we want to have a real discussion about attracting jobs, put everything on the table and come up with the best mix of changes that will have impact. It is not just about lower taxes.

lunacydetector 3 years, 11 months ago

that's why lawrence has companies beating down the door......not

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 11 months ago

You're looking at this waaaaay too narrowly, lunacy. It's not being helpful.

mloburgio 3 years, 11 months ago

The first time Brownback and the Republicans tell the truth, it will be the first time. Texas' fast-growing debt tops that of U.S. government's For all the controversy over the national debt ceiling, here's a surprise: Since 2001, the debt load in conservative Texas has grown faster than the federal debt.

Texas has been borrowing more than most other states, too. And local entities, from cities to school districts to transit authorities, have been piling up even more debt.

From 2001 to 2010, state debt alone grew from $13.4 billion to $37.8 billion, according to the Texas Bond Review Board. That's an increase of 281 percent. Over the same time, the national debt rose almost 234 percent, with two wars, two tax cuts and stimulus spending. Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/18/...

optimist 3 years, 11 months ago

I would like to point out that you left out valuable information pertaining to economic growth. Texas' economic growth has far outpaced all other states and the federal government during this period. When you consider their increase in debt relative to their overall growth in GDP I think you get a fairer perspective.

chootspa 3 years, 11 months ago

How much of that is oil growth during a period of increased oil demand? How much comparative oil do we have in this state?

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 11 months ago

Yes and no. If the increase in GDP does not offset the debt load (and in fact increases it, due to providing the artificial economic conditions necessary to create that artificial overblown GDP) then it would seem to me that increased GDP means very little. Nice way to play with the numbers but it does not compute.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 11 months ago

Unfortunately, you also need to look at how this "economic growth" is calculated.

For example, during this period, Texas has created more minimum wage jobs than any other state in the country.

Plus it has now equalled Mississippi as the worst state in terms of the per cent of minimum wage jobs compared to all jobs.

So...while Texas can brag that it's created more jobs than any other state...which is a factor in discussing "economic growth"...the jobs that have been created are the WORST paid of any states.

Scott Tichenor 3 years, 11 months ago

One thing is for sure, the Koch Brothers will receive a massive tax break in addition to the corporate welfare subsidies they're received. As for the rest of you (us). Screw us.

lunacydetector 3 years, 11 months ago

whatever happened to george soros, the destroyer of economies, a convicted criminal in france on the lam? oh, he's funding demoncratic groups to push his agenda. that guy is much scarier than the koch brothers.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 11 months ago

Well, no, he's not "scarier" than the Koch brothers, even though he's done some pretty shady investment deals in his time (something he's gradually moved away from, unlike the Koch brothers.)

But defending the indefensible (ie, the Koch bros) is pretty difficult, so I understand why you prefer to just change the subject.

blogme 3 years, 11 months ago

Not worse than the Koch brothers? Have you heard of the Secretary of State PAC ( SOSP ) being shoveled money from good ol Georgie Soros? Sure, but why admit it? He's openly supporting election manipulation by getting libs appointed to be the election officials over the states. "I'm sorry Mr. Voter, think you voted for Nader? Here's 5 ballots filled in already with the democrat, er, correct candidate, Al Gore."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/liberal-super-pac-emerging-as-key-tool-for-soros-and-other-liberal-billionaires/

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 11 months ago

Oh yeah...$10,000. That's sooooo scary.

Why is it that some folks (on either side) get upset to discover that 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander'?

mloburgio 3 years, 11 months ago

The first time Brownback and the Republicans tell the truth, it will be the first time. Texas' fast-growing debt tops that of U.S. government's For all the controversy over the national debt ceiling, here's a surprise: Since 2001, the debt load in conservative Texas has grown faster than the federal debt.

Texas has been borrowing more than most other states, too. And local entities, from cities to school districts to transit authorities, have been piling up even more debt.

From 2001 to 2010, state debt alone grew from $13.4 billion to $37.8 billion, according to the Texas Bond Review Board. That's an increase of 281 percent. Over the same time, the national debt rose almost 234 percent, with two wars, two tax cuts and stimulus spending. Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/18/...

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 11 months ago

That's because Texas is 'too big to fail.'

weeslicket 3 years, 11 months ago

waaay too simple and fair. are you sure you're a real american?

optimist 3 years, 11 months ago

I know economic concepts can be difficult to grasp at times. I think politician know this and use it to manipulate the masses through classism. No matter your income level if you are a consumer you will be affected by any increase in taxes at any level. It is the consumer that ultimately pays all taxes. The 'wealthy", the "big-corporations" do not pay taxes. These are typically the entities that are producing goods or providing services that the rest of us pay for. Any tax they are charged will simply be passed to the consumer in the form of added cost for goods and services. For example I've heard recently that we should remove the subsidies to oil companies. I am in agreement but probably for a different reason that my progressive friends.

Currently the price of gas is $3.59/gallon. The oil companies earn a profit of $.03 per gallon. The federal government takes approximately $.19/gallon and the state of Kansas takes $.24/gallon. The taxes the state and federal government take are supposed to be used for highway and infrastructure costs. I "trust" this is happening? The remainder of the cost goes to pay for the oil, transportation of the raw material, refining and associated costs, regulatory compliance (i.e. EPA regulations, special formulations), gasoline distribution and to the retailer.

Somewhere in the $.03/gallon profit the company makes is the subsidy. The federal government can take it away but the company must still make a profit or else it ceases to exist. Clearly $.03/ gallon is the profit level that allows them to be competitive and profitable. Therefore if the subsidies go away the price of a gallon of gas will increase shifting the burden from us as the collective taxpayer to us as the individual user.

As it stands right now if you ride your bicycle to work you are still paying for gasoline via these subsidies the oil companies get. If the subsidies end then only the actual gasoline consumers will pay for gasoline. This is a purer form of capitalism and I think for that reason I agree with the progressives.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 11 months ago

I'm sorry, optimist, but your claim that "The oil companies earn a profit of $.03 per gallon" is wrong. Indeed, it's not even close...and this is from the American Petroleum Institute, no less!

According to the American Petroleum Industry...the public relations arm of the oil companies...the average earnings per DOLLAR of sales is 8.3% in AFTER-tax income.

Gas down the street from me is selling for $3.49 a gallon. Using the API's own figures, the average oil company's profit on each gallon I buy is about 30 cents a gallon. NOT $.03 per gallon, but $.30 per gallon...10 times more than you thought it was.

pace 3 years, 11 months ago

If someone want to move to Texas to avoid paying their share of state expenses, let them, they are a drain on the services that tax payers are paying for.

guesswho 3 years, 11 months ago

maybe, but they can certainly help destroy it

KSManimal 3 years, 11 months ago

"But several tax studies note that Kansas’ income tax is the most progressive portion of its tax structure."

And that is precisely why Brownback & Co want to get rid of it. They would much prefer a tax structure that disproportionately taxes the working poor.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

That's probably why he didn't repeal the sales tax increase.

Jimo 3 years, 11 months ago

Hilarious. Texas' debt has been growing faster than the U.S.! Let's copy them.

From 2001 to 2010, state debt alone grew from $13.4 billion to $37.8 billion, according to the Texas Bond Review Board. That's an increase of 281 percent. Over the same time, the national debt rose almost 234 percent, with two wars, two tax cuts and stimulus spending.

Still, the trend is undeniable. While Texas lawmakers have refused to raise taxes -- and often criticize Washington for borrowing and spending -- the state has been paying for much of its expansion with borrowed money.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07/12/3217429/texas-debt-growing-at-faster-rate.html

I don't plan to hold my breath waiting for the Obama-rage machine to start denouncing the "out of control spending and borrowing" of Texas.

tbaker 3 years, 11 months ago

I say do away with all forms of income tax in Kansas and replace the revenue with a higher state sales tax. Yes, people living near the borders of states with lower sales tax rates would cross state lines for major retail purchases, but the revenue lost there would be more than made up by the fact new business would overwhelmingly favor Kansas over states with income and corporate taxes.

chootspa 3 years, 11 months ago

Right, just like they do all other states with low state income taxes and low natural resources or tourist destinations. What are those states again? But that's ok, because we'll be financing our government on the backs of those least able to pay for it or making yet another round of drastic cuts to public services.

If you want businesses to come, build the public services and infrastructure. They'd rather have educated workers and ways to transport goods and services than they would short term tax breaks. Make grants and incentives for small business incubation. Have a special just-for-you-we'll-cut-your-tax-rate incentive for things like the Mars plant. You can't cut it from zero.

tbaker 3 years, 11 months ago

Compare the economic performance of the 9 states without income taxes to the rest of the country. Ever wonder why Texas has created over 730,000 new jobs in the last ten years, and California has lost 600,000 jobs during the same time period? Mars plant indeed.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

See various posts above about the kind of jobs those are.

And, if you're going to compare economic performance, you have to include the projection of a $27 billion deficit in Texas.

average 3 years, 11 months ago

And yet they still have a measurably higher unemployment rate than Kansas. Much higher poverty rate, too.

chootspa 3 years, 11 months ago

As pointed out, they created a bunch of MINIMUM WAGE jobs in Texas and have massive state budget problems, hardly something to emulate.

Other states in that list either have huge tourism industries, huge natural energy reserves or both. Sorry, but Kansas cannot compete with that on either front.

New Hampshire and Washington have business and investment taxes instead of income taxes - I doubt that's what the governor had in mind, and South Dakota masquerades as being low tax and business friendly by not disclosing how a huge chunk of their geographical area is actually a reservation with a 50% unemployment rate.

If you want economic prosperity for the state, build a business friendly environment, not a cargo cult.

tbaker 3 years, 11 months ago

Help me out here - Is a person remaining unemployed better off than one finding a job, even if it's a low-pay McJob? Really? Think about what you are saying. A state losing thousands of jobs casting hundreds of thousands into (or further into poverty) and public assistance is somehow better for the people in question than is a state creating hundreds of thousands of jobs lifting people out of poverty and off public assistance. You're ideology is showing. Do you realize that 37% of the jobs the President likes to claim credit for creating in his so-called "recovery" came from Texas? You remind me of Senator Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all voting against the debt ceiling when President Bush was in the White House. The people clearly amount to squat in your equation. I guess you only care about the unemployed if the job they find can be traced to a liberal. What tune would you be singing if the governor of Texas was a democrat? You should be ashamed of yourselves. Your hypocrisy is duly noted.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

We're saying that neither of those is a good alternative, and we should do better.

And, that Texas is not a good model, especially if you include the massive budget deficit, which you seem to like to ignore.

tbaker 3 years, 11 months ago

You're right. I am ignoring the Texas state budget deficit. It is off-topic. We're talking about economic conditions and jobs.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

How on earth is a massive budget deficit not part of the "economic conditions"? That's a little crazy.

notanota 3 years, 11 months ago

If you're "growing" a bunch of minimum wage jobs for people who still require public assistance and won't be able to contribute enough revenue back into the system to pay for those services, it's very much on topic.

notanota 3 years, 11 months ago

Lifting people out of poverty and off public assistance? Really? Minimum wage jobs are precisely the jobs that keep people in poverty and on public assistance.

notaubermime 3 years, 11 months ago

"Yes, people living near the borders of states with lower sales tax rates would cross state lines for major retail purchases"

You do realize where most of the people in the state of Kansas live, right?

tbaker 3 years, 11 months ago

Yeah. Within 20 miles of Great Bend, right?

You must have stopped reading after the quote you pasted.

notaubermime 3 years, 11 months ago

No, I kept reading. I just think you are being extremely optimistic in how much business your idea would attract. I also think you that are overly downplaying the economic losses.

chootspa 3 years, 11 months ago

Oh good. I was worried that Brownback hadn't finished ruining this state.

MyName 3 years, 11 months ago

Yes but which half is which? Because clearly all of those businesses and factories that the rich people own don't just run themselves.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 11 months ago

It's not "the rich" that create jobs. It's businesses that create jobs.

And businesses don't hire people when they get more tax cuts...they hire people when they get more customers.

Why is this simple concept so hard for so many to understand?

notaubermime 3 years, 11 months ago

You would think that the fact that the very thing you describe is going on right now would clue some people in...

Scott Drummond 3 years, 11 months ago

Well, we are not created equal, we are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Be that as it may, we do not all use shared resources equally, so there is a logical basis for taxing some more than others.

chootspa 3 years, 11 months ago

Yes. The people who most benefit from the stability and economic prosperity of this country should pay the most for those services. We agree. They can thank us later for those roads to transport goods and services, the fire police forces to keep them safe, and the schools that make sure they don't need to pay to teach their employees to read.

SnakeFist 3 years, 11 months ago

Using your ridiculously simplistic notion, why not make everyone earn the same amount? If everyone earns the same amount, then their taxes will necessarily be approximately equal (give or take a deduction or two).

But, of course, that isn't the kind of equality you had in mind - you want the burdens to be shared equally by all, but not the benefits.

Caesar_Augustus 3 years, 11 months ago

Brownback, a Republican, is champing at the bit.

Keep champing

MyName 3 years, 11 months ago

It took them 6 months to balance the budget on the tax revenues we got, and Brownback is proposing decreasing them more? What a joke.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 11 months ago

Historically, Tennessee has never had a state income tax. There is little to no manufacturing in the state (unless you count Little Debbies and Moon Pies). A lot of the state economy was built on coal and coke mining (much like Kentucky and Virginia/West Virginia) until the rise of Nashville and the music biz which started drawing in tourist dollars. Much like the rest of the south, Tennessee has a hugely depressed economy. When I went to Chattanooga from the West Coast, RNs started out at four dollars an hour less then what I made in Portland. This was in 1998. Despite that there were, quite literally, no nursing jobs available. I almost fell off my chair. This was in the flush of the Clinton administration. I was used to the nursing shortage and, in 25 years of nursing (to that point), I had never gone more than three days without a job. I ended up going three months before I even got an offer. There were other indications. Rents were about two thirds of what they were in Kansas City. Same with real estate prices. (From what I understand there was no "housing bubble" in TN.) Food and other goods were a tiny bit cheaper but not by much (mainly because of sales taxes; 10% in some places.). Point is, people made less and, for the most part, they paid less. Ok, even if the jobs weren't there and salaries were low, it didn't cost as much. Oh and did I mention that TN has always had historically crappy schools? So much so that my husband, the child of hard shell Southern Baptists, grew up in Catholic schools from elementary all the way through high school because his parents refused to put him in the Chattanooga public schools. Fast forward through the Bush years. There still aren't any jobs. My husband's aunt (a woman who is actually close to me in age) is also an RN, except she has even better qualifications than I do. She has a Masters in Nursing Administration. She is laid off and now she can't find a job. Housing prices still haven't risen but there's no "bubble" to blame it on. They are, in fact, if anything, worse, hit by a bubble they never had. They still have crappy schools. But everything else; food, gas, etc. has risen, partially because the economy is even worse (if that were possible) and partially because even more sales and excise taxes have been piled on. I guess the only "good" thing that can be said about it is that, in a state where just about everybody is pretty much poor, you just don't notice it as much. This is life in a state with no income tax.

tbaker 3 years, 11 months ago

TN is one example. Heres another: Compare the economic performance of the 9 states without income taxes to the rest of the country. Ever wonder why Texas has created over 730,000 new jobs in the last ten years, and California has lost 600,000 jobs during the same time period?

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

Compare them if you want, but you ought to include budget deficits in your comparison.

jesse499 3 years, 11 months ago

I can see it now know one that makes over $200,000 pays tax if they donate to Brownback the rest of us pay 90 percent becuse we don't need it anyway.

chootspa 3 years, 11 months ago

Yes. There were absolutely no rich people when the marginal tax rate was 70%, and nobody went to school or studied hard. The converse is also true - everyone is now employed by sheer motivation alone and the magical invisible hand has cured all our employment woes with the historical low marginal tax rates of the Bush cuts.

chootspa 3 years, 11 months ago

Did it work any better the second time around?

chootspa 3 years, 11 months ago

In other words, "I don't want to admit that the answer is 'no,' so I'll attempt to change the subject with yet another inaccurate cliché."

chootspa 3 years, 11 months ago

You should try out for a dodgeball team. You can dodge and get exercise at the same time. Plus you don't ever have to admit that there's no evidence we're disincentivizing work with our top marginal tax rates.

beatrice 3 years, 11 months ago

And why were they extended? To not acknowledge that Republicans were holding benefits to America's unemployed hostage is simply dishonest.

Centerville 3 years, 11 months ago

Of the six states with budget surpluses during the Obama Recession, some have an income tax and some have a sales tax. None have both.

chootspa 3 years, 11 months ago

Wrong. Let's narrow this down to the only two states who managed to have a surplus in 2010 without also cutting spending to get there. Only Montana and North Dakota, for those playing at home. North Dakota has both sales and income taxes as well as property tax. Montana has only an income and property tax. Both have business taxes.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 11 months ago

Really? There were at least 12 states that ended FY11 with budget surpluses.

Some had both sales and income taxes. Some even raised taxes (including one state that I'll bet was included in your smaller figure.) All had higher-than-expected tax revenues.

Of course, the stimulus funding is ending, so it'll be interesting to see what happens next year.

Shane Garrett 3 years, 11 months ago

There is nothing that anyone can do to please everyone. The United States is paying for the excesses of the 90's. And to top it off our enemies have successfully won the economic war. Their cost, four of our jet liners and thousands of their countrys' civilian lives. Then there is our own economic terrorist such as those that caused the US government to bail out business that were supposedly "to large to fail". The one economic fact that I do know is that a person cannot eat a predator drone. The drone is built, paid for by society, and then exploded. Where is the economic value in that? The United states pays for way too much for everything. We drive our tanks, for practice, in German fields, then pay the German farmers for the damage the tanks caused. And what really burns me up is that my squash plants all got infested with vine borer beetles.

chootspa 3 years, 11 months ago

Plant a new crop. It's the only cure. Stupid vine borers.

guesswho 3 years, 11 months ago

No, we are trying to figure out how to pay for Bush's 2 wars, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and a tax cut.

weeslicket 3 years, 11 months ago

pathetic argument. really freaking weak.

drones and artillery against libya vs. 2 decades-long wars. really, don't even bother with extended tax breaks for the wealthy bits, or even medicare part D.

go ahead and make the libya vs. iraq and afganistan numbers argument. snort. fart. snorty-fart.

lunacydetector 3 years, 11 months ago

what's wrong with keeping more of your hard earned dollars, especially during obama's depression?

Scott Drummond 3 years, 11 months ago

Quite a trick for george w. to start a depression and bail out his buddies on Wall Street and some people's partisan hatred is so blind that they claim it is President Obama's fault.

Did he assassinate President Kennedy too. Maybe he could take the blame for Martin Luther King's killing too. Or the Watergate crimes. Or the S&L crimes. Or Iran Contra.

Wait those were all republicon deeds too.

Hmm.

Better turn up that propaganda machine, some of us might just begin to see a pattern here.

Oh wait, your main propagandists are having some trouble with the law or something, aren't they?

Charles L Bloss Jr 3 years, 11 months ago

I think reducing property tax is most important for seniors. Thank you, Lynn

Richard Heckler 3 years, 11 months ago

The Brownback pork barrel tax restructuring plan:

After spending so so many decades in Washington D.C on tax dollar payrolls republicans are sure they learned all they needed to know about OUR money and founding reckless economies. Republicans have much experience under their belts and they never quit sharing.

The Brownback Plan:

TABOR is Coming by Grover Norquist and Koch Bros. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0705rebne.html

And that tax cuts do nothing to make an economy strong or produce jobs.

Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts - The ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html

In the end big debt and super duper bailouts were the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. Brownback was there.

In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:

  • Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.

  • Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

• Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

Carol Bowen 3 years, 11 months ago

"Meanwhile, Democrats, who are in the minority in the House and Senate, have argued for fairer taxes by closing sales tax exemptions. But attempts to shut down these exemptions have failed to gain any traction."

There are Republicans who are also interested in removing sales tax exemptions. There are many entities with questionable tax exempt status.

average 3 years, 11 months ago

Not exactly a boatload of them, are there? Or they could have passed it any day they wanted over decades of GOP control over Topeka. I don't think Sebelius/Parkinson were holding it up.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 11 months ago

"Nick Jordan informally entered the Congressional race in August 2007. Upon his entry, the Kansas City Star noted Jordan claimed to have united the divided factions, the social conservatives and the economic conservatives, that have split the Republican Party in the recent past

Steve Rose, publisher of The Johnson County Sun, however, has highlighted Jordan's consistently conservative voting record saying, "He votes with the right-wing crowd on education, embryonic stem cell research, and all the other hot-button right-wing issues. I know Nick Jordan, and he is no moderate."

cchrfanatic 3 years, 11 months ago

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

camper 3 years, 11 months ago

I read part of that link about a month ago. It is intriguing at 1st when you read it. It is basically what is called a consumption tax. It very well may be time to think outside the box, and it just might be a good idea, but there have got to be some flaws. Tax revenues would become a factor supply, demand, prices and may other variables such as economic cycles, something I admit we are already subject to. Would purchases of capital investments and stock be subject the retail tax? There is a limit to how much retail items any one person can buy no matter how rich you are. If you love tacos, there are only so many tacos you can consume in a day. At face value, this would seem to be a regressive tax even with the built in refund on necessities. But who am I to say. What we are doing now obviously ain't working.

camper 3 years, 11 months ago

Texas' debt grew from 13.4 billion to 37.8 billion last decade. This is a big #. Here is a staggering thought that may be a little bit off topic. The US spends approximately $ 10 billion a month on Afghanistan. I'll hang up and listen. Nothing left to say.

tbaker 3 years, 11 months ago

The US should come home from both Iraq and Afghanistan. We stayed way too long in both places, far exceeded the original mission(s). Thanks to US they both have an opportunity for a bright(er) future. Its up to them to take it, or return to barbarism. If they get out of line and threaten the US again, we nuke a couple major population centers. I don't care how that sounds; it sounds way better than an American soldier's eulogy. Niether place is worth another American life or dollar. Violence is all most the the populations understand these days. The smarter ones who know better are either dead or fled.

ivalueamerica 3 years, 11 months ago

Brownback wants to change tax structure

This can only mean one thing. More tax breaks and subsidies for the wealthy, fewer services for people with disabilities, less education for the schools and a great tax burden on the middle class.

Trickle down economics has never worked, but the GOP, nationally and within Kansas has never let that fact stop them.

Carol Bowen 3 years, 11 months ago

KS tax reductions since 1995 in 2010 dollars:

Vehicle Property Taxes - $125.9 million General Property Taxes - 497.9

Single Person Income Tax - 64.1 Increase Personal Income Exemption - 39.1 Earned Income Tax Credit - 66.2 Food Sales Tax Rebate - 43.7 Business Franchise Tax Phase Out - 26.5

Sales Tax Exemption New Construction - 27.9 Exemption Residential Remodeling - 21.9 Utilities Consumed During Production - 19.6

Health Clinic Exemption - .3 Historic Preservation Tax Credits - .6 Military Recruitment Bonus Exemption - .7

Total of all Tax Reductions/Credits - $1,164.4 million in 2010 dollars

Commenting has been disabled for this item.