Archive for Thursday, March 3, 2011

House to consider repeal of 1-cent sales tax increase

March 3, 2011, 11:50 p.m. Updated March 4, 2011, 9:48 a.m.


— The House tax committee on Thursday advanced a bill to repeal the 1-cent state sales increase that was approved in the 2010 legislative session.

Conservative Republicans have made the repeal one of their top priorities even though Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican, has spoken against the proposal.

Supporters of the repeal say the tax increase has hurt economic growth and been a burden to taxpayers.

Opponents of repeal say it would reduce state revenues by about $390 million, which would require drastic budget cuts. The state is already facing a projected $500 million revenue shortfall in the fiscal year that starts July 1.

The measure, House Bill 2091, next goes to the full House for consideration.

During the 2010 session, legislators approved increasing the state sales tax from 5.3 cents per dollar to 6.3 cents per dollar. The increase went into effect July 1. The rate is scheduled to decrease to 5.7 cents per dollar in 2013.

The Kansas Chamber of Commerce was one of the major opponents of the increase last year and worked to defeat candidates who supported the increase.

But this year, the chamber has said the tax increase should be made permanent and the revenue used to offset elimination of the state corporate income tax.


gccs14r 6 years, 11 months ago

They shouldn't have raised the sales tax rate in the first place. They should have raised income taxes, instead.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 11 months ago

By that logic, all taxes should be eliminated, and funded solely through voluntary payments.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 11 months ago

That should have read--

and government should be funded solely through voluntary payments.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 11 months ago

"The rest of us like the fact that sales tax is optional."

For the vast majority of people, sales tax is not optional-- unless you define food, clothing and utilities, among other things, as "optional."

parrothead8 6 years, 11 months ago

Sure, we have to buy things in order to survive, but I'd rather be taxed a little on what I choose to buy than a lot on what I make.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous that we get taxed on the necessities of life like food - many other states do not tax their citizens on food, or at least tax their citizens much less on food. However, I'd rather have a choice about what I'm being taxed on than just have them take a flat amount from my paycheck.

jafs 6 years, 11 months ago

If everything were funded through sales taxes, they'd be higher - it wouldn't be "a little" in sales tax.

notanota 6 years, 11 months ago

Plus everyone would drive to Missouri, so Kansas business owners would earn less, so we'd have to raise the rates more, etc.

Bob_Keeshan 6 years, 11 months ago

I love the optional sales tax, but I'm on a Gandhi-esque fast right now. People who have families to feed aren't so keen on the "optional" part of it.

gl0ckUser 6 years, 11 months ago

You drop all sales Taxes and I will come back to Kansas

notanota 6 years, 11 months ago

That's great incentive to keep them intact.

LogicMan 6 years, 11 months ago

While I'm against unneeded tax increases, it would be uber foolish to repeal this one now. First the budget must be balanced, some debts paid down and government fully streamlined, then a surplus achieved before intentionally reducing revenue. Otherwise, you just make things that much worse for both the short and long haul.

myavaka 6 years, 11 months ago

I don't understand why Brownback is against this. Tax cuts increase revenue, it's clearly highlighted in his, "Understanding GOP Economics" handbook.

jafs 6 years, 11 months ago

Anybody else notice the Chamber of Commerce's 180 turn on this one?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 11 months ago

Increased sales taxes allow decreases in taxes that are more expensive to big business and the wealthy-- the Koch brothers, for example.

jafs 6 years, 11 months ago


So why did they oppose it first?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 11 months ago

I think it was a bit of a reflexive response from an organization that's hostile to government of any kind (except corporate welfare.)

But I think they viewed this increase in regressive taxes (on baby food, among other things) as a good way to finance other tax reductions for their major clients.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 11 months ago

Yes more wreckanomics is all we need from the Washington D. C. beltway governor.

Reagan/Bush put millions out of work by killing the Savings and Loan industry with help from that merger,hostile takeover and leveraged buyout frenzy. Talk about reckless financing.

Then Bush/Cheney came along and decided to follow suit only they wrecked the entire USA economy with the help of Wall Street financial institutions aka white collar thugs.

Now we have a host of republican governors following suit by trying to bust unions and put more people out of work. IN ADDITION to cutting wages and benefits.

This repub party is not about economic growth they are about economic stupidity aka wreckanomics.

On top of all of this they want to privatize social security insurance which would add $700 billion to the national debt each year for the next 20 years. This nation cannot afford to be without Social Security Insurance. OR Medicare Insurance.

This nation cannot afford the republican party.

When it comes to keeping amercia employed have not learned that privatized industry is simply not a dependable source? The oil industry,auto industry,local developers,banking industry,WALL STREET INDUSTRY and the medical insurance industry are some of the worst managed industries in the nation. They all need bailouts.

Why turn over OUR Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance over to failing managers?

Gov Brownback is showing his mismangement skills daily.

Shardwurm 6 years, 11 months ago


I think you have it wrong.

This country cannot afford either party. You don't seem to understand that spending your money is what they all do. It doesn't matter who is in power...WE are the ones who demand services, handouts, pay raises, free this, free that, etc. etc. etc.

We demand it...we pay for it. Doesn't matter if the Libertarians or anyone else is 'in power.'

The rub is that people like you think taking 60 percent of my wages is acceptable and I don't. Not sure there's a way around that.

Random56 6 years, 11 months ago

with sky rocketing gas and commodities any tax break would help.

Eddie Muñoz 6 years, 11 months ago

Our state has already figured out that it is in the hole financially, but now people want to make it so the state has less income?

The logic here escapes me.

Bob_Keeshan 6 years, 11 months ago

Repeal it. Then balance the budget with all the cuts they want.

Then close the schools, empty out the state hospitals, and slash thousands of jobs.

Give these fools what they want, and perhaps voters will think twice before putting them in office again.

jafs 6 years, 11 months ago

I hope that's the case.

So far, I'm not sure people are paying enough attention, and won't hold these guys accountable.

fan4kufootball 6 years, 11 months ago

What they need to do is eliminate the sales tax exemption for services and other exemptions and then lower the rate.

Evan Ridenour 6 years, 11 months ago

This is asinine. Unless you are not aware (which perhaps the state legislative representatives advocating for this actually aren't aware), a state cannot run a deficit like the federal government can. The state already has a projected deficit of $500 million and yet they want to repeal a tax that adds almost $400 million in tax revenue (for those poor at math as the legislative representatives appear to be) that would INCREASE the projected deficit to almost a billion dollars!!

Who are these people? And how can they be so stupid?!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 11 months ago

They plan on eliminating any government program that doesn't directly service big business and the wealthy.

Jimo 6 years, 11 months ago

Granted, increasing sales taxes on the poor when income taxes are at a near-low and corporate taxes are almost non-existent was quite a lame move (not to mention, immoral). But I can't favor refusing the tax revenue until the higher income and corporate taxes are in place and generating funds.

usnsnp 6 years, 11 months ago

Easily to the last comment. Get rid of the 1-cents sale tax, then they can cut more funding for schools or do away with it altogether and say local school districts will have to raise mill levies to cover all school expenses. Then they can go to their gerimandered districts and say, see we cut the state budget and did away with the sale tax increase and in the mean time we will also do away with all buisness taxes.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 11 months ago

The problem is not necessarily the rates, but the number of people who asked the legislature to take them out of the tax boat. These two studies, paid for by the legislature, are interesting. About 75% of the sales and 90% of the property is off the books. An examination of the tax code, income, sales and property, is in order. Hugo Wall School of Urban and Public Affairs Wichita State University

notanota 6 years, 11 months ago

How about they replace it with a tax on fiscal stupidity? Then the House would end up financing the state shortfall entirely out of their own pockets. Problem solved.

booyalab 6 years, 11 months ago

I can't believe so many people have been duped into the belief that our deficits are caused by too-low tax rates. That kind of thinking causes people to start playing the lottery to pay off their credit card debt.

notanota 6 years, 11 months ago

Uh, what? That analogy makes no sense.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.