Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Robin Hood in reverse:’ Brownback’s plan would raise taxes paid by poorest Kansans

January 17, 2012, 11:07 a.m. Updated January 17, 2012, 3:00 p.m.

Advertisement

— More criticism emerged Tuesday over Gov. Sam Brownback’s tax plan as figures showed the poorest of Kansans would face a huge increase in their tax liability.

A non-partisan policy group said Brownback’s proposal would benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy said its analysis found “that the bottom 80 percent of the state’s income distribution would collectively see a tax hike under the Brownback plan, while the best off 20 percent of Kansans would see substantial tax cuts.”

The Washington, D.C., research group, which advocates for progressive taxes, added, “For most middle- and low-income Kansans, the tax break from the income tax rate cuts would be completely offset by the loss of income tax credits and itemized deductions, as well as a higher sales tax rate.”

Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley of Topeka called Brownback’s proposal “Robin Hood in reverse.”

Hensley said of Brownback, “He is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.”

Brownback says plan is pro-growth

Brownback, a Republican, has proposed decreasing state income tax rates, eliminating the state income tax for thousands of businesses, doing away with numerous tax credits and deductions, and keeping the state sales tax at 6.3 cents per dollar, which under current law is supposed to drop to 5.7 cents per dollar in 2013.

Brownback has said his proposal will lure businesses to Kansas and spur economic development. He said his intent is to eventually phase out the state income tax.

“I firmly believe these reforms will set the stage for strong economic growth in Kansas – and will put more money into the pockets of Kansas families and businesses,” Brownback said in his State of the State address.

“Growth that will allow us to further reduce tax rates and increase our competitiveness. Growth that will see people move to Kansas instead of leaving our state,” he said.

More numbers emerging

As a group, low-income families would see an astronomical tax increase, according to Kansas Department of Revenue figures released by legislators.

The amount of individual income tax revenue would decrease by 12 percent overall, but it would affect different groups of taxpayers differently.

Those Revenue Department figures show there were 564,328 Kansas tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $25,000 or less in the 2009 tax year. Currently, that group receives a total refund of $1.7 million. Under Brownback’s plan, that group would have a total tax liability of $86.5 million. That is more than a 5,000 percent increase in tax liability and averages $156 more per filer.

Meanwhile, there are 21,158 Kansas tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 or more. Under Brownback’s plan, they would pay an average of $5,239 less in taxes, and as a group $110.8 million less than now, which is a 18.5 percent tax cut.

Kansas Democratic Party Chairwoman Joan Wagnon, who also served as the state’s chief tax official for eight years, said Brownback has picked banks and wealthy corporations over people.

“This isn’t even remotely fair, and it drains funding from education,” Wagnon said.

Under Brownback’s plan, individual Kansans will lose $180 million in tax credits, while banks and wealthy corporations would retain nearly all of their credits, said Wagnon, who served as secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue from 2003 until 2011.

Brownback’s plan would get rid of the home mortgage interest deduction, the charitable contribution deduction, child care and dependent care deductions, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the tax credit for families who adopt children, and the sales tax on food rebate program.

Removing the rebate on sales taxes paid on food will take money from more than 365,000 Kansans, while ending the state portion of the EITC would hurt more than 227,000 working Kansans, Wagnon said.

Brownback has said he planned to take funds saved from junking the EITC and plow them into programs to help the poor.

Hensley said this runs counter to Republican rhetoric “to reward work and not reward welfare.”

Comments

Bob Forer 2 years, 11 months ago

Brownback is a christian in name only. Taking from the poor, who are struggling to feed their families, and giving to the rich, who already have much more than they need. The guy is a utterly despicable person, and his proposed tax plan reveals all we need to know about the guy. Those Kansas who continue to support Brownback are absolute pigs.

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 11 months ago

+100

However, trying to guilt christians into behaving according to christ's teachings is an exercise in futility.

Christians, indeed all religious adherents, are masters of rationalization.

The poor should not be concerned with this tax hike, for they shall inherit the earth. Their reward is in heaven.

Alexander Smith 2 years, 11 months ago

But watching your family suffer and not have proper health care because they can't afford it do to taxe increase on the poor.. they have to be concerned now. Its the Christian thing to do. Love and take care of the family, not sit back and watch them suffer because a ding dong REP wants to let the rich get richer. The poor are not beeing greedy, they just want to have the funds to make it by and have a somewhat stable life.

TopJayhawk 2 years, 11 months ago

You have no clue about Christianity. Being poor has nothing to do with inheriting the earth.

But I agree Brownstain is a phoney.

itwasthedukes 2 years, 11 months ago

Letting people keep more of their earned income is giving them money? Paying $150 more in taxes is a 5000% increase? That is the real crime.

Orwell 2 years, 11 months ago

Of course we have to tax the poor more heavily. How else can our elected officials benefit the big donors to their campaigns?

deec 2 years, 11 months ago

Clearly, neither do the rich, at least not jobs in this country. With all the tax breaks and credits of the last decade or so, we ought to be just swimming in jobs. Yeah...that didn't quite work out.

straightforward 2 years, 11 months ago

I think construction workers who benefitted from a boom in new housing might disagree. Seems the mortgage interest deduction worked in their favor...

Of course, I'm sure you have some sort of proof that it wouldn't have been worse without those credits and deductions.

chootspa 2 years, 11 months ago

Taxing the poor is the new "fair tax" according to the conservo extremists.

imastinker 2 years, 11 months ago

A fair tax is one in which people pay for the services they use.

jafs 2 years, 11 months ago

That's not a tax at all - it's a "user fee".

tomatogrower 2 years, 11 months ago

So rich people have their own private roads, private police force, and fire department. Give me a break.

kochmoney 2 years, 11 months ago

Do 1%ers pay for the education of all the people they allegedly hire? Do they pay for all the roads used to transport their goods, the police and fire fighters used to protect them, or the military used to defend it? What about the bailouts, the subsidies, or the tax breaks. Do they get to pay for those, too?

somedude20 2 years, 11 months ago

No doy! If you have to tell people what you are, chances are you are not! Christian, ha! Don't think so bud

fan4kufootball 2 years, 11 months ago

Most of what the article is calling a tax hike is in reality a reduction of the social progrom call Earned Income Credit (EIC). For those who do not know - EIC is getting a refund of taxes not paid by that taxpaer but taxes paid by another taxpayer.

Alceste 2 years, 11 months ago

"American economists on both the right and the left have long advocated subsidizing low-wage work as a means of social inclusion—offering an economic compact with everyone who embraces work, no matter their level of skill. The Earned Income Tax Credit, begun in 1975 and expanded several times since then, does just that....."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/can-the-middle-class-be-saved/8600/4/

fan4kufootball 2 years, 11 months ago

I am not an advocate of of cutting social programs - just stating the effects of the tax bill.

However - I wish that our loose and flagrant government did not have the responsiblity of administrating the programs. I would rather see them administrated by local organizations that run a lot leaner therefore more of the money going to those who need it.

Alceste 2 years, 11 months ago

Nixon tried just that with his creation of the Community Development Block Grant Program: "After all, the local communities know how to use and spend the money the best of all....".

No, they did not and do not. A small group of "insiders" always make the decisions relative to how these "local funds" are spent. I'll take a Washington, D.C. suit wearing, head bobber anyday over a local rube.

Bob Forer 2 years, 11 months ago

Wrong again. You need to stick to watching football, as you obviously don't do well in reading comprehension.

Here is what the article says: "The figures show that taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $25,000 or less would see an average increase of $156. They would, as a class, pay $88 million more in individual income taxes than they do now."]

Now, please explain how you got from point A (the above scenario) to Point B, your outrageous assertion. You can't, because what you assert came directly from your rear end, and as "facts" they stink.

Is it ignorance? Or do you have an active imagination? Or do you simply not give a rats ass about kids going hungry?

ksjayhawk74 2 years, 11 months ago

The EITC is not even mentioned in this article. If it had been, it would say that without the EITC and the increase in taxes, former EITC recipients would have a tax increase of $442.

fan4kufootball 2 years, 11 months ago

Your wrong - it has a lot to do with the EIC. Maybe you should read more than this one particular article.

ksjayhawk74 2 years, 11 months ago

My wrong what?... Oh, you meant to say "You're wrong"... OK

When I wrote that comment, the EITC was not mentioned in the article. That would make my statement correct.

Also, the original article was only talking about an increase in taxes and did not mention any other programs, that are separate.

You're wrong.

Alceste 2 years, 11 months ago

Well, the "blogger" Moderate will certainly be quite joyous over the fact that now the poorest folks in the state shall, as he likes to opine, "....have some skin in the game.....". That'll teach 'em that their poverty is their fault and their responsibility because they don't know how to manipulate the tax code; didn't work hard enough in school or in life; and are, as was said in the film "The Rainmaker": "...stupid stupid stupid."

Meanwhile "blogger" Moderate clips coupons in that $400,000.00 valued house in Douglas County and cries in his collective beer that he's not wealthy. He's going to be paying less in state income taxes. shrug

"Blogger" Moderate's collective tax obligation shall decrease as well it should as he "earned it". Such is life in Kansas.......excellent.....in this best of all possible worlds.....

Shelley Bock 2 years, 11 months ago

I'm so proud of Governor Sam that he's out there on the front lines of Class Warfare. He'll next be announcing a "body count".

Bob Forer 2 years, 11 months ago

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

Bob Forer 2 years, 11 months ago

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

Bob Forer 2 years, 11 months ago

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

Bob Forer 2 years, 11 months ago

Yeah, you are right. It took me a long time to accept the fact that my brother truly died for his country. But I still can't stomach the fact that some of my fellow Americans who enjoy their freedom because of such sacrifice remain primitive, and greedy, and ignorant, and greedy, and intellectually dishonest, and greedy, and manipulative, and greedy, and supercilious, and greedy, .............

burnmu 2 years, 11 months ago

you should move to missouri, you already sound like you're from there. What do you mean old days? Blogging wasn't taking place in the "old days." HoHoHoHo fox hole

Bob Forer 2 years, 11 months ago

explain how decreasing taxes for wealthy is "necessary"

kochmoney 2 years, 11 months ago

For the same reason it's ok to take membership dues and charge user fees. Citizenship has a price, and membership has privileges.

Bob Forer 2 years, 11 months ago

An old document that starts out, "We the People" .Did you drop out of High School before taking Civics?.

Armored_One 2 years, 11 months ago

No taxation without representation.

I don't hear much of anything about the under paid and overworked lobbying politicians, or financing their campaigns.

I mean, honestly, the least politicians could do these days is offer a little lubricant before cramming it in and breaking it off.

moliemolie 2 years, 11 months ago

I just want the rich taxed at the same rate they were in the 90's. You remember the 90's, right? With the booming economy and all.

What's this blood and sweat you're talking about?

ksjayhawk74 2 years, 11 months ago

Brownback has to take more money from poor people and less money from rich people because of Obama? Please elaborate.

Bob Forer 2 years, 11 months ago

Is that a Laffer or a laugher. I think it's both. "Trickle down" economics have been discredited long ago.

progressive_thinker 2 years, 11 months ago

Consumers create jobs. When consumers purchase products and services in excess of current production capacities, businesses will hire to make up the deficit in capacity.

On the other hand, if consumer demand shrinks because money flows out of the hand of those who will spend it and into the hand of the already wealthy, the already wealthy become wealthier and growth stalls.

Tax rates on upper incomes are at historically low levels. If the wealthy truly created jobs, we would have zero unemployment.

kochmoney 2 years, 11 months ago

No, actually I don't notice that. I do notice how they're no longer counted on the lists of people seeking unemployment benefits, though. Perhaps you have cause and effect a bit confused, there.

tomatogrower 2 years, 11 months ago

"At the same time Obama vacations with the 1% and begs for campaign contributions from the 1%, he demonizes the same group for being evil-greedy and not caring about the 99%."

And Obama has said he is more than willing to pay more taxes. What's your point? Are you jealous, because you didn't spend part of your childhood in Hawaii?

moliemolie 2 years, 11 months ago

Get a clue. The demand from the rich is a drop in the bucket compared to the demand from the rest of us. In this country one in 400 makes over a million a year. And that one doesn't own dozens of homes and hundreds of cars. They don't spend 10's of thousands at the grocery store every week or have thousands of outfits in their closet.

Demand from the poor and middle class is what makes this economy go. Period. The is why the republican economic policies are so insane. They are slowly killing the goose that laid the golden egg and they are too stupid to realize it.

Nelly 2 years, 11 months ago

Oh its Obama's fault......................... well of course it is.

ksjayhawk74 2 years, 11 months ago

Why isn't the EITC being ended in Kansas, even mentioned in the article? A person who was receiving the EITC would actually have a tax increase of $425.

From the article last week about this subject....

"Brownback’s Budget Director Steve Anderson said, “We have no way of making sure, for example, that a single mother is spending that on needs for her children.”"

The rationale here is that there is no way for these poor people to prove they $382 a year on each one of their children, so lets not give them any more money so we don't have to worry about it.

Bob Forer 2 years, 11 months ago

Brownback and his ilk have no brains. They have no shame. They have no compassion. They have no humanity. Their only talent is counting their dollar bills.

kochmoney 2 years, 11 months ago

Sorry, but I find it inappropriate against him, too.

kawrivercrow 2 years, 11 months ago

Hogwash. This is merely scaling back on the backdoor welfare plan otherwise known as the Earned Income Tax Credit*, which is where low-income filers with deductions get more tax refund than they ever paid in to begin with. For those of us who actually do pay real income tax, this is the first grubby little mitt in the pot, taking our money right back out as it rolls in to the coffers.

Furthermore, the plan, not explained in this article, is that we will shift this money into the Medicaid coffers and THEN the feds will match it dollar for dollar. This way, we get twice as much for our buck, the poor still get their handout and rather than it be wasted on liquor, junk food and smart phones, it is applied directly to healthcare, etc.

*Per a recent NPR program on state politics.

ksjayhawk74 2 years, 11 months ago

Nice try but wrong. As I've pointed out twice in the comments already, the EITC is not mentioned in the article. You are making the bad assumption that all poor people have children and are receiving the EITC, which they are not.

Brownback does want to eliminate the EITC in Kansas, which would make a more larger tax increase for poor people in Kansas with children.

kawrivercrow 2 years, 11 months ago

Re-read the updated article. the EITC is explicitly mentioned.

And no, I did not make any assumptions, period. And yes, the EITC welfare.

ksjayhawk74 2 years, 11 months ago

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

Richard Heckler 2 years, 11 months ago

All those praising the Brownback tax cuts best grab your wallets.

Ole Facist Sam Brownback is shadily arranging a tax hike for you. He is pushing 24/7 for local tax increases to support his ill conceived tax cut. This is not a new concept for the RINO dominated party members. IT's just most people think a cut means a tax cut without thinking of the repercussions.

madcow 2 years, 11 months ago

This story is lacking.

Yes the tax changes are evil and stupid, but just telling the changes for those at the bottom and top of the pay scales is not helpful for most.

What about those in the middle of the road. Just curious how much I will own Brownbackistan next year.

malehrman 2 years, 11 months ago

Here is a story from Steve Jobs about turning in Coke bottles for the nickel deposit to buy food and walking seven miles to a Hindu temple for his one good meal each week, then starting a company in a garage.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html

Here is a description of Sam Walton's youth:

Maybe "job creators" do come from all tax brackets?

kochmoney 2 years, 11 months ago

Read the biographies. Turns out that a!@holes come from all tax brackets, too.

chootspa 2 years, 11 months ago

Were you intending to prove the point that it takes money to make money? Steve Jobs was voluntarily in India to go "find himself," not because he'd hit hard times. His garage was in Silicon Valley, and so were his investors. His story is a success story for his early investors as much as it is for him. Without that initial cash, he might still be selling kits to computer clubs.

Sam Walton bought his first store with a $40,000 loan from his father-in-law (roughly $400,000 or more today), and the same father-in-law secretly paid $20,000 for a leasing option on his second store, so in spite of what may have been a depression-era upbringing, he had some hefty access to credit lines we don't often see today.

Sure, they're pretty anecdotes, and they sound folksier when you talk about some of their low points financially. I can tell you all about people who win big money at the slot machines, too. Do you dispute that the game favors the house?

08Champs 2 years, 11 months ago

Someone explain to me what the reasoning is for this:

"... they no longer would pay individual income taxes on the earnings from their partnerships and sole proprietorships."

So anyone that is self-employed becomes exempt from income taxes??? Why??? Many already have enough deductions to show a loss on their income taxes with the current tax code. Who's going to pay for the roads? Schools? Oh, right. People who get a W2.

blogme 2 years, 11 months ago

Amen! As long as someone is there with a handout, why would anyone pay their own way?

Lana Christie-Hayes 2 years, 11 months ago

toe.. that's ridiculous... the EITC gives incentive to low wage earners to work for peanuts, and pray that ONE DAY they might climb out of the hole that, more than likely, society stuck them in.

kochmoney 2 years, 11 months ago

No, I think you're still working up to it. Don't worry. There's a lot of year left, so I think you can still do it.

kochmoney 2 years, 11 months ago

Yes, because money isn't at all a motivating?

fearthetaliban 2 years, 11 months ago

Life's not too hard when one has that Stauffer heritage.

james bush 2 years, 11 months ago

I'm pretty sure Brownback does not intend to tax the poor citizens of Kansas because he hates poor people. Maybe the Governor just sees the benefit of every person who earns money needs to share some of the cost of governing. Only ignorant people or idiots or criminals think they are enitled to get something for nothing.

Bob Forer 2 years, 11 months ago

No, he doesn't hate them. He just has contempt for them, and believes that they are an easy target because they are poorly organized, unsophisticated politically, and vote in low numbers. It has nothing to do with a distorted sense of fairness.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 11 months ago

Actually, it's not "Robin Hood in reverse". Brownback is another King John; with all of the same arrogance and hubris and with the same idea that he rules by "divine right".

Haiku_Cuckoo 2 years, 11 months ago

What percentage of people in the low income category currently pay zero federal income tax? Maybe the money they're saving there can be used for Brownie's Reverse Robin Hood Fund.

kochmoney 2 years, 11 months ago

What percentage of people in the low income category pay sales tax?

Haiku_Cuckoo 2 years, 11 months ago

Zero, if they're paying with food stamps. Good point. That's even more money that they're saving.

deec 2 years, 11 months ago

People who use food stamps also buy non food items, like toilet paper, gasoline, soap, clothing, utilities, etc. Many people who are income-eligible for food assistance do not apply for aid, so they pay sales tax on food as well.

skinny 2 years, 11 months ago

You know I see people that I know who have come here to the United States with nothing but the clothes on their backs. They came here, learned to speak English, an education, then a job making hundred thousand or more a year. Then I see people that have been here all their lives, don’t work, and just complain about everything or how bad they have it. I just shake my head and think they could have anything they want if they just applied themselves. Everyone needs to pay taxes. Just because you're too lazy to get an education and a job is no excuse not pay taxes. So pay up everybody!!!!

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 11 months ago

Ahhh the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" fallacy. They are working, amadán. Or they wouldn't be paying taxes in the first place! If you can "benefit from an education", I suggest you research the term "working poor". Oh and by the way, more people with PhDs are slinging fries than you would begin to believe. I had a friend with a PhD. Know what he did with it? He taught. Part time. Two nights a week. In a community college. And felt grateful he got THAT much. His favorite saying was that his PhD and $2.50 would get him a cup of coffee.

KSWingman 2 years, 11 months ago

Sounds like your friend should have gone to welding school. He still can. He could work full-time as a welder during the day (do what he must to support himself and his family), and teach community college part-time evenings (do what he wants).

Melissa Isaacs 2 years, 11 months ago

This article highlights two things to me: first, that this is exactly why people should vote! Look at the extent to which low-income Kansans outnumber wealthy Kansans, and just think of the political clout they would have if they could be counted on to vote. And second, how poorly Kansas has done under Republican leadership, past and present. I mean--look at the extent to which low-income Kansans outnumber wealthy Kansans! Nearly 20% of Kansas taxpayers make less than $25,000 a year. That's not because people are lazy. It's because jobs that pay decent wages are not easy to come by.

verity 2 years, 11 months ago

"Brownback has said he planned to take funds saved from junking the EITC and plow them into programs to help the poor."

Gov Brownback, I would like more particulars on that. Exactly how would you do that?

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 11 months ago

He's going to give it to a panel of pastors, assistant pastors, youth pastors, church community outreach coordinators, pet pastors, neighborhood missionaries and priests to study how they can get people to get married. Oh and he's going to resurrect Catholic Social Charities.

Tony Kisner 2 years, 11 months ago

Seems pretty clear to me that I need to make over $250,000 per year. It's a lot easier when they spell it out for you like this.

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 11 months ago

The mere fact this would even be placed on the table shows what Brownback is all about. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. 2014 won't come quickly enough. Brownback is a heartless bastard. There is no other explanation.

tukee 2 years, 11 months ago

Wouldn't it be a good idea to dis-incentive being unproductive,i.e. poor? The government has considerable experience in incentivizing what it considers to be good behavior. Isn't being a productive citizen good behavior? May the politicians within government simply do not want to stigmatize their important unproductive constituency.

The productive should pay less than the unproductive as they clearly are better custodians of capital than are the drags on our great capitalism-based society. If only they'd realize working for a living and using your head won't kill you....

voevoda 2 years, 11 months ago

So, tukee, you think that retirees ought to pay a much higher tax rate, because they are unproductive? And that persons who live off trust funds or inheritances ought to be taxed at a high rate? Or people who live off investments? Your philosophy doesn't sound very capitalist.

tukee 2 years, 11 months ago

You're right, that wouldn't be capitalist. Retirees and the like already made their money - capital gains is double taxation. It must be tax free if our society is to respect property rights. If we had to have income tax, it should be very flat -maybe 20% for < 50k , and 18% on the rest. A VAT would probably be even better. Interesting stuff. I got an MBA in finance because of it. Too bad liberals don't realize how silly they sound to folks in the know.

kochmoney 2 years, 11 months ago

So you're saying wage is the only measure of productivity? Someone who sits on their butts and moves shares of companies around is more productive than someone who actually produces things for a low wage? Ah, a sad, sad day for the old populist argument of yore.

tukee 2 years, 11 months ago

Yes. Exactly. Money's primary contribution to human civilization is that it communicates information regarding the relative value of a good relative to that of all others. The arbitrage you speak of serves to increase the accuracy of this information for everyone. A fruit picker making 10k/year creates for himself only 1/10 the value of a decent finance guy making 100k/yr for himself sitting on his butt all day doing arbitrage. It's not really a political subjective thing, it's just dry fact. BTW, this is why health care is massively hosed ... primarily because no one knows how much it really costs to deliver it / buy it.

jafs 2 years, 11 months ago

The rather glaring flaw in that argument is that you assume that poor people are "unproductive", when in fact they may be quite productive, doing the tasks that others don't want to do for low wages.

chootspa 2 years, 11 months ago

Oh no. He/she just believes that the market magically knows the value of every pencil pusher. A person who charges a commission to sell an old lady a toxic asset that he knows will fail is more valuable to society than that old lady's 60 years of service teaching children to read. The market has spoken. Bow to the market.

tukee 2 years, 11 months ago

the poor are fat, have iphones, and get free health care for their children. I must respectfully disagree that this is an inferior position to that of 120 years ago where the childhood mortality rate was 50%. They used to worry about food. now they have to worry about their fat.

parrothead8 2 years, 11 months ago

A riot is the language of the unheard, and Brownback ain't listening.

Dave Trabert 2 years, 11 months ago

It's wrong to provide tax relief to some and raise taxes on others. It's also wrong to raise taxes on some and not raise taxes on others. Tax policy should be applied uniformly.

jafs 2 years, 11 months ago

Why?

If some taxes are too low, and others too high, it makes sense to raise some and lower others.

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 11 months ago

LOL. Dave, you need to stop drinking right wing kool aid. Tax policy has never been applied evenly. Brownback has said his proposal would be fair. What he should have wait is it would be fair for the 1% and unfair for everyone else.

kochmoney 2 years, 11 months ago

Oh look! The paid Koch and ALEC mouthpiece decided to give this newfangled hipster tool of social media a new go-round. Flat tax systems still stink.

pavlovs_dog 2 years, 11 months ago

WOOF! Yes Master! Your doggie #heblosalottajobs hears your voice!

mloburgio 2 years, 11 months ago

Ks teaparty House member secretly tapes Moderate Gop Senator http://CJOnline.com: http://bit.ly/x3gsO6 #teapartycannibalism

mloburgio 2 years, 11 months ago

Brownbacks tax cuts = Class Warfare To compensate for these reductions in income taxes, the Governor’s plan eliminates itemized deductions (including home mortgage interest and charitable contributions). It eliminates incentives for 529 education savings programs and long-term care insurance premiums. It eliminates the refund for sales tax on food for low-income Kansans. I also understand it eliminates part of the Homestead property tax refund.

The plan also eliminates tax credits for: * Adoption * Alternative fuel tax * Assistive technology contribution * Child and dependent care * Child day care assistance * Community service contribution * Disabled access * Earned income (EITC) * Environmental compliance * Historic preservation * Individual development account * National Guard employer health insurance * Small employer health benefit plan * Temporary assistance to families contribution * and more.

It appears that this plan moves the tax burden from the richest Kansans to the middle class and poorest Kansans. For example, sales tax is the most regressive tax we have. Making the 1% sales tax increase permanent not only reneges on our promise to remove the sales tax increase, it puts a disproportionate burden on low-income families. Removing the refund for sales tax on food and the Earned Income Tax Credit is a double whammy for the poorest working Kansans. In fact, President Ronald Reagan once said the Earned Income Tax Credit was “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”

Eliminating the deduction for home mortgage discourages home purchases for the middle class. Cutting the upper marginal income tax rate benefits the richest Kansans the most. Low-income Kansans can buy a Big Mac with their income tax cut while the folks at the top can buy a yacht with theirs. Not only that, when the income tax is eliminated altogether, there will only be sales and property taxes left to pay the bills.

mloburgio 2 years, 11 months ago

Ks teaparty House member secretly tapes Moderate Gop Senator http://CJOnline.com: http://bit.ly/x3gsO6 #teapartycannibalism

straightforward 2 years, 11 months ago

Does anyone actually believe that a "non-partisan" group that"advocates for progressive taxes" is really non-partisan? Everyone knows liberals favor progressive tax rates because it means one of their main constituencies pays almost nothing taxes.

Look folks - Thea rich will always pay much much more. This just shifts the balance to ensure everyone contributes a more fair share. The rich will actually be more impacted by elimination of tax credits and deductions so this is hardly "giving to the rich". They generally have larger homes, thus larger mortgages and larger mortgage interest deductions. Many will also lose the charitable contribution deduction, which many used (at least partially) to reduce their tax liability. I'd love to see a study on what percentages of different income level groups are taking the standard deduction versus itemizing?

kochmoney 2 years, 11 months ago

So "liberals" are the party of the poor people now, or are they the party of the rich, out of touch elitist latte-loving Hollywood types? I get these contradictory stereotypes confused sometimes, especially now that so many low income types seem to think that they should be giving tax cuts to the rich to save all the fetuses. Besides, the truth is that the democrats are just as much of a party beholden to the big moneyed special interests as the republicans are. It IS possible to have a non partisan group favoring progressive taxation, because that issue has somehow fallen out of favor with both parties.

Mitt Romney has already admitted that he pays a lower effective tax rate than I do, but I bet you $10,000 he earns a lot more. Getting rid of itemized deductions wouldn't somehow shift that burden to make his income not mostly from cap. gains. In fact, my understanding is that he'd see a tax cut (if he filed in Kansas) under this plan. Swell. Anti-fairness achieved.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 11 months ago

"The rich will actually be more impacted by elimination of tax credits and deductions..." Ummm just what "tax credits and deductions" are being eliminated for the top 20%? Oh yeah, that's right. None.

straightforward 2 years, 11 months ago

Maybe you could point out where this article says wealthy individuals do not lose the credits and deductions...

jafs 2 years, 11 months ago

From the story, "the bottom 80%...would collectively see a tax hike...while the best off 20%...would see substantial tax cuts".

straightforward 2 years, 11 months ago

In their tax rates, not the credits and deductions. There's no imaginary line where 20% get them and 80% don't. The article (unclearly) states that although all tax rates decrease, most Kansas will see taxes go up due elimination of credits and deductions that apply to everyone.

Satirical 2 years, 11 months ago

I don't like this bill for several reasons, but are people getting up in arms because those making less then $25k a year have to pay taxes? Seriously? $156 per year is .6% of $25k. Just because the poor must actually start paying taxes doesn't mean we still don't have a highly progressive tax system.

I would wager that if the tax rate for those over $250k was 75% of their income, and Brownback wanted to lower it to 74%, and raise taxes on those making less than $25k to $1 per year, you will still hear the same grumbling by many of the same people.

Is this really about fairness?

Satirical 2 years, 11 months ago

Vertigo...

Are you sure they didn't already calculate that into their figure? At first, this group received a refund (probably from EITC), then they had a tax liability.

"Currently, that group receives a total refund of $1.7 million. Under Brownback’s plan, that group would have a total tax liability of $86.5 million. That is more than a 5,000 percent increase in tax liability and averages $156 more per filer." - Article

I didn't read anything about a percentage tax increase on the group, just certain deductions ending. I think the article could be more clear, but from the way I read it, EITC ending is part of the reason for the increase.

Satirical 2 years, 11 months ago

vertigo...

Your our original argument was that after the EITC loss it would raise the taxes you pay from $156 to $424.

Now it seems like you changed your argument, but I am still unclear where you got the $269 number or your conclusion.

"Those Revenue Department figures show there were 564,328 Kansas tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $25,000 or less in the 2009 tax year. Currently, that group receives a total refund of $1.7 million." - article

1.7 million divided by 564,328 is an average rebate of about $3. $86.5 million divided by 564,328 is $153. The difference between - 3 and +153 is $156. I am not sure how make the conclusion that the the average net increase is $425 when the article clearly states the average net increase is $156.

lunacydetector 2 years, 11 months ago

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy - a group funded by George Soros! perhaps the writer of the article should divulge this kind of information.

lunacydetector 2 years, 11 months ago

we ALWAYS have to read about the groups funded by the Koch brothers...fair is fair, or is editorializing articles and omitting important information the accepted way to report the news?

livinlife 2 years, 11 months ago

I hope the "people" who were stupid enough to elect this IDIOT for a governor have come the realization that he's a joke!!!

Richard Payton 2 years, 11 months ago

Appears Brownback wants the poor to move to another state. It would be interesting to see a mass exodus in Kansas. That would put the burden back on the rich since they couldn't raise millions from the poor. Then if people making under 25K are ready to move away from Brownbackistan rich Sammy would have to dig from his own pocket.

xm75 2 years, 11 months ago

Nice to see so many, that you wouldn't think would, start to indicate that taxes are stealing. Before it was all calls for higher taxes from them, but maybe they just meant higher taxes for someone else.

Gregory Newman 2 years, 11 months ago

get em republicans hahahaha they will still blame President Obama. The repugs got the EB-5 Visa to finish you off with Chinese Nationals. You don't have a job because of G.H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton with that NAFTA/GATT. Get em repugs tax them buns they will still blame Obama.

lawslady 2 years, 11 months ago

Anyone who can do simple math can figure out that a "flat tax" will always have a more negative impact upon someone who earns less money.

ProfessorSeamus 2 years, 11 months ago

Serious question I would like to see an answer to, because I am having trouble with something. The logic is we need to decrease the state income tax to increase job production. But wages are deductions from business tax returns. If I decide to hire someone for $25,000 a year, I reduce my taxable income by $25,000. It does not seem to me that the reduction of state income tax will be relevant because I am already not paying taxes on this money. How is the reduction of state income tax going to spur business to hire more workers?

Satirical 2 years, 11 months ago

ProfessorSeamus...

The logic goes...if you were a small business owner making over $250k a year and your tax liability went down, you would have more money to hire more workers. Thus decreasing state income taxes on those who create jobs = more money for them to create more jobs.

Stuart Sweeney 2 years, 11 months ago

Did anyone really think King Sam would have wanted it any other way!?!

JHOK32 2 years, 11 months ago

Anyone who voted for this "Christian" idiot & who makes less than $250,000 per year, it's time to bend over!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.