Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Letter: Tax benefits

October 16, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

Gov. Brownback’s tax plan eliminates state income tax for nonsalary income derived from small businesses: LLCs, Subchapter S and sole proprietorships. Employees will continue to pay taxes while profits going to owners will not be taxed. The effect will be apparent in early 2013 as owners start reducing their estimated Kansas income tax.

At a small business seminar sponsored by Kansas University, I learned that the best way to organize a “mom and pop” business is the Limited Liability Corporation or LLC. Here are some of the “small businesses” that could benefit from the governor’s tax law: Koch Alaska Pipeline Co., LLC; Koch Chemical Technology Group, LLC; Koch Minerals, LLC; Koch Carbon, LLC; Koch Exploration Company, LLC; Koch Fertilizer, LLC; Flint Hills Resources, LLC (a Koch subsidiary); Genesis Co., LLC (a Koch subsidiary); Georgia-Pacific, LLC (purchased by the Kochs in 2005 for $21 billion)

What more can I say?

Comments

anotherview 1 year, 11 months ago

Thank you Mr. Douglas. Now we know why Brownback pushed this change in income taxes. It's all about the Koch family. Now the governor wants to raise sales tax on everyone else. He's not interestred in lowering taxes. He just wants to switch the taxes to a different group of taxpayers.

6

Trumbull 1 year, 11 months ago

This would make the plan a wash. In comes business due to no corporate income taxes. Out goes business due to higher sales tax.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

"Good for that group of small businesses"

Define "small business."

"AS for Joe Douglas, get off your behind and away from your computer"

Typed by someone whose butt is welded to his chair that's bolted to the floor 12" from his computer.

2

notajayhawk 1 year, 11 months ago

Says the guy closing in on 30,000 comments to the LJW message boards.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Yep-- but it took more seven years with the same user name to get there.

I suspect that if all the posts that Sage has had under now disappeared user names, he'd have even more posts.

But, what was your point? How does it relate to the discussion at hand?

6

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Bozo has an average posting rate of 11.23/day. Sage's rate is right at 17.18/day. (For the sake of full disclosure, my rate is 3.55/day). - Slow day at work.

0

pusscanthropus 1 year, 11 months ago

Joe Douglas is an MD (medical doctor). He is unpretentious and obviously doesn't need to advertise it. So, SOP, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge people you don't know.

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Only a select few don't have to pay Federal Income Tax. Only a select few get the mortgage deduction, Only a select few get an Earned Income Tax Credit. Only a select few get this and only a select few get that. The only thing we can all agree on is that we don't like what the other guy gets.

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

People poor enough not to pay federal income tax or to receive the EITC don't see themselves as being in a "select group." And if you were among them, I doubt that you would, either.

I am interested, though, if you see ADA requirements as unfair to people without physical disabilities. Do you consider a quadriplegic to be a member of a "select group?"

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

We're all members of select groups. I had a friend once who was a member of a select group, that being a child under 10 years of age who was hit and killed while riding his bicycle. Not every select group means you're receiving a benefit, or that it's good to be a member of that select group. Sometimes, it's just the opposite. You're in favor of selecting a certain group (the wealthy) for tax increases, right? Should they thank you in advance for selecting them?

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

The point is, Bozo, that you and I disagree. And for some reason, you cannot tolerate someone who disagrees with you.

1

CountyResident 1 year, 11 months ago

Here's what's the matter with that. Why should some people (the Koch Brothers) think that they should not have to pay for any governement services. Example: education, roads, the Kansas National Guard, or any other state services. They make money by using these services, but don't want to contribute anything. I call them "Greedy Takers"

2

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

We're talking about a small group of of taxpayers who will no longer have to pay one specific tax, yet will be obligated to pay a variety of other taxes, making their contribution to society. Isn't that the same argument used when we discuss the 47%, you know, those who don't pay a specific tax (Federal Income Tax), yet contribute in other ways through other taxes?

While I'm not in favor of this new scheme by Brownback, I'm also not in favor of anyone paying zero Federal Income Tax. But I am curious as to how progressives are suddenly using the same argument that conservatives make and conservatives are countering by using the same argument as progressives.

What am I missing, other than the argument of "fair", that ever elusive concept that cannot ever be agreed upon?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

"What am I missing, other than the argument of "fair", that ever elusive concept that cannot ever be agreed upon?"

That's just because you have a very twisted notion of "fair."

2

notajayhawk 1 year, 11 months ago

Yes, let's all use bozo's notion of fair, which means anyone that has more than he does has to pay his way.

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Brownback's proposal specifically targets me, as a small business owner. Yet I just said I'm opposed to his scheme.

I'm willing to pay my "fair" share. I'm willing to pay more than I currently pay. As long as everyone does the same. Is that really how you define "very twisted"?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

The only fair form of taxation in this particular capitalistic economy, which is unfair by design and definition, is a progressive form of taxation.

Taking money from people who are already struggling to make ends meet just because it fits your definition of "fair" might look good from where you sit, but that's because it would have no effect on you. Out of sight, out of mind is apparently your guiding moral principle.

2

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Thank you for finally defining "fair". Now all you have to do is get 300+ million Americans to agree with you. Done yet? How about now?

You remind me of a teenager who talks without listening, or in this case reads without comprehending. I specifically said this tax measure targets me and would reduce my tax burden. How is that having no effect? Yet I'm opposed to it. In fact, I want my tax burden increased as long as the same is true for everyone. How is that no effect? Just because you say "no effect" doesn't mean no effect. It means you didn't comprehend what I just said. It means you twist what others say and then pretend they said your twisted interpretation. I didn't say no effect. You erroneously did.

BTW - Are you done yet? How about now?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Yet you insist on taxing people just for the sake of taxing them, regardless of the fact that they don't even have enough to buy a pot to piss in. And that somehow qualifies as "fair" in your world-- but only because it wouldn't apply to you.

2

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Well, to be accurate, he suggests getting rid of the idea of "fairness", because we clearly can't agree on what that would be.

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Don't forget, Bozo, I've also said that I have no problem increasing services to people, equal to or even above the value of their tax increases, if that's what the people vote for.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Taxes are not "penalties." They are the means by which society takes care of its needs.

2

notajayhawk 1 year, 11 months ago

"What more can I say?"

For a start, you might have mentioned that the income you're talking about is already taxed at a higher tax rate than other businesses by the federal government, since it's taxed as personal income rather than corporate.

0

chootspa 1 year, 11 months ago

Well, you could say that, but it would be irrelevant to a discussion of state tax policy.

0

bad_dog 1 year, 11 months ago

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

Warren Buffett

2

JackMcKee 1 year, 11 months ago

this is what they want to do at a national level. Why do you think they invented the Tea Parfy?

3

Cant_have_it_both_ways 1 year, 11 months ago

I have never been offered a job worth having by someone that has no money.

2

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

That's a narrow and largely ignorant view of how the overall economy actually works. The economy could not function if not for the work performed by the bottom 50%, and nearly every large corporation would suffer if not for the money spent by that same 50%-- and you'd suffer right along with them.

4

Getaroom 1 year, 11 months ago

And the Robber Barons just keep the good times rollin' don't they. The Corporatocracy marches ever onward unfettered and undaunted. And you, you 47%'ers should just be glad you have those minimum wage jobs now get back to work and make 'em some money!
Here is a link to the Romney/Ryan Budget: http://www.romneytaxplan.com/ Dodge ball anyone....

2

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

There are many paths to choose from if one does not like having a minimum wage job. And there many choices we could make that most certainly lead towards a minimum wage job, or worse. You are pro-choice, aren't you?

0

Richard Heckler 1 year, 11 months ago

If those tax cuts are so damn productive why does everyone not get the same tax break?

Why do we all not have access to loopholes? No matter how much we make.

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Are you advocating an earned income tax credit for everyone?

0

Richard Heckler 1 year, 11 months ago

The most practical means to achieve efficient spending and taxation is to remove the republican party from office forever and bring in fiscal conservatives.

What we have now is reckless spending conservatives not the fiscal conservative giants of our time.

For example.

Worker's taxes siphoned off by their bosses Thursday, April 26, 2012 | Posted by Jim Hightower

Where is the $47 million tax dollars that belong to Kansas taxpayers?

My congratulations to workers in 16 states – from Maine to Georgia, New Jersey to Colorado! Many of you will be thrilled to know that the income taxes deducted from your paychecks each month are going to a very worthy cause: your corporate boss.

Good Jobs First, a non-profit, non-partisan research center, has analyzed state programs meant to create jobs, but instead have created some $700 million a year in corporate welfare. This scam starts with the normal practice of corporations withholding from each employee's monthly check the state income taxes their workers owe.

But rather than remitting this money to pay for state services, these 16 states simply allow the corporations to keep the tax payments for themselves! Adding to the funkiness of taxation-by-corporation, the bosses don't even have to tell workers that the company is siphoning off their state taxes for its own fun and profit.

These heists are rationalized in the name of "job creation," but that's a hoax, too. They're really just bribes the states pay to get corporations to move existing jobs from one state to another, or they're hostage payments to corporations that demand the public's money – or else they'll move their jobs out of state.

Last year, Kansas used workers' withholding taxes to bribe AMC Entertainment with a $47 million payment to move its headquarters from downtown Kansas City, Missouri, to a KC suburb on the Kansas side, just 10 miles away. What a ripoff! Among the 2,700 corporations cashing in on such absurd diversions of state taxes from public need to private greed are Goldman Sachs, GE, Motorola, and Procter & Gamble.

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Bring in fiscal conservatives you say. I agree. That leaves out Democrats and Republicans. Whom do you suggest we bring in, if not them?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.