Advertisement

angie497

Follow

Comment history

GOP tax plans would increase taxes on low-wage Kansans, decrease taxes for high-income Kansans, report says

You're mis-reading what was written. First, the headline does not say that only high-income Kansans would see a decrease; you're adding a qualifier that is not there. Second, the article does not say that only those making more than $60K would receive a tax cut. It says that under the Senate plan, only those making more than $60K would receive a cut, which is exactly what is shown on the chart.

And you're also misstating the number of taxpayers affected. It's not 60% of taxpayers that would see a decrease. It's taxpayers in the top 60% of income, which is a far smaller number of taxpayers. The Senate plan, which would decrease taxes for only the top 40% of incomes, gives a tax break to an even smaller number of people. While income and wealth are not identical, the numbers are close enough that it's worth keeping in mind that roughly 50% of all wealth is controlled by only the top 1% of households. The next 19% of households control roughly 35% more. That means that the top 20% of households controls almost 6 times as much wealth as the bottom 80%.

And regardless of where you draw the line to consider someone high-income, there's something that every single one of those plans have in common. Every one of them increases taxes on people in the bottom 20% of incomes.

May 24, 2013 at 10:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GOP tax plans would increase taxes on low-wage Kansans, decrease taxes for high-income Kansans, report says

Which is certainly a good reason for increasing the tax burden on a childless disabled person, right?

For crying out loud, if you think that poor people with kids are just rolling in the dough and shouldn't get income tax breaks, then for god's sake, work to change THOSE laws. But for the life of me, I don't understand how giving people who have almost nothing in the first place a tax credit justifies giving a far bigger tax break to the people that already have the most.

May 24, 2013 at 10:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback: Private GOP tax talks ‘going well’

Republicans were never completely locked out of the discussions of healthcare reform, although IIRC, they refused to participate. Even so, a number of the provisions of the ACA are there as a result of Republican demands.

May 14, 2013 at 11:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Abortion rights advocates dispute so-called ‘wrongful birth’ provision in bill

"Let me guess, someone will say the parents could not bear to give her up, as she is their child."

Actually, I was going to point out that there are thousands of children with disabilities already living in foster care, and a decided lack of families willing to accept them.

While it's great that you would still have chosen to carry the pregnancy to term even if you knew your son would be autistic, it is *not* up to you to make that decision for other families. Not all mothers have the option of letting the father care for the child when they can't.

March 25, 2012 at 10:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mother of two urges legislators to reject Brownback plan to eliminate EITC

That's funny. Last week, Brownback was telling a legislative conference in Topeka that he's worked miracles in the state and that the budget's no longer in the red. And that he wants to reduce the state income tax to zero.

And yes, I know that's what he said because I was there to hear it personally.

So, which is it? My guess is that Brownback's talking out of both sides of his ass, as the mood suits him.

March 13, 2012 at 2:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mother of two urges legislators to reject Brownback plan to eliminate EITC

I like the way that some of the right-wing types scream about undocumented workers not paying taxes (although they do) while at the same time insisting that they're somehow getting tax benefits. I'd really like to know how that works.

March 13, 2012 at 2:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mother of two urges legislators to reject Brownback plan to eliminate EITC

Why, yes, I would happen to know what qualifies as low income to qualify for Medicaid in Kansas. That would $352 a month for a family of one adult and one child. If the income is over $352 a month (and yes, it's a month, not a week), only the child will qualify for Medicaid. The limit is higher if the adult is a pregnant woman - while she's pregnant.

So there are actually few people in Kansas that qualify for full Medicaid. And unless you qualify for full Medicaid, then you do NOT have '100% free medical care'. You have to pick up a certain amount of your medical expenses (the amount varies depending on the family income) before Medicaid will kick in.

And where people got the idea that emergency room care is free or paid by the taxpayer is absolutely beyond me. Yes, emergency rooms at public hospitals have to provide a certain level of treatment regardless of insurance. Those hospitals also BILL the patient for those services - and at a higher rate than is billed to insured individuals, because health care plans for the most part have negotiated lower rates for their insureds.

Oh, and the idea of worrying about illegal aliens and EITC is absolutely nonsensical. In order to claim the EITC, you have to file a tax return. No tax return, to credit on that tax return. The idea that *this* is why EITC should be reformed is total BS.

March 13, 2012 at 2:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Battle forming over Brownback's plan to scrap earned income tax credit

Will I get a 'tax break' on my state retirement? Yes. Then again, Kansas taxes employee contributions made into the KPERS & KP&F systems, so I've already been taxed on that money. And given that my income at retirement will be considerably less than what it was while working, it means that I paid taxes at a higher rate on those contributions than I would have if I was taxed on it when the pension is paid. In the long run, public employees in Kansas aren't getting so much of a break.

January 15, 2012 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Battle forming over Brownback's plan to scrap earned income tax credit

Which does nothing to change the fact that the single mother (or father, for that matter) trying to support her child on $20K a year would see a tax increase of $442 dollars ($382 refund not received plus the $60 additional taxes owed), while a family making over $60K would see a $425 tax decrease.

Why is it that so many conservatives are OK with the concept of income redistribution when it's taking away from the people who have the least, but think it's a terrible thing when asked of the people who will miss it the least?

January 15, 2012 at 3:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous