Advertisement

cg22165

Follow

Comment history

Your Turn: Congress needs to overlook the aisle

What's changed? The understanding that there is a need for change.

Business as usual for companies dedicated exclusively to fossil fuel extraction will come to an end sooner or later. That can happen before we wreck our ability to grow food, or after.

March 1, 2015 at 4:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Proposal to hike ag land taxes spawns backlash from Kansas farmers

Looking at some round numbers, Kansas agriculture is valued at around $53 billion, and this tax increase total is nearly $900 million. That looks like nearly 2% of gross. Two percent of gross might not sound like much, but what is it in net?

The average farm nets about $80,000 and there are about 65,000 farms; that works out to $5.2 billion net. $890 million divided by $5,200 million is about 17%. Our farmers compete in the world market; they can't simply raise prices or they won't be able to sell their product. So, the farmers are looking at taking a 17% reduction in money to live on. I think you are delusional if you think that won't be bad for the economy of Kansas.

https://agriculture.ks.gov/docs/defau...

February 26, 2015 at 2:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Midwest likely to encounter 'mega-drought' this century, researchers say

Right, you can trust James Taylor, paid by the Heartland Institute, serial deniers of everything from the link between smoking and cancer to global warming and increasing greenhouse gasses.

A while ago James read an article that showed that forest fires were becoming larger and fewer, meaning instead of many small fires in an area, we were getting fewer, but much larger fires. Actual square miles burnt was dramatically increasing. He reported that predictions of increasing risk of forest fire were wrong because the count was down. Let's just say he doesn't understand reality very well when it conflicts with his wishful thinking.

February 17, 2015 at 11:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate politics

Let's try reason. There is this thing called the conservation of energy. There is only so much extra energy being retained by the earth because of increased greenhouse gasses. The oceans have been warming more than expected because there hasn't been a strong El Nino in a longer than average time. So, if the oceans are warming more than expected, yeah, the atmosphere will warm less than expected. Does that mean the adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not causing the globe to get warmer? Are the oceans part of the globe?

January 28, 2015 at 11:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate politics

George Shultz: We argue for revenue neutrality on the grounds that this tax should be exclusively for the purpose of leveling the playing field, not for financing some other government programs or for expanding the government sector. And revenue neutrality means that it will not have fiscal drag on economic growth.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142...

January 28, 2015 at 4:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate politics

George, respectfully, your plan calls for government to raise taxes, and then decide how to spend the money. Personally, I have a lot more faith in energy companies' ability to figure out how to make money than I have on the government knowing how to best spend our money.

January 28, 2015 at 3:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate politics

It isn't really a sin tax; it is a Pigouvian tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian...
Sin taxes are intended to inhibit behavior that others find objectionable. Pigouvian taxes are ways of balancing market forces when there are costs (external) to something not reflected in its price.

There are very much fewer upstream sources of the carbon being used to produce more carbon dioxide than there are downstream consumers. It's relatively easy to put a tax on fossil fuels at the source than it is to, say, figure out how much fossil fuel energy was used to produce a good, or what percentage of electricity coming into a home is produced using what combination of gas, oil, and coal.

January 28, 2015 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Tax truth

First group, first link (latest year)

January 24, 2015 at 9 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Tax truth

The comment got mangled, but picking a couple samples, those making $50-75K effectively pay 7.9%; $1-1.5M pay 4.2%

January 24, 2015 at 12:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Tax truth

Income tax after credits
Percent of
total


(15)
Size of adjusted gross income
All returns 100.0
No adjusted gross income [2]
$1 under $5,000 [2]
$5,000 under $10,000 [2]
$10,000 under $15,000 0.1
$15,000 under $20,000 0.3
$20,000 under $25,000 0.5
$25,000 under $30,000 0.7
$30,000 under $40,000 2.0
$40,000 under $50,000 2.6
$50,000 under $75,000 7.9
$75,000 under $100,000 8.2
$100,000 under $200,000 22.3
$200,000 under $500,000 19.5
$500,000 under $1,000,000 9.6
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000 4.2
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000 2.6
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000 6.5
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000 3.6
$10,000,000 or more 9.1

http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-...

January 24, 2015 at 12:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous