Advertisement

marchphog88 (Sam Constance)

Follow

Comment history

Brownback defends tax cuts as necessary to grow the economy

"In fact, if this is a good investment, it would seem you would want to make it regardless of your tax situation. "

----------------

We have a winner.

This is the same argument I always raise when it comes to things like the TIF garbage that was given to the developers of the Oread Hotel. If a given investment *needs* tax incentives to be profitable, then it is not profitable, plain and simple.

Now, there are still uses for things like TIF, because some projects are worth pursuing due to the overall benefit to the community they bring, in spite of a potential lack of economic feasibility. I suppose that rationale applied to The Oread, although I tend to think of a private enterprise--even one like a hotel that provides a college town like Lawrence much-needed hotel and convention space--as not quite the intended use for TIF.

But I digress--as it applies here, if LarryNative's business expansion is only feasible with the tax cut, then I would argue that it isn't feasible.

Your point about taking the money from Kansas taxpayers and either pocketing it or taking it to an out-of-state investment is also great. Too often, people get bogged down in the raw information and forget to look at the context and "spirit" of a given situation.

Whether or not you agree with Brownback's specious "tax cuts create jobs" reasoning, his stated goal of the tax cuts is to stimulate economic growth... presumably for Kansas and it's citizens, seeing as how he's a state governor. It's just so entertaining to then read a "real life" defense of the faulty reasoning (tax cuts create jobs) that completely defies the underlying goal of the cut--to help the Kansas economy.

But then, that's the Republican Party in a nutshell these days. Defend the words, not the meaning behind them.

September 11, 2012 at 3:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback defends tax cuts as necessary to grow the economy

Expanding into an area where a given good/service is not provided may tap into latent demand, but the demand is already there. It's absurd to suggest that you "create" demand by opening a new location. At least, when talking about the core demand that will sustain that new location.

Opening a location will ultimately generate demand at the margins, due to the fact that tapping into that latent demand may beget more word of mouth and also provide the opportunity for some people to sample the good/service to discover that they have a desire for it where they didn't realize it before. But this demand at the margins is not the bulk of what supports a new location.

September 11, 2012 at 3:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback defends tax cuts as necessary to grow the economy

"If someone chooses a clown as their avatar--even as a way to poke fun at someone else--they are a clown" - Ancient Chinese Proverb

September 11, 2012 at 3:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback defends tax cuts as necessary to grow the economy

Sounds like you aren't a very smart business owner if your decision to expand is based on your revenue.

Seems like you might want to pick up an economics book.

September 11, 2012 at 11:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback defends tax cuts as necessary to grow the economy

LOL. The idea that tax cuts = job growth is a fundamental economic truth is hilarious to me.

Job growth comes from expanded service/product offering by a business. Tax cuts don't directly affect a business' ability to expand their coverage. They *influence* that ability, by the fact that they provide some cash surplus, but any good business is going to make the decision to expand based on expanded DEMAND, not just having some surplus cash that may or may not be there next year depending on who is calling the shots in the government.

September 11, 2012 at 11:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Republicans nominate Mitt Romney for president

Just so we're clear, when Bush & company proposed the tax cuts over a decade ago, they did so with the financial logic that they would eventually expire, rather than continuing to dig the hole of our national debt even deeper.

And here we are 11 years later... with the same mindless automatons bleating for "ACROSS THE BOARD EXTENSIONS!!!!!"

Lest I be painted as 'partisan', the Democrats don't really have many original ideas either. But at least their ideas don't seem to be built on bigotry, hate, religious zealotry and a pride in being stubborn (or "principled").

At this point, it's almost like they want to extend the cuts on principle because the Democrats disagree that we should extend them, rather than an actual well-considered rationale behind extending them.

August 28, 2012 at 6:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )