• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. Sam Brownback signs bill averting furloughs

SlevinKelevra

Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
6,639
Reaction score
1,487
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Gov. Sam Brownback signs bill averting furloughs | The Wichita Eagle The Wichita Eagle

yay! oh wait, let's read the fine print.

TOPEKA – The Kansas Legislature rapidly pushed through a bill Saturday to avert a midnight government shutdown, with Gov. Sam Brownback signing it despite concerns about its legality.

The bill heads off furloughs for more than 24,000 state employees by defining them all as essential. Emergency furloughs triggered by the end of a budget year apply only to workers deemed nonessential to state operations.

yay!

oh wait.

“SB 11 means that employees will work without the guarantee of being paid for that work. That is potentially in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.


So now we'll probably waste federal tax $ with this stupidity going to SCOTUS?

yikes.
:doh
 
And they keep electing these sumbitches. And they haven't called Brownback. :roll:
 
You're not getting laid off, but there's no guarantee that you'll ever get paid.

Isn't that great?
 
The latest news:

On a record-setting 108th day in the Kansas legislative session, Senate Republicans passed a tax bill, the first crack in the gridlock that has gripped the Capitol as lawmakers struggle to close a budget hole.

The bill protects the zero income tax rate for pass-through business owners while raising the general sales tax from 6.15 percent to 6.55 percent on July 1. A year later, the tax on food would drop to 4.95 percent.


Kansas Senate approves tax bill, sends it to House | The Wichita Eagle The Wichita Eagle

I'm not sure this is a wise approach, at least in the near-term. To the extent that a consumption tax increase might suppress consumer spending, it could dampen some tax revenue. As a result, the net tax revenue increase might wind up less than what is needed to address the state's near-term fiscal shortfall. Separately, the extent of offsetting transfer payments or tax credits to address regressivity issues would also impact the net gain in tax revenue.

At present, I've seen no projections from Kansas that addresses these issues. It is possible that the rate changes may be more political in nature than driven by sound revenue and expenditure projections. If so, even if this plan is enacted into law, one might well see renewed fiscal challenges next year.
 
The latest news:

On a record-setting 108th day in the Kansas legislative session, Senate Republicans passed a tax bill, the first crack in the gridlock that has gripped the Capitol as lawmakers struggle to close a budget hole.

The bill protects the zero income tax rate for pass-through business owners while raising the general sales tax from 6.15 percent to 6.55 percent on July 1. A year later, the tax on food would drop to 4.95 percent.


Kansas Senate approves tax bill, sends it to House | The Wichita Eagle The Wichita Eagle

I'm not sure this is a wise approach, at least in the near-term. To the extent that a consumption tax increase might suppress consumer spending, it could dampen some tax revenue. As a result, the net tax revenue increase might wind up less than what is needed to address the state's near-term fiscal shortfall. Separately, the extent of offsetting transfer payments or tax credits to address regressivity issues would also impact the net gain in tax revenue.

At present, I've seen no projections from Kansas that addresses these issues. It is possible that the rate changes may be more political in nature than driven by sound revenue and expenditure projections. If so, even if this plan is enacted into law, one might well see renewed fiscal challenges next year.


OMG.

It's better
It also would increase the cigarette tax by 50 cents a pack and end most tax deductions. It sets a 2019 expiration date for most sales and property tax exemptions.

BOHICA middle class.
 
The latest news:

On a record-setting 108th day in the Kansas legislative session, Senate Republicans passed a tax bill, the first crack in the gridlock that has gripped the Capitol as lawmakers struggle to close a budget hole.

The bill protects the zero income tax rate for pass-through business owners while raising the general sales tax from 6.15 percent to 6.55 percent on July 1. A year later, the tax on food would drop to 4.95 percent.


Kansas Senate approves tax bill, sends it to House | The Wichita Eagle The Wichita Eagle

I'm not sure this is a wise approach, at least in the near-term. To the extent that a consumption tax increase might suppress consumer spending, it could dampen some tax revenue. As a result, the net tax revenue increase might wind up less than what is needed to address the state's near-term fiscal shortfall. Separately, the extent of offsetting transfer payments or tax credits to address regressivity issues would also impact the net gain in tax revenue.

At present, I've seen no projections from Kansas that addresses these issues. It is possible that the rate changes may be more political in nature than driven by sound revenue and expenditure projections. If so, even if this plan is enacted into law, one might well see renewed fiscal challenges next year.

We need to shift from an income-tax model to a consumption-tax model when and where we can.

Though you are correct that static modeling is guaranteed to overscore revenues generated by tax increases, it's worth noting that the same is true of income taxes.
 
We need to shift from an income-tax model to a consumption-tax model when and where we can.

Though you are correct that static modeling is guaranteed to overscore revenues generated by tax increases, it's worth noting that the same is true of income taxes.

United States Consumer Spending | 1950-2015 | Data | Chart | Calendar
US Consumer Spending was 11.2T or so
US total Income Tax is around 2.2T

On its face, that's about a 19.7% Consumption Tax needed to remain revenue neutral.
That would be a net tax increase for at least 60% of households
Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households
 
equivalent scenario citations needed.

:raises eyebrow: you are really aware that essential federal personnel worked through the shutdowns?

United States Consumer Spending | 1950-2015 | Data | Chart | Calendar
US Consumer Spending was 11.2T or so
US total Income Tax is around 2.2T

On its face, that's about a 19.7% Consumption Tax needed to remain revenue neutral.
That would be a net tax increase for at least 60% of households
Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Well, goodness - here I thought we were talking about a single state making incremental moves, vice a full-blown national shift.

But yes, you'd need a consumption tax around there, dependent on how you structured it. Which would indeed raise effective rates for the majority of households - that's why the Fair Tax folks have the Prebate, to make their policy more progressive than the current structure, by making all spending up to the poverty line tax-free.
 
:raises eyebrow: you are really aware that essential federal personnel worked through the shutdowns?

http://www.bsnlawfirm.com/newsletter/OP0413_Natter.pdf
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-ove...reditors-mortgage-companies-and-landlords.doc




Well, goodness - here I thought we were talking about a single state making incremental moves, vice a full-blown national shift.


I wasn't aware you are a Kansas resident, if you are and only meant it in that context. My apology. I would wager though if I worked out the math,
it would affect an even HIGHER percentage of households.

But yes, you'd need a consumption tax around there, dependent on how you structured it. Which would indeed raise effective rates for the majority of households - that's why the Fair Tax folks have the Prebate, to make their policy more progressive than the current structure, by making all spending up to the poverty line tax-free.

I don't think this is really true.
 
Back
Top Bottom