Kansas lawmakers jump-start debate over repealing tax break[W:262]

Incisor · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

With the false living wage philosophy again!

If there was no living wage, then welfare benefits would not exist. It's that simple. Why does welfare exist? Since 1996, it's to supplement low wage income. That was the entire reasoning behind the reform you guys wanted. Work requirements for welfare. And you got it. Now you seem to be denying it completely which is very strange because you tie a work requirement to qualifying for benefits. So how is welfare not a supplement to low wages that creates a living wage? If the living wage did not exist, then the standard of living would be far lower than it is right now, and there'd be higher poverty. That's just in the economics. Welfare supplements low wages with benefits that bring the standard of living for low-income workers just high enough that they can survive.

WalMart's was 0.98 cents per share last quarter. The people that run WalMart have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder wealth.

The overwhelming majority of Walmart's shares are owned by the Walton Family. They're not maximizing shareholder wealth, they're maximizing their own wealth. This is the case with virtually all multi-national companies. The majority shareholders are often the Board of Directors who dictate policy for the company, from hirings to wages. It's more of that "magical thinking" that the Board are somehow answerable to shareholders when the Board itself is made up of the majority of shareholders. Corporate America is run like that...and the people who serve on one Board often serve on another Board, and another, and another. So really, when it comes down to it, it's just a small handful of elites that are maximizing their own wealth and could give a sh-t less about Joe shareholder and his little 401k.

Incisor · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

bubbabgone said:
So ... the word "negative" was referring to taxes, not tax cuts, and all but 3 studies indicated that taxes negatively affect annual growth in some way while tax cuts helped improve annual growth.

Right, referring to taxes in general, not exclusively tax cuts or tax increases. You're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.

bubbabgone · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Incisor said:
Right, referring to taxes in general, not exclusively tax cuts or tax increases. You're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.

Okay ... then, trolling it is.

Anthony60 · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Incisor said:
...taxpayers subsidizing Walmart profits to the tune of around $5B...

And yet, you can't show WalMart getting anything from the government in this way, and I have clearly explained how this is untrue, which you have avoided.

Yes, it does. If it didn't, there wouldn't be welfare to bridge the gap between a minimum wage and a living wage...Wages are not a reflection of the market...

I've already showed that you are wrong on this, you can't refute it, just because you say so doesn't count.

...Walmart makes about $14B a year in profit. Benefits for Walmart workers cost taxpayers about $5B a year. So of the $14B of total profit, only $9B of it is really earned...

Makes zero sense. WalMart's profits have nothing to due with welfare payments that don't even go to WalMart. Another one busted, for the third time.

I think you confuse your position with mine. Your argument boils down to one of philosophy; it's better to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn because they know how to spend it better than the government". That is your position, is it not?

You want Socialism here. Big government, lots of welfare, huge taxes, transfers of wealth. Wrong country. We have a Constitution to protect us from these things.

Conservative · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Anthony60 said:
And yet, you can't show WalMart getting anything from the government in this way, and I have clearly explained how this is untrue, which you have avoided.

I've already showed that you are wrong on this, you can't refute it, just because you say so doesn't count.

Makes zero sense. WalMart's profits have nothing to due with welfare payments that don't even go to WalMart. Another one busted, for the third time.

You want Socialism here. Big government, lots of welfare, huge taxes, transfers of wealth. Wrong country. We have a Constitution to protect us from these things.

This has to be an act or someone doing a school project because besides one other poster this one is the most biased, partisan, out of touch, totally civics and economic challenged poster I have seen in this forum never admitting when wrong and never answering direct questions.

I am leaning on the thought that this a college project for someone doing a report on the difference between Obamanomics and the private sector free enterprise economy upon which this country was built

By the way, you have to realize that anyone or any company keeping more of what they earn is receiving tax subsidies from the taxpayers according to the left

Incisor · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Anthony60 said:
And yet, you can't show WalMart getting anything from the government in this way, and I have clearly explained how this is untrue, which you have avoided.

Look, if you're going to play a game of semantics, fine. Walmart gets indirect subsidies by way of the government providing welfare for its workers. If Walmart paid their workers more, then we wouldn't have to pay for their welfare. That's how the public subsidizes 1/3 of Walmart's profits. They're cheating and keeping wages artificially low in order to shirk the responsibilities of doing so. So we the taxpayers fork out $5B that Walmart should be paying its workers instead of you and me. There is no clearer a case of corporate welfare than that, and if you don't accept it, you are in denial. Plain and simple.

I've already showed that you are wrong on this, you can't refute it, just because you say so doesn't count.

I did refute it, you just chose not to accept it, or you ignored it entirely. If there was no such thing as a living wage, why do we have welfare tied to work requirements????

Makes zero sense. WalMart's profits have nothing to due with welfare payments that don't even go to WalMart. Another one busted, for the third time.

OMG, it goes to Walmart by way of them not having to increase their wages because they know that the taxpayers are there to bridge that gap for them. So Walmart can increase its profits by 33% thanks to the taxpayers who are there to pick up the slack.

You want Socialism here.

We already have some aspects of socialism. This country is not the free-enterprise, free-market, blah blah blah teabag you think it is. Corporations, like Walmart, rely heavily on US taxpayers to foot the bill for the low wages they give their workers. If Walmart increased pay collectively for its workers by $5B, that would be $5B less the taxpayers spend on welfare. So do you want more welfare or less?

Incisor · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Conservative said:
By the way, you have to realize that anyone or any company keeping more of what they earn is receiving tax subsidies from the taxpayers according to the left

So if Walmart paid its workers more, then we would spend less on their welfare, right?

KLATTU · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Incisor said:
So if Walmart paid its workers more, then we would spend less on their welfare, right?

Sund like agood business plan to me ( eye roll).

Or maybe if the gov't stopped subsidizing all those workers, we'd see those wages soar! ( double eye roll)

Conservative · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Incisor said:
So if Walmart paid its workers more, then we would spend less on their welfare, right?

Do you have any clue what Wal-Mart pays its workers, full time? What are the Wal-Mart benefits including advancement opportunities?

Conservative · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Incisor said:
Look, if you're going to play a game of semantics, fine. Walmart gets indirect subsidies by way of the government providing welfare for its workers. If Walmart paid their workers more, then we wouldn't have to pay for their welfare. That's how the public subsidizes 1/3 of Walmart's profits. They're cheating and keeping wages artificially low in order to shirk the responsibilities of doing so. So we the taxpayers fork out $5B that Walmart should be paying its workers instead of you and me. There is no clearer a case of corporate welfare than that, and if you don't accept it, you are in denial. Plain and simple.

I did refute it, you just chose not to accept it, or you ignored it entirely. If there was no such thing as a living wage, why do we have welfare tied to work requirements????

OMG, it goes to Walmart by way of them not having to increase their wages because they know that the taxpayers are there to bridge that gap for them. So Walmart can increase its profits by 33% thanks to the taxpayers who are there to pick up the slack.

We already have some aspects of socialism. This country is not the free-enterprise, free-market, blah blah blah teabag you think it is. Corporations, like Walmart, rely heavily on US taxpayers to foot the bill for the low wages they give their workers. If Walmart increased pay collectively for its workers by $5B, that would be $5B less the taxpayers spend on welfare. So do you want more welfare or less?

What class are you doing this project for?

Anthony60 · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Incisor said:
Look, if you're going to play a game of semantics, fine. Walmart gets indirect subsidies by way of the government providing welfare for its workers. If Walmart paid their workers more, then we wouldn't have to pay for their welfare. That's how the public subsidizes 1/3 of Walmart's profits. They're cheating and keeping wages artificially low in order to shirk the responsibilities of doing so. So we the taxpayers fork out $5B that Walmart should be paying its workers instead of you and me. There is no clearer a case of corporate welfare than that, and if you don't accept it, you are in denial. Plain and simple.

First, it's not just people at WalMart that get welfare. Second, whether or not they get welfare, it has no effect on WalMart's bottom line. Or what they are paying their employees. "If WalMart paid their workers more"... why in hell would they? Say government dropped all welfare, how does that effect WalMart? Answer; It doesn't, the pay for that job is the same.

You have this stuck in your head, drilled in by left wing talking point, and you just can't get beyond it, no matter how blown apart it is.

OMG, it goes to Walmart by way of them not having to increase their wages because they know that the taxpayers are there to bridge that gap for them. So Walmart can increase its profits by 33% thanks to the taxpayers who are there to pick up the slack.

Again, show us a reason why WalMart would have to pay more for the same job. Go ahead.

Gina · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Moderator's Warning:

The personal comments and baiting need to stop.

If you see a violation, report it, don't talk about it.

Refocus on the topic and leave each other and the extraneous commentary out of it.

JasperL · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Anthony60 said:
First, it's not just people at WalMart that get welfare. Second, whether or not they get welfare, it has no effect on WalMart's bottom line. Or what they are paying their employees. "If WalMart paid their workers more"... why in hell would they? Say government dropped all welfare, how does that effect WalMart? Answer; It doesn't, the pay for that job is the same.

You have this stuck in your head, drilled in by left wing talking point, and you just can't get beyond it, no matter how blown apart it is.

Again, show us a reason why WalMart would have to pay more for the same job. Go ahead.

I'm just not sure that's true. It's ultimately an empirical question and I haven't been able to find any studies on it. But just in theory, say we end all welfare tomorrow. The floor for wages is some measure of subsistence, food, shelter, healthcare being the basics. Do you think millions of workers would agree to work for wages that didn't allow them to feed their family, pay rent, and afford healthcare for their sick kid who will otherwise literally die without insurance at work or Medicaid/SCHIP? I don't actually think that - if that was the going wage and there were no safety nets, I'd expect Walmart workers to form unions and force wages up, or engage in massive protests, and public pressure from stories of children of workers LITERALLY dying from lack of food or healthcare or living in shelters or in their cars forces Walmart and others to raise wages to a U.S. subsistence level.

The theory is the EITC because it's tied to work effectively subsidizes employer wages - Walmart pays $8, they earn another $2 or $3 through EITC, for a total wage of $11. Workers know this and agree to that $11 package, of which we taxpayers pay a share. This was actually explicitly discussed when EITC passed - the subsidy was part of the welfare to work efforts. The theory is EBT isn't tied to work and so has no effect or in fact INCREASES the prevailing wages because presumably that mother can sit at home and get EBT without working a minute, and working more reduces EBT.

The problem with that is so much of "welfare" these days is tied to work or at least efforts to work and I don't really see how it's different than EITC. And the phase out of EBT doesn't really happen or at least isn't terrible at the kind of wages actually paid by some low wage employers.

Anthony60 · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

JasperL said:
I'm just not sure that's true. It's ultimately an empirical question and I haven't been able to find any studies on it. But just in theory, say we end all welfare tomorrow. The floor for wages is some measure of subsistence, food, shelter, healthcare being the basics. Do you think millions of workers would agree to work for wages that didn't allow them to feed their family, pay rent, and afford healthcare for their sick kid who will otherwise literally die without insurance at work or Medicaid/SCHIP? I don't actually think that - if that was the going wage and there were no safety nets, I'd expect Walmart workers to form unions and force wages up, or engage in massive protests, and public pressure from stories of children of workers LITERALLY dying from lack of food or healthcare or living in shelters or in their cars forces Walmart and others to raise wages to a U.S. subsistence level.

The theory is the EITC because it's tied to work effectively subsidizes employer wages - Walmart pays $8, they earn another $2 or $3 through EITC, for a total wage of $11. Workers know this and agree to that $11 package, of which we taxpayers pay a share. This was actually explicitly discussed when EITC passed - the subsidy was part of the welfare to work efforts. The theory is EBT isn't tied to work and so has no effect or in fact INCREASES the prevailing wages because presumably that mother can sit at home and get EBT without working a minute, and working more reduces EBT.

The problem with that is so much of "welfare" these days is tied to work or at least efforts to work and I don't really see how it's different than EITC. And the phase out of EBT doesn't really happen or at least isn't terrible at the kind of wages actually paid by some low wage employers.

Obviously just theoretical, and almost an impossible occurrence. There would be so many things that are effected, it would be very hard to make a prediction with a high degree of certainty. No welfare would mean much less government spending (hopefully) and a whole lot less taken out of our paychecks. People would be keeping more money and have more available for charitable contributions. More money in the economy, people spending more, perhaps more available for wages and incentives?

Again, really hard to predict what would happen, but the efficiency of the market tends to fill holes. If welfare is gone, something would fill the gap, maybe something more innovative and better.

Anthony60 · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Conservative said:
This has to be an act or someone doing a school project because besides one other poster this one is the most biased, partisan, out of touch, totally civics and economic challenged poster I have seen in this forum never admitting when wrong and never answering direct questions.

I am leaning on the thought that this a college project for someone doing a report on the difference between Obamanomics and the private sector free enterprise economy upon which this country was built

By the way, you have to realize that anyone or any company keeping more of what they earn is receiving tax subsidies from the taxpayers according to the left

What jumps out at me is the old leftist mantra of "the ends justifies the means". They don't care that they can't support it, and it becomes mandatory to mislead people and use false logic, then ignore and misdirect when called out on the flawed logic.

They are like drones that can not be reasoned with and will not accept facts, they just know that they have to get to the end, and there is no deviating no matter how many times they are shown to be wrong.

JasperL · Jan 13, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Anthony60 said:
Obviously just theoretical, and almost an impossible occurrence. There would be so many things that are effected, it would be very hard to make a prediction with a high degree of certainty. No welfare would mean much less government spending (hopefully) and a whole lot less taken out of our paychecks. People would be keeping more money and have more available for charitable contributions. More money in the economy, people spending more, perhaps more available for wages and incentives?

Again, really hard to predict what would happen, but the efficiency of the market tends to fill holes. If welfare is gone, something would fill the gap, maybe something more innovative and better.

I agree, we don't/can't know what happens in an alternative reality. My point was that if we did in fact drop all welfare, the pay most likely will NOT be the same because those millions of workers will somehow get to a U.S. level of substinence - food, shelter, healthcare.

And on the broader topic of minimum wages versus transfer payments, for the same reasons I described above, it's going to be one or the other going up over time. We've had stagnant wages particularly at the bottom for decades now, and eventually something has to give. Either wages come up on their own from market forces, which we've seen some of like with Walmart, or political pressure will cause minimum wages to rise (as we're also seeing, and my guess is it will grow in intensity), or we increase benefits - the ACA was a step forward on that. I just think that's the political reality - what's necessary for social stability in a wealthy country like ours.

JC Callender · Jan 14, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

JasperL said:
It's just that all the evidence I've seen, especially at the state and local level, changes in tax rates play a very minor role in employment or business activity. And Kansas' experiment appears to confirm that, although it's not really possible to evaluate without carefully comparing them to neighbors with similar economies and controlling for a lot of other factors. But what we saw after they took income tax rates on most small business to ZERO was hiring rates that never rose above the national average and that lagged neighboring states, startups that never got above the middle of the pack, and 4 years in, a net gain of 17,000 jobs. I'm sure oil had a lot ot do with that, but that is the point - factors OTHER THAN TAXES are what is actually driving the economy, and at best taxes did a LITTLE to boost employment etc.

I think the point of cutting income taxes is to boost the economy by giving people more money to spend, and in turn, creating more sales tax revenue. The sales tax revenue history for Kansas:

2016 - $4,235,289,271
2015 - $4,043,251,703
http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/ar16a.pdf (page 18)

2014 - $3,932,921,341
2013 - $3,797,395,634
http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/ar14a.pdf (page 18)

2012 - $3,712,543,484
2011 - $3,434,299,283
http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/ar12a.pdf (page 18)

In 2012, the percentage of taxes coming from income was 39.6% and from sales/use taxes 42.4%. In 2016, percentage from income was 31.8% and sales/use taxes 48.8%.

Concerning unemployment, the unemployment rate was down under 4% at one point and it's still in the low 4's, I don't know if you can expect much more.

Incisor · Jan 16, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Anthony60 said:
First, it's not just people at WalMart that get welfare. Second, whether or not they get welfare, it has no effect on WalMart's bottom line. Or what they are paying their employees. "If WalMart paid their workers more"... why in hell would they? Say government dropped all welfare, how does that effect WalMart? Answer; It doesn't, the pay for that job is the same

Sigh...I never said that Walmart was the only one...so nice try with the straw man. Secondly, yes, it does matter what Walmart pays its employees. Because they pay them so little, the taxpayers must foot the bill. For Walmart, that bill is $5B a year. We are essentially subsidizing 1/3 of Walmart's profit because they don't want to pay their workers a living wage. You're not really defending the welfare given to Walmart, you're just avoiding it. Why would they pay more? We;ll, they won't voluntarily...that's the problem. They also wouldn't pay more because they know that the taxpayers are there to bail them out by providing welfare to their employees. BTW - you're the ones who wanted this system. You're the ones who tied work requirements to welfare. If you're OK throwing $5B to the Walton Family's pockets, fine. But you can't deny that it's little more than a subsidy handed to Walmart so they don't have to pay their workers more.

Answer; It doesn't, the pay for that job is the same.

If government dropped all welfare, then those who work at Walmart would starve. Literally starve because they get SNAP benefits.

Again, show us a reason why WalMart would have to pay more for the same job.

Because you and I shouldn't subsidze their profits. I thought you didn't want government picking winners and losers? Well, Walmart is the perfect example of government doing just that. By providing welfare to its employees, government has saved Walmart $5B in wages that go right into the pockets of one family. I happen to think that's parasitic and welfare dependency. Walmart is dependent on $5B worth of welfare a year, making it the queen-iest of welfare queens.

Incisor · Jan 16, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

JC Callender said:
I think the point of cutting income taxes is to boost the economy by giving people more money to spend, and in turn, creating more sales tax revenue. The sales tax revenue history for Kansas:

The point of cutting income taxes is redistribute wealth to the top 1%. The second point of cutting income taxes is to manufacture deficits and debts that are then used as an excuse to cut spending. Because those spending cuts are almost always operational, those programs begin to fail. Then Conservatives use that as an excuse to sell them off to private interests who profit off them, creating a culture of corporate welfare dependency. Just look at private prisons and charter schools.

n 2012, the percentage of taxes coming from income was 39.6% and from sales/use taxes 42.4%. In 2016, percentage from income was 31.8% and sales/use taxes 48.8%.
Concerning unemployment, the unemployment rate was down under 4% at one point and it's still in the low 4's, I don't know if you can expect much more.

GDP growth for Kansas was below that of the nation every year since 2012 except for 2013, which saw growth nearly identical to that of the national average. So Kansas was a drag on the country's economy.

Kansas took three steps back to take one step forward. Sad you can't see that.

Conservative · Jan 16, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Incisor said:
The point of cutting income taxes is redistribute wealth to the top 1%. The second point of cutting income taxes is to manufacture deficits and debts that are then used as an excuse to cut spending. Because those spending cuts are almost always operational, those programs begin to fail. Then Conservatives use that as an excuse to sell them off to private interests who profit off them, creating a culture of corporate welfare dependency. Just look at private prisons and charter schools.

GDP growth for Kansas was below that of the nation every year since 2012 except for 2013, which saw growth nearly identical to that of the national average. So Kansas was a drag on the country's economy.

Kansas took three steps back to take one step forward. Sad you can't see that.

Now there is a new one, people keeping more of what they earn redistributes wealth? Sad that you cannot accept defeat and have to be a leftwing zealot on every issue

Incisor · Jan 16, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Conservative said:
Now there is a new one, people keeping more of what they earn redistributes wealth? Sad that you cannot accept defeat and have to be a leftwing zealot on every issue

Just look at the income gap in 1980 vs. today.

Conservative · Jan 16, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Incisor said:
Just look at the income gap in 1980 vs. today.

Income gap my ass. People keeping more of what they earn is a problem for you.

Anthony60 · Jan 16, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Incisor said:
Sigh...I never said that Walmart was the only one...so nice try with the straw man. Secondly, yes, it does matter what Walmart pays its employees. Because they pay them so little, the taxpayers must foot the bill.

Nope, untrue.

For Walmart, that bill is $5B a year. We are essentially subsidizing 1/3 of Walmart's profit because they don't want to pay their workers a living wage. You're not really defending the welfare given to Walmart, you're just avoiding it. Why would they pay more? We;ll, they won't voluntarily...that's the problem. They also wouldn't pay more because they know that the taxpayers are there to bail them out by providing welfare to their employees. BTW - you're the ones who wanted this system. You're the ones who tied work requirements to welfare. If you're OK throwing $5B to the Walton Family's pockets, fine. But you can't deny that it's little more than a subsidy handed to Walmart so they don't have to pay their workers more.

They pay the market rate for that job. Not the fictitious, made up "living wage". A term concocted by liberals that have no clue how the economy works. You shouldn't follow the lead of idiots when talking about wages and the economy.

Nobody is giving Walmart anything, I challenge you to show that they are. Obviously, you can't show it because it's not happening.

If government dropped all welfare, then those who work at Walmart would starve. Literally starve because they get SNAP benefits.

Doesn't have anything to do with WalMart though.

Because you and I shouldn't subsidze their profits. I thought you didn't want government picking winners and losers? Well, Walmart is the perfect example of government doing just that. By providing welfare to its employees, government has saved Walmart $5B in wages that go right into the pockets of one family. I happen to think that's parasitic and welfare dependency. Walmart is dependent on $5B worth of welfare a year, making it the queen-iest of welfare queens.

Nope, WalMart gets nothing from the government. They just hire people and pay them. You haven't been able to show anything different.

You previously stated that you are for single payer healthcare. So, you would be for WalMart not having to give healthcare benefits to their employees anymore, and instead have the government pick up the tab? That seems to be the exact opposite of what you are complaining about.

Incisor · Jan 16, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Conservative said:
Income gap my ass. People keeping more of what they earn is a problem for you.

So you don't believe there is a growing income gap?

Conservative · Jan 16, 2017

Re: Brownback Tax Cuts a bust...Kansas State Legislature now fixing to repeal

Incisor said:
So you don't believe there is a growing income gap?

Don't really care as i understand the person who controls my income earning capability is ME. I have the ability to close that gap as do you but based upon how you post and what you say I understand why this is of concern for you as you expect the Federal Govt. to close that gap for you rather than you earning more income