• 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!

Vox: Kansas Republicans end the state’s failed tax-reform experiment

jaeger19 said:
If you take a look at real conservatives.. even among todays politicians.. you can tell the real conservatives because at times they have called for tax decreases.. AND have called for tax increases.. both depending on the economic conditions.
Click to expand...
Which "real" conservatives are these?

Which tax increases did they request, and on which income groups?

Did the Club For Growth advocate eliminating the EITC without my noticing it? :mrgreen:
 
Moderate Right said:
You are actually quite wrong. The problem with both sides is that the left believes tax cuts are always a bad thing while the right believes that tax cuts are always a good thing. Both sides are wrong. Brownback was wrong but you can't use that same argument everywhere.
Click to expand...

MR, that's just another example of someone comparing republicans to a mis-characterization of liberals/democrats. Liberals and democrats don't like tax cuts for the rich. So don't just say "tax cuts" say "tax cuts for the rich" because Clinton and President Obama cut middle class taxes and they raised upper class taxes. And fyi, Brownback, Reagan and Bush were wrong. And MR, when you are told "tax cuts pay for themselves" to justify tax cuts for the rich even you have to know its simply not true.
 
Vern said:
MR, that's just another example of someone comparing republicans to a mis-characterization of liberals/democrats. Liberals and democrats don't like tax cuts for the rich. So don't just say "tax cuts" say "tax cuts for the rich" because Clinton and President Obama cut middle class taxes and they raised upper class taxes. And fyi, Brownback, Reagan and Bush were wrong. And MR, when you are told "tax cuts pay for themselves" to justify tax cuts for the rich even you have to know its simply not true.
Click to expand...

Ummmmmm. Tax cuts are tax cuts for all, except for those that don't pay any taxes in the first place and even then they can still get refunds. Trump actually talked about adding even more onto the rolls who don't pay any federal income taxes and I have to disagree with that. 47% is already too high.
 
Moderate Right said:
Ummmmmm. Tax cuts are tax cuts for all, except for those that don't pay any taxes in the first place and even then they can still get refunds. Trump actually talked about adding even more onto the rolls who don't pay any federal income taxes and I have to disagree with that. 47% is already too high.
Click to expand...
Asserting that "tax cuts are tax cuts for all," is nonsense. The legislature can -- and has -- lowered taxes on the upper brackets, which the middle class doesn't pay, and keeping all other taxes the same. It's the corollary to what Obama did -- raise taxes only on the top brackets.

This just isn't an academic exercise. The Trump tax-plan released in September 2016 skewed tax-cuts to the rich, according to the Tax Foundation. The most recent tax "plan," according to the Tax Foundation, "All in all, the document does not present many details about the administration’s intentions regarding tax reform; in fact, it is less specific than the tax proposal released by the Trump campaign in September 2016."
 
Visbek said:
Which "real" conservatives are these?

Which tax increases did they request, and on which income groups?

Did the Club For Growth advocate eliminating the EITC without my noticing it? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

An example:

The current gang is led by Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who started talking in early 2011 shortly after the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission failed to earn enough support in Congress. Instead of abandoning the panel’s recommendations, the group embraced politically risky proposals, including calls to end corporate tax loopholes, force wealthier seniors to pay more for Medicare and to raise the Social Security retirement age.
Click to expand...

Bowles and Simpson were joined on the panel by six House lawmakers and six senators evenly divided among the parties, as well as two business executives, a labor union president and former White House budget director Alice Rivlin. After months of negotiations, they unveiled a series of proposed spending cuts and tax increases so controversial that the panel itself failed to reach agreement on a plan.

The panel’s final report called for roughly $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in new revenue and called for a series of politically risky ideas, including sharp cuts in military spending, setting the retirement age on a course to rise to 69 by 2075 and reforms that would ultimately cost the average taxpayer roughly $1,700 more per year
Click to expand...
.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I don't argue that, but if they actually vocalized or voted along the lines you described, the Kochtopus would have primaried them. Not everyone is a psycho Freedom Caucus member type, not yet.

Yes, the dems are developing a similar problem.

Like I said. they lay low vocally because of the anti Trump.. rino crap.. but generally these folks are safe from primary challenges from the Koch Brothers.. not that they haven't tried in these states.. but nope these folks are still there and still conservative.

We had out of state interests try to tell me that my representative was a "liberal siding with Obama" because he agreed with some of the tax changes that eliminated certain targeted tax breaks for companies (i.e. government picking winners and losers) and he agreed in philosophy with increasing taxes by eliminating special tax breaks in order to increase revenue. combined with spending cuts in order to balance the federal budget.

That out of state interest was laughed out of the room and eventually out of the state... the Koch Brothers sycophants didn;t have much traction.
Click to expand...
 
Critter7r said:
Right.

They got to try their "experiment". Corporations and wealthy folks made money off of it. And now they'll cry about how they need to raise license plate fees, sales tax, and cut funding for high-school sports programs to get the budget back in balance.
Click to expand...

Their budget is in balance. In 2016 they took in 6.1 billion in revenue, more than they did before the tax cuts in 2013. They spent 6.1 billion.

http://budget.ks.gov/publications/FY2018/FY2018_GBR_Vol1--UPDATED--1-12-2017.pdf

If anything they need to reform taxes MORE. They have too many taxes and they need to get rid of pass through taxes, and widen the tax base. And of course, they have spending problems. The courts say they need to spend more (but not how much, just MORE) on education, but they already spend 60% of every tax dollar on education, and another 30% on healthcare. Raising taxes and returning the complexity certainly isnt going to cause businesses to suddenly expand and hire.

The good news here is we'll see what happens, if this new experiment of higher taxes and more spending grows the economy.
 
Kansas could just follow California's lead

Just lie about budget surpluses and new revenue
 
Moderate Right said:
You are actually quite wrong. The problem with both sides is that the left believes tax cuts are always a bad thing while the right believes that tax cuts are always a good thing. Both sides are wrong. Brownback was wrong but you can't use that same argument everywhere.
Click to expand...

It's not true that "the left" (at least all of "the left") believes tax cuts are always a bad thing. I'm fine with tax cuts in many cases, including general tax cuts. I support, for example, lowering top marginal rates for C corporations, mainly because few of the big boys pay the top rate (among other reasons). What I'm opposed to are tax cuts sold to the public with lies, falsehoods, misrepresentations that there is no cost to them, no downside, that we have a magic tax fairy or tax Santa Clause that allows us to GROW spending while cutting tax rates.

For example the problem with the Kansas tax cuts isn't that taxes were cut - it's that they were cut while those doing the cutting lied at least by omission to the public by failing to mention that it would cause tax revenues to collapse requiring real and very large cuts to essential government programs like education, roads, etc. If the Kansas GOP were up front about those effects when they passed the tax cuts, fine by me.

And despite your "both sides" argument, I've yet to see the kind of dishonesty in budgeting coming from liberals on this or related subjects. I've never seen a budget document from a Democratic committee, for example, that promises the added economic growth from spending programs means those programs don't have to be paid for with more taxes or more borrowing.
 
Moderate Right said:
But there are times when cutting taxes increases tax revenue. The problem with the right has been they think that that is always the case and the left thinks that that is never the case.
Click to expand...

The times when cutting taxes increases tax revenue (if they exist) are so rare as to be treated like unicorn sightings, and not used by anyone serious for budgeting purposes. So the "left" will be correct about the general effects of a tax rate cut about 99.9% of the time and the conservatives correct about 0.1% of the time. Those positions are not in any way equivalent. One relies on the VAST preponderance of the evidence, and the other does not. Essentially the left's position is there is no free lunch in budgeting - lower tax rates (keeping the definition of the base constant) requires smaller government. I would suggest that's the objectively correct way to look at budgeting in nearly every case in modern history.

If there is a problem on the left with regard to taxes, it's that many liberals do not explicitly acknowledge the downsides of higher tax rates on business and economic growth. Higher taxes do discourage business activity, and so we have to weigh those effects with the benefits of spending. What liberals don't need to argue, however, or really even consider is the idea that tax rate increases will cause revenues to drop (the flip side of the Laffer Curve tax Santa Clause), because at modern rates and with the kind of tax increases we see in reality, that just NEVER happens.
 
jonny5 said:
Their budget is in balance. In 2016 they took in 6.1 billion in revenue, more than they did before the tax cuts in 2013. They spent 6.1 billion.

http://budget.ks.gov/publications/FY2018/FY2018_GBR_Vol1--UPDATED--1-12-2017.pdf

If anything they need to reform taxes MORE. They have too many taxes and they need to get rid of pass through taxes, and widen the tax base. And of course, they have spending problems. The courts say they need to spend more (but not how much, just MORE) on education, but they already spend 60% of every tax dollar on education, and another 30% on healthcare. Raising taxes and returning the complexity certainly isnt going to cause businesses to suddenly expand and hire.

The good news here is we'll see what happens, if this new experiment of higher taxes and more spending grows the economy.
Click to expand...

That's false that their budget was in "balance" by any reasonable definition of the word. For years now they've depended on liquidating their surplus and when that was done, on "bridge loans" from other agencies, such as transportation and the retirement fund.

The equivalent for a household is claiming to be in "balance" AFTER liquidating your savings and when that was exhausted taking a series of loans from your 401(k) plan. Bottom line is the tax cuts reduced individual income tax receipts by about $700 million when other states were seeing big increases in individual income tax receipts.

income-receipts.jpg
 
Moderate Right said:
Ummmmmm. Tax cuts are tax cuts for all, except for those that don't pay any taxes in the first place and even then they can still get refunds. Trump actually talked about adding even more onto the rolls who don't pay any federal income taxes and I have to disagree with that. 47% is already too high.
Click to expand...

You realize of course that you're not addressing my post. You simply posted deflecting babble. Lets try this again. MR, you said this

Moderate Right said:
the left believes tax cuts are always a bad thing .
Click to expand...

I told you the "left" pretty much thinks tax cuts for the rich are "always a bad thing". And MR, I proved my point. Why is responding in an honest and intelligent fashion so hard for you and conservatives in general?
 
Vern said:
You realize of course that you're not addressing my post. You simply posted deflecting babble. Lets try this again. MR, you said this



I told you the "left" pretty much thinks tax cuts for the rich are "always a bad thing". And MR, I proved my point. Why is responding in an honest and intelligent fashion so hard for you and conservatives in general?
Click to expand...

Because you can't post in an honest intelligent fashion. The only thing you know is extreme partisanship and debating dishonestly.
 
jaeger19 said:
<alt>doxygen said:
I don't argue that, but if they actually vocalized or voted along the lines you described, the Kochtopus would have primaried them. Not everyone is a psycho Freedom Caucus member type, not yet.

Yes, the dems are developing a similar problem.

Like I said. they lay low vocally because of the anti Trump.. rino crap.. but generally these folks are safe from primary challenges from the Koch Brothers.. not that they haven't tried in these states.. but nope these folks are still there and still conservative.

We had out of state interests try to tell me that my representative was a "liberal siding with Obama" because he agreed with some of the tax changes that eliminated certain targeted tax breaks for companies (i.e. government picking winners and losers) and he agreed in philosophy with increasing taxes by eliminating special tax breaks in order to increase revenue. combined with spending cuts in order to balance the federal budget.

That out of state interest was laughed out of the room and eventually out of the state... the Koch Brothers sycophants didn;t have much traction.
Click to expand...

People are starting to notice these outside groups, study their agendas and publicize them. That's bad for them and good for folks that want to be able to make informed decisions.

This junk always happened on some level, but it's gone insane since Citizens United. Now the people who can afford to buy massive "advocacy ad" time and send out massive amounts of misleading junk mail can do it anonymously via a chain of intermediary groups.
Click to expand...
 
Moderate Right said:
Because you can't post in an honest intelligent fashion. The only thing you know is extreme partisanship and debating dishonestly.
Click to expand...

MR, whining about me is just a cowardly deflection. I simply pointed out and proved that this statement is wrong

Moderate Right said:
the left believes tax cuts are always a bad thing
Click to expand...

You posted false conservative ideology as fact and lack the integrity to admit it. I've clearly stated that the "left" dislikes tax cuts for the rich. Clinton and Obama cut middle class taxes. MTA pointed out that Kennedy cut taxes. As a typical conservative you are simply choosing narrative over integrity. If you are unable to address your statement that "the left believes tax cuts are always a bad thing" in an honest and intelligent fashion then do me and the forum a favor and do not reply.
 
Vern said:
MR, whining about me is just a cowardly deflection. I simply pointed out and proved that this statement is wrong



You posted false conservative ideology as fact and lack the integrity to admit it. I've clearly stated that the "left" dislikes tax cuts for the rich. Clinton and Obama cut middle class taxes. MTA pointed out that Kennedy cut taxes. As a typical conservative you are simply choosing narrative over integrity. If you are unable to address your statement that "the left believes tax cuts are always a bad thing" in an honest and intelligent fashion then do me and the forum a favor and do not reply.
Click to expand...

Oh Vernie, whining about me is just a cowardly deflection.
 
Moderate Right said:
Oh Vernie, whining about me is just a cowardly deflection.
Click to expand...

oh MR, why are you at a debate forum if you cannot address issues in an honest and intelligent fashion. I pointed out and proved that this statement is wrong

Moderate Right said:
the left believes tax cuts are always a bad thing .
Click to expand...

Just like the governor of Kansas you simply refuse to admit you are wrong. At least your dishonesty and/or delusion isn't hurting people. Its only hurting you.
 
Vern said:
oh MR, why are you at a debate forum if you cannot address issues in an honest and intelligent fashion. I pointed out and proved that this statement is wrong



Just like the governor of Kansas you simply refuse to admit you are wrong. At least your dishonesty and/or delusion isn't hurting people. Its only hurting you.
Click to expand...

Oh Vernie, why are you on a debate forum if all you want to post is dishonest BS and refusing to accept anyone else's facts but your own? I don't accept any of your facts, so we're even.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
jaeger19 said:
People are starting to notice these outside groups, study their agendas and publicize them. That's bad for them and good for folks that want to be able to make informed decisions.

This junk always happened on some level, but it's gone insane since Citizens United. Now the people who can afford to buy massive "advocacy ad" time and send out massive amounts of misleading junk mail can do it anonymously via a chain of intermediary groups.
Click to expand...

I agree.. Citizen's United was one of the worst decisions ever and has had severe negative consequences for our political system. Now its much harder to know who is being influenced by who.
Click to expand...
 
jaeger19 said:
<alt>doxygen said:
I agree.. Citizen's United was one of the worst decisions ever and has had severe negative consequences for our political system. Now its much harder to know who is being influenced by who.
Click to expand...

True but it may have finally reached a point where it doesn't matter. Now I'm not going to defend Trump but we had the Republican establishment spend ungodly amounts of money attacking Trump in the primaries and it only encouraged voters to vote for Trump instead because they knew they did not want the establishment. Same thing happened in the general. Hillary didn't take notice that the more people who attacked Trump, the more voted for him so she made the very same mistake the Republican establishment had made. I'm not sure how deep the pockets of these people are and how much money they are willing to flush down the toilet and not get the results they wanted but they probably haven't learned their lesson yet.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
True but it may have finally reached a point where it doesn't matter. Now I'm not going to defend Trump but we had the Republican establishment spend ungodly amounts of money attacking Trump in the primaries and it only encouraged voters to vote for Trump instead because they knew they did not want the establishment. Same thing happened in the general. Hillary didn't take notice that the more people who attacked Trump, the more voted for him so she made the very same mistake the Republican establishment had made. I'm not sure how deep the pockets of these people are and how much money they are willing to flush down the toilet and not get the results they wanted but they probably haven't learned their lesson yet.
Click to expand...

Focusing on the POTUS election is a huge mistake IMO. I'm sure the money still had a giant impact on results, but a lot of it now is behind the scenes with GOTV and anti-GOTV, micro targeting of ads, etc. But we all know the candidates and pay attention to the POTUS race, so it's almost surely the hardest race to manipulate with just a flood of money.

From what I have read and understand, the real impact of the big money is being seen on the state and local level (and House of Representative races), where relatively small amounts of money can have a big impact. I've seen it around here at least - getting robocalls from national orgs on state races that used to be limited to yard signs and guys walking door to door with a few ads late in the race, if that. Saw the same thing with Supreme Court retention races - sleepy affairs pre-CU now see lots of money from groups with secret donors pushing for dumping Justices they don't like. Etc.
 
Moderate Right said:
jaeger19 said:
True but it may have finally reached a point where it doesn't matter. Now I'm not going to defend Trump but we had the Republican establishment spend ungodly amounts of money attacking Trump in the primaries and it only encouraged voters to vote for Trump instead because they knew they did not want the establishment. Same thing happened in the general. Hillary didn't take notice that the more people who attacked Trump, the more voted for him so she made the very same mistake the Republican establishment had made. I'm not sure how deep the pockets of these people are and how much money they are willing to flush down the toilet and not get the results they wanted but they probably haven't learned their lesson yet.
Click to expand...

Actually it matters more than ever.

First.. its erroneous to think that big money is "republican" or "democrat".. big money interests.. individiuals, corporations and now countries.. are interesting in having power and access to power. They give to both sides and as the winds change.. they give to the side that appears to be winning.

Second its erroneous to think that we are only talking about elections cycles. Giving money doesn't just start and stop during an election.. its ongoing.. because having the need for access is ongoing. I need influence and that costs money all the time.. its not just about who gets elected. For example right now.. I am spending money to get access to republicans that I can influence on healthcare reform. Just like other interests are doing the same. A donor that goes to the Senators picnic and donates five thousand will get a few minutes of time with them to discuss the upcoming healthcare reform. It will buy maybe 30 minutes of there Aides time to further discuss the issue. 50,000 grand buys you more time. A million.. an invite. Depending on just how powerful that person is.

At the state level? 5 grand buys a lot more.

Lastly.. the money now is pretty much anonymous.. so there is so much greater chance of influence from other countries. A lot of my fellow republicans want to stick their heads in the sand.. but its not a coincidence that TRump runs from anything discussing Russia. Its not a coincidence that Trump has denied repeatedly Russia;s hacking of our election computers, despite several US intelligence agencies reports.
Click to expand...
 
JasperL said:
That's false that their budget was in "balance" by any reasonable definition of the word. For years now they've depended on liquidating their surplus and when that was done, on "bridge loans" from other agencies, such as transportation and the retirement fund.

The equivalent for a household is claiming to be in "balance" AFTER liquidating your savings and when that was exhausted taking a series of loans from your 401(k) plan. Bottom line is the tax cuts reduced individual income tax receipts by about $700 million when other states were seeing big increases in individual income tax receipts.

View attachment 67218785
Click to expand...

Balance is balance. If you take money from one account to another or sell some stuff, whats the difference? Thats the whole reason to have savings. And of course tax reciepts reduce revenue. Thats the POINT of tax cuts. Return money to the people so they can use it better. Maybe it didnt work, but part of the reason it didnt was as I listed above. They didnt go far enough.

Capture.jpg

Theres the actual income and revenue, of which INCOME TAX is only one source. They also have sales and other taxes and plenty of it.
 
Moderate Right said:
Oh Vernie, why are you on a debate forum if all you want to post is dishonest BS and refusing to accept anyone else's facts but your own? I don't accept any of your facts, so we're even.
Click to expand...

oh MR, what another sad example of your dishonesty. You've posted no facts. "the left believes tax cuts are always a bad thing" is just your obedient opinion. And not only did I not "accept " your obedient opinion, I and others proved it was false. The actual facts are that Obama, Clinton and Kennedy cut taxes. Your post once again proves when its time to choose narrative or integrity, conservatives choose narrative.
 
jonny5 said:
Balance is balance. If you take money from one account to another or sell some stuff, whats the difference? Thats the whole reason to have savings. And of course tax reciepts reduce revenue. Thats the POINT of tax cuts. Return money to the people so they can use it better. Maybe it didnt work, but part of the reason it didnt was as I listed above. They didnt go far enough.

Theres the actual income and revenue, of which INCOME TAX is only one source. They also have sales and other taxes and plenty of it.
Click to expand...

Right, they didn't go far enough because your own figures show they liquidated $700M in savings, and projected $750M in "bridge funding" which are loans. So just in that 6 year period, the structural shortfall was about $1.5 Billion.

And it does matter that they liquidated savings because it indicates the fiscal path was unsustainable. Again, go tell your wife you're doing fine as you empty all your savings and take out loans from your 401(k). If she has a brain, she'll call you an idiot and point out that, no, doing fine is living within your means, which is paying for current expenses out of current income, and then putting some away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom