Is Supply Side a way to force Austerity in Kansas? (1 Viewer)

[Critter7r]

A robber took all your stuff but your TV. Did he give you the TV? A robber doesn't have property claims to what he takes and he doesn't give you those things he leaves behind.

Holy crap you two are gonna have to call a truce. I'm not thru with yesterday's comments but I just can't read this exchange anymore.

You two are arguing as if the only two choices are that Henrin thinks iguanaman is saying "gov't gets all of your earnings", and that iguanaman thinks Henrin is saying "gov't cannot take any of my earnings". And you two appear to be doing nothing to dispel these obvious differences in your arguments' positions.

It's a matter of degrees. We obviously cannot live in a country of 350 million without government, and that government needs to be funded. The history of our society has paved the way for future wealth, and that previous prosperity has a cost to current earners. Those generating the most wealth from our society are in the best position to cover those costs.

Let's have a productive dialogue about the degrees of taxation relative to the needs of the country.

 

[Absentglare]

I can guess. Because politicians spend almost all their energy on solving 2 problems- getting elected and getting re-elected.
Two things that tend to get people un-elected. Raising taxes ( except on the 1 % ers) and cutting programs. ( Talking about doing that before you get elected is one thing- doing it is another).

Ah, so they're too afraid to do what they said they'd do; what they ran on and what their voters want. Why would anyone continue to vote for such impotence?

On could easily ask - then why don't those countries just triple spending ( to create demand) and triple the minimum wage( to raise people out of poverty)?

The answer is the same - it's a bit more complicated than that . IF somebody knew all the ingredients in the secret sauce behind creating economic prosperity the no countries would be poor.

LOL we know the ingredients quite well; we just refuse to solve the problems because we're afraid of the costs.

 

[Conaeolos]

And my point is it is an 'honest choice.' Live here and take advantage of all that generations of taxpayers have helped build, then you have agreed or should happily agree to taxes that make this country and this way of life possible. If you don't agree to that, fine, leave. Have a good life.

You do realize if there was a viable alternative and most of wealthy left your tax revenues would fall to pieces so quickly as to cause a absolute meltdown? Most “taxpayers” are high subsidized.

At what point would the state confiscate assets on ones departure? Claim no they’re ours not yours no matter how much or your intellectual property, sweat and time went into you obtaining them it was all at the grace of the state…you wouldn’t have been able do it without us so it ours…see any divorce cases involve big money to find your answer.

Not to mention you can’t just claim a land and dictate new laws. All territory in this world is spoken for by someone. So you’d need to just make a new deal. What guarantee would you have that deal is better? Are the choice between two bad options even a real choice?

You scenario’s choice is a false one. It’s highly complicated to just get up and leave, too many stake holders in the agreement but that does not make the agreement fair or reasonable and it definitely does not justify taking higher and higher amounts from those with for those without especially without checks and balances.

My basic problem with libertarianism is I have no idea what you think the alternative is. When you drive on the interstate, why in the world do you think you have an OPTION about paying for the taxes that fund it?

In the market we have choices and thing sill get done.



I know you'd prefer the 'market' build roads and you pay a corporation or individual a fee for its use, but that just objectively is NOT the system we have.

Guess what - The 13 colonies had kings, barons and lords which contributed a lot of resources to give the infrastructure that allowed for the birth of the United States and system of free capitalism and meritocracy. At a time that was NOT the system. There is a difference between ideals and the systems we have and reform begins with ideals.

Now what should society do to accommodate your feelings on the matter, your preferences?

Listen up to see outside the system that is holding back our society.

 

[KLATTU]

Ah, so they're too afraid to do what they said they'd do; what they ran on and what their voters want. Why would anyone continue to vote for such impotence?

ts.

Because the alternative is Democrats.
( you walked right in to that one)

 

[Absentglare]

Because the alternative is Democrats.
( you walked right in to that one)

Right, so they keep voting for the people who you're admitting are stealing from the state to give handouts to people who don't have to work any harder to acquire them.

 

[JasperL]

You do realize if there was a viable alternative and most of wealthy left your tax revenues would fall to pieces so quickly as to cause a absolute meltdown? Most “taxpayers” are high subsidized.

Yes, and if pigs had wings, they'd be birds. I imagine the vast majority of the wealthy know what a great system they have right now - generates record amounts of wealth and income for a few at the very top. Not sure they can find a better alternative.

Some do leave, but they give up a lot.

At what point would the state confiscate assets on ones departure? Claim no they’re ours not yours no matter how much or your intellectual property, sweat and time went into you obtaining them it was all at the grace of the state…you wouldn’t have been able do it without us so it ours…see any divorce cases involve big money to find your answer.

Not to mention you can’t just claim a land and dictate new laws. All territory in this world is spoken for by someone. So you’d need to just make a new deal. What guarantee would you have that deal is better? Are the choice between two bad options even a real choice?

That's sort of my point in a way. People whining about taxes in the U.S. have not, it appears, actually looked around and identified this alternative land where libertarian fantasies are being successfully implemented. There's probably a good reason for that - the policies do not work in real life. Just for example, when we had no environmental regulations, we know what happened. Companies dumped MASSIVE amounts of toxic waste into the air, land and water, without meaningful restriction. The theoretical ability of individuals to sue polluters for damages failed, miserably and completely. The evidence for the failure was overwhelming.

But that's just a guess. Let's say all libertarianism needs is a good chance. Well what should the U.S. do to provide that, given libertarians (actual ones, not republicans who want to smoke dope and are against the War on Drugs) are a fringe, with zero members of Congress and well less than 1% of elected officials at any level of any government. IMO, we should do the same to accommodate whining libertarians as we do to accommodate actual communists or anarchists - nothing, ignore them.

You scenario’s choice is a false one. It’s highly complicated to just get up and leave, too many stake holders in the agreement but that does not make the agreement fair or reasonable and it definitely does not justify taking higher and higher amounts from those with for those without especially without checks and balances.

There ARE checks and balances in our system, and anyone who looks at the results our system produces and believes it's the wealthy who are the victims is not paying attention. They control really everything, both parties.

And whether it's complicated to get up and leave is beside the point, really. The reason it's complicated is a wealthy person is wealthy because of the U.S. market, in total, our good infrastructure, public education that provides decent employees who can get the job done, effective courts to enforce contracts, a Fed that provides a stable dollar, a military that eliminates the risk that an invading force will grab their plants and other assets in the U.S. and protects their assets worldwide, liquid and trusted financial markets that allow for easy financing and a ready source of capital, local police, etc........... So, yes, it's complicated to give up those immense advantages in a selfish desire to pay less in taxes that make all that possible, and for good reason.

Guess what - The 13 colonies had kings, barons and lords which contributed a lot of resources to give the infrastructure that allowed for the birth of the United States and system of free capitalism and meritocracy. At a time that was NOT the system. There is a difference between ideals and the systems we have and reform begins with ideals.

Listen up to see outside the system that is holding back our society.

I guess the plan is you libertarians need to do a better job educating the public, electing actual libertarians to office, so we can see libertarian results in action. I'm not sure what else to tell you. Tough to form a revolution with <1% of the population in your corner.

 

[MrWonka]

Republican lawmakers in Kansas have said a lot about tax cuts and conservative fiscal policy, and very little of it has been true.

You're OP doesn't seem to have much to do with the title of your thread so I'll address the title of the thread more. Supply side is not a way to force austerity, austerity is a way to implement supply side economics. It's still bull**** and doesn't work, but you have your cause and effects backwards.

 

[Winston]

You're OP doesn't seem to have much to do with the title of your thread so I'll address the title of the thread more. Supply side is not a way to force austerity, austerity is a way to implement supply side economics. It's still bull**** and doesn't work, but you have your cause and effects backwards.

Well, my OP was focused on what I perceive to be an imposition of austerity, budget cuts. A lightly formulated theory in my mind is that (R)'s sell supply side by telling the country it leads to jobs and growth, while knowing that it leads to less revenue. Less revenue is convenient for (R)'s because then they can cut spending on programs they disagree with ideologically. Then when underfunded Democrat programs fail, they can point to the Democratic legacy as a total failure, and pander to secure votes. In order to take office and cut taxes to start the process over again.

 

[JasperL]

You're OP doesn't seem to have much to do with the title of your thread so I'll address the title of the thread more. Supply side is not a way to force austerity, austerity is a way to implement supply side economics. It's still bull**** and doesn't work, but you have your cause and effects backwards.

I'm not really sure what you're saying but I'm assuming the big money guys pulling the political strings knew the Kansas tax cuts would create very predictable budget crises, starting immediately and never letting up, and the plan, for starters, was to use those budget crises for jam through spending cuts that would otherwise not be possible. The tax increases recently will restore some but not all of those cuts, and the tax rates are today still lower than before, with higher sales tax rates. So at the end, there's been a cut in taxes for the wealthy, spending cuts, and a transfer of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class and below. All good for the big money guys.

If the predictable crises allow for dismantling public unions, selling off state assets at fire sale prices, privatizing a bunch of core state functions like education and roads and prisons, all the better.

 

[Henrin]

YBut that's just a guess. Let's say all libertarianism needs is a good chance. Well what should the U.S. do to provide that, given libertarians (actual ones, not republicans who want to smoke dope and are against the War on Drugs) are a fringe, with zero members of Congress and well less than 1% of elected officials at any level of any government. IMO, we should do the same to accommodate whining libertarians as we do to accommodate actual communists or anarchists - nothing, ignore them.

Interesting. You guys are restricting peoples freedom of speech rights for the feelings of transgenders. Transgenders last I checked are less than 1% of the population. Perhaps it's not the percentage of libertarians that you care about, but that you can't get anything out of accommodating them.

 

[JasperL]

Interesting. You guys are restricting peoples freedom of speech rights for the feelings of transgenders. Transgenders last I checked are less than 1% of the population. Perhaps it's not the percentage of libertarians that you care about, but that you can't get anything out of accommodating them.

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not restricting anyone's free speech rights for the feelings of transgenders or support infringing on free speech rights.

As to accommodating libertarians or their preferences, you have the same right to advocate for your position as the communists and anarchists, and the liberals and the conservatives. And the bottom line is libertarians are a fringe political force in America. That's too bad for those who want to see a libertarian style of government, but I don't really know what more you can expect in our system of government than the same opportunity the rest of us have to run for office, get elected and try to get a majority in Congress or state legislatures to pass your agenda.

 

[Conaeolos]

I imagine the vast majority of the wealthy know what a great system they have right now - generates record amounts of wealth and income for a few at the very top. Not sure they can find a better alternative.

I wouldn’t disagree - but that doesn’t mean the future is so bright. Policy we have today was made years ago under a different political climate and the policies we make today affects the future a lot more than today.

the policies do not work in real life. Just for example, when we had no environmental regulations, we know what happened. Companies dumped MASSIVE amounts of toxic waste into the air, land and water, without meaningful restriction. The theoretical ability of individuals to sue polluters for damages failed, miserably and completely. The evidence for the failure was overwhelming.

Do you know of an article/thread going over this as I would be quite interested in reading more about this specific example. It was actually the opposite conclusion in the cases made to me and the evidence I have seen: that is to say environmental devastation is driven by state influences over corporate profiteering.

IMO, we should do the same to accommodate whining libertarians as we do to accommodate actual communists or anarchists - nothing, ignore them.

I don’t disagree, but which is why we don’t see a powerful Libertarian Party but rather a faction of republicans which are more libertarians at heart willing to work with other political groups on viable policy reform.

There ARE checks and balances in our system, and anyone who looks at the results our system produces and believes it's the wealthy who are the victims is not paying attention. They control really everything, both parties.

I agree but which are under strong assault(by old Money against new money). Big government policies are aimed at stratifying society. And this “They” you refer is but a fraction of a fraction of the whole. Most wealthy people are not at all in control of everything. There are levels of wealth and to move up you can’t be taxed out of every new dollar earned.

If you think the top 1% of the 1% are the one most affected by these high tax policies than you’ve never split "new money" from "old money". These affect most wealthy people but not those in control.

And whether it's complicated to get up and leave is beside the point, really. The reason it's complicated is a wealthy person is wealthy because of the U.S. market, in total, our good infrastructure, public education that provides decent employees who can get the job done, effective courts to enforce contracts, a Fed that provides a stable dollar, a military that eliminates the risk that an invading force will grab their plants and other assets in the U.S. and protects their assets worldwide, liquid and trusted financial markets that allow for easy financing and a ready source of capital, local police, etc........... So, yes, it's complicated to give up those immense advantages in a selfish desire to pay less in taxes that make all that possible, and for good reason.

Except the days and policies that produced all those great advantages are turning into yesteryear.
In fact a lot of that was developed before “income tax” ~ 1900s
Taxes can be a force for good but that does not mean they remain that way if left unchecked. And that is not to say they are the only way to produce many of the above things you mention ~ see liberation ideology.

You speak like the US has been a very un-libertarian society and we are trying to push it in a crazy new direction…well in fact although that has not been the current trend it has a strong tradition here and you are indeed the reformers trying to push us in radical new directions.

I guess the plan is you libertarians need to do a better job educating the public, electing actual libertarians to office, so we can see libertarian results in action. I'm not sure what else to tell you. Tough to form a revolution with <1% of the population in your corner.

That’s the plan yes but those 1% of the 1% hate the income mobility that comes with our policy so we are in fight with big money/power. :devil:

 

[MrWonka]

Well, my OP was focused on what I perceive to be an imposition of austerity, budget cuts. A lightly formulated theory in my mind is that (R)'s sell supply side by telling the country it leads to jobs and growth, while knowing that it leads to less revenue. Less revenue is convenient for (R)'s because then they can cut spending on programs they disagree with ideologically. Then when underfunded Democrat programs fail, they can point to the Democratic legacy as a total failure, and pander to secure votes. In order to take office and cut taxes to start the process over again.

No, I think most of them just genuinely hate the people they're leaving out to dry and truly believe that the private sector would be able to solve that problem(assuming it exists) better than the government. They're dead wrong, but they absolutely believe their own bull****.

 

[Winston]

No, I think most of them just genuinely hate the people they're leaving out to dry and truly believe that the private sector would be able to solve that problem(assuming it exists) better than the government. They're dead wrong, but they absolutely believe their own bull****.

Maybe. But, the ones that have tried supply side and failed over and over again, have to be able to read data and numbers. They can't all be that proud and dumb.

 

[KLATTU]

Right, so they keep voting for the people who you're admitting are stealing from the state to give handouts to people who don't have to work any harder to acquire them.

I have no idea what that even means?. Are you saying somebody from Kansas was stealing state funds?

 

[MrWonka]

and the plan, for starters, was to use those budget crises for jam through spending cuts that would otherwise not be possible.

The right wing idiots in control of Kansas have enough power that they can force through spending cuts any time they want. There's nothing stopping them. They don't need a grand scheme to justify anything they're doing.

These idiots fully believed that slashing all these taxes would result in a whole bunch of new businesses and revenues flowing into the state, and that all that new revenue would more than make up for the cuts.

The sales taxes were absolutely an attempt to shift the tax burden onto the poor. But what idiots who claim they support supply side economics fail to understand is that sales taxes increase the cost of goods and therefore reduce sales. Sales as it turns out are the single biggest drivers of business thus causing the exact problem they are trying to fix.

 

[Absentglare]

I have no idea what that even means?. Are you saying somebody from Kansas was stealing state funds?

Tax cuts for the rich are government handouts that the rich don't have to work any harder to earn. They put deficit pressure on the public budget the same as any other entitlement.

 

[Henrin]

Tax cuts for the rich are government handouts that the rich don't have to work any harder to earn. They put deficit pressure on the public budget the same as any other entitlement.

Facepalm. Don't you guys suggest that the rich are get tax cuts because they are in the pockets of politicians?

 

[KLATTU]

Tax cuts for the rich are government handouts that the rich don't have to work any harder to earn. They put deficit pressure on the public budget the same as any other entitlement.

{GROAN}. Oh that.

I know- the money rightfully belongs to the state and only through their benificence are the earners allowed to keep it.

1917 called- the Bolsheviks want their ideas bakl lol

 

[Moderate Right]

Republican lawmakers in Kansas have said a lot about tax cuts and conservative fiscal policy, and very little of it has been true. Predictions have been decimated and Brownback without admitting what he did was either foolish or dishonest, has doubled down on supply side economics. It's all about giving money away to the rich and cutting Democratic programs they disagree with. Kansas slashed income and business taxes and experienced revenue shortfalls. Stephen Moore and Art Laffer have basically said, "We recommend more tax cuts." On what basis? Kansas did your plan and it left a hundreds of millions dollar hole in your budget. Not to mention the tax increases Brownback used to mitigate disaster, was a regressive sales tax that hit the poor and working class.

So, I'd like to begin from the agreement between everyone here, that tax cuts mean less revenue. If you want to cut taxes, you have to cut spending. Well, where are you going to cut spending? Kansas turned to education, highway fund, and pensions. Is this public policy you agree with? Are long term consequences of austerity a beneficial revelation for society?

Kansas also had to go after education funding, to pay for the tax cuts. Call it what you want, but in my eyes, Kansas gave the school's money away to the rich. So, since education is supposed to be a 10th amendment issue anyway, should be smooth sailing from here. Well, what happens when the school's can't perform or pay their teachers? I guess it's Kansas 10th amendment right to have low quality education.

No offense, but this is nothing but a partisan question. Partisans on one side answer it one way and partisans on the other side answer it the other way. What do you hope to gain by asking a purely partisan question? If more righties answer the question then the thread will lean one way. If more lefties answer the question then the thread leans the other way. Are you just hoping that more lefties answer the question?

 

[Winston]

No offense, but this is nothing but a partisan question. Partisans on one side answer it one way and partisans on the other side answer it the other way. What do you hope to gain by asking a purely partisan question? If more righties answer the question then the thread will lean one way. If more lefties answer the question then the thread leans the other way. Are you just hoping that more lefties answer the question?

This entire forum is partisans bashing each other, welcome to the party.

 

[JasperL]

The right wing idiots in control of Kansas have enough power that they can force through spending cuts any time they want. There's nothing stopping them. They don't need a grand scheme to justify anything they're doing.

Sure, but how many win elections running on a platform of slashing education funding, road funding? They CAN and did win on a platform of tax cuts without detailing that the cost of them would be years of budget "crises" requiring unfortunate but necessary cuts in popular programs - the numbers REQUIRE IT! So sad, gotta be done, unfortunate, etc. Same with running on a platform of cutting income tax rates for the wealthy, but raising them on the poor and middle class with increases in the sales tax rate? Not a winning slogan. But in a budget "crisis" they could force through increases in sales tax rates, and they'll stay.

These idiots fully believed that slashing all these taxes would result in a whole bunch of new businesses and revenues flowing into the state, and that all that new revenue would more than make up for the cuts.

I don't doubt many of the rank and file believed their own BS - a friend deals with state legislators all the time and he is confident their proud ignorance is not an act - but I do NOT believe the big money boys are that dumb. They don't get where they are by believing BS that any study will disprove.

The sales taxes were absolutely an attempt to shift the tax burden onto the poor. But what idiots who claim they support supply side economics fail to understand is that sales taxes increase the cost of goods and therefore reduce sales. Sales as it turns out are the single biggest drivers of business thus causing the exact problem they are trying to fix.

What can I say except I agree. What that demonstrates to me is that the interests of the big money who sell all over the country and the world are NOT really aligned with rank and file business owners in Kansas or anywhere else. What does Koch Industries (to pick one obvious example) really care if they see sales in Kansas, which is a small state, drop by 5% when their Kansas corporate offices or manufacturing plant or oil operations in Kansas see their income tax go to $0.0, which is how much income tax Koch would pay in Kansas as an S Corp.

I see it most clearly with the sales tax on internet sales issue. For local businesses, forcing remote online firms to charge the tax is clearly in their interests, but what drives that discussion are the big firms who sell nationwide online. And they win the day. The discussion changed dramatically when some rulings went against a bunch of big box stores with physical locations everywhere, and online sales dropped into a subsidiary. When it was determined that their bricks and mortar stores created an obligation to tax their internet sales that couldn't be solved with putting online sales into a sub, it freed up a lot of states to try to impose sales taxes on Amazon and others. Walmart et al. overnight sees uniform taxes for online sales as an advantage to them because they have to pay the tax, but Amazon does NOT in most states, and they became advocates for that.

 

[cpwill]

If you're arguing that people in positions of power who actually believe in a Tax Tooth Fairy are incompetent morons, I agree.

:shrug: I'm in favor of (careful) dynamic scoring. I simply also think that it's possible for people to estimate revenue wrong.

 

[cuban smokes]

Republican lawmakers in Kansas have said a lot about tax cuts and conservative fiscal policy, and very little of it has been true. Predictions have been decimated and Brownback without admitting what he did was either foolish or dishonest, has doubled down on supply side economics. It's all about giving money away to the rich and cutting Democratic programs they disagree with. Kansas slashed income and business taxes and experienced revenue shortfalls. Stephen Moore and Art Laffer have basically said, "We recommend more tax cuts." On what basis? Kansas did your plan and it left a hundreds of millions dollar hole in your budget. Not to mention the tax increases Brownback used to mitigate disaster, was a regressive sales tax that hit the poor and working class.

So, I'd like to begin from the agreement between everyone here, that tax cuts mean less revenue. If you want to cut taxes, you have to cut spending. Well, where are you going to cut spending? Kansas turned to education, highway fund, and pensions. Is this public policy you agree with? Are long term consequences of austerity a beneficial revelation for society?

Kansas also had to go after education funding, to pay for the tax cuts. Call it what you want, but in my eyes, Kansas gave the school's money away to the rich. So, since education is supposed to be a 10th amendment issue anyway, should be smooth sailing from here. Well, what happens when the school's can't perform or pay their teachers? I guess it's Kansas 10th amendment right to have low quality education.

when citizens in this nation FINALLY admit to themselves what they ALREADY KNOW, and when they have FINALLY had enough of the typical government bull**** of taking via this tax, that tax, this **** you up the ass, that **** you up the ass, then that is when the citizens will FINALLY get it.

Once the citizens FINALLY get it will they actually have the balls to understand & again, ADMIT TO THEMSELVES that representative government HAS FAILED THEM?

Likely not; why? Because Americans are ******s and they will keep taking that ****ing until no end, even when they know they are getting raped by their own government.

Another great reason why we have the current POTUS because he loves to grab Americans by the ***** ................

 

[Absentglare]

Facepalm. Don't you guys suggest that the rich are get tax cuts because they are in the pockets of politicians?

No, i don't think so.