How Kansas and California Debunked the GOP's Tax Cuts Argument

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Kansas cut taxes on the wealthy and their economy is now in the tank. California raised taxes on the wealthy and their economy is now booming..

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

Imagine making a bet with a hardline trickle-down believer like Paul Ryan on a state's projected economic growth. You would bet that one state that raised taxes on its richest residents would have unprecedented new job creation and a vastly improved economy, while Paul Ryan would bet that a state which cut taxes for the wealthy would have the better economy. If this bet actually took place, you would walk away the winner. And the trickle-down believers of America would be speechless.

Kansas' Sinking Economy

In 2010, newly-minted Kansas governor Sam Brownback, elected on promises of restoring the state's down economy, made that bet, and proceeded to ram through massive tax cuts for the wealthy, at a cost of $800 million, or 8 percent of the revenue used to fund schools, a hit most commonly seen in a fairly severe recession. The tax cuts reduced the state's income tax rate from 6.45 percent to 4.9 percent, scheduled to hit 3.9 percent by 2018. The end goal of Brownback's plan was to reduce the state's income tax rate to zero, earning him an A from the Cato Institute, a Koch-funded, libertarian think tank.

Governor Brownback and the GOP-led legislature also reduced sales taxes from 6.3 percent to 6.15 percent, where it would stay through 2018. This means sales taxes would be higher than income taxes, disproportionately hurting Kansas' poor, who are already struggling to buy food and medicine and pay the rent. Brownback paid for the cuts by eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction, which is a tax break that middle-class homeowners depend upon.

Several years after those tax cuts were passed, Kansas' economy is in the shitter. Kansas' job growth has failed to keep up the pace with the national average. Moody's cut the state's bond rating for the first time in over a decade, citing a lack of confidence in Kansas' fiscal leadership. Revenue projections are down $700 million from the year before, meaning public services like schools have to be cut as a result. In just fiscal year 2014 alone, the state fell short of estimated revenue projections by $338 million. Kansas' non-partisan Legislative Research Department estimates Brownback's tax cuts will cost the state $5 billion in lost revenue by 2019. To put that in perspective, Kansas currently has an $8 billion state budget.

Because public services are being cut, fewer people in the public sector are collecting a paycheck. And because more unemployed workers means less money spent in Kansas' economy, things are expected to worsen under the current tax structure. As schools suffer from a lack of funds, Kansas' public school students will fall behind and will be deprived of skills needed to be successful professionals in adulthood. Brownback's future as a two-term governor is looking grim because of his failure to deliver on economic promises.

California's Soaring Economy

California did the exact opposite of Kansas. In 2012, when California was in a dire budget crisis, voters passed a critical ballot initiative undoing the state's requirement of a two-thirds supermajority vote in the legislature to raise taxes.

Through the initiative, California voters passed tax increases for everyone, including the rich, marginally increasing the sales tax while creating new income tax brackets of 10.3 percent for those who earned between $250,000 and $300,000; 11.3 percent for taxpayers who made anywhere between $300,000 and $500,000; 12.3 percent for incomes of $500,000 to $1,000,000; and 13.3 percent for all incomes above $1,000,000. The richest Californians would barely notice it, given the immense wealth in California's major economic hubs like Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and the wine country.

After monitoring the results, the New Jersey Policy Perspective, a non-partisan think tank, found that California's tax increases are paying off big time. The state's coffers will gain approximately $6.8 billion in new revenue every year, all of which will be invested in public education. California saw 2.9 percent job growth in 2013, making it the third fastest-growing economy in the US. California will have an operational surplus of $9 billion by 2018, meaning even more public sector jobs created and a better economy for everyone. And because education is now a funding priority, California's schoolchildren are set up to soar above and beyond national education averages. Well-educated kids means more people in the future able to take on high-skilled, good-paying jobs.

Putting these two states side by side, it doesn't take an economics professor to see how much unnecessary tax cuts hurt a local economy, and how much marginal tax increases help an economy. At the federal level, American families have lost an average of roughly $48,010 in income per person, or $6.6 TRILLION, since the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (adjusted for inflation). As journalist David Cay Johnston pointed out, that's enough money to pay off every family's credit card debt, student loan debt, and car notes, while still having enough left in the bank.

Families freed from such financial worries would have plenty more disposable income to spend in their local economies, boosting small business in the process and creating enough local demand for more new jobs. The extra tax revenue we would have gained had the Bush tax cuts never gone into effect would be enough to invest in improving education, health care, transportation, agriculture, and myriad other programs. In fact, raising the current top tax rates on the richest 1 percent of Americans to 67 percent (still 3 percent less than the top rate under Nixon), along with creating new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires, would generate $4 trillion over ten years. That would be enough for a new WPA-style program aimed at rebuilding our vastly sub-par infrastructure while creating millions of new jobs.

The tax cuts experiment has had plenty of time to show results, but the only people whose economic situations have improved since the Bush tax cuts are the wealthiest 1 percent of society. The Paul Ryans of America have lost the bet fair and square. It's time we learn a lesson from Kansas and California and apply some common sense to our tax structure.

Link to source
 

-slash-

Senior member
Jan 21, 2014
361
1
41
This is right up there with the myth of minimum wage killing jobs. Here is Fox news even conceding that minimum wage has caused an economic boom for those states that have raised it. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/19/job-growth-picks-up-in-states-that-raised-minimum-wage/

But the state-by-state hiring data, released Friday by the Labor Department, provides ammunition to those who disagree. Economists who support a higher minimum say the figures are encouraging, though they acknowledge they don't establish a cause and effect. There are many possible reasons hiring might accelerate in a particular state.

Could be related, could be un-related, but we'll call it a win. Perfect logic.:rolleyes:
 

-slash-

Senior member
Jan 21, 2014
361
1
41
Yet if it was the other way I bet you would call it a win for the right.

Yes you know me so well. Text book refute to a logical fallacy, spin it instead of counter argue or prove your points with facts.:rolleyes: Let me know when you have something intelligent to post.
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,969
592
136
Yes you know me so well. Text book refute to a logical fallacy, spin it instead of counter argue or prove your points with facts.:rolleyes: Let me know when you have something intelligent to post.

I actually edited my post prob right after you clicked quote. Mostly because I decided I was being judgmental and I dont know your view. I'll admit if I haven't researched something and this is one.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
This article shows an incredible level of economic illiteracy by the author. First the GDP of Kansas is over $100bn, so a few hundred million of cuts is going to have a very marginal effect on the economy. Second, in a state with a balanced budget, any change in taxes is offset by an equal and opposite change in spending, savings, or investment. The author implies that somehow taking a dollar in taxes and spending it adds that dollar to the economy.

Third, the author does not give any explanation for transmission mechanism by which raising taxes to pay for education spending in California supposedly had an immediate positive increase in GDP. How does that work exactly?

Fourth, California had higher unemployment than Kansas at the start of the period so one would expect that job growth would be higher there as they catch up.

Fifth, any analysis would need to adjust for the performance of the different sectors in the two economies to be meaningful.

Sixth, you cannot evaluate the effect of fiscal policy over these very short time horizons. Does "investing" in education make a state more prosperous? Maybe, but it would be over a 10+ year time horizon. What does it even mean to invest in education? Here's a thought experiment: What if we doubled all teachers salaries tomorrow but didn't fire any teachers or change the hiring criteria? We just made a big investment but did not change the operations of the education system.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,290
10,589
136
Here's a thought experiment: What if we doubled all teachers salaries tomorrow but didn't fire any teachers or change the hiring criteria? We just made a big investment but did not change the operations of the education system.

We'd call that stimulus, and enjoy the greater amount of goods those teachers purchase with their newfound riches.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
So California has $2.5 billion in extra revenue this year and $5 billion next year. Good times right? Because this somehow erases the huge financial problems facing California. 30% of the population being on Medicaid is only the tip of the iceberg. The University of California pension plan alone is underfunded by $25 billion. Overall we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that will cause .problems in California in the future. So stop with these annoying threads.
 
Last edited:

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
We'd call that stimulus, and enjoy the greater amount of goods those teachers purchase with their newfound riches.

Nope, you can't really have stimulus with a balanced budget requirement. A die hard Keynsian might argue that their might be a marginal stimulus due to differences in tax and spending multipliers but that's a stretch. Even with that, the theory behind stimulus only predicts short term effects. Deficit or not, there's no such thing as long term stimulus, even to a Keynsian.
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
Not trying to take a side in this tax debate, but comparing Kansas and CA, two vastly different states isn't fair. It's not just the fact that population is different, the economy is different. CA is undergoing a tech boom right now. Regardless of taxes, you have startup companies popping up left and right.

It's not because taxes were increased in my state that Facebook's stock has gone through the roof, or Tesla's stock has gone through the roof. I feel like this is a horrible case of causation and correlation.

You're seeing a recovering economy, and especially the tech sector booming. Of course its easy to cite the #1 state in terms of tech jobs and compare it to a lame blue collar state that's sinking.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
Hmm, I wonder why tech companies don't just move to Kansas? I mean low taxes and all.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
The state's coffers will gain approximately $6.8 billion in new revenue every year, all of which will be invested in public education. .......... And because education is now a funding priority, California's schoolchildren are set up to soar above and beyond national education averages. Well-educated kids means more people in the future able to take on high-skilled, good-paying jobs.

Just throwing more money at education is what a country that ranks #1 in spending but not even in the top 20 for quality of education needs.

Putting these two states side by side, it doesn't take an economics professor to see how much unnecessary tax cuts hurt a local economy, and how much marginal tax increases help an economy. At the federal level, American families have lost an average of roughly $48,010 in income per person, or $6.6 TRILLION, since the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (adjusted for inflation). As journalist David Cay Johnston pointed out, that's enough money to pay off every family's credit card debt, student loan debt, and car notes, while still having enough left in the bank.

Right, so when Obama cut taxes it was to improve the economy but any other time it hurts an economy. And the Bush tax cuts were so horrible to the economy that Obama made them permanent.
 

master_shake_

Diamond Member
May 22, 2012
6,425
292
121
Just throwing more money at education is what a country that ranks #1 in spending but not even in the top 20 for quality of education needs.



Right, so when Obama cut taxes it was to improve the economy but any other time it hurts an economy. And the Bush tax cuts were so horrible to the economy that Obama made them permanent.

didn't he do that so the GOP would pass the ACA?
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,379
96
86
The only thing I gather from this is that Democrats are good at creating tech bubbles.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Thankfully we live in a country where you can move to a state where the tax structure matches your preference. There's high tax/services blue states like California for those who prefer that, and low tax/services states like Kansas for others liking that instead. Funny how that works.