Supply side economics is working in Kansas!

[Engineer]

Promises were made because that's what politicians do? You can change tax policy overnight but it can take years, sometimes decades for business operations to relocate, which is why I linked charts that showed data over at least a 5 year period. The current blips that have you singing in the rain statically mean nothing.

I'm not singing anywhere. I really don't care about Kansas and what they do. I like to keep my money too and have no love for taxation but I'm fair enough to realize that you can't expect to cut your revenue significantly and promise that it will cause growth to explode and replace the lost income in essentially no time flat. Give the lower and the middle class tax cuts and 100% go right back into the economy....give the uppers tax cuts and you're rolling the dice.

Unlike the federal level in which the lower class doesn't pay much in the way of income taxes (not payroll but income), most states don't have nearly as generous deductions/credits. 1,000,000 lower / middle class people with a tax cut of $1,000 each = nearly $1,000,000,000 going back into the economy and the state actually growing because of economic activity. $1,000,000,000 tax cut to Warren Buffet = Warren Buffet doing what he's already doing with little additional benefit to the economy.

The Democratic challenger is no better in this regard. He wants to cut property taxes. Some of that will go to the middle classes (lower not so much) but the overwhelming majority will go to those that own the most and largest properties.....any guesses who would get that?

I'm sure that you give a pass to both sides on the 'promises' then since that's what politicians do, right ?

By the way, why link a 5 year period when you clearly (incorrectly stated) that the policy has been in effect 1 year?

 

[fskimospy]

Promises were made because that's what politicians do? You can change tax policy overnight but it can take years, sometimes decades for business operations to relocate, which is why I linked charts that showed data over at least a 5 year period. The current blips that have you singing in the rain statically mean nothing.

Including years of data that do not include the phenomenon you are trying to study as part of your effects sample is a basic research no-no.

 

[Joepublic2]

Including years of data that do not include the phenomenon you are trying to study as part of your effects sample is a basic research no-no.

Trying to examine sweeping tax code changes and their impact on the economy with a couple of years of data will get you laughed out of econ 101.

 

[Engineer]

Trying to examine sweeping tax code changes and their impact on the economy with a couple of years of data will get you laughed out of econ 101.

It didn't get the governor laughed out when he said it. You're defending him instead of laughing at him yet you state that using such a short data period is laughable. Regardless, you can't use a 9 year data set when the policies are only (a moving target) several years old. Either post nothing or something relevant.

 

[fskimospy]

Trying to examine sweeping tax code changes and their impact on the economy with a couple of years of data will get you laughed out of econ 101.

Yes, it would. This does not change the fact that your inclusion of years in your sample that didn't include the thing you were trying to measure would get you a big fat F in Econ 101. It was a dumb idea, so just accept it and move on.

 

[Joepublic2]

Yes, it would. This does not change the fact that your inclusion of years in your sample that didn't include the thing you were trying to measure would get you a big fat F in Econ 101. It was a dumb idea, so just accept it and move on.

It didn't get the governor laughed out when he said it. You're defending him instead of laughing at him yet you state that using such a short data period is laughable. Regardless, you can't use a 9 year data set when the policies are only (a moving target) several years old. Either post nothing or something relevant.

I was simply illustrating that red state supply side economics have worked for the past decade. As much as you try to sweep that under the rug you can't change the data.

 

[Zaap]

Kicking ass? More like licking ass. Here's a much more objective, comprehensive graph of employment trends across the US.

Texas = Zero taxes
South Dakota =Zero taxes
Alaska = Zero taxes
Wyoming =Zero taxes
Washington = Zero taxes

Libs: Quick.. Shift focus to Kansas based on a one year snapshot! When called on your dumb comparisons that don't even prove anyone is better off with the bullshit you're promoting say stupid shit that has nothing to with anything like "b-but who wants to live in..."

Let's face it. To liberals, taxation and any monetary policies aren't ever about actual results. It's about their government puppet masters getting even with the people they are jealous of: rich people. That's it.

It's why you'll never have a logical discussion of this issue with the usual suspects. They aren't motivated by anything other than class envy. Might as well try to discuss this with a tree stump as the average dumb class-envy whiner.

 

[theeedude]

Looks like CA figured out a way out of it's problems, get rid of Arnold, and give Democrats a supermajority. Kansas figured out how to mess itself up by trying utterly discredited supply side Laugh-er-curve policies.

 

[Engineer]

I was simply illustrating that red state supply side economics have worked for the past decade. As much as you try to sweep that under the rug you can't change the data.

So what do you do when trickle down no longer trickles down, as seems to be the case of those at the top (companies, individuals, etc) amassing more and more of the overall wealth and income and why do you assume that the current last few years are a continuation of that long term graph?

If companies already have $2,000,000,000,000 in cash in banks and are doing nothing in the US except buying stock (to prop up market prices), giving dividends to shareholders (top 1% own 80% of all stocks) but not creating any real employment in the US via investment and expansion, why would letting them keep even more of their own money encourage them put it into the economy? Furthermore, why would companies be willing to cut one state to move to states like Kansas to save a % of so when they can simply move overseas and cut their taxes by double digit percents (something we are going to have to work on by the way).

 

[fskimospy]

I was simply illustrating that red state supply side economics have worked for the past decade. As much as you try to sweep that under the rug you can't change the data.

Uhmm, you haven't showed that. There are so many confounds that listing them would take hours. I can't imagine you're seriously trying to argue that point using the data you supplied.

If you want to make a specific argument about taxes, let's hear it. Be specific.

 

[fskimospy]

Texas = Zero taxes
South Dakota =Zero taxes
Alaska = Zero taxes
Wyoming =Zero taxes
Washington = Zero taxes

Libs: Quick.. Shift focus to Kansas based on a one year snapshot! When called on your dumb comparisons that don't even prove anyone is better off with the bullshit you're promoting say stupid shit that has nothing to with anything like "b-but who wants to live in..."

Let's face it. To liberals, taxation and any monetary policies aren't ever about actual results. It's about their government puppet masters getting even with the people they are jealous of: rich people. That's it.

It's why you'll never have a logical discussion of this issue with the usual suspects. They aren't motivated by anything other than class envy. Might as well try to discuss this with a tree stump as the average dumb class-envy whiner.

I like how you make an insane, ranting post about how evil 'libruls' are and then complain about the lack of logical discussion.

Were you trying to make a self parody post?

 

[Engineer]

I like how you make an insane, ranting post about how evil 'libruls' are and then complain about the lack of logical discussion.

Were you trying to make a self parody post?

By the way, those states do indeed have taxes....lots of regressive sales taxes or they are funded by revenues of natural resources (oil in the case of Alaska). They may, by the conservative governments that they are run by, have lower spending and less services (don't know about that). Of course, he fails to admit that they have some sort of taxation as revenue.

Property taxes by state:

State Average
Property
Tax Rate
United States 1.38
Alaska 1.80
Alabama 0.65
Arkansas 0.88
Arizona 1.21
California 0.68
Colorado 1.08
Connecticut 1.72
District of Columbia 1.31
Delaware 0.68
Florida 1.20
Georgia 1.52
Hawaii 0.40
Iowa 2.15
Idaho 1.42
Illinois 1.79
Indiana 2.12
Kansas 2.09
Kentucky 0.96
Louisiana 1.02
Massachusetts 1.07
Maryland 1.06
Maine 1.75
Michigan 1.91
Minnesota 1.27
Missouri 1.42

State Average
Property
Tax Rate
Mississippi 1.44
Montana 1.65
North Carolina 1.10
North Dakota 1.84
Nebraska 2.15
New Hampshire 2.21
New Jersey 1.78
New Mexico 0.72
Nevada 0.83
New York 1.76
Ohio 1.81
Oklahoma 1.03
Oregon 1.22
Pennsylvania 1.70
Rhode Island 1.52
South Carolina 1.38
South Dakota 1.96
Tennessee 1.07
Texas 2.57
Utah 1.31
Virginia 1.12
Vermont 2.06
Washington 1.13 (Washington being the only one lower than the US average)
Wisconsin 2.09
West Virginia 0.95
Wyoming 2.18

and they do have the far more regressive sales taxes (Alaska being an exception again because of large amounts of revenue brought in by oil):

 

[shira]

Texas = Zero taxes
South Dakota =Zero taxes
Alaska = Zero taxes
Wyoming =Zero taxes
Washington = Zero taxes

Libs: Quick.. Shift focus to Kansas based on a one year snapshot! When called on your dumb comparisons that don't even prove anyone is better off with the bullshit you're promoting say stupid shit that has nothing to with anything like "b-but who wants to live in..."

Let's face it. To liberals, taxation and any monetary policies aren't ever about actual results. It's about their government puppet masters getting even with the people they are jealous of: rich people. That's it.

It's why you'll never have a logical discussion of this issue with the usual suspects. They aren't motivated by anything other than class envy. Might as well try to discuss this with a tree stump as the average dumb class-envy whiner.

Florida and Nevada also have no income tax.

 

[Engineer]

Florida and Nevada also have no income tax.

I don't think Tennessee has either.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Property taxes by state:
State Average
Property Tax Rate
Texas 2.57

Places like Austin must drive up the average, I pay a 1.45% property tax rate where I live.

 

[Engineer]

Places like Austin must drive up the average, I pay a 1.45% property tax rate where I live.

Richmond, TX also has a 2% local sales tax rate. Of course, much more regressive than even property taxes, but Austin has that also.

Austin has an average of 1.3% property tax.

Austin County collects, on average, 1.3% of a property's assessed fair market value as property tax.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Richmond, TX also has a 2% local sales tax rate. Of course, much more regressive than even property taxes, but Austin has that also.

Austin has an average of 1.3% property tax.

In the Houston area all cities/counties have a 2% sales tax that is added to the state sales tax of 6.25% for a total of 8.25%

Even when you look at state income tax, sales tax, property tax (Va included vehicles/boats/etc in their assessment) I'm paying less in Texas than I did when I lived in Virginia. Now add the 44% increase in salary, my move to Texas was a great move for my family and myself.

 

[Engineer]

In the Houston area all cities/counties have a 2% sales tax that is added to the state sales tax of 6.25% for a total of 8.25%

Even when you look at state income tax, sales tax, property tax (Va included vehicles/boats/etc in their assessment) I'm paying less in Texas than I did when I lived in Virginia. Now add the 44% increase in salary, my move to Texas was a great move for my family and myself.

And if everyone moved to Texas, would that be able to hold up?

Regardless, Texas, like Alaska is booming in oil production. Natural resource cash infusion. Some states will have that advantage over others. Same recently with North Dakota.

 

[Zaap]

The same dimwits just keep the laughs rolling!

Dimwits post thread equating tax cuts in Kansas to job growth. Praise CA as if it's been a job mecca after losing 1.2 million of them.

Point out that Kansas has lower unemployment and COL than CA... Dimwits smokescreen and whine.

Point out that majority of states that have had what Dimwits are whining about in KS have plenty of job growth... Dimwits shift goal again to other taxes... FAILING TO LOOK AT KANSAS'S TAX RATE!!

Comedy gold!

anything but admit none of your bullshit has a thing to do with job growth or creation just a dumb desire to raise taxes (regardless of any sound economic reasons) because you're government asslickers.

 

[theeedude]

The same dimwits just keep the laughs rolling!

Dimwits post thread equating tax cuts in Kansas to job growth. Praise CA as if it's been a job mecca after losing 1.2 million of them.

Point out that Kansas has lower unemployment and COL than CA... Dimwits smokescreen and whine.

Point out that majority of states that have had what Dimwits are whining about in KS have plenty of job growth... Dimwits shift goal again to other taxes... FAILING TO LOOK AT KANSAS'S TAX RATE!!

Comedy gold!

anything but admit none of your bullshit has a thing to do with job growth or creation just a dumb desire to raise taxes (regardless of any sound economic reasons) because you're government asslickers.

I don't speak Dumbfvckistani, could you maybe explain it in English?

 

[Engineer]

I don't speak Dumbfvckistani, could you maybe explain it in English?

Nah, let's get back to it:

Kansas governor promised economic growth for cutting taxes, especially the top earners. Also promised that the revenue shortages would be basically short and sweet.

Economic growth has not materialized at the rate the governor has promised and the revenue shortfalls are huge. The required cuts over the next few years are going to weigh on revenues even more as well as possibly harm the states future (infrastructure and education cuts).

Sounds like Zaap is insinuating that an even larger tax cut (even to ZERO) would work great, as he thinks it has in other states (he disregards other taxes and also huge natural resource revenues in play).

Oh well, I'm over it now. It's Kansas' problem. Will be interesting to see how it pans out over the next few years.

 

[theeedude]

Nah, let's get back to it:

Kansas governor promised job growth for cutting taxes, especially the top earners. Also promised that the revenue shortages would be basically short and sweet.

Job growth has not materialized at the rate the governor has promised and the revenue shortfalls are huge. The required cuts over the next few years are going to weigh on revenues even more as well as possibly harm the states future (infrastructure and education cuts).

Sounds like Zaap is insinuating that an even larger tax cut (even to ZERO) would work great, as he thinks it has in other states (he disregards other taxes and also huge natural resource revenues in play).

Oh well, I'm over it now. It's Kansas' problem. Will be interesting to see how it pans out over the next few years.

That's why I want to see Brownback win. Let him double down on trickle down, let him cut rates and education spending, and let Kansas learn its lesson once and for all, so we don't hear rightwinger excuses how it was all just about to start working if only the Democrats weren't elected.

 

[Zaap]

I see dumbass is trying to cover.

The tax cut simply has NOTHING to do with job growth in Kansas. Not a thing. No one didn't create or did create a job because of the tax cut. Meanwhile, KS is not even all that bad off economically, as pointed out, lower unemployment and COS than CA which the lead dimwit was trumpeting as a raging success.

You've got your head so far up your tax-and-spend ass you don't even realize you disproved your own point. You want to give overall property and sales taxes credit in the states with zero income taxes- while you try to skip over the same in KS because according to your tax-envy crap that would mean the higher overall rates there would be to blame for whatever job growth you're bitching about. But that's far too subtle a point for morons who just want to raise taxes out of class-envy motivation, not for any sound economic reasons.

It's just so funny- if taxes are non-existent and low and job growth is high in a state- you whine and smokescreen and do anything but credit the low taxes for the growth. If taxes are high and job growth is high, you want to credit the high taxes! If taxes are high and job growth low- you run away from it spinning like tops.

 

[theeedude]

I see dumbass is trying to cover.

The tax cut simply has NOTHING to do with job growth in Kansas. Not a thing. No one didn't create or did create a job because of the tax cut.

Thank you for admitting that trickle down and tax cuts creating jobs is a bunch of BS. It took either courage or stupidity on your part, but either way, I solute you.

 

[Engineer]

Changed the wording from job growth to economic growth to please a few people. Now what's the excuse? Why are revenues much lower than expected? Why is economic growth much lower than expected? The tax cuts simply went to the top and didn't move, that's why.

Edit: I just thought of something and went back to check. Up until Brownback (2010), Kansas had Democrat governors from 2003-2010. Does that mean that the chart for Kansas dating back to 2005 had more to do with Democrat policies than GOP policies? 😛