Is Supply Side a way to force Austerity in Kansas?

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.

The money is the property of the rich. The government isn't giving away money to the rich. The school also doesn't have any money of its own since it relies on other peoples property being taken by force to exist.

Winston said:

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?

Kaon.

Click to expand...

The answer needs context. For example, what are the current levels of spending?I know to a liberal , there is no such thing as too much Government spending, but amazingly some of us feel differently.
All Kansas has to do is lookj at Ilinois or California see what liberal unlimited spending can do to State's' finances. You just can't keep taxing people to death.

KLATTU said:

The answer needs context. For example, what are the current levels of spending?I know to a liberal , there is no such thing as too much Government spending, but amazingly some of us feel differently.
All Kansas has to do is lookj at Ilinois or California see what liberal unlimited spending can do to State's' finances. You just can't keep taxing people to death.

Click to expand...

Then why didn't Kansas just cut all the "evil librul" spending and flourish in a new golden age?

Moreover, why don't low tax, low regulation countries, like in Africa, experience this alleged economic boom?

KLATTU said:

The answer needs context. For example, what are the current levels of spending?I know to a liberal , there is no such thing as too much Government spending, but amazingly some of us feel differently.
All Kansas has to do is lookj at Ilinois or California see what liberal unlimited spending can do to State's' finances. You just can't keep taxing people to death.

Click to expand...

Well, Kansas needed to fill a huge budgetary hole. They proposed cutting education, in order to pay for the tax cuts. Is this something you agree with?

Brownback was/is the forefront of a special kind of stupid in Kansas.

Kansas Gov. Calls for Prayer, Fasting To Solve Budget Crisis – The Business Standard News

Henrin said:

The money is the property of the rich. The government isn't giving away money to the rich. The school also doesn't have any money of its own since it relies on other peoples property being taken by force to exist.

Click to expand...

LOL Taxation is as old as civilization and your attitude is that of a caveman. Go back to your cave.

Tanngrisnir said:

Brownback was/is the forefront of a special kind of stupid in Kansas.

Kansas Gov. Calls for Prayer, Fasting To Solve Budget Crisis – The Business Standard News

Click to expand...

That is very representative of the solutions the Republicans offer. Good find.

Henrin said:

The money is the property of the rich. The government isn't giving away money to the rich. The school also doesn't have any money of its own since it relies on other peoples property being taken by force to exist.

Click to expand...

In order to have a government you need to have revenue. In this case Kansas shifted the tax burden from people who could afford it, to people who couldn't. They cut PIT and Business Tax and gav e way on a sales tax which hits poor and working class people. Someone's still paying for the school. It's just they have less money to pay for teachers, and the tax on consumption is what pays.

Winston said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's because supply-side is not a quick fix, it takes time. Since you're a liberal,. you tend to want short-term solutions, but refuse to see the long term harm they can do. Supply-side tactics work and they work well, what they don't do is work quickly. The whole "Clinton surplus" - that came from the Reagan years of supply side tactics. But that's those nasty old numbers and facts that don't line up with your ideology. You prefer hate to truth...

iguanaman said:

LOL Taxation is as old as civilization and your attitude is that of a caveman. Go back to your cave.

Click to expand...

Nothing you said addresses my comment.

Winston said:

In order to have a government you need to have revenue. In this case Kansas shifted the tax burden from people who could afford it, to people who couldn't. They cut PIT and Business Tax and gav e way on a sales tax which hits poor and working class people. Someone's still paying for the school. It's just they have less money to pay for teachers, and the tax on consumption is what pays.

Click to expand...

If everyone can't afford the same rates then why do you support those rates?

Henrin said:

Nothing you said addresses my comment.

Click to expand...

Your claim is that no one owes the Govt. anything and that is caveman talk. Being part of a society means you owe that society a piece of your wealth.

It all goes back to capitalism.
Capitalism allows anyone the freedom to attempt to be a land owner, or the owner of the means of production.
This is more expansive in reality, it includes people who can make big business deals via nepotism or legit networking, contacts, who you went to school with, reputation in your industry, old fashioned hard work, etc.

This tiny minority of people in our population, largely "controls our economy". Because so few people can compete in that arena in practical terms, most people end up being employees/contractors of the capitalists. This is where the issue arises. When you largely control the economy, you hold most of the negotiating/bargaining power.
Unions are one way to counter balance that (often for the worse)
Government ownership is another way to change that (for the worse)
Enter our system...where we use a progressive tax system to let business run "more free", but those that are sufficiently successful, pay more in taxes.

The idea is that capitalism+progressive taxes, if done well, are better than unions and government ownership, in terms of freedom and overall economic prosperity.

The issue we have today is that many people believe that the rich earned all that money and therefore no one should take it. This is quite an impressive feat, considering we're likely talking about the top 0.1% having that power, and yet a lot more people support their power. The reality is that their "take" is simply a result of a negotiation where they had most of the power. And rather than give back via progressive taxation, they have successfully reduced their tax rate to BELOW what the expected target tax rate is...it gets REGRESSIVE at the back end due to cap gains and business loopholes.

The end result, is we have a genera population that is essentially underpaid via our low labor, low union, low government business structure...but instead of getting that back via government spending (from taxing the most successful capitalists), in the form of health care, education, clean water, mental health care, retirement safety net, etc., they simply do without.

This ensures that each successive generation, they have less power.
And each generation of capitalist can enjoy greater power, due to greater market size (globalization), lower costs (automation and foreign labor), inheritance (the desire to cut the inheritance tax), etc.

We have to very clearly decide how best to describe the reality that capitalism without progressive taxes coupled with poor through middle class benefits on the back end, is not tenable.
We WANT that, rather than unions all over, which will be harder on everyone in the long term IMO. We also want it obviously more than government running business.

But right now we have an entire party that exists primarily to ensure this is fought tooth and nail. Notice the only legislation from the past how many Republicans, always has some of the centerpieces of : attempts to reduce taxes (for the rich), big corporate spending and deregulation, War (military industry big corporate specific spending.

iguanaman said:

Your claim is that no one owes the Govt. anything and that is caveman talk. Being part of a society means you owe that society a piece of your wealth.

Click to expand...

So being alive means I own society a part of my wealth? :lamo

Henrin said:

The money is the property of the rich. The government isn't giving away money to the rich. The school also doesn't have any money of its own since it relies on other peoples property being taken by force to exist.

Click to expand...

It shouldn't all be the property of the rich, is the point.
Workers do 99.999% of all the effort in production/service. Yet they get far less than their fair share in wages/benefits. This is only a result of the lopsided negotiating power that the tiny but powerful capitalists enjoy in our system.

It's why we see unregulated economices quickly devolve into what amounts to authoritarian rule by corporations...they have all the power.
And in somewhat regulated economies, they settle for monopolies and near-monopolies, to enjoy vastly more than they would if they didn't stifle competition.
Government isn't a panacea either, it's a tool just like everything else. And they very rich in the U.S. use that tool to direct our laws and regulations to their benefit.

Why is the public not largely involved in the health care legislation, and it's just 13 men in a room with industry lobbyists? It's not even like it's a big secret, it's done in the light of day. And yet we still have idiots that don't get it.

Henrin said:

So being alive means I own society a part of my wealth? :lamo

Click to expand...

Not if you "live" in a cave on a deserted island which is where you belong.

iguanaman said:

Not if you "live" in a cave on a deserted island which is where you belong.

Click to expand...

So again, a condition of being alive means that the government can forcible take some of my wealth. I'm sorry, but why are you making that argument? It's pretty obvious that the argument is only right according to current law and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything else.

Winston said:

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.

Click to expand...

They didn't have to pay for tax cuts. That assumption is patently false. They had increased liabilities as a result of ACA. Educate yourself. You look foolish.

In 2013, total state revenue was $14.2 billion. In 2016 it was $15.0 billion. Income tax revenues were down, but the sales tax revenues climbed. Why? People had enough money to buy stuff. The only spending increase that is out of control is for social services, specifically health related social services.

Henrin said:

So being alive means I own society a part of my wealth? :lamo

Click to expand...

No, you have a choice like everyone else. But if you choose to live in the U.S., that provides you all kinds of benefits paid for by the government, you've accepted your obligation to fund part of the cost of it.

You're just arguing for being a freeloader, which isn't all that compelling. That old saying is really true - if you don't like it, leave. Don't let the door hit you on the back side on your way out.

Winston said:

Well, Kansas needed to fill a huge budgetary hole. They proposed cutting education, in order to pay for the tax cuts. Is this something you agree with?

Click to expand...

They didn't cut a dime. The taxes that pay for education come from property taxes. They didn't change the property tax code and property taxes collections have gone up! What they did do is start a debate about how money is distributed. Liberals called that cuts because they had no other recourse.

ksu_aviator said:

They didn't have to pay for tax cuts. That assumption is patently false. They had increased liabilities as a result of ACA. Educate yourself. You look foolish.

In 2013, total state revenue was $14.2 billion. In 2016 it was $15.0 billion. Income tax revenues were down, but the sales tax revenues climbed. Why? People had enough money to buy stuff. The only spending increase that is out of control is for social services, specifically health related social services.

Click to expand...

Not sure where you're getting those numbers, but STATE tax revenue declined. To keep the books balanced, Kansas liquidated roughly $700 million of savings taking their reserver to near $zero, and borrowed from other funds about $750 million.

Winston said:

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.

Click to expand...

For that to be true, it would have to have been the State's money to begin with.

Do you believe that the government, currently headed in its' Executive Branch by Trump, owns you, and therefore exercises rightful property rights over you and your produce?

JasperL said:

Not sure where you're getting those numbers, but STATE tax revenue declined. To keep the books balanced, Kansas liquidated roughly $700 million of savings taking their reserver to near $zero, and borrowed from other funds about $750 million.

Click to expand...

US Government Revenue - Numbers Charts Analysis History

cpwill said:

For that to be true, it would have to have been the State's money to begin with.

Do you believe that the government, currently headed in its' Executive Branch by Trump, owns you, and therefore exercises rightful property rights over you and your produce?

Click to expand...

You are not one who believes taxation is theft are you?

Someone who derived income and benefits from tax money for your time in the military. Which of course would mean that you knowingly accepted stolen goods, which is a crime, and generally would lead to those goods being returned to the rightful owner