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

[cpwill]

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

I think that question depends on how you define "theft".

Certainly it is taking someone's property without their individual consent. That does not, however, make it illegitimate, as we restrict people's actions and take from them via representative consent all the time (speed limits, for example. The draft, for another).


But that is a bit of a non sequitur, since the claim we are addressing is "Is failure to take something away the same as giving it to them", true the inverse of which (Failing to give something to someone is the same as taking it away) would then also be true.

For example, by not giving me a motorcycle (I would like one), have you taken a motorcycle from me in any meaningful sense? What if, out of your own goodness, you gave me a motorcycle last year? Would not giving me a motorcycle this year mean you had taken a motorcycle that belonged to me, or would I still be up (1) free motorcycle, courtesy of Lord Tammerlain? Do I have ownership rights to you, in that I have an ownership right to demand your wealth in the form of annual motorcycles?

 

[AlbqOwl]

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.

Kansas schools have been hanging in there at pretty much the same place they were before the state austerity. And they do better than states that spend a lot more per student. They come in several places better than say DC that spends the most per student. So maybe it isn't how much you spend but how well you manage the money that determines the outcome?

 

[Henrin]

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.

Moving is such an easy and fast process that anyone can do it overnight! I mean, it's not like it takes forever and is really expensive or anything. Nope.

 

[iguanaman]

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.

Except you are not merely "alive", you are living in a society that banded together for the common good. The argument is right for all societies and you may leave if you wish and find a deserted Island where you may keep all you earn. But as long as you are here and benefiting from this society you are talking childish nonsense. You owe part of your wealth to that society and not paying is thievery.

 

[JasperL]

US Government Revenue - Numbers Charts Analysis History

That was a site detailing Federal government revenue. It's right there in the url....

 

[Henrin]

Except you are not merely "alive", you are living in a society that banded together for the common good. The argument is right for all societies and you may leave if you wish and find a deserted Island where you may keep all you earn. But as long as you are here you are talking childish nonsense.

Talking nonsense is what you are doing right now. You are claiming that because you and your buddies banded together at some point that you have claim to everyone else's property. That you can in fact just run around the land and claim they owe you whatever amount of this property you see fit, and if they don't pay you then you get to throw them in your cell. Statist logic is always terrible and that fact always shines when the topic of taxation comes up.

 

[iguanaman]

I think that question depends on how you define "theft".

Certainly it is taking someone's property without their individual consent. That does not, however, make it illegitimate, as we restrict people's actions and take from them via representative consent all the time (speed limits, for example. The draft, for another).


But that is a bit of a non sequitur, since the claim we are addressing is "Is failure to take something away the same as giving it to them", true the inverse of which (Failing to give something to someone is the same as taking it away) would then also be true.

For example, by not giving me a motorcycle (I would like one), have you taken a motorcycle from me in any meaningful sense? What if, out of your own goodness, you gave me a motorcycle last year? Would not giving me a motorcycle this year mean you had taken a motorcycle that belonged to me, or would I still be up (1) free motorcycle, courtesy of Lord Tammerlain? Do I have ownership rights to you, in that I have an ownership right to demand your wealth in the form of annual motorcycles?

But you can't deny that cutting taxes is taking away revenue so if we are taking from the Govt we are giving to someone. If you were promised a motorcycle and the law was changed so you no longer got one that is taking it away from you. Revenue must be promised to a Govt. for it to exist. Taking it away so that those that already have more than enough can have more is threatening the existence of Govt.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Except you are not merely "alive", you are living in a society that banded together for the common good. The argument is right for all societies and you may leave if you wish and find a deserted Island where you may keep all you earn. But as long as you are here and benefiting from this society you are talking childish nonsense.

You're the one name calling and prattling on about bull**** like "the greater good."

You owe part of your wealth to that society and not paying is thievery.

Refusing to be the victim of theft makes one a thief? How bass ackwards can you be? Just because it is legal, does not make it moral, nor do appeals to population allow for the changing of definitions.

By your logic, a slave owed his master the sweat off his brow.

 

[JasperL]

Moving is such an easy and fast process that anyone can do it overnight! I mean, it's not like it takes forever and is really expensive or anything. Nope.

What difference does it make that moving is hard and takes a long time? You've made a choice to live here! Heck, you've been commenting on DP for over 7 years. Doesn't seem like you really want to move, you just don't want to pay for the benefits you enjoy by living in one of the world's great industrialized countries. So you're a wannabe freeloader. Not impressed.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

But you can't deny that cutting taxes is taking away revenue so if we are taking from the Govt we are giving to someone. If you were promised a motorcycle and the law was changed so you no longer got one that is taking it away from you. Revenue must be promised to a Govt. for it to exist. Taking it away so that those that already have more than enough can have more is threatening the existence of Govt.

Taking less from is not giving, is everything you think backwards?

How do you not understand that these tax cuts are LEGAL? So the money IS NOT OWED!

The law is against you, the very meanings of words are against you, looter.

 

[Conaeolos]

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.

Are you counting limiting spending increases as the same as cutting 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?

What makes you think higher education funding means better education? Do not many second-world education districts outpace and outperform that of kansas?

Austerity for government services opens new opportunity in the private market over time, do you agree?

Would you agree, how a government spends their tax-revenues matter more to outcomes than how much they spend? Given the caveat that processes on how taxes are spent are harder to control and measure than how much a purticular government spends.

what happens when the school's can't perform or pay their teachers?

Reform?

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

It’s a lot easier to cut income(taxes) than spending or even limiting spending increases. This is why I have always advocated starting with the later despite that idea not winning elections.

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

In short: there are non official forces which act in the same way as state intervention.

5 examples:
1. Corruption - meritocracy is a must for capitalism to function; de fact regulation is just as devastating as de jure
2. Infrastructure - Africa has neither modern infrastructure nor local means to develop it (infrastructure must come at high expense from forgiven entities which hurts ROI)
3. Credit/capital markets - security and social problems in these regions cause relative instability which prevent a lot of the capital market from investing compared to safer alternatives
4. Labour force - these regions do not have a creative or high skilled labour force on which to draw
5. Peace & stability - these regions are in the midst of various struggles and without peace & a law system capitalist principles can not function as interfering forces abond.

Regions of better comparison can be found by looking up thing like an “economic freedom index”

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?

Yes. Tax are too high and must be lowered (slowly for all the reasons you point out). Governments need to transition to more creative solutions in how they deliver services and not just adding more and more to ineffective delivery. Spending has been ballooning for years and tax rates fluctuating back and forth with no consistency. Tax-Revenues during all that being all over the map as they’re influences by many different factors.

We don’t need higher taxes: we need accountable and sound fiscal management.

Would you like examples of states who increased education spending and got worse performance?

I agree there have been higher top tax rates in the past and that it doesn’t do huge economic harm. The reason is simple - money get recycled back either way. The problem is in looking at how it impact the social structures of society. Higher rates of taxation are not correlated to inequality as it might in a micro level. Higher tax-revenues even start to level off. High tax rates just takes out power of individuals as private entities and places the power in a single ever hungry government holding all the wealth to which individuals can lobby. And guess who than controlled the policies and objectives of those governments? Still those rich folks you have paying all your bills.

You don’t think if 1% of society is paying 80-90% of the tax burden that their incentives to control and use that system to shape society don’t go up? Spending reflect a persons priorities, force them to pay most of the wealth into a government - government becomes their priority.

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.

There is a big difference between fair share(10-25%) and over 50% of ones earning. At what % does payback become a fine for a certain social/monetary status?

 

[Henrin]

What difference does it make that moving is hard and takes a long time? You've made a choice to live here! Heck, you've been commenting on DP for over 7 years. Doesn't seem like you really want to move, you just don't want to pay for the benefits you enjoy by living in one of the world's great industrialized countries. So you're a wannabe freeloader. Not impressed.

I made a choice to be born? Well, I knew I was awesome, but I think you're taking claims of my awesomeness a bit too far.

 

[iguanaman]

You're the one name calling and prattling on about bull**** like "the greater good."



Refusing to be the victim of theft makes one a thief? How bass ackwards can you be? Just because it is legal, does not make it moral, nor do appeals to population allow for the changing of definitions.

By your logic, a slave owed his master the sweat off his brow.

Another candidate for a deserted Island. What puzzles me is why you all don't just go find one. It is hypocritical to hate taxes so much yet keep paying them. Could it be that deserted Islands are not as desirable as you seen to think? Do you think society is a free ride?

 

[Henrin]

But you can't deny that cutting taxes is taking away revenue so if we are taking from the Govt we are giving to someone.

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.

 

[iguanaman]

I made a choice to be born? Well, I knew I was awesome, but I think you're taking claims of my awesomeness a bit too far.

What would make you awesome is to actually stick to your principles, build a raft and set sail for a tax free island. Right now you are just a whining baby.

 

[JasperL]

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

OK so change the question around. In this country, public education is the responsibility of the state for K-12 and a big part of higher education funding. So should the priority be to maintain the funding that produced good schools in Kansas OR lower tax burdens, mostly for the wealthy?

It's a tradeoff and it's frankly fine for an informed public to decide - let's cut school funding (and a bunch of other core government functions) and lower tax burdens. But that's not really what Kansas did. They sold a lie that they could cut taxes and keep school, road, etc. funding at current or close to current levels.

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?

The short answer is of course. We live here, and by doing so enjoy a slew of benefits provided by the Feds, and in return for that we agree to pay taxes. You can call it what you want, but that's the agreement we make by being citizens here.

 

[Fenton]

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.

A Partisan focus on Kansas's budget issues in no way debunks Supply side economics. If Kansas gave their tax revenue to the rich does that mean California and Illinois gave their tax revenue to the public sector unions ?

Illnois's comptrolller said 100 % of their revenues has to go towards paying off debt, as ordered by the courts, and that means they will have no discretionary spending whatsover
California claims theyve balanced their budget and are even projecting a surplus...just as long as theyre not forced to count the 1.9 Billion dollar accounting error that completlely wipes out their surplus.

$1.9 billion error adds to California deficit projection
$1.9 billion error adds to California deficit projection

So, the Progressive tax and spend strategy doesnt work either. The " Rich " ( investors, bussinesses and wealthy ) will simply move away from foolish confiscatory tax policies and chasing off your tax base only makes sense in Liberal lala land, or California.

Truth is States know that bussinesses respond to tax breaks, or " incentives ". Texas has used tax breaks, New York has its " Start Up NY " campaign that gives bussinesses that relocate a 10 year tax deferment and even California is trying to woo back it film industry with tax breaks.

How can Supply side not work in Illinois and work in States like Texas, NY and California ? It works everywhere it tried because humans respond to incentives and they also respond to tax increases

 

[<alt>doxygen]

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

You don't need to live in a society that "steals" your "wealth", and there's one thing you can do about that.

 

[JasperL]

I think that question depends on how you define "theft".

Certainly it is taking someone's property without their individual consent. That does not, however, make it illegitimate, as we restrict people's actions and take from them via representative consent all the time (speed limits, for example. The draft, for another).

Of course we consent to being taxed by residing in and being citizens of the U.S. and therefore enjoying the fruits of that taxation and spending. People renounce their citizenship and move all the time. That's fine with me. Just don't come back, ever. Don't do business here, use our courts, our banking system, employ those educated at public schools or other schools that receive public funding, etc.

But that is a bit of a non sequitur, since the claim we are addressing is "Is failure to take something away the same as giving it to them", true the inverse of which (Failing to give something to someone is the same as taking it away) would then also be true.

For example, by not giving me a motorcycle (I would like one), have you taken a motorcycle from me in any meaningful sense? What if, out of your own goodness, you gave me a motorcycle last year? Would not giving me a motorcycle this year mean you had taken a motorcycle that belonged to me, or would I still be up (1) free motorcycle, courtesy of Lord Tammerlain? Do I have ownership rights to you, in that I have an ownership right to demand your wealth in the form of annual motorcycles?

Can't make any sense out of your example.

 

[Conaeolos]

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.

And you know of an alternative? Most people neither want nor aspire to the responsibility and burden of such a status. They dream of it as they take few risks and live low stakes.

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 argument can be made until we are singling out people at such a high rate as to basically just being in the guise of government stealing their plunder/power and claiming it our own.

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.

Except the biggest impact has time and time again to be on the in-betweens: doctors, lawyers, small-bustiness owners not the 0.01%.

Yes the 0.01% get the most back from tax breaks but they also have the least to lose on higher as they can pivot their objective to government policy and act in proxy. The other 0.99% of the 1% though are just capped in their ambitions and ability to build the framework to be the next 0.01%.

The end result, is we have a general 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.

In what universe? Government has become so big their priories shifts from these things to fight geopolitical conflicts for the 0.01% masters who get that influence by how much they pay into the pot.

A smaller government will provide more to all these area exactly because its economic will be more tied to the economic of the general populous.

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.

Because of the growth of a state infringing on the individual rights and freedoms….they need their dollar back to invest in themselves!

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.

Thank god and hence the USA remains a country with individual liberties and big powers outside one or two corporations and a state actor.

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.

The improve your bargaining position by improving your replacability factor.

It's why we see unregulated economices quickly devolve into what amounts to authoritarian rule by corporations...they have all the power.

Yes a vacuum will be filled which is why we breed lots of very powerful corporations and economic actors.

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.

Because we’ve given the state that much power that those 13 men can consolidate it.

 

[Henrin]

You don't need to live in a society that "steals" your "wealth", and there's one thing you can do about that.

There is probably a few things.

1. Sell everything I own and stop earning money. Doable, but I would need someone to support me in that situation.
2. Move. That will take time and be expensive, but is doable.
3. Kill myself. That wouldn't avoid the government taking it after I'm dead, so I might need to mix this one with the first choice.
4. Not pay. Bad choice since I will end up in prison and lose all my stuff.

 

[Conaeolos]

Another candidate for a deserted Island. What puzzles me is why you all don't just go find one. It is hypocritical to hate taxes so much yet keep paying them. Could it be that deserted Islands are not as desirable as you seen to think? Do you think society is a free ride?

Or that they are not rich enough as an individual since painting every "rich" person as a Bill Gates is not accurate.

 

[JasperL]

I made a choice to be born? Well, I knew I was awesome, but I think you're taking claims of my awesomeness a bit too far.

Not what I said. Assuming you're an adult, you are making "a choice to live here."

I read all the time about people who renounce their U.S. citizenship and move out. You can, too!

 

[ksu_aviator]

That was a site detailing Federal government revenue. It's right there in the url....

Way to make an effort. The website has State and local numbers too. Geez. *

 

[Henrin]

Not what I said. Assuming you're an adult, you are making "a choice to live here."

I read all the time about people who renounce their U.S. citizenship and move out. You can, too!

Do you even realize that people that renounce their citizenship are not free from US law? What is even the point of bringing it up here? You should do your research before suggesting courses of action be taken.