Kansas proved lower taxes doesn't work

Kansas lowered lots of taxes.

They promised this would lead to economic growth and more state revenue.

Both promises failed.

Now Kansas is in serious economic trouble.

Why would this work nationwide if it failed in Kansas?

 

This fallacy again? and you don't even bother to source it. This one is particularly easy and fun to destroy.

1. Here's the most recent Mercatus university study comparing the overall fiscal health of ALL the states, not just Kansas, but Kansas ranks middle of the pack. Guess what kind of state governments fill out most of the bottom ten? One guess, begins with a "D."

https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings

2. Here's a ranking of fastest growing states in population, note how many of the fastest growing states are governed conservatively:

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-214.html

3. Here's a ranking of all the fastest growing states economically, note that many are governed conservatively:

http://www.investopedia.com/news/10-fastestgrowing-state-economies/

4. Here's a ranking of the best states for business, note how many are governed conservatively, note also Kansas again in the middle of the pack.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/12/americas-top-states-for-business-2016-the-list-and-ranking.html

So we can conclude 1. The LW lie narrative on Kansas is BS, the state is in the middle of the pack by rankings that rank ALL the states. Public union bought and sold Op-ed drivel in the media is just that, drivel. 2. Conservatively governed states are doing just fine according to SEVERAL different measures, arguably significantly better than big corrupt union label Democrat machine governed states.

Better luck next thread!

 

It would be in worse trouble if it had not lowered taxes..

If you are trying to say that making businesses and ventures more profitable does not help the economy then lol..

If you make more money then you spend/invest more money and the economy is better off..

Nobody with half a brain is going to make more money and then just save that money completely out of the economy because if you do that you lose 100% of the time.. It gets reinvested and flows somewhere else..

 

Well done... Another liberal lie sent to the trash heap.

 

Because what they did in Kansas was retarded, and has nothing to do with national policy.

Here is where Brownback failed:

He thought that lowering taxes at the state level, would be dramatic enough to entice businesses to move to Kansas. He thought he could grow the tax base by enough to replace the revenue lost in the tax rate reduction. This is retarded for many reasons.

1. He thought these changes would happen over night.
2. He thought saving money on state taxes would be enough to entice business to move here, from other states, when they could actually just move out of the entire country instead, and save far more in taxes.
3. The amount of increased growth to the base, in order to pay for the cuts was completely unrealistic. In fact, the state lacked both the infrastructure and the population to meet the needs of the desired growth.
4. The proximity to resources is a major hurdle that went unaddressed. There are reasons the Rust Belt is or was a thing. The proximity to coal and iron are chief among them.

Now, instead of comparing federal tax policy to the most retarded state tax policy in history, why not simply compare other times in history when federal taxes were cut. Of the 4 times in US history that we cut taxes dramatically, from a starting point of relatively high tax burden, the end result has been more tax to the government, in every case.

 

I personally think everyone should pay the same 28% federal tax that I do. Welfare recipients, news paper boy, burger flipper et al. Everybody should have skin in the game. No mortgage interest write off, no earned income credit. The only write off you should get is on taxes. You shouldn't have to pay tax on income to pay another tax. I don't care if you made $10 all year, give up $2.80 for the cause.

 

How'd the defiti d

How did the deficit do when Reagan cut taxes?

Oh that's right...he raised taxes on the middle class and dramatically lowered them on the wealthy and STILL tripled the deficit.

Yea.

Voodoo economics is ALWAYS like that

 

Clinton RAISED taxes...and balanced the budget.

Hmmmmm

 

Reagan never got the spending cuts he was promised. He factually doubled the revenue to the treasury, in just 6 short years. What are you on about?

 

Clinton always ran a deficit.

 

- The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
- Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.
- There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001

 

Brownback is bought and paid for by the rich.

Kansas is in the crapper with complete GOP control.

Someone wanted a link?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...as-sam-brownback-tax-cuts-20170321-story.html

Compare with California, where there is Democratic control, and the economy is doing great.
http://www.politifact.com/californi...obs-california-growing-hell-lot-faster-texas/

But the "good" GOP loyalist never lets facts interfere with dogma.

 

It was a surplus but still accrued debt, here is how. Economy was doing well thanks to dot com, excess contributions from social security and other trust funds were taken by the fed as required by law. But this windfall was put into the general fund and created a surplus in the checking account and spent. The reason it added to the debt is Clinton had to issue a security to the trust funds, an IOU really, a promise to pay back at a future date. This IOU was added to the balance sheet in the column named intergovernmental holdings, hence the debt. He put money he owed us back in the future into his checking account. Basically, it is like borrowing against your home (assuming you own one) and considering you have a surplus of money. Your checking account might be fat but once you figure interest, your net worth will take a hit.

 

Oh, you didn't get the message that the thread is already over? thought you'd toss out some union label graphs without commentary as if you are saying something? You aren't.

Even arguendo, the differences simply aren't that pronounced. You are evidencing AGAINST the OP premise of gloom and doom in Kansas.

 

Pssst, who was in charge of congress when this happened? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but if you are in fact trying to state that Bill Clinton is solely responsible for our surplus during the 90's, you have a fundamental flawed view of how our government operates.

 

Doesn't matter.

Tax increase...(big one) budget balanced. Regardless of who did it

 

Making bogus assertion doesn't make them true.

What do you dispute?

That Reagan tripled the deficit?

That he had a massive taxcut for the wealthy?

That he raised taxes on the middle class and poor?

All easily proven,.,

Well?

 

And, you would be wrong.
There are many factors that led to a surplus. Saying that tax increases from 1993 are solely responsible for the surplus, is ignorance at best.
They did play a role though. So did major cuts in the defense budget, from the early 90's. Bracket creep played a role as well. Bracket creep is where large numbers of people start moving into larger tax brackets, because growth in wages. You seem to forget, or maybe you were around during the dot.com era. The economy was booming. This point in time made the "roaring 20's" look like child's play. Of course it all went away with the bursting of the dot com bubble. Greenspan's fed policies also played a large role as well.

 

They did play a role though.

End of discussion

If the theory that tax cuts increase revenue is true (more than they increase deficits)..,then history says both Reagan's and Bush the Lesser's budgets should have gone down and Clinton's should have gone up.

That's exactly opposite of what hasppened

 

For the last time, Republicans are not fiscal conservatives. They cut taxes, not spending. This ruins a budget.

First, cut spending. Then cut taxes to an equilibrium level. If you don't do this you're just exploiting the desire for free market policies without actually providing them.

In this way they're often worse than the Democrats. At least the Democrats are honest about their intentions most of the time.

 

Kansas is an agricultural state, that's why.

 

So voodoo economics doesn't work in agricultural states?

Too bad so many of them voted Republican eh?

Newsflash...it doesn't work in ANY states

 

Finally someGD common sense.

Decrease spending decrease spending decrease spending.

 

1. All of the above off-topic in this thread.
2. Reagan streamlined the brackets AND removed nearly all the tax shelters, loopholes and unlimited deductions, beefed up the AMT. The result was a revenue neutral (positive actually) effect on higher income taxpayers and a tax cut on middle and lower. These are simple, well-documented facts of US tax policy. What you are DERAILING this thread with is a union label lie narrative.
3. So make your thread, google up all your union label LW sources... and get owned... or as I already said, pick something HONEST from REALITY that ACTUALLY HAPPENED to troll and derail with.