Cuts to social programs, schools (so poor children get stuffed 50 to a 3rd grade classroom and you get lower quality teachers), health care (so poor people die), and rescind rebates for the poor and middle class for things like property taxes for renters and groceries.

And of course, huge tax breaks for the rich and corporations.

And somehow this is supposed to help demand?

It's sad really. These Kansans by and large vote GOP because they're suckered in by the family values talk (though I'm still not clear how being anti-gay marriage helps family values?) and anti-abortion talk by the likes of their governor and former senator Brownback, but the real practical consequences of their GOP vote is to make the Koch brothers richer and themselves and their children poorer, dumber and less healthy. But at least the gays aren't marrying.


Kansas’ Big and Damaging Tax Cut
May 22, 2012 at 2:31 pm

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/kansas-b...g-tax-cut/
Posted by: Nicholas Johnson
Posted in: Budgets, State Budget and Tax, Taxes
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback is poised to sign what may be the most fiscally irresponsible and economically damaging piece of legislation to emerge from a state in many years.

The bill is estimated to cut more than $800 million — or 13 percent — per year from the state’s general fund. That’s Kansas’ primary source of funding for schools, health care, and other services essential for prosperity and growth.

That $800 million per year is way more than Kansas can afford. The legislature’s own research arm says that if Brownback signs the bill, starting in 2014, revenues will fall far short of what it would cost to maintain funding for schools, health care, and other state services at current levels — current levels that already reflect several years of recession-induced budget cuts.

So where’s that money going? First, it will pay for massive income tax cuts for wealthy individuals and profitable corporations.

That’s not all. Taxes on low-income seniors and working families will rise as a direct result of this bill, because it repeals two key programs – a rebate for grocery sales taxes and a property tax relief program for renters.

The legislation also makes Kansas the first state in the nation to exempt all “pass-through” business income from an otherwise broad-based income tax (and, as we have explained, very little of this break would go to small business job creators in growing industries). It will also slash the top two individual income tax rates, disproportionately benefiting people with high incomes.

The legislation will also increase economic inequality in the state. The average low-income Kansas household will pay an additional $148 per year in taxes under this bill. The wealthiest 1 percent of Kansas households will receive average tax cuts of $21,087 per year. (See this analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy; the soon-to-be-enacted plan is the one labeled as the “Senate plan.”)

Governor Brownback is an ardent believer that large tax cuts produce huge economic booms, generating enough additional revenue to offset the cost of the rate cuts. But the notion that large tax cuts pay for themselves has been thoroughly debunked by economists across the political spectrum. In the future, when reality hits, Kansas will have three choices – raise large amounts of revenue from other sources, impose massive cuts in spending for schools and other public services, or both – all of which will slow the economy.

Kansas has already made some of the deepest cuts in the nation to its K-12 education system; per-pupil funding fell by $689 (12 percent) between 2008 and 2012. This plan will make restoring these cuts highly unlikely. Even worse, it will increase the likelihood of deeper cuts, further damaging the state’s long-term economic potential.

Kansas nearly destroyed their higher education system back in the early 2000s with a similar move. It looks like the nutwings are back to finish off the job and want to kill K-12 with it.

(05-23-2012 01:58 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Kansas nearly destroyed their higher education system back in the early 2000s with a similar move. It looks like the nutwings are back to finish off the job and want to kill K-12 with it.

I hope so. Public schools are an embarrassment, as they continue to crank out uneducated, unskilled adults. The US continues to fall w/ respect to the rest of the world when it comes to student performance, yet no one wants to address those hard facts.

I mean look at yourself um, you're a fool. You can't understand basic logic or scientific facts, you struggle with reading comprehension, your ability to address or present relevant facts is lacking. You should be angry at the dollars that were wasted as part of your "education."

I'm with you Torch. Let the current school system fail and lets rebuild it from the ground up...without the unions.

(05-23-2012 03:52 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I'm with you Torch. Let the current school system fail and lets rebuild it from the ground up...without the unions.

People are now frequently asking "Why should the gov't be involved in marriage?"

Well, why aren't people asking, "Why should the gov't be involved in education?"

There are better answers to the first than the second.

(05-23-2012 03:58 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 03:52 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I'm with you Torch. Let the current school system fail and lets rebuild it from the ground up...without the unions.

People are now frequently asking "Why should the gov't be involved in marriage?"

Well, why aren't people asking, "Why should the gov't be involved in education?"

There are better answers to the first than the second.

Our government shouldn't be involved in lots of stuff...

(05-23-2012 03:58 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 03:52 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I'm with you Torch. Let the current school system fail and lets rebuild it from the ground up...without the unions.

People are now frequently asking "Why should the gov't be involved in marriage?"

Well, why aren't people asking, "Why should the gov't be involved in education?"

There are better answers to the first than the second.

There is a more compelling state interest in keeping gays from marrying than having an educated populace? Riiiiiiight.

NOT what he said.

So, letting keep more of MY money, so that I can spend/invest/save how I choose is bad for America?

(05-23-2012 06:01 PM)Smaug Wrote:  So, letting keep more of MY money, so that I can spend/invest/save how I choose is bad for America?

Obviously it could be, yes.

In economics, demand is the desire to own anything, the ability to pay for it, and the willingness to pay.

The ability to pay is the part Keynesians fail to account for. Demand is low for a reason, it's not a lack of desire to own things, it's the lack of wealth or ability to pay for the things they want. So how do Keynesians solve that problem? The steal from the poor public who can't afford to buy anything through higher borrowing, taxes, or inflation (destroying the value of earnings and savings).

It would be like you personally trying to pay down your debt so your spending each month is lower (your GDP would appear lower). Then your neighbor takes your credit cards and debit cards and goes on a spending spree so that your spending level doesn't decrease. That's how messed up Keynesian economic ideas are now.

As Peter Schiff once said, "I have infinite demand." It's not a lack of desire to spend money or have goods, it's the lack of the ability to pay for the things they need. That's why deficit spending and government production of demand is retarded. It brings a temporary increase but furthers insolvency, it doesn't fix anything whatsoever.

You left out pushing grandma off a cliff.

(05-23-2012 02:52 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 01:58 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Kansas nearly destroyed their higher education system back in the early 2000s with a similar move. It looks like the nutwings are back to finish off the job and want to kill K-12 with it.

I hope so. Public schools are an embarrassment, as they continue to crank out uneducated, unskilled adults. The US continues to fall w/ respect to the rest of the world when it comes to student performance, yet no one wants to address those hard facts.

I mean look at yourself um, you're a fool. You can't understand basic logic or scientific facts, you struggle with reading comprehension, your ability to address or present relevant facts is lacking. You should be angry at the dollars that were wasted as part of your "education."

Public education has obviously failed you. Sad.

(05-23-2012 07:40 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  In economics, demand is the desire to own anything, the ability to pay for it, and the willingness to pay.

The ability to pay is the part Keynesians fail to account for. Demand is low for a reason, it's not a lack of desire to own things, it's the lack of wealth or ability to pay for the things they want. So how do Keynesians solve that problem? The steal from the poor public who can't afford to buy anything through higher borrowing, taxes, or inflation (destroying the value of earnings and savings).

It would be like you personally trying to pay down your debt so your spending each month is lower (your GDP would appear lower). Then your neighbor takes your credit cards and debit cards and goes on a spending spree so that your spending level doesn't decrease. That's how messed up Keynesian economic ideas are now.

As Peter Schiff once said, "I have infinite demand." It's not a lack of desire to spend money or have goods, it's the lack of the ability to pay for the things they need. That's why deficit spending and government production of demand is retarded. It brings a temporary increase but furthers insolvency, it doesn't fix anything whatsoever.

No that's not it at all. A lack of desire to own things is absolutely part of the problem. When you get rich, you might get that second yacht, or you might not (maybe because you don't really need it and yachting is starting to bore you). Whereas the poor will spend their money on food and rent, because eating and having a roof over their heads never bores them. And the right wants to give the rich more money to hoard. That's what's retarded. The rich and corporations in this country have been making money hand over fist and just sit on their mountains of cash.

The rich spend 50% of their income, while the middle class spends 90-95%, and the poor spend 100%. If you give a dollar to a poor person, he'll spend it all, and that dollar becomes income for someone else and create jobs.

The problem is the ones with the "ability to pay for it" don't have the desire to spend it all, and the ones who don't have the ability are the ones with the desire. This is why economic inequality suppresses growth, and why economic policies that emphasize fairness are pro-growth. The government has to step in, and create the desire to spend and gain the ability to do so, either by inflation, borrowing or directly taxing the rich.