Quote:Missouri Lawmakers Override Veto, Enact Tax Cut

Missouri's Republican-led Legislature enacted the state's first income tax rate reduction in almost a century Tuesday by overriding the veto of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon, who has denounced it as a reckless financial experiment.

The new law will gradually cut Missouri's top individual income tax rate starting in 2017 and make the state just the third in the nation to offer a special business-income deduction on personal tax returns. But the incremental tax cuts will occur only if Missouri's revenues keep growing.

The tax cuts could benefit about 2.5 million individuals and families, with the wealthiest standing to gain the most, and would provide an extra boost to hundreds of thousands of people involved in business partnerships, limited liability corporations or their own ventures.

The override vote capped an intense, multi-year campaign that included millions of dollars of advertising by tax-cut supporters and scores of opposition events across the state organized by Nixon. Republicans made the tax cut a priority for 2014 after failing last year to override Nixon's veto of a more complex and expansive tax cut.

The GOP holds large majorities in both chambers but needed a little Democratic help to accomplish the two-thirds vote needed to override this year's veto. The House voted 109-46 to enact the tax cut, with Democratic Rep. Keith English of suburban St. Louis joining all 108 Republicans. The GOP-led Senate voted Monday to override the veto on a party-line 23-8 vote.

Republicans cheered and House Majority Leader John Diehl raised his arms in victory as the override vote passed.

"The income tax is destructive toward economic growth," said Rep. Andrew Koenig, of suburban St. Louis, who handled the bill. "It is time for Missouri to cut the income tax."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory...t-23606164

Bet Nixon takes credit as MO's economy grows, siphoning off business from IL.

Glad some republicans get it somewhere.

and it looks like republicans learned nothing about the bush tax cuts

you cant fix stupid

(05-06-2014 11:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  and it looks like republicans learned nothing about the bush tax cuts

you cant fix stupid

The Bush tax cuts worked.

(05-06-2014 11:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  and it looks like republicans learned nothing about the bush tax cuts

You mean the ones that worked? How old were you when that happened?

Quote:you cant fix stupid

Sad admission coming from you.

(05-06-2014 11:11 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Bet Nixon takes credit as MO's economy grows, siphoning off business from IL.

He's already doing it. Of course, he's been bitching that the money wont' make it to schools now...

but watch this line;

Quote:But the incremental tax cuts will occur only if Missouri's revenues keep growing.

Democrats are already targetting this one... (they're saying that the revenue is down already this year (before the cuts), so it prevents the incremental cuts)

(05-06-2014 11:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  and it looks like republicans learned nothing about the bush tax cuts

you cant fix stupid

Why is New York advertising like crazy about its tax free zones? Why do states and cities offer tax credits to businesses? Why are people and businesses leaving California?

(05-06-2014 11:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  and it looks like republicans learned nothing about the bush tax cuts

you cant fix stupid

Yea they should follow the Illinois Model...

only an idiot thinks the bush tax cuts worked

i repeat ==> you can't fix stupid

The "Bush tax cuts" did not work for two reasons:

1. They were not properly focused on growth. Although advertised a supply side tax cuts, they weren't. If you want growth, cut corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and double taxation of dividends. We tax those things generally higher than the rest of the developed world.

2. The cuts were too small to get us down to a competitive level. Consider this: When Bill Clinton got through raising tax rates, ours were among the lowest in the developed world. When GWB got through lowering tax rates, ours were among the highest in the developed world. How did that happen? Because the rest of the developed world watched how our economy responded to Reagan and Clinton (and remember, the Clinton tax increases were minor tweaks to what Reagan had done, not major policy shifts) and embarked almost universally on major tax lowering efforts during the decade 1993-2003.

Basically the "Bush tax cuts" were focused on the wrong areas, and too little, too late to keep up with the rest of the world.

Disagree? Then perhaps you can start by explaining how and why Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, two bipartisan groups comprised of highly respected and well-credentialed experts across a variety of disciplines, charged with finding ways to INCREASE tax revenues to reduce the budget deficit, both recommended significant REDUCTIONS in tax rates, coupled with closing tax loopholes. In constructing your argument, keep in mind that both groups are collectively smarter than you are, had better information than you do, and are less partisan than you are.

(05-07-2014 07:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The "Bush tax cuts" did not work for two reasons:

1. They were not properly focused on growth. Although advertised a supply side tax cuts, they weren't. If you want growth, cut corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and double taxation of dividends. We tax those things generally higher than the rest of the developed world.

2. The cuts were too small to get us down to a competitive level. Consider this: When Bill Clinton got through raising tax rates, ours were among the lowest in the developed world. When GWB got through lowering tax rates, ours were among the highest in the developed world. How did that happen? Because the rest of the developed world watched how our economy responded to Reagan and Clinton (and remember, the Clinton tax increases were minor tweaks to what Reagan had done, not major policy shifts) and embarked almost universally on major tax lowering efforts during the decade 1993-2003.

Basically the "Bush tax cuts" were focused on the wrong areas, and too little, too late to keep up with the rest of the world.

Disagree? Then perhaps you can start by explaining how and why Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, two bipartisan groups comprised of highly respected and well-credentialed experts across a variety of disciplines, charged with finding ways to INCREASE tax revenues to reduce the budget deficit, both recommended significant REDUCTIONS in tax rates, coupled with closing tax loopholes. In constructing your argument, keep in mind that both groups are collectively smarter than you are, had better information than you do, and are less partisan than you are.

Johnnie won't give you a straight answer because he can't. I find it interesting he bashes a decrease in taxes that occurred when he was 7 years old.

For lefties, the only acceptable tax policy is for the government to take ever increasing amounts - because they have been shown to spend it so wisely.

(05-07-2014 07:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The "Bush tax cuts" did not work for two reasons:

1. They were not properly focused on growth. Although advertised a supply side tax cuts, they weren't. If you want growth, cut corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and double taxation of dividends. We tax those things generally higher than the rest of the developed world.

2. The cuts were too small to get us down to a competitive level. Consider this: When Bill Clinton got through raising tax rates, ours were among the lowest in the developed world. When GWB got through lowering tax rates, ours were among the highest in the developed world. How did that happen? Because the rest of the developed world watched how our economy responded to Reagan and Clinton (and remember, the Clinton tax increases were minor tweaks to what Reagan had done, not major policy shifts) and embarked almost universally on major tax lowering efforts during the decade 1993-2003.

Basically the "Bush tax cuts" were focused on the wrong areas, and too little, too late to keep up with the rest of the world.

Disagree? Then perhaps you can start by explaining how and why Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, two bipartisan groups comprised of highly respected and well-credentialed experts across a variety of disciplines, charged with finding ways to INCREASE tax revenues to reduce the budget deficit, both recommended significant REDUCTIONS in tax rates, coupled with closing tax loopholes. In constructing your argument, keep in mind that both groups are collectively smarter than you are, had better information than you do, and are less partisan than you are.

The purpose of the tax cut was to stimulate the economy. It worked.



The vast majority of jobs in this country come from small business. Corporate rates are already lower than individual rates. Cutting the corporate rate only cuts competition further. Good for the stock market, bad for the rest of us. This is a mercantilist approach and indicative of Obama's policy. While Zero hasn't cut corporate taxes, he has raised individual taxes, engaged in cronyism, and boosted regulations to the point that new business has been effectively shut out of a lot of markets. The result is labor participation hasn't been lower since the 30s and individuals and small businesses aren't competing... but the stock market is humming.

If you look at Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, both of them cut both corporate and individual rates, resulting in rates that are both generally in the mid-20s (vary somewhat from proposal to proposal, and with alternatives in each proposal).

The Bush tax cuts did produce a flurry of consumer spending that propped things up in the short run, but new businesses and business expansion kept finding their ways to lower taxes overseas. The transition from a producer economy to a consumer/retail/service economy continued. One big change that we have seen since the 1990s is that transportation (more wide bodied jets) and communication (Internet, cell phones) advances make the world a much smaller place. Having overseas sources of supply used to be a big company thing. Now any entrepreneur can do it. That makes it even harder to bring back production jobs, which are the ones that pay well enough to sustain a middle class.

If we want to be a nation of Burger Kings and McDonald's, or try to get rich by greeting each other at Wal-Mart and delivering pizzas to each other, we are on the right track.

If that's not a good plan, then we need a different approach.

Owl is right, consumption does not drive an economy. Consumption spending has remained relatively constant since the start of the recession, it's business investment which sunk like a rock.

(05-06-2014 10:20 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 11:11 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Bet Nixon takes credit as MO's economy grows, siphoning off business from IL.

He's already doing it. Of course, he's been bitching that the money wont' make it to schools now...

but watch this line;

Quote:But the incremental tax cuts will occur only if Missouri's revenues keep growing.

Democrats are already targetting this one... (they're saying that the revenue is down already this year (before the cuts), so it prevents the incremental cuts)

What about the Missouri Education Lottery?

(05-06-2014 11:27 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 11:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  and it looks like republicans learned nothing about the bush tax cuts

you cant fix stupid

The Bush tax cuts worked.

Yeah, that might be one of the top 5 the dumbest things I've seen liberals post here and that's saying something.

(05-07-2014 07:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If you look at Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, both of them cut both corporate and individual rates, resulting in rates that are both generally in the mid-20s (vary somewhat from proposal to proposal, and with alternatives in each proposal).

The Bush tax cuts did produce a flurry of consumer spending that propped things up in the short run, but new businesses and business expansion kept finding their ways to lower taxes overseas. The transition from a producer economy to a consumer/retail/service economy continued. One big change that we have seen since the 1990s is that transportation (more wide bodied jets) and communication (Internet, cell phones) advances make the world a much smaller place. Having overseas sources of supply used to be a big company thing. Now any entrepreneur can do it. That makes it even harder to bring back production jobs, which are the ones that pay well enough to sustain a middle class.

There have been evidences of on-shoring of jobs, mostly b/c of poor overseas production quality.

That gap will narrow in the future too.

But the real roadblock toward US production jobs is automation. There will never be big factories employing thousands.

A small company may get a start and build to 75-100 people. But any growth after that will employ robotics and other automation.

(05-06-2014 11:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  and it looks like republicans learned nothing about the bush tax cuts

you cant fix stupid

It wasn't the tax cuts that were stupid... it was in the increased spending and unbalanced budget by Bush that was stupid.

(05-07-2014 09:57 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 11:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  and it looks like republicans learned nothing about the bush tax cuts

you cant fix stupid

It wasn't the tax cuts that were stupid... it was in the increased spending and unbalanced budget by Bush that was stupid.

At least we saw a budget from him.