OK, I'm convinced. Kansas cut taxes too deeply.
We've already repealed the Bush tax cuts (well, the ones on the high earners). That didn't really help that much at the Federal level. Should we raise taxes more? Do you honestly think that will help? The problem is not how much we tax people with high incomes. The problem is the concentration of power, influence and money on Wal-Street. Those people, for all intent and purpose own our government; elected officials on both sides of the aisle have had enough power over the past couple of decades to affect this; none have chosen to do so. Both parties, seemingly do things that, ultimately, result in those people gaining MORE influence and control. They stack the Fed; they stack the FTC, they own treasury and they buy congressmen and select our presidents.
If we raise the income tax, we will simply send more of the rest of the country's income to the Federal government where those in real power will be able to usurp it to their own ends. The truly powerful are not concerned about income taxes, or probably even capital gains taxes anymore. I don't know that they fear anything - or have anything TO FEAR until Marx is proven right.
We need Teddy Roosevelt. We need Abraham Lincoln. We need FDR or Ronald Reagan (not talking about specific poly beliefs I'm talking about personality, determination and the ability to get things done - despite entrenched opposition). We need a President with a vision to recognize what the real problem is, put a voice to it - and coalesce people around those ideas and that vision. None of the people currently slated to run for president fit that mold (certainly not the presumptive favorites - Bush and Clinton - seriously?!) The big banks have to be broken up - at the very least be allowed to crumble when their next untenable scheme comes crashing down; that event COULD jump start the solution (and should have been allowed to in '08 - but BOTH parties - a president from each - are fully culpable in that.)
Power needs to be spread out, not concentrated. Neither party has that as their true agenda. As long as the rest of us are willing pawns in their scheme, we're part of the problem.
Boutons has the most consistent, accurate message on the board " ed and un able". Until something changes, he's right.
We've already repealed the Bush tax cuts (well, the ones on the high earners)
bull , the estate taxes remain untouched
Actuaries Estimate Estate Tax at 2009 Levels Could Cover One Quarter of Social Security Shortfall
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=455
and as the hyper-wealthy have and increase by $Ts in estate values, the tax loss will continue to mount
We've already repealed the Bush tax cuts (well, the ones on the high earners)
bull , the estate taxes remain untouched
Actuaries Estimate Estate Tax at 2009 Levels Could Cover One Quarter of Social Security Shortfall
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=455
and as the hyper-wealthy have and increase by $Ts in estate values, the tax loss will continue to mount
Yeah, great point; I mean, the Kennedys lost their entire fortune as generation after generation paid those taxes before they were raised! It used to be that rich people didn't figure out ways to NOT pay estate taxes! Besides, if you are "Hyper Rich", the low millions exemption doesn't mean that much. The estate tax exemption protects small businesses (my small business, included). Lowering the exemption just enriches the life insurance companies.
Also, 120 billion? Over 10 years? I thought we were talking real money. Gates and Buffet ALONE, if the estate tax were what you portend it to be, would be more than that.
there are ways to avoid probate and estate taxes, and the hyper-wealthy have the fancy tax lawyers and accountants working full time on screwing America.
so it's about $1T "tax expenditure" per 10 years
I believe your chart is ac ulating; ~100 Billion per year.
GOP’s estate tax swindle: Carving out a bonus for millionaire heirs while hiding behind farmers
But with the estate tax, Republicans will never come right out and say that they want Chip Von Whiffersnort IV to pocket a greater share of Grandpa Whiffersnort’s estate. Instead, they promote the estate tax repeal as part of a noble crusade to save family farms and small businesses from crushing double taxation. “This tax doesn’t just hit the big guy. It hits the little guy – like the small business and the family farm.It is both unwise and unfair, and it needs to go,”
That’s all lies. “In the entire country, only 120 small businesses and farms (100 of them large farms) were hit by the estate tax in 2013,” writes Dana Milbank in today’s Washington Post.
“And for that tiny number affected, there are all sorts of provisions already in place to soften the blow: low valuation rules, delayed tax payments and other breaks and discounts.”
All told, just 0.18 percent of estates were hit with the estate tax in 2013. It’s a policy that targets “the big guy” only – all this weeping on behalf of threatened small businesses and farms is purely theatrical, and it’s been going on for years.
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/15/gops...ehind_farmers/
This may shock you but rich people PLAN their estates specifically so they don't get hit by it even if it was lower than the current 10.8 million for married couples. You just make a plan. It's not that hard. You set up a couple irrevocable trusts, maybe an ILIT (to pay for whatever estate you may have to pay) set up some charities and donate your (for tax credits of course), and voila, no estate tax.
People who are asset rich and cash poor don't think they need to hire an estate planner to set this all up for them.
plausibly less than half of the US invests in stocks any more.
think of that. financial ins utions and banks and broker dealers quan ative desks squeezed out the little guy.
Any solid information on this by unbiased sources rather than pundits?
I looked for trends and graphs, so few up to date. The only up to date ones I see have the general fund relatively flat after the cuts took effect, and falling before that.
Again, any solid information?
I see estimates that killing the estate tax will be a "tax expenditure" of nearly $300B over next 10 years (while Repugs plan to gut the social safety net)
IF you want data, you will have to specify what you are seeking.
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/op...e13983977.html
A little bit of legwork will get you there, several studies are available and linked there.
https://klic.dol.ks.gov/gsipub/index.asp?docid=472
^^ being one of them.
Dip s with agendas point out that jobs grew faster than expected in Kansas... then leave out that Kansas trailed the US in job growth...
http://www.kansasbudget.com/Stop the talk about Kansas having a spending problem. It’s not true, and our lawmakers have just shown how false that claim is.
The Senate Ways and Means Committee has passed a FY 2016 general fund budget with expenditures set at $6.478 billion and the full Senate adopted that budget. Although the House has not voted on a budget yet, the House Appropriations Committee budget position sets spending at $6.477 billion.
Compare the spending in the Senate budget — $6.478 billion — to the FY 2016 official revenue estimate — $5.811 billion. That’s a gap of $667 million. Wow! If Kansas has a spending problem, why did the Kansas Senate, currently a very conservative body, vote to spend $667 million more than they expect to receive?
The Senate-passed budget is not lavish. A clear goal of Senate lawmakers was to crank down expenditures to the lowest possible level. Yet, they still propose spending $667 million more than they take in. The budget puts schools on a block grant, an approach that means cuts and problems for many school districts. University funding goes down. State employees who have foregone salary increases in recent years get nothing again.
If spending is the problem, lawmakers have another $667 million to cut out of the budget in FY 2016. Good luck.
10% shortfalls for the forseeable future.
... and the ongoing failure continues.
Doubts grow about tax plan passing to fix Kansas budget
http://news.yahoo.com/doubts-grow-ta...021951276.htmlTOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- Doubts grew among Kansas legislators Tuesday about whether they can approve tax increases necessary to balance the state budget without deep spending cuts that could lead to more-crowded classrooms and even layoffs of prison guards.
Three Senate and three House negotiators canceled a second consecutive day of public talks on tax issues. The Republican-dominated Senate approved a bill Sunday that would raise sales and cigarette taxes to help raise $423 million during the fiscal year beginning July 1, but members of the GOP-controlled House doubt it can pass their chamber.
One can only hope that the sensible people in Kansas will take the keys from these idiots before they do any more damage.
the classic budget cliche.deep spending cuts that could lead to more-crowded classrooms and even layoffs of prison guards.
Kind of like Obama "shutting down" the Washington monuments and then hiring extra guards to make a scene of keeping people out.
not FUD. KS schools closed 12 days early last month for want of funds.
Looks like an 8% budget shortfall. My guess is they could have found that 8% of waste without shutting down the schools if they had wanted to. They just didn't want to.
So what's the "cliché" on that?
seriously?
any time the people want to cut back a bloated bureaucracy the bureaucracy responds by claiming they have to cut back on kids and public safety.
The schools did shut down early. That happened, it wasn't a cliché.
Plus, how is the "bloated bureaucracy" fault that the legislature that caused the budget shortfall in the first place now don't want to find waste to cut without shutting down schools?
Last edited by ElNono; 06-10-2015 at 04:41 PM.
watch for it: "inefficiency" is the Repug bull slime they hide behind for "starving the beast", for brutal austerity while cutting taxes on wealthy and BigCorp.
This is the Budget Director telling the legislators that the Governor will make those cuts unless they come up with different cuts to make up the difference. They're all from the same party here, AFAIK.
Exactly. They cut areas that cause the most uproar. How about cutting government employee pension benefits? Or administrator salaries? It's ridiculous. Public employees make more money than private employees these days.
Who are "they"?
State govt.
pick a lane, tbh...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
