Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by n1 on Thursday June 08 2017, @08:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the other-people's-money dept.

The Republican-controlled house and senates of Kansas voted to increase taxes and to override the governor's veto of a bill to increase taxes.

The current governor pushed through tax cuts, intended to grow Kansas' economy, but during the tax cuts, Kansas' growth was lower than the country's overall growth.

The increase follows years in which the state was unable to balance its budget, and the funding for education was found to be unconstitutionally low.

In my view, state budgets are likely to take a hit from Trump's stealth tax increase: by reducing funding for programs and forcing the states to step in, the states will have to find extra money to fill the gaps.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday June 08 2017, @12:32PM (12 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 08 2017, @12:32PM (#522554) Journal

    In my view, state budgets are likely to take a hit from Trump's stealth tax increase: by reducing funding for programs and forcing the states to step in, the states will have to find extra money to fill the gaps.

    That is not what "tax increase" means (there is so much Orwellian language in the spending/taxing debates in the US). As to the federal services in question, why shouldn't they be done by the states directly? Let us keep in mind that there is this weird paradox. The states that benefit the most from federal funding (that is, get more back in federal funds than they give to Washington in taxes) are the states most opposed to the scheme of federal funds going to states while the states most in support are the ones paying more in taxes than they get in return.

    I think that indicates there's something deeply wrong with our understanding of who benefits from federal funding of states, but suppose the above observation is correct. Then the states that most oppose Trump's "stealth tax increase" are the states that would most benefit because the stealth tax increase would be lower than what their citizens currently pay! Sounds like a time to call a certain orange politician's bluff and get your state to provide those currently federal services at lower cost to yourself.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Whoever on Thursday June 08 2017, @01:52PM (5 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Thursday June 08 2017, @01:52PM (#522579) Journal

    Wow, the mental gymnastics going on there in a failed attempt to refute the point.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @03:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @03:04PM (#522608)

      Haven't I seen an info graphic that shows the relative outflow and inflow of federal money with the individual states? Obviously this is subject to lots of interpretation, for example, does it count military contracts that give federal funds to companies in many states?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @03:36PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @03:36PM (#522623)

      I suppose it doesn't help that "stealth tax increase" is already mental gymnastics in search of a soundbite. The goal of the soundbite is to influence people with short attention spans who can't even hope to understand the executive summary of any of the policies their representatives in government are considering. On its face, shifting funding responsibility from the federal level to the states seems to me also not to be a tax "increase" of any kind. It's not a tax cut, either.

      Really, the federal government has no business levying an income tax. The 16th Amendment should be repealed. That can be the business of states... with complications and side-effects I hope to touch on without getting too long-winded.

      Personally, I would that states be more self-sufficient. khallow raises the good point that federal funding comes disproportionately from blue states. As somebody who is ever seeking to move to a blue state (with sensible gold [lp.org]-colored leanings) but cannot due to obligations, I think it absolutely is a good idea to let states more directly control their funding.

      I live in a red state that receives more in federal funding than it contributes. I think forcing my state to cover all of the welfare benefits many residents claim would be an eye-opening wake-up call for many people here. Frankly, they've become fat and lazy, and it boggles the mind that they vote for the red team despite their dependence on welfare. Either they need to start getting bootstrappy, or they need to rethink the kinds of politicians they elect.

      However, if taking the madness that's infested the red sports team lately to its insane conclusion is the only way for people to realize they need to rethink a few things and get back in touch with their values, then why not? Let's do this. I can't claim not to care, otherwise I wouldn't have posted, but I'm excited that at least I got to witness firsthand an empire collapsing due to pointless politicking and the desire for a leader whose most relevant qualification is being loudmouthed idiot whose hobbies include pussy grabbing.

      Something has gone terribly wrong. We simply need to stop spending other people's money. It's the only thing I know that might have some hope of restoring some semblance of sanity.

      If Kansas believes that raising taxes is in Kansas' best interests (and it probably is), then good on Kansas for raising taxes. Perhaps if they must do it again next year because federal money is slowed to a trickle, then at least they might have a little more confidence about doing it a second time. The first time is always the scariest for any new experience. Kansas will be taking care of Kansas, as it should be. Nobody knows what Kansas' problems and hopes are better than people in Kansas.

      Budgets absolutely must be balanced, or what is the point of even having a budget?

      (Specifically I wonder which people would want more if the choice were forced by a lack of funding provided by blue states: is it worse to risk bathroom rape due to lack of bathroom police or risk homelessness and starvation due to lack of welfare? These are important decisions that red states must face. It's always easy to spend other people's money.)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09 2017, @12:17AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09 2017, @12:17AM (#522863)

        I keep pointing this out in these kind of conversations, but the federal government runs a huge deficit. It's entirely possible for the majority of (or even all) states to get more from the federal government than they contribute to it. No-one ever seems to break the numbers down far enough to take that into account, though.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 09 2017, @03:06AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09 2017, @03:06AM (#522916) Journal
          The federal government also is massively incompetent. It's quite likely that no state gets more from the federal government than it puts in.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 09 2017, @02:58AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09 2017, @02:58AM (#522911) Journal
      And your interpretation is worthless. Trash talk is not rational discussion.
  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @03:02PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @03:02PM (#522606)

    This might be true, but even so, I don't want too many Mississippians to die during this experiment.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 09 2017, @11:46AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09 2017, @11:46AM (#523010) Journal

      This might be true, but even so, I don't want too many Mississippians to die during this experiment.

      I can't really tell from your post what you think is more important - semantics tail-chasing to further someone's talking points or the lives of Mississippians. A lot of people say certain things are important to them - and then act differently. And such "important" things seem introduced, as in this case, to matters where they're quite irrelevant. It's not going to matter to the lives of those people you mentioned whether the Trump action actually were a tax increase or not.

      It probably does matter to the lives of said Mississippians to a modest degree how gullibly people respond to such language, but to be honest, anyone who would be persuaded by such language probably is already anti-Trump and in opposition to the current Trump scheme. I see this more as an example of cognitive impairment where someone is accepting of a rather contrived narrative because it confirms a desired bias rather than because it's going to have a misleading effect on peoples' political opinions.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @03:50PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @03:50PM (#522635)

    Right, so the states on the Coast are not the primary beneficiary of a CROSS FUCKING COUNTRY highway system that links both coasts?

    This nonsense about comparing in-flow and outflow of money is pure utter bullshit. A lot of the Federal spending in Red states is for shit they either don't want or don't use. And the things that do benefit them directly by generating economic activity, are good for the nation as a whole. It allows for spreading of capital around the country, which also spreads the population around the country. Last thing you want is your whole country's population in two fucking places. It would be an economic, environmental, and strategic disaster.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Thursday June 08 2017, @09:51PM

      by NewNic (6420) on Thursday June 08 2017, @09:51PM (#522814) Journal

      Right, so the states on the Coast are not the primary beneficiary of a CROSS FUCKING COUNTRY highway system that links both coasts?

      Actually, no.

      There is this small project called the Panama canal. It makes shipping products from coast to coast by sea very practical.

      What you are saying is that landlocked states that would have very poor access to both the big coastal markets and ports benefit less than the coastal states from interstate highway system? LOL.

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by tekk on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:38PM (1 child)

    by tekk (5704) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 08 2017, @06:38PM (#522726)

    It seems reasonable enough to call it a stealth tax increase: Federal gov. is reducing its funding to the states without decreasing taxes, therefore forcing the states to raise their taxes to make up for the shortfall to maintain the same level of service.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 09 2017, @02:55AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 09 2017, @02:55AM (#522907) Journal
      Ok, why does it seem reasonable? It is not actually a tax increase - not even an implied one. We haven't established, for example, that the services being defunded would even be replaced by state governments. Second, this could result in an overall long term decline in taxation due to less spending and borrowing.