SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Kansas' Experiment with Reducing Taxes Ends in Failure, Republicans Override the Governor's Veto
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 55 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I consider the day misspent that I am not either charged with a crime,
or arrested for one.
-- "Ratsy" Tourbillon
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Whoever on Thursday June 08 2017, @01:52PM (5 children)
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
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)
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 The 16th Amendment should be repealed.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)
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
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 09 2017, @02:58AM