Kansas Tried Trump's Tax Plan -It Didn't End Well

[Frodo]

Not that it matters to Republicans whether the country fares well (or not) with their tax cut plan.

So long as they pass something, anything, that they can sell to their donors and their base, perhaps with a token gesture of support to Trump's Wall in their budget (along with further eviscerating everything Democrats care about), tied with Trump's ongoing sabotage of Obamacare in lieu of the GOP Congress' failure to outright repeal it, they might be able to come home next year and claim everything is now 'back on track':

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NYTimes

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes cause the state taxes were already too low when they cut them so according to the laffer curve they would lose revenue if they cut taxes further.

Also Kansas is in the middle of nowhere ,so it's hard for the economy to do well there.

[Frodo]

Yes cause the state taxes were already too low when they cut them so according to the laffer curve they would lose revenue if they cut taxes further.

Just like it is nationally -it's no wonder no one except the usual plutocratic suspects wants those tax cuts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that your excuse?  Seriously?

[Badger]

Yes cause the state taxes were already too low when they cut them so according to the laffer curve they would lose revenue if they cut taxes further.

Just like it is nationally -it's no wonder no one except the usual plutocratic suspects wants those tax cuts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that your excuse?  Seriously?


You know, just like Alaska and Wyoming.

Stupidest post of the month, bar none.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes cause the state taxes were already too low when they cut them so according to the laffer curve they would lose revenue if they cut taxes further.

Just like it is nationally -it's no wonder no one except the usual plutocratic suspects wants those tax cuts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that your excuse?  Seriously?

Yes it is an excuse cause Kansas is in the middle of nowhere and thats a huge reason why its not a great economic state. You wanna see a successful implementation of GOP economic policies state wise , here a few examples: Texas, Ohio, Florida for example are doing great .


Also corporate tax cuts do not make the rich directly richer, because the definition of a corporate tax is a tax on the profits of a company(http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/corporate-income-tax.html). So say the tax rate is cut to 25%, and the CEO of the corporation uses that extra money to raise his and the members salary that extra money they gave to themselves is taxes at the income level not the corporate level.

Yes the stock value of the company may increase , but thats a good thing , not a bad thing.

[Devout Centrist]

Yes cause the state taxes were already too low when they cut them so according to the laffer curve they would lose revenue if they cut taxes further.

Also Kansas is in the middle of nowhere ,so it's hard for the economy to do well there.

Okay, but where is the point on the Laffer curve where revenue will start increasing? How do we know taxation is too high? There’s nothing indicating taxes are too high.

Also, lol at that Kansas comment

[Statilius the Epicurean]

There is literally no evidence that cutting taxes boosts economic growth. It's pure voodoo economics.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is literally no evidence that cutting taxes boosts economic growth. It's pure voodoo economics.

There is evidence, but it all indicates that we're definitely not even near the point of the Laffer Curve where a tax cut would even keep revenues constant.

[Badger]

Yes cause the state taxes were already too low when they cut them so according to the laffer curve they would lose revenue if they cut taxes further.

Just like it is nationally -it's no wonder no one except the usual plutocratic suspects wants those tax cuts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that your excuse?  Seriously?

Yes it is an excuse cause Kansas is in the middle of nowhere and thats a huge reason why its not a great economic state. You wanna see a successful implementation of GOP economic policies state wise , here a few examples: Texas, Ohio, Florida for example are doing great .


Also corporate tax cuts do not make the rich directly richer, because the definition of a corporate tax is a tax on the profits of a company(http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/corporate-income-tax.html). So say the tax rate is cut to 25%, and the CEO of the corporation uses that extra money to raise his and the members salary that extra money they gave to themselves is taxes at the income level not the corporate level.

Yes the stock value of the company may increase , but thats a good thing , not a bad thing.

Ohio? Ohio??

Again, genius, compare Alaska and Wyoming for examples.

Incidentally, Nevada is also pretty out-of-the-way geographically too.

[OSR stands with Israel]

There is literally no evidence that cutting taxes boosts economic growth. It's pure voodoo economics.

There is evidence, but it all indicates that we're definitely not even near the point of the Laffer Curve where a tax cut would even keep revenues constant.

again it depends on what tax cut you give :


If you do massive tax cuts on the top income bracket then yes it wont help the economy but cutting taxes for business will(do you know we have one of the highest corporate tax rate in the world).

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes cause the state taxes were already too low when they cut them so according to the laffer curve they would lose revenue if they cut taxes further.

Just like it is nationally -it's no wonder no one except the usual plutocratic suspects wants those tax cuts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that your excuse?  Seriously?

Yes it is an excuse cause Kansas is in the middle of nowhere and thats a huge reason why its not a great economic state. You wanna see a successful implementation of GOP economic policies state wise , here a few examples: Texas, Ohio, Florida for example are doing great .


Also corporate tax cuts do not make the rich directly richer, because the definition of a corporate tax is a tax on the profits of a company(http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/corporate-income-tax.html). So say the tax rate is cut to 25%, and the CEO of the corporation uses that extra money to raise his and the members salary that extra money they gave to themselves is taxes at the income level not the corporate level.

Yes the stock value of the company may increase , but thats a good thing , not a bad thing.

Ohio? Ohio??

Again, genius, compare Alaska and Wyoming for examples.

Incidentally, Nevada is also pretty out-of-the-way geographically too.

Ohio is more representative of the US as a whole then Kansas,Alaska,or Wyoming .

[Badger]

Yes cause the state taxes were already too low when they cut them so according to the laffer curve they would lose revenue if they cut taxes further.

Just like it is nationally -it's no wonder no one except the usual plutocratic suspects wants those tax cuts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that your excuse?  Seriously?

Yes it is an excuse cause Kansas is in the middle of nowhere and thats a huge reason why its not a great economic state. You wanna see a successful implementation of GOP economic policies state wise , here a few examples: Texas, Ohio, Florida for example are doing great .


Also corporate tax cuts do not make the rich directly richer, because the definition of a corporate tax is a tax on the profits of a company(http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/corporate-income-tax.html). So say the tax rate is cut to 25%, and the CEO of the corporation uses that extra money to raise his and the members salary that extra money they gave to themselves is taxes at the income level not the corporate level.

Yes the stock value of the company may increase , but thats a good thing , not a bad thing.

Ohio? Ohio??

Again, genius, compare Alaska and Wyoming for examples.

Incidentally, Nevada is also pretty out-of-the-way geographically too.

Ohio is more representative of the US as a whole then Kansas,Alaska,or Wyoming .

But hardly doing great, as you ignorantly put it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is literally no evidence that cutting taxes boosts economic growth. It's pure voodoo economics.

There is evidence, but it all indicates that we're definitely not even near the point of the Laffer Curve where a tax cut would even keep revenues constant.

again it depends on what tax cut you give :


If you do massive tax cuts on the top income bracket then yes it wont help the economy but cutting taxes for business will(do you know we have one of the highest corporate tax rate in the world).

Nominal rate, but not actual rate thanks to all our loopholes. We could certainly use real tax reform that cut both rates and deductions so that the net result was revenue neutral.

[Frodo]

There is no need for tax cuts of any kind -profits are booming on Wall Street, we are at nearly full employment with still enough slack in the labor market to keep inflation and wage increases at a minimum, and with taxes already low after decades of previous tax cuts no one (except fat cat GOP donors) is clamoring for them.  



It is a solution in search of a problem that no longer exists.      

[Nyvin]

Yes cause the state taxes were already too low when they cut them so according to the laffer curve they would lose revenue if they cut taxes further.

Just like it is nationally -it's no wonder no one except the usual plutocratic suspects wants those tax cuts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that your excuse?  Seriously?

Yes it is an excuse cause Kansas is in the middle of nowhere and thats a huge reason why its not a great economic state. You wanna see a successful implementation of GOP economic policies state wise , here a few examples: Texas, Ohio, Florida for example are doing great .


Also corporate tax cuts do not make the rich directly richer, because the definition of a corporate tax is a tax on the profits of a company(http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/corporate-income-tax.html). So say the tax rate is cut to 25%, and the CEO of the corporation uses that extra money to raise his and the members salary that extra money they gave to themselves is taxes at the income level not the corporate level.

Yes the stock value of the company may increase , but thats a good thing , not a bad thing.

Why do you want to point out states that haven't had big tax cuts?   Why not look at the ones that did like Louisiana, Kansas, and Wisconsin?  All of which have failed miserably and have huge economic problems nowadays.  

Texas and Florida have both been fast growing states since before the 80's so your making an extreme strawman argument here.

[Beet]

There is no need for tax cuts of any kind -profits are booming on Wall Street, we are at nearly full employment with still enough slack in the labor market to keep inflation and wage increases at a minimum, and with taxes already low after decades of previous tax cuts no one (except fat cat GOP donors) is clamoring for them.  

It is a solution in search of a problem that no longer exists.      

Precisely. The time for tax cuts is when the private sector is struggling and needs stimulus. Now is the time to reduce deficits so that we have more room for Keynesian expansionary policy when the next recession hits. (By the way, nuclear war has a tendency to bring on recession)

[Person Man]

There is no need for tax cuts of any kind -profits are booming on Wall Street, we are at nearly full employment with still enough slack in the labor market to keep inflation and wage increases at a minimum, and with taxes already low after decades of previous tax cuts no one (except fat cat GOP donors) is clamoring for them.  



It is a solution in search of a problem that no longer exists.      

Something about "running out of taxes to cut" as it was once put on here. Imagine we cut taxes and have a recession because of all the speculation being caked into so many other places in the economy where a lot of people are already living off of loans. The next recession is going to be very hard to get out of.

This was the cause of why the last recession was so bad-  Taxes were already low and people were living off of loans because of how easy it was for investors to speculate and how hard it was for workers to get raises.

- The Government couldn't cut taxes
- The Government couldn't spend without drawing inflationary deficits
- The Government could only print money and cut interest rates

Luckily, lending was so slow that the deficit grew without causing much inflation.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trump's tax plan is believed to be a 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut over the next 10 years(150 billion a year)



That is not that large and can easily be made up by doing these things


-Reducing the projected military spending of 652.6 billion to 575 billion


- Taxing overseas havens (including a one time wealth tax of 30 percent on those havens )

[136or142]

Trump's tax plan is believed to be a 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut over the next 10 years(150 billion a year)



That is not that large and can easily be made up by doing these things


-Reducing the projected military spending of 652.6 billion to 575 billion


- Taxing overseas havens (including a one time wealth tax of 30 percent on those havens )

I agree with you on cutting corporate taxes, especially since most other nations around the world have cut corporate taxes quite considerably, and in addition to cutting military spending, the federal government could reduce corporate subsidies to finance the tax cuts (not that a fair amount of military spending isn't just a form of stealth corporate subsidy)  so, you don't do the cause any help when you say that Kansas' economy has suffered because it's 'in the middle of nowhere.'

In addition to 'the middle of nowhere' being so vague as to be meaningless, you betray a lack of understanding of economics by, I guess, suggesting that corporations don't want to locate there because its not near a port or not near transportation hubs (which I don't think is correct) or something.

If you were referring to the Arctic or the Sahara or some other place with inhospitable conditions, you'd have a point, but there is no matter with Kansas there, and businesses have interests in Kansas because of, if nothing else, the following:

Natural Resources: Kansas' most important natural resources are its very fertile soil and its mineral deposits (Petroleum, natural gas, clays, gypsum, helium, natural gas liquids, salt, sand and gravel, stone).

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trump's tax plan is believed to be a 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut over the next 10 years(150 billion a year)



That is not that large and can easily be made up by doing these things


-Reducing the projected military spending of 652.6 billion to 575 billion


- Taxing overseas havens (including a one time wealth tax of 30 percent on those havens )

I agree with you on cutting corporate taxes, especially since most other nations around the world have cut corporate taxes quite considerably, and in addition to cutting military spending, the federal government could reduce corporate subsidies to finance the tax cuts (not that a fair amount of military spending isn't just a form of stealth corporate subsidy)  so, you don't do the cause any help when you say that Kansas' economy has suffered because it's 'in the middle of nowhere.'

In addition to 'the middle of nowhere' being so vague as to be meaningless, you betray a lack of understanding of economics by, I guess, suggesting that corporations don't want to locate there because its not near a port or not near transportation hubs (which I don't think is correct) or something.

If you were referring to the Arctic or the Sahara or some other place with inhospitable conditions, you'd have a point, but there is no matter with Kansas there, and businesses have interests in Kansas because of, if nothing else, the following:

Natural Resources: Kansas' most important natural resources are its very fertile soil and its mineral deposits (Petroleum, natural gas, clays, gypsum, helium, natural gas liquids, salt, sand and gravel, stone).

Yes , but is Kansas a good state for small buisnesses to eventually scale up ?

[RINO Tom]

But hardly doing great, as you ignorantly put it.

Is Ohio not doing well?  It does have a higher unemployment rate than the national average, but I thought it was doing okay economically.

[136or142]

Trump's tax plan is believed to be a 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut over the next 10 years(150 billion a year)



That is not that large and can easily be made up by doing these things


-Reducing the projected military spending of 652.6 billion to 575 billion


- Taxing overseas havens (including a one time wealth tax of 30 percent on those havens )

I agree with you on cutting corporate taxes, especially since most other nations around the world have cut corporate taxes quite considerably, and in addition to cutting military spending, the federal government could reduce corporate subsidies to finance the tax cuts (not that a fair amount of military spending isn't just a form of stealth corporate subsidy)  so, you don't do the cause any help when you say that Kansas' economy has suffered because it's 'in the middle of nowhere.'

In addition to 'the middle of nowhere' being so vague as to be meaningless, you betray a lack of understanding of economics by, I guess, suggesting that corporations don't want to locate there because its not near a port or not near transportation hubs (which I don't think is correct) or something.

If you were referring to the Arctic or the Sahara or some other place with inhospitable conditions, you'd have a point, but there is no matter with Kansas there, and businesses have interests in Kansas because of, if nothing else, the following:

Natural Resources: Kansas' most important natural resources are its very fertile soil and its mineral deposits (Petroleum, natural gas, clays, gypsum, helium, natural gas liquids, salt, sand and gravel, stone).

Yes , but is Kansas a good state for small buisnesses to eventually scale up ?

It depends on what sectors they're in, doesn't it?  The Koch Brother's corporate head office is in Kansas, so if you have a small business that services the Koch Brothers (or that services businesses that service the Koch Brothers) they might be in a position to scale up. 

[Statilius the Epicurean]

There is literally no evidence that cutting taxes boosts economic growth. It's pure voodoo economics.

There is evidence, but it all indicates that we're definitely not even near the point of the Laffer Curve where a tax cut would even keep revenues constant.

again it depends on what tax cut you give :


If you do massive tax cuts on the top income bracket then yes it wont help the economy but cutting taxes for business will(do you know we have one of the highest corporate tax rate in the world).

Corporate profits are at historic levels.



Corporations, particularly the biggest ones, are sitting on record-level piles of cash.



US companies are not being taxed out of profits which they would otherwise have invested into the economy.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes cause the state taxes were already too low when they cut them so according to the laffer curve they would lose revenue if they cut taxes further.

Just like it is nationally -it's no wonder no one except the usual plutocratic suspects wants those tax cuts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that your excuse?  Seriously?

Yes it is an excuse cause Kansas is in the middle of nowhere and thats a huge reason why its not a great economic state. You wanna see a successful implementation of GOP economic policies state wise , here a few examples: Texas, Ohio, Florida for example are doing great .


Also corporate tax cuts do not make the rich directly richer, because the definition of a corporate tax is a tax on the profits of a company(http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/corporate-income-tax.html). So say the tax rate is cut to 25%, and the CEO of the corporation uses that extra money to raise his and the members salary that extra money they gave to themselves is taxes at the income level not the corporate level.

Yes the stock value of the company may increase , but thats a good thing , not a bad thing.

Ohio? Ohio??

Again, genius, compare Alaska and Wyoming for examples.

Incidentally, Nevada is also pretty out-of-the-way geographically too.

Ohio is more representative of the US as a whole then Kansas,Alaska,or Wyoming .

But hardly doing great, as you ignorantly put it.

You guys have a pretty good GDP per capita and a solid ~5.0% unemployment rate. I think the main problem there in Ohio is your opioid epidemic. Until you guys overcome that, you will have a lot of problems.

[Badger]

But hardly doing great, as you ignorantly put it.

Is Ohio not doing well?  It does have a higher unemployment rate than the national average, but I thought it was doing okay economically.

Relatively mediocre would probably be the best adjectives to describe the state economy. But certainly not great, as was the word our resident supply-side genius, Alex Keaton wannabe used.