First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Kansas kills Reaganomics
21774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17
Well as of today Kansas ditched Reaganomics for fiscal sanity. First the jobs promised weren't coming in the businesses that appeared were not new they were old ones that resurrected under the new tax system which meant they did really need to hire new people. Now for why Reaganomics doesn't work.

The short answer is simple rich people don't spend that much money since an economy actually works on money being spent on goods and services. The folks that spend the most are the middle class and poor they are the ones that move the economy and there by create jobs which are only created when there is a need to fill demand for labor. So if I have a company and there is no demand I'm not hiring more people I'm looking at letting them go to lower cost.

Now for why the revenue never appeared in the taxes. This one is just as easy to answer you don't get more money when you cut your fee that is what taxes are the fee for the services government provides. So no do you don't magically get more money because you cut taxes you get the opposite less money. No the rich do not make new businesses to take advantage of those lower taxes nor will they spend more money they just sit on it paying a lower tax rate.

Trickle down economics or Reaganomics doesn't work since it operates under the belief that all you have to do is cut taxes on the rich and you will magically get growth. That isn't what happened in Kansas nor is it what happened in Chile or here in the United States. What you get are deficits and a hole blown in your budget. Pure and simple it is fairy dust and very liberal tax policy that will never work.

Congrats to my family back in Kansas I knew you could raise taxes. Now lets ditch the rest of Reaganomics in our economy and get back to sanity at the national level. A nice 70% income tax on those making more then 400k a year.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/07/kansas-tax-cuts-sam-brownback-trump-plan
11142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 6/7/17
I take it you're adamantly anti tax equality?
19856 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/7/17
70% damn, and I thought the 33% my country was charging me was highway robbery.


karatecowboy wrote:

I take it you're adamantly anti tax equality?


Meh, I have no problem being in a higher tax bracket then some burger flipper.
11142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 6/7/17

Ranwolf wrote:

70% damn, and I thought the 33% my country was charging me was highway robbery.


karatecowboy wrote:

I take it you're adamantly anti tax equality?


Meh, I have no problem being in a higher tax bracket then some burger flipper.


Yah. That's being against tax equality. Or at least, having no problem with it.
Posted 6/7/17

karatecowboy wrote:

I take it you're adamantly anti tax equality?


Currently, I'm taxed around 35% of my income when you calculate state and federal taxes (along with the other things like Medicare/Social Security/etc). I'm okay with that. I make more, so I give more. I don't deduct any of my donations to charity, as I see it kind of counter-productive to do so (personally - as I don't really expect any benefit from it).

Tax equality just wouldn't work out in the long run, nor would any sort of tax breaks for businesses. I've been keeping an eye on Kansas for the last 4-5 years (used to live in Kansas City, MO - right next to KCK, just a short walk from MO to KS). I knew of businesses that closed up shop on the KS side and started building up on the MO side because of the tax breaks - they knew it wouldn't work out for them in the long run (and it didn't).

Though, I don't think a 70% tax on those making 400k or more would be desirable either. 40-45% should be the "top bracket". Anything higher than that and you may as well call it "income equality". lol
19856 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

karatecowboy wrote:



Yah. That's being against tax equality. Or at least, having no problem with it.


And why would I, as a someone who makes a hell of a lot more then some dude mopping hallways in some high school I should be contributing more to the financial welfare of my nation. To me the amount my government expects out of me is no hardship. To the janitor the amount the government expects out of him is likely a hardship since he is already makes less then me to begin with.


ninjitsuko wrote:


Currently, I'm taxed around 35% of my income when you calculate state and federal taxes (along with the other things like Medicare/Social Security/etc). I'm okay with that. I make more, so I give more. I don't deduct any of my donations to charity, as I see it kind of counter-productive to do so (personally - as I don't really expect any benefit from it).

Tax equality just wouldn't work out in the long run, nor would any sort of tax breaks for businesses. I've been keeping an eye on Kansas for the last 4-5 years (used to live in Kansas City, MO - right next to KCK, just a short walk from MO to KS). I knew of businesses that closed up shop on the KS side and started building up on the MO side because of the tax breaks - they knew it wouldn't work out for them in the long run (and it didn't).

Though, I don't think a 70% tax on those making 400k or more would be desirable either. 40-45% should be the "top bracket". Anything higher than that and you may as well call it "income equality". lol


God you're a freaking sucker 35% and your country still doesn't have universal healthcare. What are you Yanks wasting the cash on, a shiner aircraft carrier? The current model won't do or something?
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

Ranwolf wrote:

God you're a freaking sucker 35% and you're country still doesn't have universal healthcare. What are you Yanks wasting the cash on, a shiner aircraft carrier? The current model won't do or something?


I'm almost certain that about 30% of the 35% goes to buying Trump a new set of hair for his head at any given moment. 5% goes to the WaffleDome that feeds the White House staff once a week.
21774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

karatecowboy wrote:

I take it you're adamantly anti tax equality?


If by tax equality you mean the fantasy of a flat tax then yes I'm against it this was the Tax rate before Reagan on the top income earners in this country and they were doing just fine thank you very much.

Edit
No really look up the historic tax rates in this country you will see between 1971 and 1980 the top marginal tax rate was 71% before that it was 70% and before that it was 90% when LBJ reduced the effective rate to the actual rate of 70%

19856 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

ninjitsuko wrote:



I'm almost certain that about 30% of the 35% goes to buying Trump a new set of hair for his head at any given moment. 5% goes to the WaffleDome that feeds the White House staff once a week.


That's a lot of hair pieces , you lot should have done what we did and elected a male model. He comes calibrated in terms of looks.
23236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Kansas
Offline
Posted 6/7/17
I sure as shit didn't vote for that SOB. Everyone around here believes in the stupid. Present the facts and they just dig their heels in more. If I didn't love my job/life right now, I'd surely move away. Maybe when the sub is done.
11142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Online
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/7/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:

I take it you're adamantly anti tax equality?


Currently, I'm taxed around 35% of my income when you calculate state and federal taxes (along with the other things like Medicare/Social Security/etc). I'm okay with that. I make more, so I give more. I don't deduct any of my donations to charity, as I see it kind of counter-productive to do so (personally - as I don't really expect any benefit from it).

Tax equality just wouldn't work out in the long run, nor would any sort of tax breaks for businesses. I've been keeping an eye on Kansas for the last 4-5 years (used to live in Kansas City, MO - right next to KCK, just a short walk from MO to KS). I knew of businesses that closed up shop on the KS side and started building up on the MO side because of the tax breaks - they knew it wouldn't work out for them in the long run (and it didn't).

Though, I don't think a 70% tax on those making 400k or more would be desirable either. 40-45% should be the "top bracket". Anything higher than that and you may as well call it "income equality". lol


Tax equality wouldn't work for what? The exhorbitant waste and government largesse? The government is pretty much the least efficient organization out there; they don't even have to follow GAAP.
19856 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/7/17

karatecowboy wrote:



With tax equality you still are giving more because you're making more. If work ten hours a week and earn ten dollars, and the tax rate is 10%, then I am taxed $1. If I work 100 hours per week and make $100, then I am taxed $10. The rate is equal. Tax inequality discriminates and divides people into classes.

Remember that earnings are your property and yours by right. The onus is on the government to justify taking something, by force, from someone else. You don't have to justify keeping more.

So like I said with tax equality you still are taxed more if you make more, it's just not anti-equality like regressive authoritarians tend to be.


I suppose that is a fair enough point but at the end of the day tax inequality does not bother me. And really it is only a concern for the wealthy, your average middle class and lower class citizen is actually benefiting from it, tax inequality that is. Least the way my country handles it they do, I can't speak for any other country naturally in this matter . I can't really complain about a lower class family benefiting from my tax situation when I lead a far more lavish style then they do.

And considering the sheer amount of social institutes benefiting from the current taxation scheme in my homeland I also don't mind. Healthcare, Education , Transportation , and various other things like Veteran Affairs, Homeless Shelters , Animal Shelters, and Foster Care mean more to me then a few more numbers in my accounts.

I can afford to live in downtown Vancouver, I can afford to blow a unhealthy mount of money on ammo every month, I eat only the finest foods , and drink the finest coffee. And that is under tax inequality . I already have more money then I actually need and that is with a lifestyle like mine. What would I do with more, buy a chateau in Whistler?
20109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/7/17

Ranwolf wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:



With tax equality you still are giving more because you're making more. If work ten hours a week and earn ten dollars, and the tax rate is 10%, then I am taxed $1. If I work 100 hours per week and make $100, then I am taxed $10. The rate is equal. Tax inequality discriminates and divides people into classes.

Remember that earnings are your property and yours by right. The onus is on the government to justify taking something, by force, from someone else. You don't have to justify keeping more.

So like I said with tax equality you still are taxed more if you make more, it's just not anti-equality like regressive authoritarians tend to be.


I suppose that is a fair enough point but at the end of the day tax inequality does not bother me. And really it is only a concern for the wealthy, your average middle class and lower class citizen is actually benefiting from it, tax inequality that is. Least the way my country handles it they do, I can't speak for any other country naturally in this matter . I can't really complain about a lower class family benefiting from my tax situation when I lead a far more lavish style then they do.

And considering the sheer amount of social institutes benefiting from the current taxation scheme in my homeland I also don't mind. Healthcare, Education , Transportation , and various other things like Veteran Affairs, Homeless Shelters , Animal Shelters, and Foster Care mean more to me then a few more numbers in my accounts.

I can afford to live in downtown Vancouver, I can afford to blow a unhealthy mount of money on ammo every month, I eat only the finest foods , and drink the finest coffee. And that is under tax inequality . I already have more money then I actually need and that is with a lifestyle like mine. What would I do with more, buy a chateau in Whistler?


but then what would be the point in working and trying to make a better life for you and your family... if they just going to steal more money from you? Your better off trying to find a easy job to make enough to live on because hard work, and trying to make money only cost you more.

I don't care if the rich pay the say % as me.. they are still putting in more money than I am.. and my goals are to join them in the top 10% some day.. why work hard it your going to be punished for it.. after all in America everyone has the opportunity to become rich.. you just have to work for it.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.