I can’t help but feel like you’re still trying to rope me into doing your research for you. My objective assessment of the facts is that you made a claim (“… they need to do to the entire country and its economy what they did to Kansas.”) that is still, as of now, unsubstantiated. There probably is a case to be made for commonalities between Kansas’ tax reforms and Trump’s proposal, but you’ve declined to make that case with any specificity. When I asked you “What do those tax cuts, and Trump’s proposal, have in common? Is it really just as shallow as them both being tax cuts?” you responded with “… the answer is pretty much Yes. …”. A discussion at that level of vagueness doesn’t strike me as very interesting or worth participating in.
Tee hee. You didn’t even know about it until this thread. That’s no one’s fault but your own, for not changing stations once in a while.
No ducking now. Take a position. Show your work. And remember, it isn’t about me.
You didn’t think I knew about what? Kansas’ tax reform? What led you to conclude that?
The fact that you showed, and mostly still show, no awareness of it and its disastrous results, even though it was everything the Tax Cut Ideologues have prayed for over recent generations. If it’s a good idea, that’s what the results should have shown, right?
Again, no ducking. What do you, not “the liberals” or anyone else, see as the key objective facts to be drawn from the experience of what you claim you want done having actually been done? Has it been a success overall, and on what basis can one make that claim?
Just so we’re clear, I was aware of Kansas’ tax reform prior to this discussion. And Sam’s “march to zero” isn’t and wasn’t my preferred option (see post #140). I also don’t think “it was everything the Tax Cut Ideologues have prayed for over recent generations” is remotely accurate. There are a lot of diverse opinions about what’s possible / ideal on the tax cutting front. What makes you think that we all agreed that Kansas’ plan was the pinnacle of perfection?
TL;DR = your premise is wrong.
He’s not ducking. You made the thread about Kansas, not him. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable for him to ask why Kansas is relevant beyond there being a “tax cuts good” ideology at play. Did Kansas simplify its tax code as Trump apparently plans to do? Did Kansas cut taxes on corporations? Did it reduce the number of individual tax brackets?
HD and I are hardly subscribers of the same economic policies (I am, in fact “the liberals”), but the people arguing with him in this thread are reading stuff into his comments that isn’t there, and dodging his questions.
So, that means that you feel that Kansas cut their taxes too low, and it is right that they raised them back up a bit?
I don’t hold particularly strong feelings on Kansas’ tax plan, but given that their legislature decided, via a super-majority vote, that they wanted to repeal the tax cuts, “it is right” (at least for Kansas) is probably a fair statement.
No, I brought up the most prominent real-world, actual example of where Republican ideology on the subject of this thread has really been tried. Isn’t a reality check a pretty damn important thing to discuss, if we’re not just going to dismiss the plan he supports as ideology? Doesn’t what would actually happen if it were done nationwide have any relevance?
Beyond there? Why isn’t it directly on point?
Maybe the lack of basic informedness isn’t just on one side.
Sorry, friend, this time you’re wrong, and for wrong reasons.
Yes. It is a pejorative and perceived (or claimed) “accuracy” is not a defense against accusations of insult.
Take any further discussion of this point to ATMB.
Do not direct this word toward another poster in this forum.
[ /Moderating ]
This claim is a bit disingenuous, given that, whatever “liberals” may “feel” about it, a Republican dominated legislature rescinded most of it because the state was objectively hurting from the original tax reductions.
That does not mean that the Trump plan would have to have the same effect, but there does not seem to be any reason to believe it would not have the same effect. Both plans lower rates on the most wealthy while providing no relief for the middle class and poor and the reductions failed to spur the Kansas economy to make up for the losses to state revenue. This has been discussed in real time (at the time of the cuts and the time of the recension) on this board in the thread What isn’t the matter with Kansas?.
I don’t think there’s any dispute at this point that the Brownback tax cuts failed. But that doesn’t necessarily mean there is a lesson with regard to the Trump tax plan (which is largely illusory at the moment anyway).
Reagan also cut taxes on the wealthy twice, with generally positive results (at least in the middle term).
The effects of the Reagan tax cuts ranged from negligible to imaginary with any actual improvements to the economy attributable to the Paul Volcker efforts to stop inflation.
GHW Bush lost an election by trying to recover the revenue that Reagan’s movement threw away, giving Clinton better revenue sources to actually get the economy to grow.
Unless you count the debts and deficit, but the didn’t matter at the time, because it was a republican in office.
Which ended up with a surplus by the end of his term.
The next admin was republican, so deficits didn’t matter anymore.
Other than “Trump pays less” there is really no simplification in his Tax plan. Maybe, indeed if the AMT goes away, sure. A little. For a few.
By Taxing Social Security.
I will set aside the snarky strawman of “death knell for Kansas” and treat your comment like it was an actual question.
Trump’s tax cut plans are drawing parallels to Brownback’s tax cuts for a few reasons:
- Both politicians are seeking pretty substantial tax cuts
- The individuals who benefit most under both plans are the high income type, not the lower or middle income type
- Both politicians said that the tax cuts would result in dramatically increased growth
Kansas’ experiment with large tax cuts resulted in less growth than neighboring states, cuts to programs that most people like (such as education and transportation), Kansas’ bond rating went down, and the Republican-controlled legislature recently had to reverse some of the tax cuts because they just were not delivering anything that was promised.
If one fairly compares the conservative criticism of Obamacare to the liberal criticism of tax cuts, how accurate is the criticism of each controversial policy?
It’s pretty clear that some of the promises made for the ACA were generally kept (coverage rates went up by a substantial margin) and others, not so much (if you like your plan…).
It’s pretty clear that the promises of the Kansas tax cut are pretty much all in the “not so much” camp. I’m not an expert in Kansas fiscal policy, but I have read about it a fair bit, and I can’t name an area where a promise was mostly kept.
I was looking for some details re: amounts budgeted for individual agencies, etc., but I’m not seeing anything.
I keep reading that the House passed the Senate budget, but I can’t find either one.