Kansas Tax Committee Approves Bill to Raise Taxes for Poor and Lower Taxes for Rich

[The Straight Story]

Kansas Tax Committee Approves Bill to Raise Taxes for Poor and Lower Taxes for Rich

It seems that the 1% have some pretty enthusiastic fans in the Kansas legislature. Last week, the state House Committee on Taxation approved a bill to raise taxes on the poor and cut them for the rich. Specifically, those making less than $25,000 a year—roughly one out of six Kansans—will pay $71.80 more in taxes every year, while those making more than $250,000—less than 1% of Kansans—will pay $1,500 less, according to Kansas Department of Revenue estimates.

As regressive as the bill is, it is actually an improvement on the plan released in January by Republican Governor Sam Brownback, under which those making less than $25,000 would have paid $156 more in yearly taxes, while the 1% making more than $250,000 would have paid $5,200 less each year. The Brownback plan would have taken $78 million from the bottom sixth, and given $109.2 million to the Kansas 1%, while the Tax Committee plan would transfer $35.9 and $31.5 million, respectively.

Kansas Democrats, perhaps sensing that economic fairness might be a winning issue in November, have criticized these proposals sharply. “It’s been Robin Hood in reverse,” said Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley (D-Topeka), characterizing Brownback’s original plan as “stealing from the poor to give to the rich.” Republicans, backed up by supply-side economics guru Arthur Laffer, claim that tax cuts for the wealthy will yield increased investment in the economy and eventually more jobs.

http://www.allgov.com/Where_is_the_Money_Going/ViewNews/Kansas_Tax_Committee_Approves_Bill_to_Raise_Taxes_for_Poor_and_Lower_Taxes_for_Rich_120226

[liberal N proud]

1. Fucked up - backwards greedy rich ruling the land.

[southernyankeebelle]

2. "Claim that tax cuts for the wealthy will yield increased investment i the economy

and eventually more jobs". This trinkle down for crumbs hasn't worked yet, when the hell well the working poor stop electing these kinds of idiots? Shame on Brownback. But then again shame on the people voting these people in office.

[newspeak]

5. you'd think after ten years, they'd get a clue it doesn't work

they're just paying back their true constituents, and it ain't the majority of the people. I'd like every one of those damn politicians to live on 25,000 dollars a year. one hundred dollars is a lot of money for food. These shiteheads think that the tax on the poor rich isn't fair and that the poor don't deserve any breaks. Get a clue, the working poor (since you don't fekkin pay them enough) make your profits!!!!! Without the poor and middle class--you clueless ones can make your own whidjits and serve yourselves--hey then you can save even more money. And, you can also buy your own whidjits, because we won't be around nor be able afford it.

[southernyankeebelle]

7. Problem is the working poor don't (or maybe can't) have the time to listen to what the

politicians are saying. They have to go to work. I feel bad for them. Some of these people are blue collar workers and vote republican because they are lemmings. They are voting for them just for the social issues. It is sad. Very very sad. They are being exploited and they don't even realize it. The republican party is the party of fear.

[hfojvt]

10. it's a little bit more complicated than that

For one thing, much of the tax increase talked about in this article - comes from the Democrats. When a Democrat, and former Republican, Mark Parkinson was Governor, he proposed a "temporary" 1% sales tax increase to prevent more deep cuts to the budget. Oh, that one penny on every dollar spent(edit: whoops, it's a penny per dollar. I confused that because I had proposed a .2% increase a year earlier which would be 2 pennies for every ten dollars spent) was the end of the frigging world to Republicans. They called it a "19% tax increase" (which was sorta true as the state sales tax went from 5.4% to 6.4%). They called it the "largest tax increase in Kansas history".

THAT is what Republicans ran on, and something like 15-20 Democratic incumbents got defeated in the bloodbath of 2010.

NOW Brownback proposes making that "largest tax increase in Kansas history" permanent.

Note, I put the word "temporary" in quotes, because this is sorta like deja vu all over again. Back in 2002, the Republican Governor Sam Graves, and the Republican Legislators, including now Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins, voted for a "temporary" increase of .4% in the sales tax.

Later, in 2005, the Republican dominated legislature voted to make it permanent. (However, the legislature proposes instead getting rid of the state EIC and stealing from the highway fund to pay for tax cuts for the rich (and the upper middle class))

Hey, if they fooled the people once, why not try it again? They are also sure to have lots of money to catapault their propaganda with. The easiest way to get a $1,000 campaign contribution is by giving your campaign donors a $5,000 tax cut. A donation to Brownback gives a pretty good return on investment.

But now sometimes I wonder, did Parkinson propose his tax increase plan as a trojan horse for the KDP, because it sure seems to have been/be working that way and Parkinson's cowardly retirement also helped pave the way to Brownback's coronation.

[beyurslf]

14. Parkinson didn't run because real Democrats didn't want him.

I still blame Sebelius for her terrible mistake in picking not one but two Republicans as her running mates. Worst Decision Ever. She had to think be thinking in 2006 that she would be a short list of people for a Democratic Admin in the White house. Why would she leave us with such a terrible replacement?

[hfojvt]

9. except that Brownback did not campaign on this tax proposal

It was never mentioned in the media. In fact, Brownback sorta did not campaign on anything. Maybe there were details on his website or in some campaign brochures, but in the newspapers, or on TV, or ads, there was nothing about what Brownback stood for. I saw several campaign ads in the KC area and they were all just Brownback explaining how to vote early. The only thing the TV media said about him was from about June 2009 they repeated the meme that "Brownback is probably going to be the next Governor of Kansas".

It seems to me that the M$M really determines these elections. I could never really figure out why so many Kansans voted for Kathleen Sebelius, but the media there too, kept repeating the predicition "Sebelius is probably going to win". It's like there are 20% of voters who just go with the flow, shrug and say "well, if Sebelius is gonna win, I guess I better vote for her." or "Well, if Brownback is gonna win, I guess I better vote for him."

I have read accounts about the Truman-Dewey election where the writer said something like "Many people who voted for Truman, didn't think he was going to win, but they voted for him anyway." As if a voter does, or should, decide who to vote for based on "who they think is going to win" instead of "who they think would make a better President (or Governor)"

It almost seems like they did the same thing with Obama. The story from January 2006 was "Democrats are gonna win the 2006 elections and also the 2008 Presidential election". Then they flipped in June 2009 and started PREDICTING Republican victory in 2010. It seems to me that they don't report these things, they make them happen.

[southernyankeebelle]

11. People never learn.

[bluestate10]

3. Democrats do a poor job of phrasing budget issues.

I saw Melissa-Harris-Perry comparing Romney's budget, which destroys the poor and middle class to President Obama's official federal budget.
Harris-Perry talked of how much Romney's budget would cost (she mistakenly said cut first). The amount was $4 Trillion over a period of 10 years. Harris-Perry gave what I saw as a weak argument against the Romney plan. A more accurate, effective and devastating argument would have been to say what would be given up if Romney's plan was implemented. Democrats shy away from blood and guts that would fly if certain budget proposals were inacted, instead satying with the mantra that they will fight the budget changes. Democrats should fight the changes, but should use more effective comparative language about why they need to fight some budgets. Yes, Romney can talk about his tax plan, but democrats must give the blood and guts of what implemtation of that plan would cost. Romney's plan will cost $4 trillion in lost federal revenues. Democrats must graphically explain that approval of the Romney plan would cause, for example a reduction of say 40% per year in Social Security money paid, or a 40% reduction in support to the VA, or a 70% decrease in money given to states. Once red state voters get hit in the face with the direct reality of what their vote will mean to THEM, maybe their votes will change.

[hfojvt]

4. I would re-write that last line

"Republicans, backed up by supply-side economics charlatan and joke Arthur Laffer, claim that tax cuts for the wealthy will trickle down."

guru - 1. Hindu spritual teacher or head of a religious sect, 2a influential teacher, b revered mentor

charlatan - person falsely claiming a special knowledge or skill

hmmm, that is accurate, but does not include the fact that their dishonesty puts money in their own pocket. Perhaps swindler

swindle - cheat a person of money, possessions, etc.

scam - trick or swindle, fraud

ah, there it is

"Republicans, backed up by supply-side economics scammer and joke Arthur Laffer, claim that tax cuts for the rich will trickle down."

[newspeak]

6. it's a damn fraud they've been using since reagan

and it hasn't worked since then; unless your goal is to make sure there is an obscene disparity between the rich and others. Then, you won't have to listen to the bothersome proles anymore; just the rich you made richer.

[taught_me_patience]

8. Kansas voters voted for this

Elections have consequences.

[beyurslf]

12. I believe it i adjusted gross incomes under 25k

which includes people making much more as well. Basically, it is cut taxes for the wealthy and let the poor for it.

[dems_rightnow]

13. What credits are they doing away with?

Kansas has a God awful number of credits.