Jump to content


Photo

US 2016 Presidential Election (Part 3)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
673 replies to this topic

#41 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,248 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 30 January 2016 - 02:38 PM

So more rich people are moving into Kansas because they get lower tax rates. So your article and wale's article are in agreement on that.

 

Assuming only rich people were crossing over, not much to that assessment. If anything, that's good for Kansas.

 

It seems that Kansas and Texas have another thing in common. Those who are employed are in low-wage jobs and high-wage jobs aren't growing very fast. Therefore state revenue isn't high enough to pay for the state's expenditures.

LINK: http://www.kansascit...le47176275.html

So yeah, @waleuska is on to something. 

 

That's a problem with a very clear beginning: 

 

The people of Kansas are in need of capital. Without capital, there are limited businesses, limited growth, limited hiring, limited money for consumers, limited taxable income, limited money to afford various state expenditures. Reduction of tax rates allow for savings and investment, which provide an increase in capital. 

 

As I've said, far too soon to tell. Interstate politics is fairly murky as it is, the year after Governor Brownback dished out his ambitious plan he implemented a raise on the sales tax twice (summer of 2015) and the income tax once, all of which he shouldn't have done. The raise on the sales tax primarily hurts the middle class. Instead, more cuts to the state budget should have been enforced. He's taken flack from both liberals and conservatives for this flip-flopping.


 

And in this case it didn't happen.

 

You're far too trigger-happy. Job growth remains steady as traditionally observed in Kansas, a state that's not immediately impacted by recessions or growth as any other states. Far too soon to make a call either way whether Brownback has done well for the people of Kansas.

 

Keep linking to leftist sources for your terribly weak arguments, though. Tearing them apart is pretty fun.


Edited by Phenomiracle, 30 January 2016 - 02:43 PM.

  • Red_Sand Beach likes this

L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 


#42 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,450 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 30 January 2016 - 02:40 PM

Assuming only rich people were crossing over, not much to that assessment. If anything, that's good for Kansas.

 

 

That's a problem with a very clear beginning: 

 

The people of Kansas are in need of capital. Without capital, there are limited businesses, limited growth, limited hiring, limited money for consumers, limited taxable income, limited money to afford various state expenditures. Reduction of tax rates allow for savings and investment, which provide an increase in capital. 

 

As I've said, far too soon to tell. Interstate politics is fairly murky as it is, the year after Governor Brownback dished out his ambitious plan he implemented a raise on the sales tax twice (summer of 2015) and the income tax once, all of which he shouldn't have done. The raise on the sales tax primarily hurts the middle class. Instead, more cuts to the state budget should have been enforced. He's taken flack from both liberals and conservatives for this flip-flopping.


 

 

You're far too trigger-happy. Job growth has increased in comparison with nearby states, but it's far too soon to tell.

 

Keep linking to leftist sources for your weak arguments, though. It's fun picking them apart.

Poor people do not save and invest money, that is why they are poor.

 

in some states around them. They should be destroying the national avg with your theory, and three years is enough time for it to work. 


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#43 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,248 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 30 January 2016 - 02:48 PM

Poor people do not save and invest money, that is why they are poor.

 

Poor people don't create jobs. They only provide a demand for labor, which is compensated by investment, which compensated by savings, which is provided by tax rate reductions.

 

In some states around them. They should be destroying the national avg with your theory, and three years is enough time for it to work. 

 

That's hilarious.

 

Private sector conditions varies immensely by state. The true health of a state' economy in comparison with the rest of the country is best measured against neighboring states, and even then, there's no set indicator.


Edited by Phenomiracle, 30 January 2016 - 02:48 PM.

  • Miss.J likes this

L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 


#44 Miss.J

Miss.J

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 30 January 2016 - 02:54 PM

yes compare to cutting taxes. If there was only a state were we can see the effects of cutting taxes.Oh wait we have one.http://www.cbpp.org/...assive-tax-cuts

Doyou actually work? 

bernie is going to increase taxes on even the poor and min wagers by over 10% than what they are currently paying. 

Nobody that works is going to support this. 


"sabo is not alive, this is some kind of trick" captian kidd

Spoiler


#45 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,450 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 30 January 2016 - 02:55 PM

Poor people don't create jobs. They only provide a demand for labor, which is compensated by investment, which compensated by savings, which is provided by tax rate reductions.

 

 

That's hilarious.

 

Private sector conditions varies immensely by state. The true health of a state' economy in comparison with the rest of the country is best measured against neighboring states, and even then, there's no set indicator.

So, all this does is make the rich richer. The tax cuts should help everyone not a select few.

 

2. So we should compare FL economy to Bamas? Every state have something to offer some states have way more to offer. Compare states close to each other doesn't proof anything.


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#46 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,248 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 30 January 2016 - 03:30 PM

So, all this does is make the rich richer. The tax cuts should help everyone not a select few.

 

Demand for labor is compensated by investment. Hiring increases. Wages go up (as they have in Kansas).

 

More capital in everyone's hands.

 

2. So we should compare FL economy to Bamas? Every state have something to offer some states have way more to offer. Compare states close to each other doesn't proof anything.

 

The true health of a state' economy in comparison with the rest of the country is best measured against neighboring states, and even then, there's no set indicator.

 


L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 


#47 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,450 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 30 January 2016 - 03:35 PM

Demand for labor is compensated by investment. Hiring increases. Wages go up (as they have in Kansas).

 

More capital in everyone's hands.

Schools close early for the lack of funds. http://www.huffingto..._n_7112702.html

 

No money for the roads. http://www.kwch.com/...ffects/35689972

http://www.kansascit...le51972555.html


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#48 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,019 posts

Posted 30 January 2016 - 03:56 PM

Doyou actually work? 
bernie is going to increase taxes on even the poor and min wagers by over 10% than what they are currently paying. 
Nobody that works is going to support this.


That's supposedly offset by the removal of medicare tax and biweekly employer-based healthcare fees.

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#49 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,450 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 30 January 2016 - 03:58 PM

Doyou actually work? 

bernie is going to increase taxes on even the poor and min wagers by over 10% than what they are currently paying. 

Nobody that works is going to support this. 

Yes, this is why i want to raise taxes because i refuse to work. :banghead:


  • DarkNemesis likes this

p5Y5w8P.jpg


#50 Miss.J

Miss.J

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 30 January 2016 - 05:55 PM

That's supposedly offset by the removal of medicare tax and biweekly employer-based healthcare fees.

Medicare and healthcare, which is other wise 200/month is going to be somehow offset by a 10% increase in taxes? The minimum wage is going to be $15/hour, which is a 30k average salary. Bernie's tax plan will add a 34% tax onto that money, which is about $10000. So $10000 going into giving you insurance, which would otherwise have been $2400 is somehow good for the people that work paycheck to paycheck? 

 

Yes, this is why i want to raise taxes because i refuse to work. :banghead:

Sarcasm does not spread through the internet. THe only reason I can see someone supporting increaseing their own taxes is either they are extremely rich, in which case, just donate to a charity, or they don't work, in which case they get free handouts from the government at the expense of working american tax dollars. 


"sabo is not alive, this is some kind of trick" captian kidd

Spoiler


#51 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,248 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 30 January 2016 - 06:18 PM

 

Neither assertions are actual arguments. They're speculations made by understandably upset bureaucracies.

 

So far, Kansas has experienced positive results overall.


L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 


#52 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,019 posts

Posted 30 January 2016 - 06:24 PM

No. Those are actual arguments. When you start taking from one department to fund other departments, then there's a budget problem. And when that is slowing down work or even taking away work, then you're going down the path of a budget crisis (at least for that department). So that wasn't speculation. That's forecasting and on-the-ground numbers. There might be short-gains, but there are hints of long-term problems if this continues the way it has been.
  • waleuska likes this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#53 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,248 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 30 January 2016 - 06:38 PM

No. Those are actual arguments. When you start taking from one department to fund other departments, then there's a budget problem. And when that is slowing down work or even taking away work, then you're going down the path of a budget crisis (at least for that department). So that wasn't speculation. That's forecasting and on-the-ground numbers. There might be short-gains, but there are hints of long-term problems if this continues the way it has been.

 

Therein lies the crux of the discussion. It's absolutely impossible to declare that any results, good or bad, reflect all possible fiscal/economic outcomes within any time frame.

 

Take a step back. What we have are actual, hard numbers since 2012 reflecting the growth of Kansas, and forecasts made by upset bureaucracies. They can cry foul all the like, but this doesn't do much to aid either side of the argument. We're arguing the merits/cons of lower tax rates. I've presented hard numbers, the best wale can come up with its speculation made by defunded government bureaucracies.

 

That said, allow me me humor these forecast from the policy perspective. The reason for the lack of funding is because tax revenue has fallen. The argument against the doomsayers would be an increase of capital due to a reduction in tax rates would compensate for the revenue and thus, the budget needed for all existing government agencies. The more prosperous a state's economy, the higher the tax revenue.


Edited by Phenomiracle, 30 January 2016 - 06:41 PM.

L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 


#54 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,450 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 30 January 2016 - 07:09 PM

Therein lies the crux of the discussion. It's absolutely impossible to declare that any results, good or bad, reflect all possible fiscal/economic outcomes within any time frame.

 

Take a step back. What we have are actual, hard numbers since 2012 reflecting the growth of Kansas, and forecasts made by upset bureaucracies. They can cry foul all the like, but this doesn't do much to aid either side of the argument. We're arguing the merits/cons of lower tax rates. I've presented hard numbers, the best wale can come up with its speculation made by defunded government bureaucracies.

 

That said, allow me me humor these forecast from the policy perspective. The reason for the lack of funding is because tax revenue has fallen. The argument against the doomsayers would be an increase of capital due to a reduction in tax rates would compensate for the revenue and thus, the budget needed for all existing government agencies. The more prosperous a state's economy, the higher the tax revenue.

Then why is it that the state is lacking funds. You post an article your self where their economy is now making over 400 million more than before the tax cuts.

 

They shouldn't have to cut the school days for the lack of funds nor the roads. Also even the jobs report isn't that good. Those guys are making over 400 million and yet the jobs creation market is worst than the national avg.

 

So where is the money going?


Edited by waleuska, 30 January 2016 - 07:10 PM.

p5Y5w8P.jpg


#55 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,248 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 30 January 2016 - 07:31 PM

Then why is it that the state is lacking funds. You post an article your self where their economy is now making over 400 million more than before the tax cuts.

 

They shouldn't have to cut the school days for the lack of funds nor the roads. Also even the jobs report isn't that good. Those guys are making over 400 million and yet the jobs creation market is worst than the national avg.

 

Who are you to speak to matters you have no idea of? Who are you to say that $400 million (which is the amount that's retained by all of the people of Kansas through the AGI, not tax revenue, you got that number wrong) is enough to fund education and transportation? 

 

We've already spoke to the condition of Kansas's job markets. You aren't proving anything by comparing it to the national average, seeing (as you've conceded) that the conditions of the private sector vary immensely. In comparison with neighboring states, Kansas is faring well on the jobs front. In conjunction with increased wages, savings and investment is rising. 

 

So where is the money going?

 

The money stays in the hands of the people of Kansas, where it belongs.

 

That said, there's no guarantee that these good results will last. Already, Brownback's administration and Kansas's state government have passed sales tax increases over the past two years, which ultimately punishes the middle, working class. If they maintain this course of action, Kansas's days of growth will come to a quick end.


Edited by Phenomiracle, 30 January 2016 - 07:41 PM.

L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 


#56 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,450 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 30 January 2016 - 07:45 PM

Who are you to speak to matters you have no idea of? Who are you to say that $400 million (which is the amount that's retained by all of the people of Kansas through the AGI, not tax revenue, you got that number wrong) is enough to fund education and transportation? 

 

We've already spoke to the condition of Kansas's job markets. You aren't proving anything by comparing it to the national average, seeing (as you've conceded) that the conditions of the private sector vary immensely. In comparison with neighboring states, Kansas is faring well on the jobs front. In conjunction with increased wages, savings and investment is rising. 

 

 

The money stays in the hands of the people of Kansas, where it belongs.

 

That said, there's no guarantee that these good results will last. Already, Brownback's administration and Kansas's state government have passed sales tax increases over the past two years, which ultimately punishes the middle, working class. If they maintain this course of action, Kansas's days of growth will come to a quick end.

This whole point shows your argument is BS. Why is the guy is making Kansas great by doing all of these tax cuts stop doing them. It seem it doesn't work and yet you are the only who thinking it does.


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#57 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,019 posts

Posted 30 January 2016 - 08:14 PM

That said, there's no guarantee that these good results will last. Already, Brownback's administration and Kansas's state government have passed sales tax increases over the past two years, which ultimately punishes the middle, working class. If they maintain this course of action, Kansas's days of growth will come to a quick end.


Well it shows that if Brownback is raising the sales tax to shore up the loss of revenue from cutting other taxes, then the tax cuts aren't doing the job it was intended to. If it did, Brownback would never raise them in the first place.
  • waleuska likes this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#58 Red_Sand Beach

Red_Sand Beach

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 31 January 2016 - 03:14 PM

Iowa's tomorrow, 

 

should be interesting to see how it goes down, Trump and Cruz should take 1st and 2nd respectively, (maybe the other way around if Cruz gets lucky), but I wouldn't be surprised to see Rand overtake Carson or Rubio because the polls tend to be biased against younger voters apparently. 

 

EDIT: I am curious to see if Bernie will actually beat the rancid hag.  


Edited by Red_Sand Beach, 31 January 2016 - 03:24 PM.


#59 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,450 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 01 February 2016 - 12:34 PM

Sarcasm does not spread through the internet. THe only reason I can see someone supporting increaseing their own taxes is either they are extremely rich, in which case, just donate to a charity, or they don't work, in which case they get free handouts from the government at the expense of working american tax dollars. 

Or that is two dumb reason you can think of. How about i see people use their money unwisely and i know it is going to cost me in the long run. Or that i see corporations taking advantage of people and i rather them fight the government than let me dealing with their evilness.

 

I hate the government more than most but then i see the corporations and they are worst. Let those two fight it out. I can at least vote for the guys i want in the government vs i cannot do crap about the corporations.

 

Do not talk about the free market. How it would make the corporations play fair, it doesn't.


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#60 Red_Sand Beach

Red_Sand Beach

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 01 February 2016 - 12:47 PM

Or that is two dumb reason you can think of. How about i see people use their money unwisely and i know it is going to cost me in the long run. Or that i see corporations taking advantage of people and i rather them fight the government than let me dealing with their evilness.

I hate the government more than most but then i see the corporations and they are worst. Let those two fight it out. I can at least vote for the guys i want in the government vs i cannot do crap about the corporations.

Do not talk about the free market. How it would make the corporations play fair, it doesn't.


Well i suppose if keeping your money instead of giving free money to those who dont work is "using their money unwisely" then i suppose individuals with earned income are doing so.

What defines playing fair? You want 15 dollars an hour for flipping burgers? The employer will just hire less people. What about for sewing cloth? Employer will just have his clothes made in china or india, thats less jobs for americans. Also the price of basic needs goes up when everyone has more money, that's how the market works, so the poor will still have the same difficulty buying stuff.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users