Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The effects of raising taxes on the rich

Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 2:38:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

There could be other factors involved. It's counterintuitive to believe that companies would flock towards a state with a higher tax rate unless there was something else to incentivise setting up shop in that state.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 3:04:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

Can you tell me what the tax rates were in those states before and after they were changed?
I don't have a signature. :-)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 3:37:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Considering it takes on average nearly 10 years for industries to go from startup to making a profit... You can safely say tax policies are not going to have a huge effect over the short term.
BasicLogic
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 3:59:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
The richest state in the united states made some policy changes, while a rural agricultural poor state did some other policy changes. Shockingly the richer state did better
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 4:17:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Basing your business calculation on the tax rates is counting the chickens before they hatch. Business decisions are based on the demand for the service or products first which will determine the success in or failure. Taxes are the last consideration which are important for profitability and faster expansion.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 4:30:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

As someone who live in Kansas, recently graduated from a Kansas High School and have attended Kansas schools most of my life, I can verify everything in this story personally.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 4:30:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 3:59:46 PM, BasicLogic wrote:
The richest state in the united states made some policy changes, while a rural agricultural poor state did some other policy changes. Shockingly the richer state did better

California is rich for a lot of reasons. Kansas doesn't have to be poor, and it's obvious why Kansas is floundering. I know California v Kansas is a singular comparative example, but the article is an attack on trickle down economics that conservatives seem to think still works. No one in this thread has addressed that.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 4:31:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 3:59:46 PM, BasicLogic wrote:
The richest state in the united states made some policy changes, while a rural agricultural poor state did some other policy changes. Shockingly the richer state did better

Actually, Kansas was doing pretty well, and we were one fo the fastest growing states in the country economically. Now we are in the red (pun intended).
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 4:33:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 2:38:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

There could be other factors involved. It's counterintuitive to believe that companies would flock towards a state with a higher tax rate unless there was something else to incentivise setting up shop in that state.

Like better schools?
That was always the draw to Kansas because companies knew that jobs+good schools=people moving there to work. However since Brownback cut that taxes and got rid of taxes for LLCs, Kansas has fallen behind on revenue (I wonder why) and Brownback decided he would cut school funding.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 4:35:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 4:30:50 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 3:59:46 PM, BasicLogic wrote:
The richest state in the united states made some policy changes, while a rural agricultural poor state did some other policy changes. Shockingly the richer state did better

California is rich for a lot of reasons. Kansas doesn't have to be poor, and it's obvious why Kansas is floundering. I know California v Kansas is a singular comparative example, but the article is an attack on trickle down economics that conservatives seem to think still works. No one in this thread has addressed that.

But the population of California is much larger so that must also be taken into account, and they, therefore, have a larger tax base and more people who need public services for obvious reasons (more people in general). So when those are factored in, the comparison is not that far off.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 4:36:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 4:17:07 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Basing your business calculation on the tax rates is counting the chickens before they hatch. Business decisions are based on the demand for the service or products first which will determine the success in or failure. Taxes are the last consideration which are important for profitability and faster expansion.

Exactly, that's why Brownback's plan was idiotic to say the least.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 4:49:47 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

Perhaps California can afford to have higher taxes because it has always been a powerhouse, whereas Kansas was forced to slash taxes because its economy was already showing signs of failure?

As much as I'm for progressive taxation and other liberal economic policies, it seems extremely unlikely that raising tax alone can cause the economy to prosper or vice versa - so I think the cause-effect relationship probably goes the other way.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 4:51:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

The article concedes that the two states are too different for an apples to apples comparison, but what can be concluded is that conservatives made very wrong predictions in both cases. A government should not have a singular economic policy for all occasions.

The article also quotes a writer who sums up the DDO response here quite well:

"Mother Jones" Kevin Drum noted the other day, "This, of course, has caused conservatives to think long and hard about their contention that cutting taxes on the rich and slashing bloated budgets will supercharge the economy. Haha. Just kidding. What they"ve actually done is either (a) ignore Kansas or (b) spend lots of time trying to dig up reasons that Kansas is a special case and would have done even worse if Brownback hadn"t stepped in. These reasons tend to be pretty ridiculous, but so far they"ve been good enough to keep the rubes in line. And that"s what matters, right?""
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 4:59:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 4:51:14 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

The article concedes that the two states are too different for an apples to apples comparison, but what can be concluded is that conservatives made very wrong predictions in both cases. A government should not have a singular economic policy for all occasions.

The article also quotes a writer who sums up the DDO response here quite well:

"Mother Jones" Kevin Drum noted the other day, "This, of course, has caused conservatives to think long and hard about their contention that cutting taxes on the rich and slashing bloated budgets will supercharge the economy. Haha. Just kidding. What they"ve actually done is either (a) ignore Kansas or (b) spend lots of time trying to dig up reasons that Kansas is a special case and would have done even worse if Brownback hadn"t stepped in. These reasons tend to be pretty ridiculous, but so far they"ve been good enough to keep the rubes in line. And that"s what matters, right?""

Just had this conversation with my sister. That is exactly right. The deflection is strong - the lessen ignored. Its not that you have to compare the states side-by-side, you just have to look the the dire predictions for California, and the cheering for Brownback. They were dead wrong yet again, and simply can't just say so.
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 5:35:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 3:59:46 PM, BasicLogic wrote:
The richest state in the united states made some policy changes, while a rural agricultural poor state did some other policy changes. Shockingly the richer state did better

You obviously have no clue about how certain policies affect certain states. The Republican party said that there would be complete economic chaos in California due to the state raising taxes and increasing the minimum wage. Not surprisingly they were wrong, California's unemployment rate dropped and the economy had a boon. While Kansas that enacted Libertarian like policies miserably failed and lagged behind in economic growth. I am not comparing the GDP or Per-Capita wealth in each state (That can be subjective to how wealthy a state is) I am comparing the increases and decreases in economic growth.
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 5:38:25 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 4:30:50 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 3:59:46 PM, BasicLogic wrote:
The richest state in the united states made some policy changes, while a rural agricultural poor state did some other policy changes. Shockingly the richer state did better

California is rich for a lot of reasons. Kansas doesn't have to be poor, and it's obvious why Kansas is floundering. I know California v Kansas is a singular comparative example, but the article is an attack on trickle down economics that conservatives seem to think still works. No one in this thread has addressed that.

Conservatives will always reject the truth.
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 5:41:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 4:30:02 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

As someone who live in Kansas, recently graduated from a Kansas High School and have attended Kansas schools most of my life, I can verify everything in this story personally.

Can you also verify that it takes more than 2 years to build profitable businesses?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 5:46:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 4:49:47 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

Perhaps California can afford to have higher taxes because it has always been a powerhouse, whereas Kansas was forced to slash taxes because its economy was already showing signs of failure?

As much as I'm for progressive taxation and other liberal economic policies, it seems extremely unlikely that raising tax alone can cause the economy to prosper or vice versa - so I think the cause-effect relationship probably goes the other way.

You must not know a lot about the issue. Cutting taxes on the rich meant the government had less money to spend on things like teachers and hospitals. The Government of Kansas relies on taxes to pay debts, less tax money means they can't pay debt they go broke and everybody suffers. Gov Brownback cut taxes for the rich saying it would create jobs, it didn't. He said the rich would reinvest that would-be taxed money into the economy, they didn't. They kept and saved the extra money.
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 5:48:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 5:46:29 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 4:49:47 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

Perhaps California can afford to have higher taxes because it has always been a powerhouse, whereas Kansas was forced to slash taxes because its economy was already showing signs of failure?

As much as I'm for progressive taxation and other liberal economic policies, it seems extremely unlikely that raising tax alone can cause the economy to prosper or vice versa - so I think the cause-effect relationship probably goes the other way.

You must not know a lot about the issue. Cutting taxes on the rich meant the government had less money to spend on things like teachers and hospitals. The Government of Kansas relies on taxes to pay debts, less tax money means they can't pay debt they go broke and everybody suffers. Gov Brownback cut taxes for the rich saying it would create jobs, it didn't. He said the rich would reinvest that would-be taxed money into the economy, they didn't. They kept and saved the extra money.

+1
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:23:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 5:46:29 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 4:49:47 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

Perhaps California can afford to have higher taxes because it has always been a powerhouse, whereas Kansas was forced to slash taxes because its economy was already showing signs of failure?

As much as I'm for progressive taxation and other liberal economic policies, it seems extremely unlikely that raising tax alone can cause the economy to prosper or vice versa - so I think the cause-effect relationship probably goes the other way.

You must not know a lot about the issue. Cutting taxes on the rich meant the government had less money to spend on things like teachers and hospitals. The Government of Kansas relies on taxes to pay debts, less tax money means they can't pay debt they go broke and everybody suffers. Gov Brownback cut taxes for the rich saying it would create jobs, it didn't. He said the rich would reinvest that would-be taxed money into the economy, they didn't. They kept and saved the extra money.

I admit, it's true that I know nothing about Kansas at all - I was just speaking in general terms. But we're not talking about the public education or medical sectors - obviously cutting taxes will have negative impacts on those, which causes people to suffer - we're talking about the GDP. A tax cut is necessarily expansionary. The rich saving the extra money still helps expands the GDP - it gives banks more lending power, which will in turn stimulate investment and create more jobs.

Of course, that effect takes time to show, as Greyparrot has mentioned above, and as I said above, it's more likely that Kansas was forced to cut taxes to save a declining economy. Whether Brownback succeeds in doing so is one thing; whether tax cuts stimulate the economy is quite another. The latter, I think, is a truism (in the short run) since, ceteris paribus, tax cuts will necessarily push AD to the right.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:33:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:23:51 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/22/2016 5:46:29 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 4:49:47 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

Perhaps California can afford to have higher taxes because it has always been a powerhouse, whereas Kansas was forced to slash taxes because its economy was already showing signs of failure?

As much as I'm for progressive taxation and other liberal economic policies, it seems extremely unlikely that raising tax alone can cause the economy to prosper or vice versa - so I think the cause-effect relationship probably goes the other way.

You must not know a lot about the issue. Cutting taxes on the rich meant the government had less money to spend on things like teachers and hospitals. The Government of Kansas relies on taxes to pay debts, less tax money means they can't pay debt they go broke and everybody suffers. Gov Brownback cut taxes for the rich saying it would create jobs, it didn't. He said the rich would reinvest that would-be taxed money into the economy, they didn't. They kept and saved the extra money.

I admit, it's true that I know nothing about Kansas at all - I was just speaking in general terms. But we're not talking about the public education or medical sectors - obviously cutting taxes will have negative impacts on those, which causes people to suffer - we're talking about the GDP. A tax cut is necessarily expansionary. The rich saving the extra money still helps expands the GDP - it gives banks more lending power, which will in turn stimulate investment and create more jobs.

But it didn't create more jobs. What you don't seem to get is that the more general hardship there is in a state that comes from cutting social expenses it creates more cost down the line. And sick and broken people generally have trouble paying taxes. Its a self fulfilling failure.

Of course, that effect takes time to show, as Greyparrot has mentioned above, and as I said above, it's more likely that Kansas was forced to cut taxes to save a declining economy. Whether Brownback succeeds in doing so is one thing; whether tax cuts stimulate the economy is quite another. The latter, I think, is a truism (in the short run) since, ceteris paribus, tax cuts will necessarily push AD to the right.

But the economy is still declining, that's the point. The guy is in his second term, the effects are not showing.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:40:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:33:57 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:23:51 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/22/2016 5:46:29 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 4:49:47 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

Perhaps California can afford to have higher taxes because it has always been a powerhouse, whereas Kansas was forced to slash taxes because its economy was already showing signs of failure?

As much as I'm for progressive taxation and other liberal economic policies, it seems extremely unlikely that raising tax alone can cause the economy to prosper or vice versa - so I think the cause-effect relationship probably goes the other way.

You must not know a lot about the issue. Cutting taxes on the rich meant the government had less money to spend on things like teachers and hospitals. The Government of Kansas relies on taxes to pay debts, less tax money means they can't pay debt they go broke and everybody suffers. Gov Brownback cut taxes for the rich saying it would create jobs, it didn't. He said the rich would reinvest that would-be taxed money into the economy, they didn't. They kept and saved the extra money.

I admit, it's true that I know nothing about Kansas at all - I was just speaking in general terms. But we're not talking about the public education or medical sectors - obviously cutting taxes will have negative impacts on those, which causes people to suffer - we're talking about the GDP. A tax cut is necessarily expansionary. The rich saving the extra money still helps expands the GDP - it gives banks more lending power, which will in turn stimulate investment and create more jobs.

But it didn't create more jobs. What you don't seem to get is that the more general hardship there is in a state that comes from cutting social expenses it creates more cost down the line. And sick and broken people generally have trouble paying taxes. Its a self fulfilling failure.

Of course, that effect takes time to show, as Greyparrot has mentioned above, and as I said above, it's more likely that Kansas was forced to cut taxes to save a declining economy. Whether Brownback succeeds in doing so is one thing; whether tax cuts stimulate the economy is quite another. The latter, I think, is a truism (in the short run) since, ceteris paribus, tax cuts will necessarily push AD to the right.

But the economy is still declining, that's the point. The guy is in his second term, the effects are not showing.

When you talk about gains in relation to cutting taxes...you have to look at the relevance between the tax rates of other states. If Kansas cut taxes a little, but say...Florida has no tax...then you wont see a large increase...if California raises taxes to what most of the other states have...you wont see much of a decrease.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:51:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I don't trust MSNBC any more than I would trust a f@ggot taking Boy Scouts camping, but I don't care enough to check their claims.

California's marginal rate of 13.3% isn't a lot higher than many other states, in the first place. The high marginal CA rate is offset by lower federal taxes for rich Californians (for the rich, state taxes are deductible from federal taxes), new loopholes, and CA laws designed to help the rich get richer. Government is by the rich, for the rich.

There are many factors that can easily overwhelm piddly changes in taxes, concerning economic growth, even if in fact the higher marginal rate is bad for the economy.

Also, I'm not one of these brain-jewed Republican neocons who think the rich, who pay a smaller percentage in taxes, and who pay out of their excess, are over-taxed.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:04:54 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:40:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

When you talk about gains in relation to cutting taxes...you have to look at the relevance between the tax rates of other states. If Kansas cut taxes a little, but say...Florida has no tax...then you wont see a large increase...if California raises taxes to what most of the other states have...you wont see much of a decrease.

Gains and decreases in what? State revenue? The ability to pays bills and people not being able to work for a living wage because the government cares more about the rich than they?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:16:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:33:57 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:23:51 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/22/2016 5:46:29 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 4:49:47 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

Perhaps California can afford to have higher taxes because it has always been a powerhouse, whereas Kansas was forced to slash taxes because its economy was already showing signs of failure?

As much as I'm for progressive taxation and other liberal economic policies, it seems extremely unlikely that raising tax alone can cause the economy to prosper or vice versa - so I think the cause-effect relationship probably goes the other way.

You must not know a lot about the issue. Cutting taxes on the rich meant the government had less money to spend on things like teachers and hospitals. The Government of Kansas relies on taxes to pay debts, less tax money means they can't pay debt they go broke and everybody suffers. Gov Brownback cut taxes for the rich saying it would create jobs, it didn't. He said the rich would reinvest that would-be taxed money into the economy, they didn't. They kept and saved the extra money.

I admit, it's true that I know nothing about Kansas at all - I was just speaking in general terms. But we're not talking about the public education or medical sectors - obviously cutting taxes will have negative impacts on those, which causes people to suffer - we're talking about the GDP. A tax cut is necessarily expansionary. The rich saving the extra money still helps expands the GDP - it gives banks more lending power, which will in turn stimulate investment and create more jobs.

But it didn't create more jobs. What you don't seem to get is that the more general hardship there is in a state that comes from cutting social expenses it creates more cost down the line. And sick and broken people generally have trouble paying taxes. Its a self fulfilling failure.
But we're not talking about more costs or sick or broken people having trouble paying taxes - we're talking about growth in economic output. The implicit claim in the article, as one can tell from the final paragraph, was that the tax cut has actually dragged Kansas' economy down. I don't think that's plausible.
Of course, that effect takes time to show, as Greyparrot has mentioned above, and as I said above, it's more likely that Kansas was forced to cut taxes to save a declining economy. Whether Brownback succeeds in doing so is one thing; whether tax cuts stimulate the economy is quite another. The latter, I think, is a truism (in the short run) since, ceteris paribus, tax cuts will necessarily push AD to the right.

But the economy is still declining, that's the point. The guy is in his second term, the effects are not showing.
That may be a good reason for saying he and his officials are incompetent or that their policies were insufficient, but I don't think that's the only point the article was trying to make. They were making, albeit implicitly, the claim that the tax cuts was detrimental to economic growth, and I don't think I see compelling enough evidence from the article for that. It may be better if he or the Mother Jones writer actually go and rebut some of the 'conservative arguments' presented, but before they do that, I'm not convinced that tax cuts will have a contractionary effect, either in this specific case or in general.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:29:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 5:41:38 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/22/2016 4:30:02 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

As someone who live in Kansas, recently graduated from a Kansas High School and have attended Kansas schools most of my life, I can verify everything in this story personally.

Can you also verify that it takes more than 2 years to build profitable businesses?

You do realize Brownback has been in office for 6 years, right?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:32:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 7:16:59 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:33:57 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:23:51 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/22/2016 5:46:29 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 4:49:47 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/22/2016 1:22:43 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
Kansas lowered taxes on the rich while California raised taxes on the rich.
The results?
California saw vast economic growth while Kansas suffered.
http://www.msnbc.com...

Discuss

Perhaps California can afford to have higher taxes because it has always been a powerhouse, whereas Kansas was forced to slash taxes because its economy was already showing signs of failure?

As much as I'm for progressive taxation and other liberal economic policies, it seems extremely unlikely that raising tax alone can cause the economy to prosper or vice versa - so I think the cause-effect relationship probably goes the other way.

You must not know a lot about the issue. Cutting taxes on the rich meant the government had less money to spend on things like teachers and hospitals. The Government of Kansas relies on taxes to pay debts, less tax money means they can't pay debt they go broke and everybody suffers. Gov Brownback cut taxes for the rich saying it would create jobs, it didn't. He said the rich would reinvest that would-be taxed money into the economy, they didn't. They kept and saved the extra money.

I admit, it's true that I know nothing about Kansas at all - I was just speaking in general terms. But we're not talking about the public education or medical sectors - obviously cutting taxes will have negative impacts on those, which causes people to suffer - we're talking about the GDP. A tax cut is necessarily expansionary. The rich saving the extra money still helps expands the GDP - it gives banks more lending power, which will in turn stimulate investment and create more jobs.

But it didn't create more jobs. What you don't seem to get is that the more general hardship there is in a state that comes from cutting social expenses it creates more cost down the line. And sick and broken people generally have trouble paying taxes. Its a self fulfilling failure.
But we're not talking about more costs or sick or broken people having trouble paying taxes - we're talking about growth in economic output. The implicit claim in the article, as one can tell from the final paragraph, was that the tax cut has actually dragged Kansas' economy down. I don't think that's plausible.
Of course, that effect takes time to show, as Greyparrot has mentioned above, and as I said above, it's more likely that Kansas was forced to cut taxes to save a declining economy. Whether Brownback succeeds in doing so is one thing; whether tax cuts stimulate the economy is quite another. The latter, I think, is a truism (in the short run) since, ceteris paribus, tax cuts will necessarily push AD to the right.

But the economy is still declining, that's the point. The guy is in his second term, the effects are not showing.
That may be a good reason for saying he and his officials are incompetent or that their policies were insufficient, but I don't think that's the only point the article was trying to make. They were making, albeit implicitly, the claim that the tax cuts was detrimental to economic growth, and I don't think I see compelling enough evidence from the article for that. It may be better if he or the Mother Jones writer actually go and rebut some of the 'conservative arguments' presented, but before they do that, I'm not convinced that tax cuts will have a contractionary effect, either in this specific case or in general.

I should have been more clear. Cutting spending on things like education and healthcare cuts down on productivity because poor people can't afford it, it puts them in debt and thus cant spend. It's a simple cycle. Kansas couldn't pay it's bills because it cut taxes. Simple math. Tax cuts can grow the economy if the rich spend that money, but that's just concentrating their wealth, it does nothing for the masses. But the rich hoard their wealth instead.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:34:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 7:04:54 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:40:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

When you talk about gains in relation to cutting taxes...you have to look at the relevance between the tax rates of other states. If Kansas cut taxes a little, but say...Florida has no tax...then you wont see a large increase...if California raises taxes to what most of the other states have...you wont see much of a decrease.

Gains and decreases in what? State revenue? The ability to pays bills and people not being able to work for a living wage because the government cares more about the rich than they?

Gains in the GDP silly hat...