Kan$a$

Posted by: lanovami

Kan$a$ - 01/24/13 05:12 AM

Figured somebody would have already posted this. Gotta admit, it's gutsy.

Kansas moves to eliminate income tax
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/24/13 05:30 AM

It will be interesting to see how that works-out for *everyone* in the state, not just the well-off. In any case, it sure will put ultra-conservatism to the test.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/24/13 05:57 AM

My sentiments exactly. Maybe it will force "undesirables" to leave the state and leave it to those who know how to work? sick
Posted by: steveg

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/24/13 07:14 AM

It may be time to change one of the laws of physics: For everuy action, there is an equal and calamitous reaction. eek
Posted by: DLC

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/24/13 07:53 AM

Kansas has little oil and almost no tourism... so what revenue are they going to replace it with ? Sales tax ??
Or do they plan on giving state teachers and workers vouchers instead of salary ? blush

Problem is Income tax is federally deductible, sales tax is not ! And the old GOP myth lower rates, revenue increases is BOGUS... Reagan did it and only 1 quarter had higher revenues and it was slim margin- the rest had huge deficits and so the Natl Debt went from $1 Trillion to $4.5 Trillion on his watch !! Unfortunately States can't do that - have massive deficits.

I think it's a recipe for disaster - Brownback is extreme - but let them try it and we'll see who's correct. I hope that IF it fails, it's a signal to the rest of the country conservatives are full of BS !!. sick
(we see it, but many are still mystified)
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/24/13 02:59 PM

A friend from New Hampshire pointed out to me that NH has neither personal income tax or sales tax, and it is a relatively blue state (certainly compared to Kansas). Hmmm...ironic (or something else) that the articles I read never mentioned this.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/24/13 03:04 PM

NH gets much of its revenue from booze. All liquor stores in NH are run by the state. They do a huge business with MA residents coming across the border to buy.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/24/13 03:15 PM

My friend mentioned specifically it has property taxes which has created its own set of problems, mostly with equal opportunity education and funding for public schools. It was a big state supreme court case apparently.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/24/13 03:23 PM

oh the Capone business model ! grin

I capiche'.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/24/13 03:45 PM

You can't privatize everything and expect to have adequate regulatory oversight. Turning services over to private, for profit, enterprise is not a safe option for protecting your residents from corruption and fraud. The state still has to maintain a budget. The funding for that has to come from somewhere. No taxes? Institute "user fees" (taxes by another name). Want fire protection? Pay the fee. Want police protection? Pay the fee. Want an education for your children? Pay the fee. If you can't afford to pay the fees, you're screwed!
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/24/13 04:54 PM

Indeed, this is what I fear. I just hope more red states sit back and see what happens before they jump on the bandwagon.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/24/13 06:56 PM

Yep the wicked witches & their flying conservative monkeys have taken over Kansas... and the Wizard is no where to be found. eek
Posted by: carp

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/25/13 05:58 PM

I tend to agree with DLC.

For one thing the Fed tax ? Good luck trying to take that out it will never happen.

Anyway WATCH out as soon as you hear (lower payroll taxes) that only means that user fees are gonna go way up and sales tax as well <- if thats not enough they will have import taxes -> so everyone gets to pay more for products.

So your right hand see's a saving on payroll taxes but your left hand is dipping into your wallet to pay for higher fees. Simply what your saving is paid out over time.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/26/13 12:58 AM

To paraphrase an old joke

Take our governor. Please take him

I been telling everyone here in Kansas and everywhere. Tht Kansasns will rue the day they elected him.

Dave
Posted by: DLC

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/26/13 04:14 PM

Is he called Brownback because he came up through the sewers ? wink
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/26/13 05:33 PM

Originally Posted By: lanovami
Figured somebody would have already posted this. Gotta admit, it's gutsy.

Kansas moves to eliminate income tax
What would be fair is to eliminate the State tax and add a sales tax instead. The more you buy the more you pay.

Fair is the hangup though.
Posted by: carp

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/26/13 05:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Jim_
Originally Posted By: lanovami
Figured somebody would have already posted this. Gotta admit, it's gutsy.

Kansas moves to eliminate income tax
What would be fair is to eliminate the State tax and add a sales tax instead. The more you buy the more you pay.

Fair is the hangup though.


Not to sure about that ?

According to Marg, Canada has a 20% sales tax and the liquor stores are government run. So yeah cut the state tax they make it back by other means.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/26/13 05:55 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
Originally Posted By: Jim_
Originally Posted By: lanovami
Figured somebody would have already posted this. Gotta admit, it's gutsy.

Kansas moves to eliminate income tax
What would be fair is to eliminate the State tax and add a sales tax instead. The more you buy the more you pay.

Fair is the hangup though.
Not to sure about that ?

According to Marg, Canada has a 20% sales tax and the liquor stores are government run. So yeah cut the state tax they make it back by other means.
That's what I said. They'd have to add a sales tax to make up for it, but those that are better off would be paying more of their fair share instead of jumping through loopholes in the State tax.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/26/13 08:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Jim_
That's what I said. They'd have to add a sales tax to make up for it, but those that are better off would be paying more of their fair share instead of jumping through loopholes in the State tax.

Well that depends on what they exempt or not...
example if you exempt necessities like groceries , health needs, then maybe it could be fair. BUT if you tax everything, the poor and middle class will pay sales tax on 100% of their disposable income where as the more well to do would pay less because they stash some into savings and investments.

Also there is a problem with focusing taxes primarily on consumption. Consumption is what drives the economy... my consumption is someone's else's income ! (From Krugman's book - End this Depression, Now!). You stifle that and you choke your economy and jobs too boot ! not too smart.

Thing is Jim, as you know - there is NO GOOD answer ! grin
Posted by: MrB

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/27/13 08:23 AM

The way I understand it in areas that have certain exemptions of the sales tax, certain packaging of the same commodity is taxed where other packaging is not. Like marshmallows. Small marshmallows are not taxed as they are considered food but large marshmallows are taxed as they are considered snacks. Same with certain packages of nuts and chocolate.

Other items would be also I suppose

Dave
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/27/13 10:02 AM

Consumption taxes are always more of a burden to people who earn less money unless, as David says, necessities are exempted. Even then the burden falls most heavily on the poor. I would much much prefer a steeply graduated income tax and no sales tax at all on most goods.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/27/13 11:02 AM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
Consumption taxes are always more of a burden to people who earn less money unless, as David says, necessities are exempted. Even then the burden falls most heavily on the poor.
Didn't realize that. What would be considered necessities besides food, clothing?

I'd wager that outside of rent/mortgage food is next and a major part of all income spent with things like utilities and gasoline being next on the list.

In our locale food from the store is not taxed, but hard goods are.
Posted by: carp

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/27/13 11:24 AM

Well neither here nor there thingy,

NY I believe just enacted a (sin tax) on soda beverages in an effort to get people to eat healthy - Meanwhile the Fed welfare system has enacted a (no snack food) to be charged on the Fed debit card. Most if not all states don't sales tax drug prescriptions. So this selected grouping has been around for awhile now and is already in place in some states.

Bottom line;
No matter how the selected field to be fair is chosen = Both sides, rich or poor will pay back whatever savings from a no payroll tax ban by the end of that year.

fwiw;
Our sales tax is 4.125% - no sales tax on drugs and other medical services. To be honest why not just make it 5% - I don't see how ya can cut a penny 0.125% , , WTF ?
Posted by: DLC

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/27/13 02:12 PM

Originally Posted By: MrB
The way I understand it in areas that have certain exemptions of the sales tax, certain packaging of the same commodity is taxed where other packaging is not. Like marshmallows. Small marshmallows are not taxed as they are considered food but large marshmallows are taxed as they are considered snacks. Same with certain packages of nuts and chocolate.
Other items would be also I suppose
Dave

I hate that splitting hairs like with the marshmallows. WHO says small is food, large is snack? Seems like it doesn't matter... do you use small or large marshmallows in your hot chocolate? One is food the other is snack... what IS hot chocolate? crazy Those kinds of distinctions are crazy.

I can see taxing candy bars, ice cream bars, etc. Those are snacks. BUT what do you do with something like Trail Mix, or beef Jerky? Sometimes I eat a small candy bar for my lunch- keeps me going when I don't have time to stop. SO I'd get taxed ! But if I ate a sandwich I wouldn't ! crazy

I think I like the distinction if its hard goods like Kleenex, paper towels. etc - tax it. If it's edible, don't. One man's snack is another man's meal !! laugh
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/27/13 04:54 PM

Food and clothing are about it, Jim. If you want to be really generous then fuel is also a necessity, but I don't know of any place where fuel is exempted from sales taxes. Well, maybe for retired folks heating fuel is exempted somewhere or other, but if so I don't know where that might be. Here in PA, food and clothing are both exempted from sales taxes, by the way. Naturally enough, many Reps want to tax those things and get rid of property taxes. I hate property taxes myself, but at the same time, I think property taxes can also be thought of as being a sort of graduated tax system, at least on the assumption that people with more income buy more expensive houses and so they pay more in property taxes. It's pretty indirect as a graduation of the taxes, though.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/27/13 08:22 PM

As to property taxes. Many folks don't realize that non home owners pay property taxes. This issue comes up when the subject that illegal aliens don't pay any taxes. Those who rent pay property taxes through their rent. Increases to property taxes to the owner will be transferred to higher rents.

Not saying I'm opposed to property taxes but they aren't accessed fairly in my opinion.

Dave
Posted by: MrB

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/27/13 08:30 PM

Originally Posted By: DLC
Kansas has little oil and almost no tourism...



grin you mean people don't reply to the question ,"where are you vacationing this year? ", By answering with " we are vacationing in Kansas" laugh

Dave
Posted by: DLC

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/28/13 04:52 AM

Sadly True Dave. I've driven through much of Kansas and it's as flat as the Texas panhandle (where I was raised). Pretty fields of wheat, but not much for tourism. I will say eastern Kansas was more rolling hills and greenery ! (but that was decades ago)
Posted by: carp

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/28/13 07:06 PM

Not saying I'm opposed to property taxes but they aren't accessed fairly in my opinion.

Here;
Property tax is a % for every assessed 1,000 of value <- everyone pays the same % of every 1,000. So thats fair since one can buy a million dollar home , he will pay more than a guy who bought a cheap home.

However the trick word is assessed ? ? what that is based on is market value from a given hood. So rich hoods with big homes are assessed higher than poor ghetto hoods. Sounds fair right ? not really.

true story;

One hood I lived in although beach front homes but they were built in the 1920s. Single wall construction very old and simple homes. 1982 a hurricane hit and damaged all the homes on that street except for one, who was my neighbor, his home was virtually untouched.

Now everyone rebuilt their homes with insurance money, except for my neighbor who got no money because he had no damage. Everyone rebuild these big beautiful homes with pools . The city came by and assessed the new value of 1.2 million for the hood -> even my neighbor still with his 1920 home had to pay the new property tax rate , now being retired he could not afford the taxes and was forced to sell.

Cali has the best I believe - the value is what you paid for it - not someone that drives by and drops an assessment.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/28/13 07:16 PM

I'll bet they want to eliminate Income and corporate tax and raise sales tax. It's what Jindal is trying to do in LA and it shifts taxes to lower incomes and gives the wealthy a free-er ride.

You wait ... that'll be the plan in KS too !! mad

Many of the GOP Govs are operating from the same Playbook !!

I hope people TOSS their sorry azzes out !!
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/28/13 07:35 PM

Assessment is a real problem, to be sure. I've lived in the same house for 23 years, and in that time it was reassessed once, after we were here for about five years. People who live in the burbs here are really up the creek if they build a new house because the new house is assessed at current value, but the neighbor's house, which maybe was built 30 years ago, is not reassessed. So two houses side by side, more or less the same in market value, can be very different in assessed value.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/28/13 07:41 PM

Right, the assessment is the kicker. I've known hoe owners who offered to sell their place at the assessed value.

Dave
Posted by: MrB

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/28/13 07:51 PM

I get rather defensive on people who diss Kansas. It's a fine state. As good as any state. But I say that about all of them. I think the country side is beautiful. Also there are several small tourist sites.

Of course there are none large enough or spectacular e ought to warrant spending ones whole vacation. I think there are other states the same way

Of course there are a few lakes where a family could spend their vacation, skiing or fishing or boating.

People talk about scenery, then mention the coastline. To me. Starring off onto the ocean nothing to break the "monotany" can be boring quickly.

Dave
Posted by: DLC

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/28/13 08:15 PM

Sorry Dave.. not meaning to upset you... in fact I'm not dissing.. flat isn't bad it's just different. It is pretty during a thunderstorm coming in , you can see the clouds for miles. Sunsets... rainbows...
but sadly it's not the draw most tourists want. I did like the green rolling hills and lush greenery around Lawrence. Pretty !!
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/29/13 09:23 AM

When we moved to south-central Illinois back in the olden days of the 80s, I hated the landscape. What landscape? I kept asking my wife. But it grew on me, and before we left i really loved to go out riding my bike through the just-harvested corn fields, where only the stubble was left, visible through the light autumnal haze of an early November afternoon, and the horizon just sort of disappeared in the middle distance with no interruption of the line of sight. It really was quite beautiful. Up in Springfield we came across photographs by a man called Larry Kanfer, who took gorgeous landscape pictures of the Illinois countryside. I wish we had had the money to buy a couple back then. Anyway, here's a pretty dramatic one.



I wish I could find one of the quieter ones--just the fields stretching out forever.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/29/13 01:29 PM

No, no. You didn't upset me at all. I wasn't aiming my comments at anyone in particular. I have been in most states and have found them quite interesting in which to travel. I love to talk to the locals to get the feel of the area.

Even Texas. In 2008, during the weekend hurricane Ike was giving Beaumont a thrashing, iwas in Austin for a wedding. I spent Friday and Saturday in a motel, in Killeen, tx, near Fort Hood. The motel was overfilled with folks who had evacuated the coast.

I had good visits with a couple families from Beaumont.

Dave
Posted by: DLC

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/29/13 02:30 PM

Yoyo - That photo is exactly what I'm talking about... that's as "majestic" as any mountains !

Pretty !! Make you feel small and humble. smile

MrB: well I was hoping I didn't step on your toes - wasn't meaning to. But the shenanigans of the likes of Brownback really make me upset !! Move taxes from the well-to-do to the poor and under represented. ( progressive income tax > regressive sales tax )
Eventually just like immigration, voter fraud, abortion, etc IT WILL catch up to them... they're just shortening the lifespan of the GOP ! I think it's on "life support" now !! laugh
Posted by: MrB

Re: Kan$a$ - 01/29/13 05:52 PM

Not sure about the GOP, but for Brownback's politics I hope it shortens. Iv always thought he ran for governor because his try for the presidency fizzled so he thought he might have a better chance as governor . So now he's out to try to gain some headlines. Rather like others IMO, on both sides of the aisle.

Dave