Kansas budget means $3.3M less in state funding for Wichita State

[GoShockers89]

.

[ABC]

Brownback and others (including me), seek to reduce taxes on everyone: rich, poor, middle etc.

A growing economy increases opportunities for everyone, but most especially those at the lower and middle income areas.

I am sure the response will be that public spending on K12 and higher ed leads to upward mobility, but there just isn't data to support the notion that increased spending in these area leads to a growing economy.

Kansas has been basically stagnant for a decade or more. The status quo wasn't working very well.

Do you really think Charles Koch is concerned about his Kansas tax liability?

Back to the issue of university funding, from the Wichita Business Journal:

"WSU, for example, will have to cut more than $868,000 from its payroll in the coming fiscal year and more than $14,000 next fiscal year." http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/b...m-less-in.html

[CBB_Fan]

Brownback and others (including me), seek to reduce taxes on everyone: rich, poor, middle etc.

A growing economy increases opportunities for everyone, but most especially those at the lower and middle income areas.

I am sure the response will be that public spending on K12 and higher ed leads to upward mobility, but there just isn't data to support the notion that increased spending in these area leads to a growing economy.

Kansas has been basically stagnant for a decade or more. The status quo wasn't working very well.

Do you really think Charles Koch is concerned about his Kansas tax liability?

Back to the issue of university funding, from the Wichita Business Journal:

"WSU, for example, will have to cut more than $868,000 from its payroll in the coming fiscal year and more than $14,000 next fiscal year." http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/b...m-less-in.html

I will note that Brownback has already passed measures that resulted in increased taxes for the poor and decreased taxes for the rich, and that cuts to primary and secondary education affect the poor and middle class the most.

Anyway, I think the correct thing to do is to allow students to declare bankruptcy and have basic consumer protections for student debt, and drastically reduce federal loan programs on the federal side. On the state side, we an independent advisory committee to explore ways to reduce college footprints and eliminate duplicate majors and programs.

[ABC]

What are those tax increases for the poor? The sales tax was just reduced as well as the bottom bracket for income tax.

[CBB_Fan]

What are those tax increases for the poor? The sales tax was just reduced as well as the bottom bracket for income tax.

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/17/3376262/brownback-tax-plan-hits-poor-hardest.html

This is part of what I was referring to. Would elaborate but on phone.

[GoShockers89]

.

[WuDrWu]

Taxes and welfare are 2 entirely different things and the public needs to both know this and start treating them differently.

[SHOCKvalue]

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/17/3376262/brownback-tax-plan-hits-poor-hardest.html

This is part of what I was referring to. Would elaborate but on phone.

Eliminating tax deductions who's only purpose is to serve various special interest groups and incentivize behavior can only be considered a good thing.

Sure, you can call it a tax increase if your are intellectually dishonest, but the plan is to now require people who have a NET GAIN through the tax code to have less of such. I'm sorry you are so irrational that this concept makes no sense to you.

[MoValley John]

Some people could use a refresher course in economics.

Oh, and one more thing, any tax is regressive. If the federal government increases taxes on people making over than $250,000, the tax hurts the people just above the threshold much more than the people way above, that is regressive. It works just the same way at the lower end of the spectrum. All taxes are regressive.

[shox1989]

The Sales tax on July 1 will increase from the scheduled 5.7% to 6.15%. That is an increase on everyone. Also next year many itemized deductions will be reduced. Koch Industries, I believe, may pay 0 Kansas income tax next year (I believe their companies are organized as LLCs.) As all LLCs, sub-chapter S Corps and Sole Proprieters will pay NO KANSAS INCOME TAX next year. The rest of us will get some rate reductions spread out over the next 5 years but we don't get to 0. To me it would have been a lot fairer to give everyone the same tax cut next year (instead of allowing LLCs, S-corps and Sole Proprietors to go to 0). I believe everyone should have been put on the same path in income tax reductions.

As I mentioned earlier the budget cuts to the universities don't bother me in the least, I believe they could use a little cut fatting. I don't like taking some tax payers (potentially very wealthy tax payers) to 0 while the rest of us see very little reduction in our taxes. And I don't like budget cuts that affect our public safety or ones that take services away from the vulnerable (like DD kids). So I have a lot of mixed feelings about the whole thing. As I think most people do (nobody gets everything they like).

[MoValley John]

From what I understand, Koch Industries is a privately held corporation, not an LLC. I believe several Koch subsidiaries are LLC 's and limited partnerships. I don' t profess this as gospel, but I believe that is how they are organized.

As for Kansas tax laws, I know nothing. But if Kansas has a corporate tax and are eliminating taxes on LLC 's and LP's, Koch would owe some state tax but be sheltered on others.

I wholly support a simpler tax code.

[CBB_Fan]

Eliminating tax deductions who's only purpose is to serve various special interest groups and incentivize behavior can only be considered a good thing.

Sure, you can call it a tax increase if your are intellectually dishonest, but the plan is to now require people who have a NET GAIN through the tax code to have less of such. I'm sorry you are so irrational that this concept makes no sense to you.

I don't need to insult people or attack their character to make my points, and I think it automatically detracts from any point you might have.

Simply put Brownback is a bad governor unless he helps your interests. If you make a decent amount of money, have no children between 0-25 years old, are not a 65+ year old hunter/fisher, and care nothing about any other Kansan's quality of life, he probably is a wonderful governor.

But the poor are in worse shape. Call it whatever you want, but at the end of the day the poor in Kansas take home less than they did before Brownback. That article was merely the top Google search result, not necessarily the best article to show my point. Kansas wide, the poorest group in Kansas (<$25000) will give the state about $88 million more in revenue. At the same time, Brownback's taxes give money back to businesses and those making more than $250000. When you take away the mortgage home interest deduction and earned income tax credits, most of the new money is going to come from the poor. Funny, tax credits that mostly benefit top earners and businesses are not getting cut. Handy graph to show that these taxes deliberately target the poor and middle class.

The children and college age students of Kansas are only marginally better. As a simple fact, Brownback is balancing tax cuts over children and students. If he hadn't passed such drastic tax cuts then we wouldn't have such a huge budget deficit. His cuts from primary education were declared completely unconstitutional. So now he targets secondary education. And again, the budget crisis he uses to justify the cuts were caused almost entirely by his tax cuts.

Again, this is not a reciprocal effort that helps or hurts all Kansans equally. The richer Kansans are keeping their tax credits and government aid, while the poor are seeing food stamps and basic aid get cut. At the same time, Brownback is trying to shift the tax burden further downward by eliminating the income tax and increasing the sales tax, even the poor are actually taxed at a higher percentage than the rich in Kansas. He justifies his cuts with crises of his own creation.

Honestly, the plan is obvious and simple. Stay in power with corporate funding, continue cutting basic services because of deficits caused by tax cuts, and point to the low performance of our public services as a reason to privatize the services. Justify staying in office because of the new jobs.

That doesn't benefit me or my children, or any of the poor in Kansas. Cuts to higher education are essentially tax hikes on the middle class, because they almost necessitate an increase in tuition (which is already ridiculously high); they do affect the rich but they do not need to go any debt to finance their education. It definitely helps Brownback (who wastes plenty of money himself) and his financial supporters.

Now, that isn't to say that higher education doesn't have waste, or that we shouldn't try to reduce spending. I don't even really hate the Fair Tax, but it has to be implemented in a way that doesn't hurt the poor. But I highly disapprove of the way that Brownback has managed things.

[MoValley John]

You can make any graph you want, all taxes are regressive. A 2% tax on the poor is a greater burden than 30% tax on someone who is wealthy. I didn't look at the graph, don't know who put it together, but I'm pretty sure it will sho a regressive tax. This makes your governor look evil in your eyes. At the same time, if you used the same criteria to graph your former Governor's tax proposals, you would find the same regression. You find it with Obama as well, except when you get to the level of zero tax. It doesn't matter how you put brackets together, if you are paying taxes, you are paying a regressive tax. Until you reach a draconian level of taxation, Any tax hurts the lower incomes more than the higher. And at that level, the wealthy pull out of the economy.

I am not endorsing your governor, I don't know enough about him, simply trying to explain the regressive nature of taxes, it's difficult on a smartphone.

[CBB_Fan]

You can make any graph you want, all taxes are regressive. A 2% tax on the poor is a greater burden than 30% tax on someone who is wealthy. I didn't look at the graph, don't know who put it together, but I'm pretty sure it will sho a regressive tax. This makes your governor look evil in your eyes. At the same time, if you used the same criteria to graph your former Governor's tax proposals, you would find the same regression. You find it with Obama as well, except when you get to the level of zero tax. It doesn't matter how you put brackets together, if you are paying taxes, you are paying a regressive tax. Until you reach a draconian level of taxation, Any tax hurts the lower incomes more than the higher. And at that level, the wealthy pull out of the economy.

I am not endorsing your governor, I don't know enough about him, simply trying to explain the regressive nature of taxes, it's difficult on a smartphone.

The difference is that the Kansas tax is actually higher on the poor than it is on the richest (between 2-3 times higher actually). 2% might hurt the poor more than 30% for the rich, it is even worse when the poor actually pay a larger percentage by design.

[ABC]

CBB_Fan, given you last statement, I would guess there isn't a state or country that doesn't tax the poor more. And by the way that article you linked to is five months old. That article does not reflect the final product.

The session just ended and there was a lot of last minute changes back and forth. The food sales tax rebate on lower income is back into law. And as I said, sales taxes did go down and income taxes on the lowest incomes went down.

To say that cutting spending is a "tax on the middle class" is poppy cock. There is absolutely nothing that requires Universities to raise tuition. The amount of tuition increases in Kansas dwarfs the small cuts in higher ed. (I do agree with GoShockers89 that subsidized student loans are also at fault for higher tuition)

In the ten years from 2003 - 2012, state aid decreased -.1% while tuition increased 137% (inflation was 25%) http://kansaspolicy.org/researchcent...es/104135.aspx

Your statement that ". . .the poor are in worse shape. Call it whatever you want, but at the end of the day the poor in Kansas take home less than they did before Brownback", simply isn't true.

Only 1/3 of Kansan's deduct their mortgage interest. Who do you think takes more advantage of that deduction?

More govt spending does not equal better results regardless of whether you are lower or higher income.

I would have done things differently than Brownback, by cutting more spending and letting the sales tax go all the way back to 5.7%, but what's happened in the last two year overall is a good thing.