If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Fetch your fainting couch, as this may be a shock to you, but Kansas's massive tax cut to the state's wealthiest is destroying its economy   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 228
    More: Obvious, Kansas, tax cuts, child poverty, Sam Brownback, Center on Budget  
•       •       •

4773 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 May 2014 at 4:12 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



228 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-16 05:38:26 PM
The answer is staring us in the face...cut taxes on the rich even more.
 
2014-05-16 05:38:34 PM

Aquapope: jigger: Um. It's Kansas. I don't think there's anything they could do to attract people and businesses to move there.

Attracting high-end science degreed people to this area is impossible in the KC area.  Your choices for your kids' education is the rapidly declining anti-science of Kansas, or the unaccredited Missouri system   What PhD wants to move his family here for that, even if the cost of living is amazingly low?


This. Seeing this with geologists, etc in Houston area. Non-religious private schools are a growth industry, which of course is what people like Brownback want, except for the no religious part.
 
2014-05-16 05:38:56 PM
So what? Kansas sucks. They're trying to act like it's still the early 1900s. Let them cope with the fallout from that decision.
 
2014-05-16 05:39:41 PM

Saiga410: And here the ACA gets passed and we have the longest recession in 70 years.  You just cannot explain that.


Isn't it obvious?  The tide goes in, tide goes out. What, you need me to spell it out for you?
 
2014-05-16 05:40:36 PM

Intel154: Aquapope: jigger: Um. It's Kansas. I don't think there's anything they could do to attract people and businesses to move there.

Attracting high-end science degreed people to this area is impossible in the KC area.  Your choices for your kids' education is the rapidly declining anti-science of Kansas, or the unaccredited Missouri system   What PhD wants to move his family here for that, even if the cost of living is amazingly low?

This. Seeing this with geologists, etc in Houston area. Non-religious private schools are a growth industry, which of course is what people like Brownback want, except for the no religious part.


Makes sense. Book-learnin' without Jesus=heresy
 
2014-05-16 05:40:57 PM

t3knomanser: Mantour: In fact, higher income tax may not be the answer, as capital gains are not taxed like income.

Which we could solve by making capital gains taxes progressive. You could ignore the first $10,000 of gains, then start taxing it at a rate that starts much lower than the income tax, but increases according to a steep curve- by the time you're getting $1M in capital gains, you're in a >90% tax bracket on those gains.


In his book, Piketty advocates a "Global Wealth Tax" which pretty much describes your solution.
 
2014-05-16 05:41:00 PM

Aquapope: Cletus C.: Uzzah: Dimensio: Cletus C.: Hmm

Kansas has an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent.

Illinois has an unemployment rate of 7.9 percent.

Illinois had a massive income tax increase in 2011.

Cheery-picked stats can be fun.

How have unemployment rates in each state changed over time?

/I personally do not know.

Unemployment rates, 12-month net change (Apr. 2013-Apr. 2014):

Kansas: -0.7%
Illinois: -1.3%

That makes sense, considering Illinois has a larger percentage to work with.

Oooh, a math backpedal.  The rate of change of the rate of change for Illinois is decreasing less than that of Kansas.  Is that your feeble support for your  initialfeeble comparison of the economies of an agricultural state and a manufacturing state?


I suppose you realize there is a thing called "full employment," which is not actually a 0 percent unemployment rate. Economists and the CBO have put that number in the 3 percent to 4 percent range. The closer you get to that full employment rate the tougher it is to show greater percentages of improvement, wouldn't you think?
 
2014-05-16 05:41:30 PM

bobothemagnificent: Because there's no bias like blatant liberal bias.


blogs.suntimes.com
 
2014-05-16 05:41:36 PM

FlashHarry: ScreamingHangover: What do you expect from a state full of idiot who would vote this inept moron into office?

4/10. though the misspelling of "idiots" was a nice touch.

also, sibelius hasn't been governor for 5 years.


I don't think that matters to these "people".

This is the same group that blames the entire economic collapse on Barney Frank. Even though Republicans held the White House, Senate and House from 2000-2006 it doesn't matter.  Republicans can do no wrong in their books. Willfully blind partisan hacks are willfully blind partisan hacks....
 
2014-05-16 05:44:27 PM

whidbey: jigger: Um. It's Kansas. I don't think there's anything they could do to attract people and businesses to move there.

They do plenty already, actually.


And it's not working. Because it's Kansas. Who the fark in their right mind would want to live there, no matter what the government is like?
 
2014-05-16 05:47:02 PM

jigger: whidbey: jigger: Um. It's Kansas. I don't think there's anything they could do to attract people and businesses to move there.

They do plenty already, actually.

And it's not working. Because it's Kansas. Who the fark in their right mind would want to live there, no matter what the government is like?


Clean air, quiet, awesome sunsets, intense weather patterns, low cost of living.

Yeah only an idiot would move there.
 
2014-05-16 05:47:44 PM

Aquapope: Oooh, a math backpedal. The rate of change of the rate of change for Illinois is decreasing less than that of Kansas. Is that your feeble support for your initialfeeble comparison of the economies of an agricultural state and a manufacturing state?


Your argument is derivative.  You should try to integrate some other statistics.  It would add to your point without subtracting any impact.  Of course, if you don't bound your statements properly, counterarguments will multiply and you may find a division among your supporters.  You might find you only have a fraction of the support for your position you think you have.
 
2014-05-16 05:48:16 PM

Blues_X: madgonad: All of the bordering states are in full recovery. Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, and Oklahoma. The problem is that the Kansas government is cutting back on services (middle class jobs) to balance out the whopping tax cut. Now almost all of that tax cut is going to the top 5% - who aren't spending it on local products and services. The business owners are investing it and farmers are buying flashy new farm equipment that isn't made in Kansas. So the net result is fewer services and a shrinking middle class. In addition, nobody wants to move to a location where services (good schools) are deteriorating. So yes, Republican economics are killing the state. The same thing is happening nationally, but it isn't so blatantly obvious.


Oklahoma just had to use school activity fund to pay for teacher's health insurance.

And their pay still sucks. And our infrastructure is boned.


The only reason Oklahoma's economy didn't tank as badly as others' is because of energy sector.

Either way, I can't wait to leave Oklahoma for a laundry list of reasons.
 
2014-05-16 05:50:05 PM

edmo: If you want a tax cut to be a stimulus you have to give it to someone who will spend it. That would be common folks buying cars, new fishing rods, and TVs, not rich people who plow it all into yet another investment fund, stimulating only Wall Street.


That's even assuming the people's basic needs are already met, and in many cases that isn't so. There are a lot of families out there who would spend an extra $100 on food, because they are hungry. If they aren't hungry they might still need more/newer clothes, but definitely they will spend and drive the economy.

Any "job-creation" "incentives" should be directly tied to actual job creation: If you create X full-time jobs and pay those salaries and benefits for a year, you get a reduction in your tax load.

They've been getting breaks for a decade, there should be a freakin' labor shortage from so many jobs created. Instead it's like a parent giving their kid $200 for clothes and then dropping the kid of at Toys R Us, then giving the kid another $200 when he still doesn't have clothes and dropping them off at TRU again.
 
2014-05-16 05:51:17 PM

Saiga410: And here the ACA gets passed and we have the longest recession in 70 years.  You just cannot explain that.


It is sad that you make this argument. It is even more sad that almost half the nation thinks it is a valid point.
 
2014-05-16 05:52:37 PM

Bonanza Jellybean: one time when my sister was a baby she happened to roll backward while wearing full diaper which sprayed liquid kinderscheisse up her back

whenever i see sam brownback, i think of that

it works literally and metaphorically


Thank you for that story. I giggled at work until I cried.
 
2014-05-16 05:53:01 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah - shocker.  Republican economics don't work.  Why the Fark do people vote for them?


They vote for them because those "economics" appeal to the mean-spirited, the greedy, the simple minded, and the frightened people, which forms a kind of loose coalition.  For election purposes, it doesn't matter whether their economics work--it just has to sound like it might work, at least to the folks who don't want to think too hard about it (or who will benefit from it).
 
2014-05-16 05:55:09 PM

HawgWild: That's the thing about the job creators. They actually have to, you know, do something to create jobs.


Are you being sarcastic?  Don't you know that investing in hedge funds or sending your money to a bank in the Bahamas creates lots of jobs in Kansas?
 
2014-05-16 05:55:49 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah - shocker.  Republican economics don't work.  Why the Fark do people vote for them?


Oh, they work just fine. It's just that the purpose of Republican economics is to drain economies dry by funneling money into the pockets of the already-wealthy.
 
2014-05-16 05:59:15 PM

drewbob21: Eliminate income taxes.
Eliminate estate taxes.
Eliminate corporate taxes.
Eliminate school funding.
Eliminate minimum wage.
Eliminate food stamps.

Create modern feudal system.  Live like kings.  Back to work peasants!


you forgot 'reduce sales tax rate.  That way they've 'reduced taxes for everyone', not just the rich.

a whopping .15% lower (was 6.3, now it's 6.15)
 
2014-05-16 06:00:30 PM

Raoul Eaton: Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah - shocker.  Republican economics don't work.  Why the Fark do people vote for them?

They vote for them because those "economics" appeal to the mean-spirited, the greedy, the simple minded, and the frightened people, which forms a kind of loose coalition.  For election purposes, it doesn't matter whether their economics work--it just has to sound like it might work, at least to the folks who don't want to think too hard about it (or who will benefit from it).


And for a large number of them, racism.

Sometimes who it will hurt  more that matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ

NSFW language
 
2014-05-16 06:00:33 PM
Cletus C.:

I suppose you realize there is a thing called blah blah unrelated blah

Doesn't matter.  You tried to defend Brownbacks bad policies using only 1 economic measure between Kansas, a landlocked agricultural state with Illinois, a manufacturing port state.  Apples and monkeys, you can't compare them.
 
2014-05-16 06:00:35 PM

madgonad: All of the bordering states are in full recovery. Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, and Oklahoma. The problem is that the Kansas government is cutting back on services (middle class jobs) to balance out the whopping tax cut. Now almost all of that tax cut is going to the top 5% - who aren't spending it on local products and services. The business owners are investing it and farmers are buying flashy new farm equipment that isn't made in Kansas. So the net result is fewer services and a shrinking middle class. In addition, nobody wants to move to a location where services (good schools) are deteriorating. So yes, Republican economics are killing the state. The same thing is happening nationally, but it isn't so blatantly obvious.


Actually we just raised taxes on the top .5%. I agree that the cuts are not helping though.
 
2014-05-16 06:01:43 PM

jst3p: Saiga410: And here the ACA gets passed and we have the longest recession in 70 years.  You just cannot explain that.

It is sad that you make this argument. It is even more sad that almost half the nation thinks it is a valid point.


Not sure if he realizes that the healthcare act was passed after the end of the recession....
 
2014-05-16 06:03:19 PM

theknuckler_33: Conservatives are pure evil.


Naw. Not really.

They too often just believe their own bullsiat too much. They believe in unicorns; not us Democrats.
 
2014-05-16 06:05:07 PM

Noam Chimpsky: How cute. Democratics don't even know what economies are. "Err, the gubbermint get monies?"


No. I'm sorry but this just isn't acceptable trolling. You put zero effort into it. You quoted no misleading 'unskewed' data. Where's the attack on the POTUS? Where's the insinuation of Zion plotting? Don't you take any pride in puking garbage into a thread anymore?!

for shame Noam, for shame
 
2014-05-16 06:06:09 PM

Aquapope: Cletus C.:

I suppose you realize there is a thing called blah blah unrelated blah

Doesn't matter.  You tried to defend Brownbacks bad policies using only 1 economic measure between Kansas, a landlocked agricultural state with Illinois, a manufacturing port state.  Apples and monkeys, you can't compare them.


Can to. Especially since this entire argument is set up by comparing the rate of economic growth in Kansas to the entire farking United States.
 
2014-05-16 06:07:52 PM

Cletus C.: Aquapope: Cletus C.:

I suppose you realize there is a thing called blah blah unrelated blah

Doesn't matter.  You tried to defend Brownbacks bad policies using only 1 economic measure between Kansas, a landlocked agricultural state with Illinois, a manufacturing port state.  Apples and monkeys, you can't compare them.

Can to. Especially since this entire argument is set up by comparing the rate of economic growth in Kansas to the entire farking United States.


Haha you just got caught whiteknighting a total Teabag nutball like Brownback. How surprising that now you're trying to wriggle out of that one.
 
2014-05-16 06:11:04 PM

whidbey: Because there wasn't a President before Obama who nearly tanked the US economy under his watch.


There wasn't.  It's weird how often what whatever we might want or wish to believe, however wistfully, winds up without warrant.  Why would women and whoever else wage wasteful partisan war, when we can instead work for wholesome wellness?
 
2014-05-16 06:12:55 PM

Skleenar: whidbey: Because there wasn't a President before Obama who nearly tanked the US economy under his watch.

There wasn't.  It's weird how often what whatever we might want or wish to believe, however wistfully, winds up without warrant.  Why would women and whoever else wage wasteful partisan war, when we can instead work for wholesome wellness?


That wascally WABBIT.
 
2014-05-16 06:17:52 PM
What's wealthy in Kansas, anyway? Like $12 per hour?
 
2014-05-16 06:21:19 PM

Cletus C.: Aquapope: Cletus C.: Uzzah: Dimensio: Cletus C.: Hmm

Kansas has an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent.

Illinois has an unemployment rate of 7.9 percent.

Illinois had a massive income tax increase in 2011.

Cheery-picked stats can be fun.

How have unemployment rates in each state changed over time?

/I personally do not know.

Unemployment rates, 12-month net change (Apr. 2013-Apr. 2014):

Kansas: -0.7%
Illinois: -1.3%

That makes sense, considering Illinois has a larger percentage to work with.

Oooh, a math backpedal.  The rate of change of the rate of change for Illinois is decreasing less than that of Kansas.  Is that your feeble support for your  initialfeeble comparison of the economies of an agricultural state and a manufacturing state?

I suppose you realize there is a thing called "full employment," which is not actually a 0 percent unemployment rate. Economists and the CBO have put that number in the 3 percent to 4 percent range. The closer you get to that full employment rate the tougher it is to show greater percentages of improvement, wouldn't you think?


Actually, that's not true at all.  As you reach full employment, you end up with an exceedingly healthy economy, where people are able to buy and sell, and lose and get jobs easily, and you can easily get employment numbers below "full employment."  Because of the economic health, It is much easier to go from 4% to 3% than it is to go from 9% to 8%.  The problem is, getting below full employment will, according to most economic theory, results in inflation, as people are easily able to demand higher wages in their jobs, their higher wages and the increased demand allow producers to raise prices.  We call this point of balance between inflation and unemployment "full employment" and the fed works by raising interests rates when that point is reached.

OTOH, getting from 9% to 8% is a right biatch.  If your economy is at 9% unemployment, your economy is terribly sick, people can't find work, wages are suppressed, products can't be sold, deflation is a real possibility.  At 9%, you need massive government spending to get your economy going again, massive spending that mayors and most governors do not have the ability to create.  Without that spending, you can have years and years of crappy employment and there is not much you can do about it.

All things being equal, of course.
 
2014-05-16 06:24:53 PM

madgonad: All of the bordering states are in full recovery. Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, and Oklahoma. The problem is that the Kansas government is cutting back on services (middle class jobs) to balance out the whopping tax cut. Now almost all of that tax cut is going to the top 5% - who aren't spending it on local products and services. The business owners are investing it and farmers are buying flashy new farm equipment that isn't made in Kansas. So the net result is fewer services and a shrinking middle class. In addition, nobody wants to move to a location where services (good schools) are deteriorating. So yes, Republican economics are killing the state. The same thing is happening nationally, but it isn't so blatantly obvious.


Clearly the answer is more tax cuts.
 
2014-05-16 06:27:55 PM

RyogaM: Actually, that's not true at all. As you reach full employment, you end up with an exceedingly healthy economy, where people are able to buy and sell, and lose and get jobs easily, and you can easily get employment numbers below "full employment." Because of the economic health, It is much easier to go from 4% to 3% than it is to go from 9% to 8%. The problem is, getting below full employment will, according to most economic theory, results in inflation, as people are easily able to demand higher wages in their jobs, their higher wages and the increased demand allow producers to raise prices. We call this point of balance between inflation and unemployment "full employment" and the fed works by raising interests rates when that point is reached.

OTOH, getting from 9% to 8% is a right biatch. If your economy is at 9% unemployment, your economy is terribly sick, people can't find work, wages are suppressed, products can't be sold, deflation is a real possibility. At 9%, you need massive government spending to get your economy going again, massive spending that mayors and most governors do not have the ability to create. Without that spending, you can have years and years of crappy employment and there is not much you can do about it.

All things being equal, of course.


Har. I have no idea if what you said is true but it sounded good so maybe it is.
 
2014-05-16 06:33:19 PM

Cletus C.: RyogaM: Actually, that's not true at all. As you reach full employment, you end up with an exceedingly healthy economy, where people are able to buy and sell, and lose and get jobs easily, and you can easily get employment numbers below "full employment." Because of the economic health, It is much easier to go from 4% to 3% than it is to go from 9% to 8%. The problem is, getting below full employment will, according to most economic theory, results in inflation, as people are easily able to demand higher wages in their jobs, their higher wages and the increased demand allow producers to raise prices. We call this point of balance between inflation and unemployment "full employment" and the fed works by raising interests rates when that point is reached.

OTOH, getting from 9% to 8% is a right biatch. If your economy is at 9% unemployment, your economy is terribly sick, people can't find work, wages are suppressed, products can't be sold, deflation is a real possibility. At 9%, you need massive government spending to get your economy going again, massive spending that mayors and most governors do not have the ability to create. Without that spending, you can have years and years of crappy employment and there is not much you can do about it.

All things being equal, of course.

Har. I have no idea if what you said is true but it sounded good so maybe it is.


Except for that pesky fact that "full employment" doesn't mean shiat if everyone is digging ditches or working fast food. We already discussed that here.
 
2014-05-16 06:53:30 PM

whidbey: bobothemagnificent: Since it's ThinkProgress, I'm wondering where the other half of the story is.  Because there's no bias like blatant liberal bias.  And ThinkProgress.org is pretty much nothing but pure propaganda.  It would make Goebbels proud.  You'll forgive me if I take the entire story with a rather large grain of salt.

Dude, you don't even think climate change is real. I can't imagine what it would take for you to realize that tax cuts to the rich is doing it wrong.


Incorrect.  The climate is always changing.  I don't believe that man made CO2 emissions are responsible for affecting the rate of climate change.  I will repeat my statement about what is it they aren't reporting because thinkprogress only does what is best for progressivism and liberalism.
 
2014-05-16 06:53:56 PM

tinyarena: Noam Chimpsky: How cute. Democratics don't even know what economies are. "Err, the gubbermint get monies?"

No. I'm sorry but this just isn't acceptable trolling. You put zero effort into it. You quoted no misleading 'unskewed' data. Where's the attack on the POTUS? Where's the insinuation of Zion plotting? Don't you take any pride in puking garbage into a thread anymore?!

for shame Noam, for shame


He's been phoning it in for a while. sad, really, as the quality was much better in the past.
 
2014-05-16 06:54:39 PM

Tony Snark: bobothemagnificent: Because there's no bias like blatant liberal bias.

[blogs.suntimes.com image 614x533]


Nobody said propaganda wasn't a two street.
 
2014-05-16 06:55:34 PM

whidbey: Cletus C.: RyogaM: Actually, that's not true at all. As you reach full employment, you end up with an exceedingly healthy economy, where people are able to buy and sell, and lose and get jobs easily, and you can easily get employment numbers below "full employment." Because of the economic health, It is much easier to go from 4% to 3% than it is to go from 9% to 8%. The problem is, getting below full employment will, according to most economic theory, results in inflation, as people are easily able to demand higher wages in their jobs, their higher wages and the increased demand allow producers to raise prices. We call this point of balance between inflation and unemployment "full employment" and the fed works by raising interests rates when that point is reached.

OTOH, getting from 9% to 8% is a right biatch. If your economy is at 9% unemployment, your economy is terribly sick, people can't find work, wages are suppressed, products can't be sold, deflation is a real possibility. At 9%, you need massive government spending to get your economy going again, massive spending that mayors and most governors do not have the ability to create. Without that spending, you can have years and years of crappy employment and there is not much you can do about it.

All things being equal, of course.

Har. I have no idea if what you said is true but it sounded good so maybe it is.

Except for that pesky fact that "full employment" doesn't mean shiat if everyone is digging ditches or working fast food. We already discussed that here.


If you're digging ditches you're almost certainly running a backhoe. If you're running a backhoe digging ditches there's a good chance you're working for a government agency or in a union. Even if you're not, chances are you're making decent money.

You may want a more recent employment degradement that one from the 1940s.
 
2014-05-16 06:55:39 PM
Haha, no.  That's simply not possible.  Kansas is an extremely red state.  The Republicans that control Kansas would never allow it to fail financially.  The article must have been written about the liberal wasteland of California, and someone pulled a fast one and changed it to Kansas.  That's the only explanation.

Everyone knows the GoP has the best plan for helping states reach economic goals.  You cut taxes for the wealthy, cut spending on entitlements, and ask schools to tighten their belts.  It's so simple.

If every state in the Union followed these guidelines the US would be an economic powerhouse by 2020.  I guarantee.
 
2014-05-16 06:58:36 PM

bobothemagnificent: whidbey: bobothemagnificent: Since it's ThinkProgress, I'm wondering where the other half of the story is.  Because there's no bias like blatant liberal bias.  And ThinkProgress.org is pretty much nothing but pure propaganda.  It would make Goebbels proud.  You'll forgive me if I take the entire story with a rather large grain of salt.

Dude, you don't even think climate change is real. I can't imagine what it would take for you to realize that tax cuts to the rich is doing it wrong.

Incorrect.  The climate is always changing.  I don't believe that man made CO2 emissions are responsible for affecting the rate of climate change.  I will repeat my statement about what is it they aren't reporting because thinkprogress only does what is best for progressivism and liberalism.


Totally correct.  Scientists spending years studying this are simply wrong.  They just want to prove a problem exists so they can keep pulling grant money.  There is no problem with the climate.  Man could never damage the environment no matter how hard we tried.  Full speed ahead, I say.
 
2014-05-16 06:59:25 PM

bobothemagnificent: don't believe that man made CO2 emissions are responsible for affecting the rate of climate change.


Why have you come to this conclusion. What evidence leads you to believe that our CO2 emissions have no responsibility for the rate of climate change?

Do you believe this because you don't like a solution offered in the form of carbon taxes, that is, do you disbelieve it because you don't like a potential solution?

Do you believe this way because god gave Noah a rainbow an declared all the half-ass attempts at making humans extinct were over?

Do you believe this because of well-researched independently reviewed scientific evidence clearly shows through repeatable experiments that this is just the way it is?

Do you believe this because fark you libs?
 
2014-05-16 07:04:11 PM
They obviously didn't cut far enough.
 
2014-05-16 07:04:22 PM

UncomfortableSilence: whidbey: Holfax: Cletus C.: Hmm

Kansas has an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent.

Illinois has an unemployment rate of 7.9 percent.

Illinois had a massive income tax increase in 2011.

Cheery-picked stats can be fun.

Not only that, but unemployment in Kansas has been dropping.  Down from 5.5 last year.
Of course, the school systems are degrading and the poverty rate is increasing, so Kansas is effectively becoming a state of fully-employed ditch-diggers and fast-food fry cooks. If that is your goal, good for you!

Let them eat Hardees.

Jesus, are you some sort of fancy pants rich guy.  The dollar menu at McDonalds will do just fine.


Wendy's $1.30 burger is 100% better!
 
2014-05-16 07:11:47 PM

Dog Welder: This is clearly Obama's fault.


NPR interviewed Kansas GOP legislators about this a few nights ago; that's exactly what they said.
 
2014-05-16 07:24:58 PM

dr_blasto: bobothemagnificent: don't believe that man made CO2 emissions are responsible for affecting the rate of climate change.

Why have you come to this conclusion. What evidence leads you to believe that our CO2 emissions have no responsibility for the rate of climate change?

Do you believe this because you don't like a solution offered in the form of carbon taxes, that is, do you disbelieve it because you don't like a potential solution?

Do you believe this way because god gave Noah a rainbow an declared all the half-ass attempts at making humans extinct were over?

Do you believe this because of well-researched independently reviewed scientific evidence clearly shows through repeatable experiments that this is just the way it is?

Do you believe this because fark you libs?


He either won't answer, will answer with cherry-picked data, or default to E.
 
2014-05-16 07:25:15 PM

t3knomanser: Mantour: In fact, higher income tax may not be the answer, as capital gains are not taxed like income.

Which we could solve by making capital gains taxes progressive. You could ignore the first $10,000 of gains, then start taxing it at a rate that starts much lower than the income tax, but increases according to a steep curve- by the time you're getting $1M in capital gains, you're in a >90% tax bracket on those gains.


The GOP shut down the US government and nearly sent the entire world economy into a tailspin because of Obamacare. Can you imagine the reaction if this idea got any kind of serious traction?
 
2014-05-16 07:30:47 PM
They didn't reduce taxes enough for it to work.  The problem is government regulations and the Lavendar Mafia, and they need to cut taxes some more.
 
2014-05-16 07:32:34 PM

mofa: They didn't reduce taxes enough for it to work.  The problem is government regulations and the Lavendar Mafia, and they need to cut taxes some more.


Funny'd.
 
2014-05-16 07:44:27 PM

edmo: If you want a tax cut to be a stimulus you have to give it to someone who will spend it. That would be common folks buying cars, new fishing rods, and TVs, not rich people who plow it all into yet another investment fund, stimulating only Wall Street.


You know it. I know it. The only people who don't get it are republicans, and that's because they don't WANT to learn that lesson.
 
Displayed 50 of 228 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report