Support NeoGAF

[shadowsdarknes]

Seriously?

And really, how does this benefit anyone?
Corporations will pay less taxes. Kansas may benefit, but the rest of the country hurts.
It's just more of a race to the bottom.

Taking business away from one state to move it to another with less standards and less taxes only seeks to further weaken the public sector. If a company moves its headquarters from one state to another, the country does not benefit. It only puts more money into shareholders pockets.

Hurray?

 

[speculawyer]

Prepare to have your mind blown.

So it works in theory but not in practice.


LOL.

 

[BlueSteel]

Oh woops, so I guess the post was joke... I am too dense to detect that.

 

[Chichikov]

Prepare to have your mind blown.

Not sure if you're serious, but aggregate demand isn't equivalent to gdp

Edit :Er woops, supply I mean. Commerce the floggings

I don't want to drive clicks to that shitstain of a blog, but it seems serious.

 

[Mike M]

I love when people use economic graphs without mentioning "All Other Things Being Equal" cause that is never the case, ever. And it's required for the graph to work.

Not sure if you're serious, but aggregate demand isn't equivalent to gdp

Edit :Er woops, supply I mean. Commerce the floggings

So it works in theory but not in practice.



LOL.

Clearly, you guys just aren't operating on the same level as this analysis.

Oh god damn, well fucking played.

I don't want to drive clicks to that shitstain of a blog, but it seems serious.

Iron Knuckle is the conceptual exemplar of a caricature of right wing loons, he is dead serious.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

I'm sure the tumbleweed economy will be booming by then.

 

[entremet]

The problem with most economic analysis is that is seems to be done in a bubble.

It doesn't take into effect that Kansas is just one state and businesses and residents will start leaving if this continues, killing more tax revenue.

Their so many other things that come into play that these policy wonks totally miss. It's a huge disconnect from reality.

 

[Suikoguy]

The problem with most economic analysis is that is seems to be done in a bubble.

It doesn't take into effect that Kansas is just one state and businesses and residents will start leaving if this continues, killing more tax revenue.

Their so many other things that come into play that these policy wonks totally miss. It's a huge disconnect from reality.

Yes, the concepts work in a vacuum, the more factors influencing the less reliable the models become.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Y'know, there is that other side of the Laffer curve, right? The side where increasing taxes is "better". I wonder if Mr.Laffer has ever given any thought to the possibility.

 

[ShutEye]

It's really amazing to me that America has one of its two political parties essentially operate as a very large pile of snake oil salesmen.

 

[jwhit28]

It's really amazing to me that America has one of its two political parties essentially operate as a very large pile of snake oil salesmen.

Its somewhat deserved. Even with this knowledge I believe the state legislature is still majority Republican. They are trying to close the gap this year by reducing state pensions and taking money from the state highway fund and its health and environment fund. This still might not cover it though because a court just determined the schools are under funded. Then the expected defecit is supposed to be double next year anyway.

 

[Chichikov]

Yes, the concepts work in a vacuum, the more factors influencing the less reliable the models become.

That crap doesn't ever really works in a vacuum.
I mean yeah, lower taxation means more purchasing power and higher aggregate demand, but the numbers don't add up.
Let's do a very quick and inaccurate back of the napkin calculation -
Kansas has an average effective income rate of about 3.5% and sales tax of 6%, even if every single one of those newly "created" economic growth dollar is doubly taxed, we're still talking about under 10c on the dollar, that mean in order to be revenue neutral (let alone increase revenue) every dollar cut in taxes needs to generate more than 10 dollars of growth.
There's no model or mechanism that can explain how that shit happens, outside poaching from other states, but that's a zero sum race to the bottom.

 

[speculawyer]

Yes, the concepts work in a vacuum, the more factors influencing the less reliable the models become.

Or the concept works when you are cutting from 70% taxes to 40% taxes.

But it doesn't keep working when you cut from 36% taxes to 28% taxes. Ask Reagan.

It was a one time thing . . . as the meme goes, clearly the "Zero taxes, Infinite Revenue" thing doesn't work.

 

[Oblivion]

Corporations will pay less taxes. Kansas may benefit, but the rest of the country hurts.

That's the best part. Even Kansas won't actually be benefiting from these policies. The revenue stream has been killed (and is only going to get worse) and while Laffer and his buddies have moved the goal posts to focus on job creation, there hasn't really been any significant upward change. In fact, I believe November (or December) showed that Kansas actually LOST around 9,000 jobs. How do you lose jobs with a job creating tax cut??

Or the concept works when you are cutting from 70% taxes to 40% taxes.

But it doesn't keep working when you cut from 36% taxes to 28% taxes. Ask Reagan.

It was a one time thing . . . as the meme goes, clearly the "Zero taxes, Infinite Revenue" thing doesn't work.

Wasn't even the boom during the Reagan years not caused by the tax cuts but by the fed? Carter actually had higher growth before the recession than Reagan did at any year in his presidency. Overall, job totals were:

Carter - 10 million (one term)
Reagan - 16 million (two terms)

 

[jwhit28]

That's the best part. Even Kansas won't actually be benefiting from these policies. The revenue stream has been killed (and is only going to get worse) and while Laffer and his buddies have moved the goal posts to focus on job creation, there hasn't really been any significant upward change. In fact, I believe November (or December) showed that Kansas actually LOST around 9,000 jobs. How do you lose jobs with a job creating tax cut??

Aren't the cuts for supposedly "small businesses"? Maybe businesses are trying to squeeze into those requirements.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Well I don't think he's wrong about how long it will take to see the effect. I think 10 years is being generous to be honest.

You have your head shoved completely up your ass if you think that all of a sudden factories, warehouses, and companies that are hiring are going to pop up in 2 years if they decide to move from where they are presently located. Just the logistics of moving equipment let alone dealing with the human element is mind boggling.

And that's for 1 company. All of a sudden you expected more to automatically set up shop? Are you insane?

 

[sharbhund]

That's the best part. Even Kansas won't actually be benefiting from these policies. The revenue stream has been killed (and is only going to get worse) and while Laffer and his buddies have moved the goal posts to focus on job creation, there hasn't really been any significant upward change. In fact, I believe November (or December) showed that Kansas actually LOST around 9,000 jobs. How do you lose jobs with a job creating tax cut??



Wasn't even the boom during the Reagan years not caused by the tax cuts but by the fed? Carter actually had higher growth before the recession than Reagan did at any year in his presidency. Overall, job totals were:

Carter - 10 million (one term)
Reagan - 16 million (two terms)

It may seem like the economy does better under Democratic leadership than under Republicans, but that's only because you're not using the 10-year model, like a serious economist. If you look at the big picture, the growth under Carter was due to Nixon's policies, the boom during the Clinton years was from Reagan/Bush, the recession during G.W. Bush was caused by Clinton, and the growth over the Obama years was because of G.W. Bush policies.

When the 10-year model is applied to Kansas, the current deficit is entirely the fault of Kathleen Sebelius.

 

[speculawyer]

It may seem like the economy does better under Democratic leadership than under Republicans, but that's only because you're not using the 10-year model, like a serious economist. If you look at the big picture, the growth under Carter was due to Nixon's policies, the boom during the Clinton years was from Reagan/Bush, the recession during G.W. Bush was caused by Clinton, and the growth over the Obama years was because of G.W. Bush policies.

When the 10-year model is applied to Kansas, the current deficit is entirely the fault of Kathleen Sebelius.

There are people that will take this as Gospel.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Maybe americans need to lower their standard of living.

 

[wolfhowwl]

If you reduce income taxes, you will raise more revenue, not less.

I thought the idea of the Laffer Curve was that there was an optimal point that maximizes tax revenue. Both tax increases or further tax cuts would result in decreased revenue.

 

[Zophar]

He's right though, supply-side economics *do* work after ten years, once people get sick of seeing no result and return to Keynesian models.

 

[RiccochetJ]

There are people that will take this as Gospel.

I'm seeing you as one of those people that thinks a policy change should bring immediate results that are perceptive within weeks let alone years.

 

[Piecake]

Well I don't think he's wrong about how long it will take to see the effect. I think 10 years is being generous to be honest.

You have your head shoved completely up your ass if you think that all of a sudden factories, warehouses, and companies that are hiring are going to pop up in 2 years if they decide to move from where they are presently located. Just the logistics of moving equipment let alone dealing with the human element is mind boggling.

And that's for 1 company. All of a sudden you expected more to automatically set up shop? Are you insane?

Why would businesses move to a state that gutted itself of talent, infrastructure and services in order to not run massive deficits for those 10 years while they are trying to attract business? Even if businesses do, do you think they won't be anything but minimum wage jobs?

 

[Lumicide]

One of the stupidest theories out there. What the fuck is wrong with Republicans? Cutting taxes CANNOT create infinite revenue.

Homeopathic Taxation.

 

[jwhit28]

I'm seeing you as one of those people that thinks a policy change should bring immediate results that are perceptive within weeks let alone years.

So what was the plan in the mean time? Wing it?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Clearly, you guys just aren't operating on the same level as this analysis.



Oh god damn, well fucking played.


Iron Knuckle is the conceptual exemplar of a caricature of right wing loons, he is dead serious.

So, wait. What's the issue? It seems to me like we just need to increase our orange arrow supply so we can keep pushing that vertical line to the right. What's happened to our orange arrow manufacturing base, anyhow?

 

[Asbel]

“It may be a problem in the short term,” he said. But he said the governor and Legislature “did the right thing” by cutting income taxes.

So he does not currently see Kansas as a problem. Ha ha.

 

[Gr1mLock]

What do you even say about this line of thinking anymore?

 

[RiccochetJ]

Why would businesses move to a state that gutted itself of talent, infrastructure and services in order to not run massive deficits for those 10 years while they are trying to attract business? Even if businesses do, do you think they won't be anything but minimum wage jobs?

It's based off of a cost analysis on whether it will, in the long term pay off for the company. There's also the analysis about, population, labor force, educational attainment, cost of living, median household wage, right to work, criminal activity, taxes, etc. that you need to consider. There's also what educational institutions that are in close proximity where you plan to set up shop and what they charge for tuition. Then comes whether you want to pay to ship experienced people out to your new location to help with your transition.

So what was the plan in the mean time? Wing it?

Well see, you just showed your short term thinking. It's like you think that these companies just decide to close up and move on a whim. A move like this requires months if not years in the making. Policy changes take time as these behemoth companies decide what to do with the new regulations. They also are gambling on whether or not these things will stay in place with the next group of elected officials.

 

[jwhit28]

It's based off of a cost analysis on whether it will, in the long term pay off for the company. There's also the analysis about, population, labor force, educational attainment, cost of living, median household wage, right to work, criminal activity, taxes, etc. that you need to consider. There's also what educational institutions that are in close proximity where you plan to set up shop and what they charge for tuition. Then comes whether you want to pay to ship experienced people out to your new location to help with your transition.


Well see, you just showed your short term thinking. It's like you think that these companies just decide to close up and move on a whim. A move like this requires months if not years in the making. Policy changes take time as these behemoth companies decide what to do with the new regulations. They also are gambling on whether or not these things will stay in place with the next group of elected officials.

So why not slowly reduce the tax over those 10 years? It's illegal to run Kansas at a deficit. Was making the deficit up with state pension, road, health, and school funds a part of the plan from the beginning?

 

[Acorn]

Laffer fuck off and retire to counting your money. You already won by pushing policies that make inequality much higher than it should be here and USA.
Charlatan cunt.

 

[Oblivion]

Well see, you just showed your short term thinking. It's like you think that these companies just decide to close up and move on a whim. A move like this requires months if not years in the making. Policy changes take time as these behemoth companies decide what to do with the new regulations. They also are gambling on whether or not these things will stay in place with the next group of elected officials.

For the sake of argument, assuming this is true, is there a reason Republicans never actually bother mentioning these caveats whenever they sell their trickle-down policies?

 

[Link]

So why not slowly reduce the tax over those 10 years? It's illegal to run Kansas at a deficit. Was making the deficit up with state pension, road, health, and school funds a part of the plan from the beginning?

Knowing Republicans? Yes it was. They get to cut taxes and slash funding for all sorts of government programs. It's a win-win for them. (And a loss for everyone else in the state, but they'll stupidly keep voting for Republicans anyway.)

 

[Piecake]

It's based off of a cost analysis on whether it will, in the long term pay off for the company. There's also the analysis about, population, labor force, educational attainment, cost of living, median household wage, right to work, criminal activity, taxes, etc. that you need to consider. There's also what educational institutions that are in close proximity where you plan to set up shop and what they charge for tuition. Then comes whether you want to pay to ship experienced people out to your new location to help with your transition.


Well see, you just showed your short term thinking. It's like you think that these companies just decide to close up and move on a whim. A move like this requires months if not years in the making. Policy changes take time as these behemoth companies decide what to do with the new regulations. They also are gambling on whether or not these things will stay in place with the next group of elected officials.

And do you think a state that had to gut its services, infrastructure and experienced a brain drain while companies are deciding whether or not to move is a good destination for a company? Plus, with all of the services that they need to cut, I would imagine that it would create a very uneducated, poor, and high crime rate population with very little job opportunity unless some big companies swoop in and save them because I doubt that they will have the demand to spur their own job creation.

Give it time? We don't need to give it time because that is exactly where it will lead because Kansas cannot run a deficit. If they continue down this path for 10 years in the hopes of attracting businesses, they will have to gut services. I can't imagine that is an attractive place for any non-mimimum wage business or any high-demand employee.

This doesnt even mention the fact that if we are determining whether or not an economic job policy is good or not, I think the first thing we should look for is if it is designed to create jobs, not simply steal jobs from other states.

 

[Strike]

He actually believes this shit, doesn't he? That's some serious delusion. He can move the goal post as far as he wants. Nothing is going to change.

 

[Josh7289]

Ideology doesn't matter. Being philosophically opposed to government spending doesn't make it any less necessary. The key is to find the right balance, but clearly Kansas is currently far removed from that ideal balance as a result of these tax and budget cuts. If these politicians are worth their salt, they'll do the right thing and actually govern from a practical standpoint. Abandon their ideologies and do what works.

 

[RiccochetJ]

So why not slowly reduce the tax over those 10 years? It's illegal to run Kansas at a deficit. Was making the deficit up with state pension, road, health, and school funds a part of the plan from the beginning?

It's a gamble. You hope that you'll get re-elected for a second term and can start to see your big plan come to fruition. If you're already on your second term, then you try to educate those that may follow you make sure that they follow your policies. If it doesn't, then the series starts all over. Maybe the Democrats will stay in power long enough to see their ideas come to fruition.

For the sake of argument, assuming this is true, is there a reason Republicans never actually bother mentioning these caveats whenever they sell their trickle-down policies?

Because you're expecting to see change after weeks or months. On this massive scale, you have to think in possibly decades where for what you're voting for will not affect you, but the people who are following in your footsteps. I'm not adverse to a Democrat getting into power for an extended period of time. The thing I find annoying is that apparently we like to switch it up every 2 years. The reason I find it annoying is that I want people to see it out.

And do you think a state that had to gut its services, infrastructure and experienced a brain drain while companies are deciding whether or not to move is a good destination for a company? Plus, with all of the services that they need to cut, I would imagine that it would create a very uneducated, poor, and high crime rate population with very little job opportunity unless some big companies swoop in and save them because I doubt that they will have the demand to spur their own job creation.

Give it time? We don't need to give it time because that is exactly where it will lead because Kansas cannot run a deficit. If they continue down this path for 10 years in the hopes of attracting businesses, they will have to gut services. I can't imagine that is an attractive place for any non-mimimum wage business or any high-demand employee.

This doesn't even mention the fact that if we are determining whether or not an economic job policy is good or not, I think the first thing we should look for is if it is designed to create jobs, not simply steal jobs from other states.

So this is the Detroit argument? Is this the Blackberry argument? You should work here because? You should create apps for us because?

What a shit argument.

Before everyone jumps all over me, I do think that there should be a safety net. Education, Healthcare, Housing, Internet, etc. We're advanced enough that we can fulfill those needs.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

Prepare to have your mind blown.

I spent like a minute trying to work out why I wasn't understanding his point, then I realised that my actual mistake was taking the author's claims of knowing how graphs work at face value.

Then I LOL'd.

 

[Piecake]

It's a gamble. You hope that you'll get re-elected for a second term and can start to see your big plan come to fruition. If you're already on your second term, then you try to educate those that may follow you make sure that they follow your policies. If it doesn't, then the series starts all over. Maybe the Democrats will stay in power long enough to see their ideas come to fruition.



Because you're expecting to see change after weeks or months. On this massive scale, you have to think in possibly decades where for what you're voting for will not affect you, but the people who are following in your footsteps. I'm not adverse to a Democrat getting into power for an extended period of time. The thing I find annoying is that apparently we like to switch it up every 2 years. The reason I find it annoying is that I want people to see it out.



So this is the Detroit argument? Is this the Blackberry argument? You should work here because? You should create apps for us because?

What a shit argument.

Before everyone jumps all over me, I do think that there should be a safety net. Education, Healthcare, Housing, Internet, etc. We're advanced enough that we can fulfill those needs.

Its a shit argument because I care more about the economic welfare of the United States and its citizens than a company's ability to squeeze as much corporate welfare out of the American tax payer?

I never claimed that a company cannot move. They are can do so if they want. However, states that sacrifice essential services and give tax breaks and perks to companies in order to entice companies to move to their state is simply a race to the bottom that will hurt everyone, even the companies in the long-term.

Your argument is the short-sighted one because you are placing corporate profits over the long-term economic heath of the nation.

And Kansas sure won't have those things if they actually continue with this plan for 10 years.

 

[speculawyer]

He actually believes this shit, doesn't he? That's some serious delusion. He can move the goal post as far as he wants. Nothing is going to change.

Believe is the right word. It is not 'know', it is believe. It is faith based economics. No models, no plans ... just pray to Saint Reagan and he will provide.

 

[reckless]

It's a gamble. You hope that you'll get re-elected for a second term and can start to see your big plan come to fruition. If you're already on your second term, then you try to educate those that may follow you make sure that they follow your policies. If it doesn't, then the series starts all over. Maybe the Democrats will stay in power long enough to see their ideas come to fruition.



Because you're expecting to see change after weeks or months. On this massive scale, you have to think in possibly decades where for what you're voting for will not affect you, but the people who are following in your footsteps. I'm not adverse to a Democrat getting into power for an extended period of time. The thing I find annoying is that apparently we like to switch it up every 2 years. The reason I find it annoying is that I want people to see it out.

So this is the Detroit argument? Is this the Blackberry argument? You should work here because? You should create apps for us because?
What a shit argument.

Before everyone jumps all over me, I do think that there should be a safety net. Education, Healthcare, Housing, Internet, etc. We're advanced enough that we can fulfill those needs.

It isn't a gamble, they aren't waiting for some big plan that helps everyone to come to fruition. Their only plan is to cut taxes to make themselves more money, and lie to the public so that they get support in doing it. That is their only goal and it works great because people listen to them even though what they are saying makes absolutely no sense and actively hurts most of the country...

I guess it also helps with the whole "starving the beast" plan too, which fucks over everyone that isn't rich.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Its a shit argument because I care more about the economic welfare of the United States and its citizens than a company's ability to squeeze as much corporate welfare out of the American tax payer?

Well now you're being dramatic. I'm insulted that you think that I don't care about people. I assessed this based on what you wrote below:

I never claimed that a company cannot move. They are can do so if they want. However, states that sacrifice essential services and give tax breaks and perks to companies in order to entice companies to move to their state is simply a race to the bottom that will hurt everyone, even the companies in the long-term.

A race to the bottom? Please. Maybe it's anecdotal, but my class started out with 500 in our frosh class and our graduation class was around 15.

I've never ever EVER said that people should go without the necessities that I expect that people in our country should be without. If you're going to compare me to those mouth breathers on fox news, I'm going to quite frankly be insulted. Fuckers.[/quote]

And Kansas sure won't have those things if they actually continue with this plan for 10 years.

Short term. I don't expect to see results for a while. Do you? Why?

It isn't a gamble, they aren't waiting for some big plan that helps everyone to come to fruition. Their only plan is to cut taxes to make themselves more money, and lie to the public so that they get support in doing it. That is their only goal and it works great because people listen to them even though what they are saying makes absolutely no sense and actively hurts most of the country...

I guess it also helps with the whole "starving the beast" plan too, which fucks over everyone that isn't rich.

I'm convinced you're anti vac from that tirade. Holy hell.

 

[East Lake]

Asking for decades of development time doesn't seem terribly reasonable when the guy can't manage a short term budget properly.

 

[nacimento]

Should be a napkin, not a paper.

 

[Inflammable Slinky]

Holy shit his economic plan is literally

Step 1: Cut taxes
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: Profit!

 

[RiccochetJ]

Asking for decades of development time doesn't seem terribly reasonable when the guy can't manage a short term budget properly.

Attack if you want, but it's the simple truth. Keep on with your, "But this is affecting me now!:" bullshit.

So short sighted.

 

[FiggyCal]

Well now you're being dramatic. I'm insulted that you think that I don't care about people. I assessed this based on what you wrote below:


A race to the bottom? Please. Maybe it's anecdotal, but my class started out with 500 in our frosh class and our graduation class was around 15.

I've never ever EVER said that people should go without the necessities that I expect that people in our country should be without. If you're going to compare me to those mouth breathers on fox news, I'm going to quite frankly be insulted. Fuckers.

I'm not entirely convinced that the citizens of Kansas very much care to be on the road to be living in a fiscal conservative utopia. What's more likely to happen is that they vote in someone that opposes these ideas once Brownback's term is up -- that is if his own party doesn't turn on him first or if he himself chooses not to raise taxes.

He also apparently plans on raising taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. I'm sure that's gonna go over well.

 

[Oblivion]

Because you're expecting to see change after weeks or months. On this massive scale, you have to think in possibly decades where for what you're voting for will not affect you, but the people who are following in your footsteps. I'm not adverse to a Democrat getting into power for an extended period of time. The thing I find annoying is that apparently we like to switch it up every 2 years. The reason I find it annoying is that I want people to see it out.

Not really. I'm willing to give out a reasonable amount of time (imo), say a year or two? Brownback enacted his tax cuts in what, 2010? Might have been 2012. Going with that, we've had at minimum, two years to see how this would pan out and it's been pretty disastrous.

Now you say that we need more time for businesses to move to Kansas to take advantage of all the newly enacted FREEDOM. Fine. But there's still two major problems.

1. The companies that are IN Kansas currently and have been there since the tax cuts have been enacted, well they clearly haven't expanded their business, which we were told would help make up for the revenue losses from the tax cuts.
2. Suppose you're right and that after year 10, Kansas starts collecting revenue from the new businesses that finally give the treasury a surplus. During that ten year period, Kansas most likely would have ran a deficit for pretty much every single year absent any new tax hikes, and the state's government programs would have to take a massive hit. What I'm trying to say is that even if Kansas somehow becomes an economic powerhouse in year 10, they will probably never make up for all that lost revenue and the destruction of those government programs.

Does all that seem worth the cost to you?

I'm convinced you're anti vac from that tirade. Holy hell.

This makes it sound like you believe tax cuts are a legitimate good faith effort by the GOP to help all economic classes. Do you truly believe that?

 

[OminoMichelin]

Attack if you want, but it's the simple truth. Keep on with your, "But this is affecting me now!:" bullshit.

So short sighted.

Wait you're actually being serious? I thought it was an elaborated troll.

 

[FyreWulff]

I like how one of the supposed main benefits of supply side is that businesses will move to you.

So you didn't actually create jobs at best, you just moved them from one state to another, and the US as a whole didn't get any new jobs.