https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-24/kansas-ends-bad-economic-news-by-not-reporting-it
I am sure if they just keep the faith that it will all work out in another 10 years
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Kansas Ends Bad Economic News by Not Reporting It (Bloomberg)
- Thread starter Piecake
- Start date
- Status
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-24/kansas-ends-bad-economic-news-by-not-reporting-it
I am sure if they just keep the faith that it will all work out in another 10 years
eBay Huckster
Member
more on this from resident brownback fan darkace on november 31st
Abstrusity
Member
It might only work when there's more businesses than people without businesses.
It was a thought I was kicking around in my head last night in lieu of following my nightly regimen. The businesses don't actually pay enough in taxes to hire people and the ones with positive feedback from putting it on investments need more than they'd pay in taxes anyway for any meaningful gain.
It was a thought I was kicking around in my head last night in lieu of following my nightly regimen. The businesses don't actually pay enough in taxes to hire people and the ones with positive feedback from putting it on investments need more than they'd pay in taxes anyway for any meaningful gain.
It was just too confusing. I mean, they just couldn't understand why it was so bad when in their theory it was supposed to be great. Clearly, something is wrong with the data instead of their theory.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Is he/she a Brownback fan? That would put some of his posts in the CETA thread into some perspective
is this the dude from Australia that's never been to Kansas but adores what Brownback is doing regardless?
He is convinced that in 60 or so years the policy will yield good results.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Welp, now I really regret spending so much time trying to engage him in the CETA thread
He's the type of dude who has to deduce everything into raw economic numbers generated through a cost benefit analysis.
Which is why he'd support Kansas' economic policy because it's looks alright so long as you ignore the gutting of literally every public service from roads to Medicaid to education to emergency services.
He's literally the guy who argued that the strict detention regime we have in Australia is a necessity because basically torturing a few dozens is better than letting people die. It's just an amazingly misanthropic stance to claim the "ends justify the means" when we're trying to justify mental, physical and sexual torture.
Which is why he'd support Kansas' economic policy because it's looks alright so long as you ignore the gutting of literally every public service from roads to Medicaid to education to emergency services.
He's literally the guy who argued that the strict detention regime we have in Australia is a necessity because basically torturing a few dozens is better than letting people die. It's just an amazingly misanthropic stance to claim the "ends justify the means" when we're trying to justify mental, physical and sexual torture.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
It's either a case that he can delay a quarterly report, or there is no enforcement mechanism if he does not release it.
In all likelihood, the report is done. I wonder how many people have access to it? If it's more than a couple someone should leak it.
It will be interesting to see what sort of republican Kansas puts forward and whether or not the people elect him.
If a democrat gets elected, I wonder how long it takes for Republicans to start blaming the democrat for the economic disaster that Brownback caused.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Needs more time people gawd. Any day now it'll work trust me
Also the one that goes around claiming he's actually a leftist while defending every conservative talking point and spewing racist ones lol
So I can watch a bunch of people attempt to discuss things they don't understand? I've repeatedly said that Kansas wouldn't see any large-scale positive measurable effects from its policies, and that the short-term would be painful because it's not possible for governments to defeat the business cycle with fiscal policy. I was just surprised to see that Kansas hadn't literally been nuked given the rhetoric.
Brownback's policies aren't good, and I've repeatedly said that. The sole reform I support him in is moving to taxing consumption rather than income, which is good policy when properly offset with spending cuts. This is dumb.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Why is taxing consumption better than taxing income? Poor people spend a greater proportion of their income than wealthy people, wouldn't that disproportionately place a tax burden on the poor?
laughing so hard
Because it's inefficient and taxing income discourages working along all income levels. A major problem with the US tax system is that it's overly progressive and therefore inefficient, as progressive tax systems are broadly inefficient.
If you want to redistribute it needs to be through transfers from efficient taxation, not through hurting those who work.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Wasn't there a gaffer vehemently defending Brownback despite not even living anywhere close to kansas?
Nvm beaten to it.
Nvm beaten to it.
Eh, consumption tax is not that unpopular even among the most liberal of economists, but with the massive caveat that it is applied progressively so that the rich would have to pay more.
Though obviously, this is not what Brownback is going for
Silver Arrows
Banned
Posted right above you.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
If an income tax discourages earning, doesn't a consumption tax discourage spending? How is that good for economic health?
my name is ed
Banned
Yes, it does. If you tax something you get less of it, it's the logic behind a carbon tax. The general idea in modern tax systems is to tax things you don't want or are less damaging to tax. Taxing carbon>smoking>land>consumption>income>companies.
If I show you evidence of this will you retract? Or do you think like everyone else that just saying something is the best evidence because it has a narrative behind it?
Vicetrailia
Member
There are pros and cons. Progressive income tax may not be efficient, but it is effective.
At what income level do you think signifies people who work and people who don't? People working 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job might only bring in about $15k per year. Do they not work? Having a flat tax like you are suggesting hurts the people who need it most, and benefits the rich and 1%'ers immensely.
What is inefficient are tax loopholes and shitty tax policies that don't benefit the economy like what Kansas did in this thread.
I'm curious in your answer to Techomancer's second question, given that you agreed taxing consumption depresses spending.
I'm talking about everyone that works. Including poor people on 10k a year.
And you can make a flat tax nearly as progressive as the current system provided you put the tax-free threshold high enough. And it's far more efficient.
Literally all I'm saying that's positive about Brownback is that he has moved to do this. What isn't positive is that he's drunk his own kool-aid. Anyone that actually believes cutting taxes grows revenue at current marginal rates needs their head checked. And spending on infrastructure, education and healthcare is not the areas that should be cut.
From memory poor people don't spend more of their income (a consumption tax is neutral on consumption but regressive on income). It's why you need it to be offset with other things (EITC or an NIT for instance). And Brownback has clearly failed here hard.
Repressing consumer spending isn't bad in and of itself, but the impact on poor people can be devastating if not properly offset.
Guy LeDouche
Banned
bloomberg politics is pretty terrible across the board, with Halperin at the forefront.
Now the experiment is "how long can we get away with it?"
my name is ed
Banned
Knock yourself out, young lad.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/what-nation-has-most-progressive-tax.html
The problem with the US is that it has a progressive tax system and a regressive transfer system. It should be the opposite.
Ryan242004
Member
I forgot about the 2 term limit, that's the best thing I've heard all week.
my name is ed
Banned
'Click here for the answer' link is broken on that page.
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/vulgar.html
He quoted the guy who wrote the report, who said: In fact, the US system of direct taxes actually reduces inequality more than any other country as well. But overall, the USA reduces inequality a lot less than most other countries, because the other thing that you need to take into account is what taxes get spent on.
Saving isn't spending, so congratulations on that non-sequitur response.
Funnily enough I've just done some research on this and it looks like an unsolved question. Friedman and co. argued that they didn't, while more modern researchers are evenly split.
And I've said repeatedly I think it's dumb. Literally all I've said is positive is his movement from income to consumption, but apparently I have to decry literally everything he does or I'm literally slobbing all over his knob about his every action.
- Status