Support NeoGAF

[Oblivion]

I guess I don't understand what the issue is.

Brownback, like every Republican politician in existence for the past 30 years, has* the belief that tax cuts on our so-called "job creators" will lead to them expanding their business, thus hiring more people, thus having more people contribute to the tax base, thus we won't be needing any draconian cuts in spending, thus everybody wins (just like those diet pills that allow you to eat whatever you want without gaining any weight!).

Obviously, none of that happened. Mind you, we're on year SEVEN, and tax revenues are still fucking horrible. Not only did they not remotely come close to paying for themselves, but they came in vastly under the rosiest of bullshit Republican predictions.

What about job growth? Yeah, that sucks too. Kansas' neighbor, Missouri, didn't do any of that dumb shit and their job growth rate is higher. Kansas has routinely undershot the national average as well.

So now you (and Art Laffer) say "You have to wait for a whole decade AT LEAST before you can see the wonderful economy supercharging effects of supply-side economic policy!". But no, this shitty excuse doesn't fly either. We were not sold this garbage plan by promises that wouldn't be felt until most people's children reached high school. Brownback said that these stupid tax cuts would give the Kansas economy, and I quote, "a shot of adrenaline". Unless I'm mistaken, adrenaline shots generally work immediately, or at least within 2-3 years, not 10. Also, you don't need to look any further than Republican god-king Ronny Reagan, who right-wingers can never fellate enough. You think they credit him for an economy that only worked 10 years after he was gone (well, okay they do that too) , or do they brag about how we've had the greatest economic expansion in the history of civilization under his reign?

Come on, son. Come on.

*Brownback, and people like Darkace, still maintain this idiotic belief despite everything that's happened.

 

[slit]

How long is this going to go on? Their Supreme Court is constantly stepping in and they are continually trying to get around it. If anyone here is stuck in Kansas you have my sympathies.

 

[thehypocrite]

Because the progressivity of the tax and transfer system re income is an incomplete story. A land-value tax is highly progressive but is completely orthogonal to income. If we have transfers income is unchanged, if we tax wealth the progressivity re income is unchanged, if we implement lump-sum transfers it may or may not tax income (Thatcher implemented one that taxed wealth).

Consumption statistics gives us a bigger picture (why is why consumption inequality is far more important than income/wealth inequality), but it's still only a partial.

Income is a proxy for other, more meaningful statistics, and it has some pretty glaring omissions (To highlight this the least and most progressive tax systems on income are Sweden and the US, respectively). We aren't interested in setting the progressivity of the tax system according to income (which we ideally wouldn't tax at all), but according to consumption and wealth.

But isn't there a significant correlation between income and consumption, which breaks after a certain point, but significant nonetheless?

 

[Oblivion]

I should also add that even under St. Ronnie, where around 16 million jobs were created (though having little to do with his tax cuts), even with all that, revenues never got back to where they were before the tax cuts were enacted. And as mentioned earlier, this was the golden years of America, a period that has no equal when based on economic growth (at least according to conservatives). If this couldn't happen then, on a national scale, what makes anyone think that this would be any different in a backwoods state like Kansas?