Jump to content
carlfense

Kansas' Tax Experiment

Recommended Posts

carlfense    2,266

No kidding?

 

In 2012, Gov. Brownback called his state’s tax cuts a “real live experiment” in how tax-cutting affects the budget and the economy. So far, the main result of the experiment seems to be that cutting taxes causes the government to lose revenue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/upshot/kansas-faces-additional-revenue-shortfalls-after-tax-cuts.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sd'sker    3,251

No kidding?

 

In 2012, Gov. Brownback called his state’s tax cuts a “real live experiment” in how tax-cutting affects the budget and the economy. So far, the main result of the experiment seems to be that cutting taxes causes the government to lose revenue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/upshot/kansas-faces-additional-revenue-shortfalls-after-tax-cuts.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

 

we need to try this in at least 49 more states for a period of at least several decades just to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,010

I'm not an economist but I thought I'd add a couple links that came up on first on my Google search which debate the tax increase or tax decrease positions. I think there is a balancing point when it does make sense - a decrease - but that balancing point isn't where we are today. In the JFK and Reagan years, tax decreases made sense and the govt revenue was in part increased because of the tax burden decrease.

The tax relief was significant enough to affect behavior of individuals and corporations to engage in tax revenue generating activity.

The 1st link states that other factors also helped wt the increase in revenue besides the tax cuts.

The 3rd link refers to the Laffer curve as shown. The UCLA economics professor talks about 33% or there abouts to be the 'break even point' for top tax earners - The 33% being the point we don't want to go below in taxes, and the higher you go from this point the law of diminishing returns start to occur - until you hit no returns at a 100% tax rate (people decide not to work).

The 2nd link - 2 repubs debating the issue - David Stockton and Mike Pence.

 

I think as a whole, repubs over simplify the topic - Tax cuts always good! When that isn't the case. First off, our tax burden isn't so high, that a cut would bring substantial changes in behavior of individuals or corporations - ie major purchasing, investing activity that produces revenue. Also, tax cuts along wt fighting 2 wars - not very good. Tax cuts along with huge deficits during the past 2 presidents - not a good thing.

 

At the same time, most Dems never have seen a tax increase they don't like so they can fund their social programs. At some point the tax burden becomes repressive (think of the original tea party). Prudence in spending (the back side of the revenue issue) along wt a healthy tax rate will yield a more fiscally sound govt. This admin and the last one have been like a pendulum - with spending and tax cuts extremes. GWB really took it to the extreme blindly - holding to tax cuts almost in a cult like fashion in spite of fighting 2 wars and paying for huge increases in medicare/prescription drug programs. Obama's issue is more on the spending side and not as much wt taxes unless one questions the wisdom of the huge spending & related taxes for ACA in the midst of trying to recover from 2008 recession and stimulus spending.

 

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/09/mike-pence/mike-pence-says-raising-taxes-lowers-tax-revenues/

 

laffer-curve.png

 

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/10/does-raising-taxes-lead-to-more-govt-revenue-professor-shows-how-the-laffer-curve-debunks-liberal-myths/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carlfense    2,266

Brownback, in 2012 and 2013, signed a two-part tax package exempting 191,000 businesses from income taxes and lowering the top income tax rate for individuals from 6.45 percent to 4.9 percent. It sinks to 3.9 percent by 2018 and even further toward zero each year if revenue grows.

 

Although income taxes composed almost half of Kansas’ general fund, Brownback said the cuts would grow the economy and attract new business, so that revenue would spring back quickly, essentially paying for the cuts. He had Reagan-era tax guru Arthur Laffer at his back supporting him.

 

But his plan didn’t pan out. Revenues are way down, and job growth remains below the national average. His own budget director says they may have to stop some of the tax cuts from going into effect, according to a New York Times interview.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/gop-learns-lessons-from-brownbacks-tax-scare-113806.html?ml=po

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
huKSer    1,342
The state will reduce its contribution to KPERS, the state’s pension system, by $40.7 million by dropping the employer contribution rate to 9.5 percent from 12.1 percent.

 

 

 

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article4382802.html

 

They were wanting to privatize the pension plan. But then he wouldn't have anything to balance the budget with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carlfense    2,266

Like all things you must find a balance.

This is true . . . and quite different than the false claims made by Brownback and company when they touted that their supply side economics would prevent a drop in revenue.

 

I'm not sure how many times we are going to have to rediscover that cutting taxes doesn't increase revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tschu    1,594

 

Like all things you must find a balance.

This is true . . . and quite different than the false claims made by Brownback and company when they touted that their supply side economics would prevent a drop in revenue.

 

I'm not sure how many times we are going to have to rediscover that cutting taxes doesn't increase revenue.

 

 

We just haven't cut taxes nearly enough, that's all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bowfin    779

Democratically controlled Illinois would trade places with GOP Kansas in a nanosecond. Being broke is far superior to being in debt with no way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bowfin    779
I'm not sure how many times we are going to have to rediscover that cutting taxes doesn't increase revenue.

 

Sort of like taxing our way to prosperity / "economic stimulus"?...except tax cuts don't add debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carlfense    2,266

Sort of like taxing our way to prosperity / "economic stimulus"?

Is it tough to maintain your beliefs given recent tax increases and economic results?

 

...except tax cuts don't add debt.

I suspect that this statement is quite a useful clue as to the answer to my previous question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carlfense    2,266

Democratically controlled Illinois would trade places with GOP Kansas in a nanosecond. Being broke is far superior to being in debt with no way out.

If we're cherry picking we could talk about Democratically controlled California's giant budget surplus compared to GOP Kansas' spiraling deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    6,992

 

Democratically controlled Illinois would trade places with GOP Kansas in a nanosecond. Being broke is far superior to being in debt with no way out.

If we're cherry picking we could talk about Democratically controlled California's giant budget surplus compared to GOP Kansas' spiraling deficit.

 

If they have a surplus that is a huge change from where they were a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junior    1,277

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/19/us-california-budget-idUSKCN0J32CT20141119

 

California's state budget will accumulate more than $4 billion of reserves in the next two years, the budget watchdog estimated on Wednesday, a sign of significant progress for the debt-ridden state.

 

California's Legislative Analyst's Office said much of the extra money would most likely go toward education, the state's rainy day fund, and potentially paying down liabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carlfense    2,266

Im actually starting to gain more respect for Brown.

CA does seem to be in a much better place . . . but the reality is that they were hit unusually hard by the recession and this bounce back in large part just reflects the broader economic recovery.

 

This is why it's such a contrast with the situation in Kansas. Kansas was not hit nearly as hard by the recession . . . but they've chosen to give benefits to their wealthiest residents at the expense of everyone else. In other words, a large part of the problem in California was underlying economic factors while the problems in Kansas were conscious choices by the Republican party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    6,992

It appears to me that the California financial change has appeared to take place by making tough decisions to cut expenses along with pushing financial responsibilities down the road that probably is going to smack them in the face at some point along with the economic recovery.

 

Brown is actually being the financial responsible one with Dems upset about it and wanting to go spend a bunch more money.

 

Those cuts weren't what people would call cutting benefits to rich. They were cutting education and other things that would normally benefit low to middle income people.

 

It's tough decisions that needed to be made and he did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QMany    2,838

As a Kansas resident, I cannot believe he was reelected.

 

Now, there is also an inquiry into Brownback and multiple $500,000 cash loans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carlfense    2,266

Brown is actually being the financial responsible one with Dems upset about it and wanting to go spend a bunch more money.

Some of them, sure. But the one that you refer to as being financially responsible is also a Dem.

 

Those cuts weren't what people would call cutting benefits to rich.

Exactly. It's quite the opposite, actually as CA has quite high taxes on the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'sNotAFakeID    1,821

 

Brown is actually being the financial responsible one with Dems upset about it and wanting to go spend a bunch more money.

Some of them, sure. But the one that you refer to as being financially responsible is also a Dem.

 

Those cuts weren't what people would call cutting benefits to rich.

Exactly. It's quite the opposite, actually as CA has quite high taxes on the rich.

 

 

Socialists!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    6,992

 

Brown is actually being the financial responsible one with Dems upset about it and wanting to go spend a bunch more money.

Some of them, sure. But the one that you refer to as being financially responsible is also a Dem.

 

Those cuts weren't what people would call cutting benefits to rich.

Exactly. It's quite the opposite, actually as CA has quite high taxes on the rich.

I fully understand the party that elected Brown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    6,992

 

Brown is actually being the financial responsible one with Dems upset about it and wanting to go spend a bunch more money.

Some of them, sure. But the one that you refer to as being financially responsible is also a Dem.

 

Those cuts weren't what people would call cutting benefits to rich.

Exactly. It's quite the opposite, actually as CA has quite high taxes on the rich.

 

They have relatively high taxes on the rich (some temporary) and at the same time have cut programs (education) that more benefits the low and middle class.

 

BUT, at the same time, they have pushed down the road debt that needs to be paid which includes (but is not limited to) retirement health care, pensions and debt owed to the federal government and bond holders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    17,127

Do any states have a privatized education system? If so, any idea how their performance ranks amongst publicly-funded education systems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do any states have a privatized education system? If so, any idea how their performance ranks amongst publicly-funded education systems?

New Orleans after Katrina went to a lot of private schools and they were doing better supposedly.

 

 

http://time.com/money/3105112/private-school-enrollment-cities-highest/

 

screen-shot-2014-08-12-at-8-03-41-pm.png

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/in-new-orleans-traditional-public-schools-close-for-good/2014/05/28/ae4f5724-e5de-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html

The Washington Post

 

 

 

 

Before the storm, the citys high school graduation rate was 54.4 percent. In 2013, the rate for the Recovery School District was 77.6 percent. On average, 57 percent of students performed at grade level in math and reading in 2013, up from 23 percent in 2007, according to the state.

 

Opinion surveys show support for charter schools but unease about the shuttering of all traditional schools, with just 41 percent of New Orleans residents backing the idea in a poll commissioned by the Cowen Institute for Public Education Initiatives at Tulane University in New Orleans. The changes also have been stirred racial tensions and claims of disenfranchisement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carlfense    2,266

New Orleans after Katrina went to a lot of private schools and they were doing better supposedly.

From your WaPo article . . . nice deal if you can get it:

 

The city is spending about $2 billion — much of it federal hurricane recovery money — to refurbish and build schools across the city, which are then leased to charter operators at no cost.

And this makes me a little queasy:

 

White students disproportionately attend the best charter schools, while the worst are almost exclusively populated by African American students. Activists in New Orleans joined with others in Detroit and Newark last month to file a federal civil rights complaint, alleging that the city’s best-performing schools have admissions policies that exclude African American children. Those schools are overseen by the separate Orleans Parish School Board, and they don’t participate in OneApp, the city’s centralized school enrollment lottery.

 

John White, the state’s superintendent of education, agreed that access to the best schools is not equal in New Orleans, but he said the state is prevented by law from interfering with the Orleans Parish School Board’s operations.

 

“The claim that there’s an imbalance is right on the money,” White said. “The idea that it’s associated with privilege and high outcomes is right on the money.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    6,992

My brother lives in Louisiana (not New Orleans). There was absolutely no way he was sending his kids to public schools there because they were so pathetically horrible. He sent his to a private school. I still think education here in Nebraska in public schools is better than his private school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moiraine    5,464
And this makes me a little queasy:

 

White students disproportionately attend the best charter schools, while the worst are almost exclusively populated by African American students. Activists in New Orleans joined with others in Detroit and Newark last month to file a federal civil rights complaint, alleging that the city’s best-performing schools have admissions policies that exclude African American children. Those schools are overseen by the separate Orleans Parish School Board, and they don’t participate in OneApp, the city’s centralized school enrollment lottery.

 

John White, the state’s superintendent of education, agreed that access to the best schools is not equal in New Orleans, but he said the state is prevented by law from interfering with the Orleans Parish School Board’s operations.

 

“The claim that there’s an imbalance is right on the money,” White said. “The idea that it’s associated with privilege and high outcomes is right on the money.”

 

 

Is it that much different anywhere else? The more money you have, the better neighborhood you live in, the more tax money there is and the better the school your kids go to. Since a higher percentage of Blacks and Hispanics are poor, a higher percentage of those minorities go to crappy schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carlfense    2,266

Is it that much different anywhere else? The more money you have, the better neighborhood you live in, the more tax money there is and the better the school your kids go to. Since a higher percentage of Blacks and Hispanics are poor, a higher percentage of those minorities go to crappy schools.

That's true to a large extent in the Omaha metro but I think that it is more location based rather than specific policies that have the effect of being a barrier to minorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    6,992

 

Is it that much different anywhere else? The more money you have, the better neighborhood you live in, the more tax money there is and the better the school your kids go to. Since a higher percentage of Blacks and Hispanics are poor, a higher percentage of those minorities go to crappy schools.

That's true to a large extent in the Omaha metro but I think that it is more location based rather than specific policies that have the effect of being a barrier to minorities.

 

How do you suggest fixing location?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'sNotAFakeID    1,821

 

 

Is it that much different anywhere else? The more money you have, the better neighborhood you live in, the more tax money there is and the better the school your kids go to. Since a higher percentage of Blacks and Hispanics are poor, a higher percentage of those minorities go to crappy schools.

That's true to a large extent in the Omaha metro but I think that it is more location based rather than specific policies that have the effect of being a barrier to minorities.

 

How do you suggest fixing location?

 

 

Transportation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carlfense    2,266

 

 

 

Is it that much different anywhere else? The more money you have, the better neighborhood you live in, the more tax money there is and the better the school your kids go to. Since a higher percentage of Blacks and Hispanics are poor, a higher percentage of those minorities go to crappy schools.

That's true to a large extent in the Omaha metro but I think that it is more location based rather than specific policies that have the effect of being a barrier to minorities.

 

How do you suggest fixing location?

 

Transportation.

 

That or improve the lower performing schools . . . which is admittedly much easier said than done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    6,992

 

 

 

 

Is it that much different anywhere else? The more money you have, the better neighborhood you live in, the more tax money there is and the better the school your kids go to. Since a higher percentage of Blacks and Hispanics are poor, a higher percentage of those minorities go to crappy schools.

That's true to a large extent in the Omaha metro but I think that it is more location based rather than specific policies that have the effect of being a barrier to minorities.

 

How do you suggest fixing location?

 

Transportation.

 

That or improve the lower performing schools . . . which is admittedly much easier said than done.

 

So, you are back to policies.

 

Unfortunately, I am extremely skeptical about being able to improve bad inner city schools. Here is why.

 

Almost always, the school is representative of the community around it. It's not the other way around. Bad schools, most of the time, are in bad neighborhoods. Good schools, most of the time, are in good neighborhoods. This isn't because middle aged white guys have something against these schools and want to depress black kids. It's because the people in some communities value education and support the schools in many ways other than just pumping money into it. Also, in areas where there are good schools, there are parents that expect their kids to do well and instill that in them at a young age. They also are parents that are involved in their child's life.

 

So, you want to change the school? Change the community around it.

 

If I am wrong, I would like examples of crappy schools in really crappy neighborhoods that have been turned around without major involvement by the community around it and a change in their support and attitudes towards education.

 

FYI...there are examples of bad schools in good neighborhoods. Louisiana schools are just plain bad no matter what neighborhood they are in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carlfense    2,266

 

 

 

 

 

Is it that much different anywhere else? The more money you have, the better neighborhood you live in, the more tax money there is and the better the school your kids go to. Since a higher percentage of Blacks and Hispanics are poor, a higher percentage of those minorities go to crappy schools.

That's true to a large extent in the Omaha metro but I think that it is more location based rather than specific policies that have the effect of being a barrier to minorities.

 

How do you suggest fixing location?

 

Transportation.

 

That or improve the lower performing schools . . . which is admittedly much easier said than done.

 

So, you are back to policies.

 

Well . . . yeah. Unless you know of a way to pick up and move entire segments of the population or school buildings. :P

 

 

Unfortunately, I am extremely skeptical about being able to improve bad inner city schools. Here is why.

 

Almost always, the school is representative of the community around it. It's not the other way around. Bad schools, most of the time, are in bad neighborhoods. Good schools, most of the time, are in good neighborhoods. This isn't because middle aged white guys have something against these schools and want to depress black kids. It's because the people in some communities value education and support the schools in many ways other than just pumping money into it. Also, in areas where there are good schools, there are parents that expect their kids to do well and instill that in them at a young age. They also are parents that are involved in their child's life.

 

So, you want to change the school? Change the community around it.

 

If I am wrong, I would like examples of crappy schools in really crappy neighborhoods that have been turned around without major involvement by the community around it and a change in their support and attitudes towards education.

 

FYI...there are examples of bad schools in good neighborhoods. Louisiana schools are just plain bad no matter what neighborhood they are in.

OK. So how do you do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    6,992

That is very interesting. I think that was written in 2008. I would be interested in knowing who those 8 elementary schools are doing now. I remember only one being mentioned by name in the report and when looking here, herehttp://www.schooldigger.com/go/TN/schoolrank.aspx , that school was still ranked 720th in the state.

 

I do like some of the things in the plan. First, I liked how it started. All teachers needed to reapply. This allows you to keep good ones and get rid of bad ones. That also makes all of them realize...hey...we are serious here. So, very few were taken out of the school system. But, it still sends a message that improvement needs to happen. THEN, the teachers were given the tools (support) needed to improve. So, you have shown them they MUST improve and you have given them the tools to improve,

THEN, they were incentivized financially to improve.

 

So...hey...you want more pay? Let's earn the pay.

 

That said, I am actually shocked the teacher's union allowed that. Anytime I have ever read an article or seen a report on performance incentive for teachers, it was met with strong opposition from the union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carlfense    2,266

 

That is very interesting. I think that was written in 2008. I would be interested in knowing who those 8 elementary schools are doing now. I remember only one being mentioned by name in the report and when looking here, herehttp://www.schooldigger.com/go/TN/schoolrank.aspx , that school was still ranked 720th in the state.

 

I do like some of the things in the plan. First, I liked how it started. All teachers needed to reapply. This allows you to keep good ones and get rid of bad ones. That also makes all of them realize...hey...we are serious here. So, very few were taken out of the school system. But, it still sends a message that improvement needs to happen. THEN, the teachers were given the tools (support) needed to improve. So, you have shown them they MUST improve and you have given them the tools to improve,

THEN, they were incentivized financially to improve.

 

So...hey...you want more pay? Let's earn the pay.

 

That said, I am actually shocked the teacher's union allowed that. Anytime I have ever read an article or seen a report on performance incentive for teachers, it was met with strong opposition from the union.

 

I agree with this. Teachers unions (and other unions for that matter) who focus so strongly on short term financial/job security are a huge obstacle to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carlfense    2,266

I did find it interesting that several places in the article it mentioned that the Benwood Plan changed community attitudes.

Does that you lead you to believe that changing the school might change the community around it? You seemed skeptical on that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'sNotAFakeID    1,821

The relationship between community quality and school quality is probably not unidirectional. Probably not as simple as A --> B; based on the conversation above, it's probably something like A --> B --> A --> B.

 

Often, what makes a quality school a quality school is quality teachers, most of whom probably don't want to teach at an inner-city school (guessing the pay is worse along with the perception that the inner-city school is more dangerous). So I think the solution starts with getting high-quality teachers to teach in inner-city schools. How that is accomplished? Tough. Guess you could maybe start ensuring that future teachers are receiving a high-quality education themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    6,992

 

I did find it interesting that several places in the article it mentioned that the Benwood Plan changed community attitudes.

Does that you lead you to believe that changing the school might change the community around it? You seemed skeptical on that point.

 

I think what was described here was that there were changes within the school system leadership which changed the attitude of the community around the school which contributed to the improvement in the school system's ability to educate.

 

That was the gist of my original point about community. The community has to have a certain attitude towards expecting better results from both teachers and the students they are sending into the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moiraine    5,464

 

 

Is it that much different anywhere else? The more money you have, the better neighborhood you live in, the more tax money there is and the better the school your kids go to. Since a higher percentage of Blacks and Hispanics are poor, a higher percentage of those minorities go to crappy schools.

That's true to a large extent in the Omaha metro but I think that it is more location based rather than specific policies that have the effect of being a barrier to minorities.

 

How do you suggest fixing location?

 

 

Equally fund all public schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
strigori    687

 

 

 

Is it that much different anywhere else? The more money you have, the better neighborhood you live in, the more tax money there is and the better the school your kids go to. Since a higher percentage of Blacks and Hispanics are poor, a higher percentage of those minorities go to crappy schools.

That's true to a large extent in the Omaha metro but I think that it is more location based rather than specific policies that have the effect of being a barrier to minorities.

 

How do you suggest fixing location?

 

 

Equally fund all public schools.

 

A good start would be consolidating all Omaha school districts. This is one city, it should have one school district. OPS,Millard, Westside, and one of these is not like the others. Because of the nature of how Nebraska schools are funded by property taxes, it disproportionately funds some areas of town. Consolidating would piss off a bunch of people, but it needs to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×