RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Gibson writes: "Imagine making a bet with a hardline trickle-down believer like Paul Ryan on a state's projected economic growth. You would bet that one state that raised taxes on its richest residents would have unprecedented new job creation and a vastly improved economy, while Paul Ryan would bet that a state which cut taxes for the wealthy would have the better economy."

Kansas governor Sam Brownback. (photo: AP)
Kansas governor Sam Brownback. (photo: AP)

How Kansas and California Debunked the GOP's Tax Cuts Argument

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

15 July 14


magine making a bet with a hardline trickle-down believer like Paul Ryan on a state’s projected economic growth. You would bet that one state that raised taxes on its richest residents would have unprecedented new job creation and a vastly improved economy, while Paul Ryan would bet that a state which cut taxes for the wealthy would have the better economy. If this bet actually took place, you would walk away the winner. And the trickle-down believers of America would be speechless.

Kansas’ Sinking Economy

In 2010, newly-minted Kansas governor Sam Brownback, elected on promises of restoring the state’s down economy, made that bet, and proceeded to ram through massive tax cuts for the wealthy, at a cost of $800 million, or 8 percent of the revenue used to fund schools, a hit most commonly seen in a fairly severe recession. The tax cuts reduced the state’s income tax rate from 6.45 percent to 4.9 percent, scheduled to hit 3.9 percent by 2018. The end goal of Brownback's plan was to reduce the state’s income tax rate to zero, earning him an A from the Cato Institute, a Koch-funded, libertarian think tank.

Governor Brownback and the GOP-led legislature also reduced sales taxes from 6.3 percent to 6.15 percent, where it would stay through 2018. This means sales taxes would be higher than income taxes, disproportionately hurting Kansas’ poor, who are already struggling to buy food and medicine and pay the rent. Brownback paid for the cuts by eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction, which is a tax break that middle-class homeowners depend upon.

Several years after those tax cuts were passed, Kansas’ economy is in the shitter. Kansas’ job growth has failed to keep up the pace with the national average. Moody's cut the state’s bond rating for the first time in over a decade, citing a lack of confidence in Kansas' fiscal leadership. Revenue projections are down $700 million from the year before, meaning public services like schools have to be cut as a result. In just fiscal year 2014 alone, the state fell short of estimated revenue projections by $338 million. Kansas’ non-partisan Legislative Research Department estimates Brownback’s tax cuts will cost the state $5 billion in lost revenue by 2019. To put that in perspective, Kansas currently has an $8 billion state budget.

Because public services are being cut, fewer people in the public sector are collecting a paycheck. And because more unemployed workers means less money spent in Kansas’ economy, things are expected to worsen under the current tax structure. As schools suffer from a lack of funds, Kansas’ public school students will fall behind and will be deprived of skills needed to be successful professionals in adulthood. Brownback’s future as a two-term governor is looking grim because of his failure to deliver on economic promises.

California’s Soaring Economy

California did the exact opposite of Kansas. In 2012, when California was in a dire budget crisis, voters passed a critical ballot initiative undoing the state’s requirement of a two-thirds supermajority vote in the legislature to raise taxes. Through the initiative, California voters passed tax increases for everyone, including the rich, marginally increasing the sales tax while creating new income tax brackets of 10.3 percent for those who earned between $250,000 and $300,000; 11.3 percent for taxpayers who made anywhere between $300,000 and $500,000; 12.3 percent for incomes of $500,000 to $1,000,000; and 13.3 percent for all incomes above $1,000,000. The richest Californians would barely notice it, given the immense wealth in California’s major economic hubs like Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and the wine country.

After monitoring the results, the New Jersey Policy Perspective, a non-partisan think tank, found that California’s tax increases are paying off big time. The state’s coffers will gain approximately $6.8 billion in new revenue every year, all of which will be invested in public education. California saw 2.9 percent job growth in 2013, making it the third fastest-growing economy in the US. California will have an operational surplus of $9 billion by 2018, meaning even more public sector jobs created and a better economy for everyone. And because education is now a funding priority, California’s schoolchildren are set up to soar above and beyond national education averages. Well-educated kids means more people in the future able to take on high-skilled, good-paying jobs.

Putting these two states side by side, it doesn’t take an economics professor to see how much unnecessary tax cuts hurt a local economy, and how much marginal tax increases help an economy. At the federal level, American families have lost an average of roughly $48,000 in income per person, or $6.6 TRILLION, since the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (adjusted for inflation). As journalist David Cay Johnston pointed out, that’s enough money to pay off every family’s credit card debt, student loan debt, and car notes, while still having enough left in the bank.

Families freed from such financial worries would have plenty more disposable income to spend in their local economies, boosting small business in the process and creating enough local demand for more new jobs. The extra tax revenue we would have gained had the Bush tax cuts never gone into effect would be enough to invest in improving education, health care, transportation, agriculture, and myriad other programs. In fact, raising the current top tax rates on the richest 1 percent of Americans to 67 percent (still 3 percent less than the top rate under Nixon), along with creating new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires, would generate $4 trillion over ten years. That would be enough for a new WPA-style program aimed at rebuilding our vastly sub-par infrastructure while creating millions of new jobs.

The tax cuts experiment has had plenty of time to show results, but the only people whose economic situations have improved since the Bush tax cuts are the wealthiest 1 percent of society. The Paul Ryans of America have lost the bet fair and square. It’s time we learn a lesson from Kansas and California and apply some common sense to our tax structure.

Carl Gibson, 26, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Madison, Wisconsin. You can contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and follow him on twitter at @uncutCG.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+51 # Buddha 2014-07-15 14:47
While it is interesting to compare/contras t California and Brownbackistan, all is still not well on the Left Coast. Governor Moonbeam and the Dems, now that they have total power in Sacramento, have actually taken a bit of a Center-Right turn. That surplus hasn't really yet been diverted back to education, basically we just stopped the practice of balancing our budget with annual cuts in our education system. Further, Brown essentially caved to Big Oil and opened up CA for fracking. And while the Dems twice sent a single-payer bill to a Schwarzenegger veto, now that they have power, where is that single-payer bill (crickets chirp)? Heck, California didn't even allow non-profit collectives to compete with private HMO's on its ACA exchange! And Brown recently came out with a comment against pot legalization where it was perfectly clear he is all for keeping Prohibition alive, and to hell with the huge stresses it is placing on our society and our budgets. Yeah, awesome we aren't Brownbackistan. ..but California should be doing so much more, it should be leading a national Progressive vision with the power the Democratic Party has here...that we aren't shows what the Democratic Party truly stands for, sad to say.
+5 # AndreM5 2014-07-16 09:53
Fracking never stopped in Calif--it has been going on for 50 years. Your other comments are certainly reasonable. I expect the ACA issue is likely pressure from the WH not to go rogue.
+70 # maddog2112 2014-07-15 18:41
You won't hear this story on the fair and unbalanced fox fake news propaganda channel!!! Right wingers can't deal with reality! Fox news and all the rightwing talking heads on A M radio get paid millions to blame all of the countries problems on minorities and poor people! Meanwhile the filthy rich and corporations continue to screw everyone!!!
-55 # Roland 2014-07-15 21:10
Fox blames all of the countries problems on minorities and poor people?

Really? What show and exactly what was said?
+24 # kalpal 2014-07-16 07:50
Don't suppose you would be willing to do your own research now, would you?

How likely are you to accept anyone else's research that proves the contention?

What would change in your RW mind if proof were provided?
-25 # Roland 2014-07-16 12:08
I watch Fox News and have never saw such a thing. I believe he wrote something he has heard from some incorrect source or is making it up. RSN has said things about Fox News that wasn’t true. Just asking for proof.
0 # chasdool 2014-07-30 14:14
That, is the problem my friend, "You watch FOX News". You will never learn anything from FIX News. They will NEVER tell the truth..
0 # scionfall 2014-07-30 14:47
Well here's one example. I can provide more if you wish:
+41 # Blackjack 2014-07-15 18:49
The Democratic Party now stands for what the Republican Party stands for, at least on economic policy. On that front, Dems have become shills to Corporate America just as Republicans have always been. Dems are just newer to the game overall, but have, even under the last two Dem presidents,grea tly favored Wall St. over Main St. That is likely to remain the same after the next presidential election unless a populist candidate like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders can push the party more to the center left, a mighty big challenge considering how entrenched the Party has become in the Wall St. World.
-45 # 2014-07-15 20:28
Kansas is indeed in trouble but California is in worse trouble.

Businesses are leaving California (since the start of the recession, more than 2,500 employers have relocated to another state taking over 100,000 jobs with them) and in spite of the recent small uptick in employment, California still has one of the worst unemployment rates in the country.

Kansas made the mistake of cutting taxes without cutting spending: state spending went from $26.5b in 2010 to $27.2b in 2013, Obviously spending more and taking in less revenue is a recipe for disaster.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
+30 # kalpal 2014-07-16 07:52
Cutting expenses will affect whom? How will it affect them?

Cutting taxes for the rich has never done a bit of good for any society in the history of humanity.

Do try to recall the effects of Clinton's tax hike on the rich.
+12 # bingers 2014-07-18 08:01
Kansas is indeed in trouble but California is in worse trouble.

Businesses are leaving California (since the start of the recession, more than 2,500 employers have relocated to another state taking over 100,000 jobs with them) and in spite of the recent small uptick in employment, California still has one of the worst unemployment rates in the country.

Kansas made the mistake of cutting taxes without cutting spending: state spending went from $26.5b in 2010 to $27.2b in 2013, Obviously spending more and taking in less revenue is a recipe for disaster.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts

The worst possible way to fight economic problems is austerity. It has been proven so many times it's amazing anyone still ties it. Also, other than Taiwan, we have the lowest level of spending in the free world, while the European socialist countries are the healthiest economies in the free world. Our problems all stem from not taxing the rich a fair amount, and taxing the poor and middle class too much. Thanks, Ronnie Rayguns.
0 # chasdool 2014-07-30 14:23
"Kansas is indeed in trouble but California is in worse trouble" Are you kidding me here? Do you have ANY education on the economies of the world? California has just became the 8th largest economy in the world as for GDP. While the Republican Kansas legislators have all gone to see "The Wizard Of Oz". Stop watching FOX and go learn somethings...
-58 # Roland 2014-07-15 21:29
Are the above estimates for tax revenue static? Amazingly, the CBO doesn't take into account how people react to changes in taxes, when forecasting tax revenue.

Wealthy people and businesses are leaving CA. Why would you stay if you had to pay those taxes? Would you stay and pay $25,000 state taxes on $250,000 income? On top of the Federal tax rate and the local taxes? If you make 1M a year why would you want to give 133,000.00 to the state? I would rather give it to a charity, than the state. It will catch up with them. If I was looking to move my business I would go to KS instead of CA, if I wanted to keep my costs low, in order to compete.

You are taking 2 states to make a point. Look at Indiana and Illinois. Look at a larger sampling of cities and states and you will find that the conclusion is nearly inescapable that liberal policy prescriptions—e specially high income-tax rates and the lack of a right-to-work law—make states less prosperous because they chase away workers, businesses and capital.
+38 # MidwestDick 2014-07-15 22:43
Northern Illinois is one of the most vital and prosperous areas of the nation. The metro area of Chicago is now comprised of some areas in northern Indiana as well as northeastern Illinois. This is where the job growth is in Indiana.
In fact,not only is Illinois more prosperous but the median income is way higher.
As to unemployment, Indiana cooks the books by making many more Hoosiers ineligible for unemployment insurance thereby guaranteeing they won't be counted as unemployed once they have to hit the breadline.
But even with all that Illinois is now not only far ahead in jobs created, but also trails in the percentage of unemployed workers actively seeking employment compared with the total workforce.
Truth be told, Indiana is a geriatric backwater with a bad attitude and Illinois is a vital immigrant infused economic juggernaut.
The article is right on. Motivated ambitious people demand fair wages for themselves and everyone, moribund plutocrats want the rest of us to work for food. Where would you rather live?
-14 # Roland 2014-07-16 06:57
So if I understand what you are saying - the job growth in Indiana is just outside of Illinois near Chicago. Just far enough away from Chicago to be out of state. Doesn’t that back up my point?

Indiana’s unemployment rate dropped to 5.9 percent in March, the lowest point since July 2008. For the same March 2014 period, Illinois' staggering unemployment rate of 8.4 percent was the third-highest in the nation.

It's clear why 40 Illinois companies in the past few years have made plans to move all or part of their operations to Indiana. They alone account for more than 3,600 new Hoosier jobs and more than $423 million in capital investment. Dismiss the data if it makes you feel better, but businesses are now voting with their feet and the trend is accelerating. Chicago-area home construction is up, but that growth is largely sprouting across the border in Indiana.
+1 # bingers 2014-07-18 08:05
No, it backs up his point that the Chicago area, not anything Indiana has done is responsible or the Northwest Indiana economy.
-11 # MidwestTom 2014-07-16 07:16
I am not sure what Dick does for a living or how close he is to the employment world, but our company has operations in both Indiana and Illinois. The taxes in Illinois are much higher. I would like to see is source for Indiana "cooking the books" statement. Our Indiana operation is handing out raises to keep hourly workers after losing several to higher paying jobs, we see no such pressure here. There regularly are reports about companies leaving Illinois due to the tax situation. Indiana simply appears to have smarter government.

Three years ago Illinois passed it's latest series of company tax increases and it prompted several of the really big employers, including, ADM, and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (who actually optioned ground in Indianapolis), to threaten to move. To keep them Illinois then offered them tax reductions which were greater than what the new tax would have brought in. Net result was a loss of revenue. Chicago citizens pay a 10.25% sales tax, in Indianapolis it is 7%. Did I mention the 82 people shot over the July 4th weekend in Chicago?
-1 # bingers 2014-07-18 08:04
Also, you have to understand the huge shortage in the Illinois economy was caused by Republican governors withholding pension payments.
+22 # RLF 2014-07-16 05:23
The reason rich people stay where the taxes are high is because they don't want to live in fucking Kansas and hire the hillbillys there with their awful educations! Same reason they live in NYC...even though that doesn't stop them from threatening to leave unless they get their tax breaks...which Cuomo, being a DINO, always gives them.
-17 # Roland 2014-07-16 07:02
Fine. What are you going to do about the ones who are leaving, along with their projected tax revenue?

They might not be going to KS, but they are fleeing high tax states. This benifits low tax states.
+23 # bmiluski 2014-07-16 09:07
Roland, did it ever occur to you that those "low-tax" states are undermining this country? Without those taxes we cannot repair our infrastructures , educate our children, protect our elderly, provide a strong military, etc. We would become another Russia whose taxes go to support a military institution rather than its people.
-21 # Roland 2014-07-16 09:55
Did it ever occur to you that the low tax states were run better and don’t hand out as many over priced jobs to public sector union employees, in turn reducing costs? According to this article the writer seems to think that more public employees works to the benefit of business. Doesn’t seem to work that way in the other blue states.

Also, did it ever occur to you that if it weren’t for low tax, right to work states almost all cars would be produced overseas? That goes for other industries as well.
+20 # bmiluski 2014-07-16 10:29
Roland......the low tax states have companies that pay a lower salary thus the state has a lower living wage and a lower educational system which then drives even more jobs overseas where the education is better. Thus little by little eroding our country. You people can only think of the immediate future and your pocket books. I'm thinking beyond that and I'm worried.
-18 # Roland 2014-07-16 10:50
Many of the low tax states have a lower cost of living.

Again, what did your high tax and non right to work states do to the auto industry? Long term I would rather be in Chattanooga, Tenn (where VW is going to build a new SUV) than Detroit.
+17 # bmiluski 2014-07-16 12:54
Roland dear........... The South may get its first union at a foreign-owned automaker after all. Bucking an anti-union vote by workers at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in February, the United Auto Workers and Volkswagen will announce Thursday the creation of a union local.
Participation in the local would be voluntary and not formally recognized by VW until a majority of the 3,200 employees at the plant agree to join, according to The Tennessean. It’s unclear that that number of employees would agree to join immediately, but pro-union workers lost narrowly in February’s vote, and Volkswagen has actively encouraged the creation of a union, threatening to pull back on expansion plans if workers cannot agree to form one.

So much for your anti-union rant.
By the way, the main reason the Detroit plants failed was because of poor management, and lack of vision in car design. The unions were NOT involved in that.
-20 # Roland 2014-07-16 14:32
They got the SUV because they voted down the union. Hopefully the workers will be intelligent and continue to keep the union out, to avoid becoming Detroit.

If Detroit only failed due to poor management, how come there are so few unionized auto plants in other blue states that don’t have right to work laws.

There was poor management when the auto companies agreed to union demands instead of facing the high costs of shutting down their lines for a strike. That was short term thinking.
+9 # bingers 2014-07-18 08:09
Right to work laws are clearly unconstitutiona l. Now, if they allowed the unions to not fight for the freeloaders.... I thought you RWNJs were against freeloading and thought everyone pulled their weight? As the unions go, so goes the country. Unions made our economy strong and fighting the unions has destroyed our economy.
-4 # publictakeover 2014-07-16 10:02
Cuomo Schlomo.
+15 # Texas Aggie 2014-07-16 09:48
"Wealthy people and businesses are leaving CA. Why would you stay if you had to pay those taxes? Would you stay and pay $25,000 state taxes on $250,000 income? On top of the Federal tax rate and the local taxes? If you make 1M a year why would you want to give 133,000.00 to the state? "

Your argument just fell apart. Since you obviously have absolutely no idea of how the brackets in an income tax work, one can safely conclude that you also are an unreliable source of any opinion whatsoever.
-16 # Roland 2014-07-16 10:33
Suppose you tell me my error. In Pa it is a flat tax. I guess you mean in these states it is paid as are Federal taxes. If so, which would make sense with rates this high, my figiures are off. Still, it is high enough and people are leaving.
+22 # Rain17 2014-07-15 22:48
Brownback is in deep trouble in KS. Today 100 former Republican officeholders in KS endorsed Davis. While KS Democrats have not won a Senate race since 1932 they have been able to win the Governorship periodically. The Dockings, John Carlin, Joan Finney, and Kathleen Sebeilus were all Democrats who won the Governorship.

And given that Brownback is in trouble, although this would be highly unlikely, it is possible that he could drag Pat Roberts, who is struggling with residency issues, down with him. But, as KS has not elected a Democrat to the US Senate since 1932, that seems less than likely. However, Chad Taylor is a good candidate.

Brownback reminds a lot of Ken Blackwell in 2006. He seems to be unpopular.
-18 # MidwestTom 2014-07-16 07:24
I have often wondered why individual state taxes are tax deductible from our income for Federal tax purposes. The effect of this is that people in low tax states are supporting people in high tax states.. If a New York State takes 12% of a persons income, the Federal government then taxes him or her on 88% of their taxable income. If a Texan pays 5% of his income to the state, he is then taxed by the Federal Government on 95% of his income. This imbalance takes away some of the pressure for a state to control it's finances, and leaves those in low tax , well run states, at a disadvantage.
+13 # jdit 2014-07-16 09:32
"why individual state taxes are tax deductible from our income for Federal tax purposes. The effect of this is that people in low tax states are supporting people in high tax states." The people who pay high state taxes live in states which pay more into the federal tax sytem than the people who live in states which are the NET GAINERS from Federal Taxation! The States which elect those who vilify Federal Spending are exactly the states which PROFIT from the work of those in other states. Taxpayers in Illinois are subsidizing the Federal Payments and Expenditures in states which do not collect taxes to take care of their own people, for example!
+14 # Texas Aggie 2014-07-16 09:57
You don't understand how the TX tax system works. We have no reporting since on an individual basis, everything is either property tax or sales tax, so it is very difficult to deduct from our federal taxes.

And while Gov. Goodhair makes a big deal about not having a state income tax, he quietly neglects to tell you that property taxes are among the highest in the nation. I pay almost 4% annually of my assessed value which is a lot more than the market rate. In addition we have state and local sales taxes on just about everything except food, and some food is taxed. Overall, especially on middle and lower classes, our tax rate is among the highest. The only people benefitting from Goodhair's tax scheme are the filthy rich, and they don't need it.
+4 # Martha903 2014-07-16 12:39
Property Taxes are 100% deductible on Federal Tax returns. And where a state has no income tax, a deduction of a percentage based on your sale sale tax rates, of your adjust gross income is allowed as a deduction - regardless of what you actually paid in sales taxes. It is only difficult to deduct if you do not have enough for itemized deductions. Then you get a standard deduction which is greater than what you spent on medical expenses, income taxes ,property taxes , home mortgage interest and charitible deductions. If you know how to keep records, there is no difficulty at all.
+7 # Texas Aggie 2014-07-16 09:59
in low tax , well run states, at a disadvantage.

Which is it? Are the low tax states at a disadvantage or are the well run states at a disadvantage. The two sets are separate and have no members in common.
+8 # publictakeover 2014-07-16 09:56
As long as ordinary citizens take no interest in engagement with elected officials, nor in self-government in cooperation with their communities, morons like Sam "the Wizard of Oz" Brownback will keep crashing their hot air balloons into the spires of the Emerald City, while kazoo orchestras play "Somewhere Over The Rainbow".
+7 # moonrigger 2014-07-16 20:11
Please, as a hot air balloonist, I beg you, please DON'T ever use that metaphor in regards to that putrid pile of pond sludge! (Come to think of it, though, Brownback is a very accurate descriptor for him, proving once again, truth is stranger than fiction.)
+9 # beadlejl 2014-07-16 09:57
Okay I decided to do a little internet search on which states businesses are fleeing in 2014. The winner seems to be New Jersey. California wasn't even in the top ten. From a NJ paper -
+7 # bmiluski 2014-07-16 10:32
It doesn't help that NJ property taxes are the highest in the country. NOT federal perty taxes.
+8 # Martha903 2014-07-16 13:33
Also the state bond rating there has been adjusted 6 times in 2 years for the market's lack of confidence that the state will be able to meet its obligations. Cut taxes and guess what, things have not gone as the beloved Governor predicted!
+6 # Philothustra 2014-07-16 12:36


-9 # Roland 2014-07-16 15:02
I believe my figures are correct as of March 2014 as stated above. I just went to this site— This is the US Dept. of Labor site. Bureau of labor and statistics.

Not saying KS doesn’t have problems but the article is a little deceptive. KS might not have improved as much as CA because they had a lower unemployment rate to begin with. KS has the 13 lowest unemployment rate. California has the 5th highest unemployment and Il is tied for the 6th highest unemployment rate
+5 # CaliforniaDreamin 2014-07-25 21:36
"Kansas might not have improved..." AT ALL. I actually live in Kansas, although I prefer the earlier mention of the state as "Brownbackistan ". Everything good about this state has been stripped away in Brownback's tenure. It's depressing. I grew up in California, the LA area... spent my first 24 years there. There was a time when you couldn't pay me to go back, but, now, I ponder it everyday. It isn't only the taxes. Kansas continues to try to legislate religious morality. It's oppressive. I may not have a quote from for you, but I could easilly find one to discredit your logic. I simply wanted to write in as a voice that doesn't exist in theory. I live it. Kansas has become depressing in only 4 short years.

As for every person in this thread who continues to attempt to support trickle down economic theory... you keep referencing the corporations. What of the people??? You are perfectly illustrating the point of this piece. Exactly.
+13 # Martha903 2014-07-16 13:09
I am amazed at how little people understand about economics. Jobs provide people with money to spend on their wants and needs. Earning from those jobs are taxed by the federal and local governments. Taxes are used to purchase goods and services and to provide some basic needs to those who have insuffient income to live. A job is a job whether you work for the government or for private sector. When taxes are cut, it means jobs are cut from the government sector first and then as demand goes down, from the private sector. This means there are folks who have no means to buy the goods and services which support the growth to the economy. The tax cuts generally mean that those who are in the upper brackets have more money to spend on goods and service. But the savings in taxes do not always equal additional spending by those who recieved the tax cuts. It more likely goes into savings which does very little to help the economy grow. The wealth for whom these tax cuts are directed seldom spend as much as those folks who's government jobs were eliminated, and therefore replacement jobs are slow in coming availible. That is what has happened with the Bush Tax cut. When you shrink government, you shrink the economy in the long run, which puts more pressure on the middle class to maintain what they have, increases poverty and makes the wealthy even more wealthy.
+11 # Martha903 2014-07-16 13:29
When businesses are making a location decision, taxes are not the top prioty. They look at availible labor force, education levels, medical care availibilty, transportion support to get their goods to market,utilitie s, general economic factors of the region such as the average wages per house hold, schools and other eminities. They narrow their selection to 2 or 3 potential location and then they consider taxes - income, property and sales taxes. Kansas is not attracting many business with their decrease in income taxes of 3% because at the same time, they are closing schools and the rural hospitals are in trouble. It is not attractive when the state bond rating has been adjusted twice in the last year because of lack of confidence in the state financial plan. It does not take an economist to predict that something will have to change or the state will be insolvent in the next few years. So how good is this tax rate and how long will it last? Perhaps another alternative should be looked at.
+4 # Jingze 2014-07-16 13:32
The U.S. needs a serious third party. The current yahoos have their hands too deep in corporate pockets, and they are not about to pull them out. The rich of the country once understood the nature of their vested interest of the common good and their role in it. The current rich have no interest in anyone or anything other than themselves. They have crippled the government rather than helped it work effectively. They sneer at the idea of "trickle down" anything.
+9 # Blackjack 2014-07-16 18:49
Thank you, Martha, for the economics lesson that so many seemed to have missed. I would add one other thing. When taxes are cut, especially for those who would pay the most, then revenue for the state is also cut, resulting in cuts to public services as well. Then you end up with crumbling infrastructure, failing schools, and other compromised services. The greedy simply want to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to pay a dime in taxes, but they are the ones who scream the loudest when necessary services are cut because there simply isn't enough revenue in the coffers to support them.
+8 # moonrigger 2014-07-16 20:04
Too bad it took several decades for Californians to rethink Prop 13's damage to its once highly esteemed education system, not to mention its infrastructure. Thank goddess they saw the light in 2012, and not a moment too soon, given the drought and other unforeseen difficulties it now faces. Kansas, as we've all seen, is in deep doggie doo. Too bad they didn't pay attention to that great book, What's The Matter With Kansas when it came out a decade ago. They might have avoided the crap they're in now. There may be hope yet that they will return to their roots--and become again a state that's known for tolerance, and rid itself of the religulous bigotry that's holding sway!

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.