Governor proposes tax hikes
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson on Monday proposed raising taxes on groceries, clothing, cigarettes and other consumer goods to eliminate a projected budget shortfall.
In his State of the State address, Parkinson asked legislators to increase the state's sales tax to 6.3 percent from 5.3 percent, but only for three years, starting in July. Kansas imposes the tax when consumers buy food, clothing, household items and most products, but not on gasoline or services.
The Democratic governor also asked the Republican-controlled Legislature to boost tobacco taxes to national averages and impose a statewide ban on smoking in public places. Kansas' cigarette tax would increase by 55 cents a pack, from 79 cents to $1.34, while the tax on other tobacco products would quadruple to 40 percent.
Those changes would raise $378 million during the fiscal year beginning July 1, almost enough to cover a projected budget shortfall approaching $400 million.
Other changes and shifting of funds around state government would allow Kansas to restore some previous cuts in aid to public schools, higher education and social services. The state also could reverse a 10 percent cut Parkinson imposed in November in payments to health care providers for services under the Medicaid program.
"Everything that has been built is at risk," Parkinson said during a joint session of the Legislature. "Now is the time to stop cutting aid to education, to stop cutting aid to public safety and to stop cutting aid to our elderly and disabled."
Parkinson's proposals are likely to face strong opposition. Many Republican legislators, particularly in the House, argue any tax increases will hurt struggling families and businesses — and slow the state's economic recovery.
"Taxpayers can't pay more until they start making more, and we've got to help them make more money so the state revenues will grow," House Speaker Mike O'Neal, a Hutchinson Republican, said.
House Majority Leader Ray Merrick, a Stilwell Republican, called Parkinson's tax proposals "shameful."
Senate President Steve Morris, a Hugoton Republican who's been more receptive to raising new revenues, took heart in Parkinson's saying that he is "open to all options." Morris said raising the sales tax rate is a difficult sell.
Democrats and advocates for education and the needy have focused on reversing business tax breaks granted in recent years and eliminating exemptions to the sales tax. No specific proposals have emerged, but items exempted include bingo games, Kansas Lottery tickets, farm machinery and supplies purchased by religious groups.
"I'd like to see us have a discussion about exemptions and tax credits — I mean, things that have benefited businesses and folks who are more higher-income," said House Minority Leader Paul Davis, a Lawrence Democrat.
Under Parkinson's sales tax proposal, the levy would drop from 6.3 percent to 5.5 percent in 2013. Money raised from the 0.2 percentage points of extra tax that remains would go to highway projects.
Parkinson and other Democrats have said for weeks that the state did enough budget-cutting in 2009.
The state expects to spend $651 million less in general tax revenues in its current budget than in it did two years ago, a drop of nearly 11 percent.
Federal stimulus funds helped some, but belt-tightening occurred across state government. Kansas closed three minimum-security prison units last year and cut back on highway maintenance. Public schools had 3,700 fewer teachers and other staff this fall. The state recently stopped paying for dental care for some seniors.
"What I am not open to are further crippling cuts to our critical state programs," Parkinson said. "Our ancestors fought too hard to build this state to what it is right now, and now it's our turn. It's our turn to fight."
truelovecharlie (anonymous) says...
It is nothing but a ploy when they say they only want this for 3 years and then it will disppear. They will get use to the extra revenue it will bring in and they will opt to continue it. BOO HOO, MAKE MORE CUTS! We (taxpayers) have to make cuts every month as our income keeps shrinking due to the ever increasing expenses. Everything is going up but wages, When are these people going to figure out that the more they tax, the less we have to spend? I am fed up with all the going to the well that goes on. About the only thing they don't tax is the air we breathe. Give them a way to put implant monitors on our mouths and they will put a tax on that to.
January 12, 2010 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
The Beatles
Taxman
1,2,3,4,1,2
Let me tell you how it will be,
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all.
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
(If you drive a car ), I’ll tax the street,
(If you try to sit ), I’ll tax your seat,
(If you get too cold ), I’ll tax the heat,
(If you take a walk ), I’ll tax your feet.
Taxman.
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Don’t ask me what I want it for
(Taxman! Mister Wilson!)
If you don’t want to pay some more
(Taxman! Mister Heath!),
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Now my advice for those who die, (Taxman!)
Declare the pennies on your eyes, (Taxman!)
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
And you’re working for no-one but me,
(Taxman).
January 12, 2010 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
I guess Emmerson ought to be happy. (incase anyone wants to know why I say this you need to go to the print edition of the gazette and look up his oped that virtually begged for more taxes) ( no it didn't appear here online)
Always seems funny to me why the gov. would propose a tax increase on something and then want to ban it. (tobacco)
I think most of us agree we've got enough taxes already.
Sounds like Parkinson's Disease to me.
January 12, 2010 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
More taxes? Meh , whatever it takes.
"Ask not what your country (state) can do for you; ask what you can do for your country (state)."
Our nation is at war, folks. If paying a little more taxes will help keep our nation great (and safe), then I don't see how you can complain. If you don't want to pay taxes, then I say you might be a little selfish or a tad unpatriotic. Your elected officials know what they're doing. How else would they have been elected? Just relax and give them the tools (money) to do their jobs properly.
'enry
January 12, 2010 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
If no one complains about taxes and how they are spent more things like this( http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archi... ) will happen and go relatively unchecked. The only reason they are doing anything about it now is so they can create another huge fraud target. I really don't know why we are expected to have this unquestioning trust of the government all of a sudden. I don't think they have earned it.
January 12, 2010 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
toofast (anonymous) says...
Why don't they tax the internet sales of products? It is a revenue source that deserves to be taxed. We have to pay taxes for everything else that we buy. It would also help the local stores if they were on a more level playing field.
January 12, 2010 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DJrocksthemic (anonymous) says...
So I propose the following question to all those who call this plan a sham and mockery. We've already cut the arms off of education both primary and higher. Those arms are now bleeding and more will have to be cut off if nothing is done. So I propose to you, if you disagree with Gov. Parkinson's plan, present something better, that will still allow us to educate our kids at the level we are now, however miligned it may be. Their's one thing I learned as a State Champion debater in high school, if you're going to attack the opponents plan, you dang sure better well have a better one. (Granted kids now won't get to learn that lesson because the money bled from our schools will force the cutting of programs like debate; Regan most republicans hero was a debater in high school; and our kids will never learn that.) So go ahead, complain about this plan, and how you don't think it will work, but be prepared to offer us a better plan that will work instead of spending the next four months whining about how bad this one is.
January 12, 2010 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alsrac (anonymous) says...
Here is a better plan that should apply to every level in the government: how about cutting all the politicians wages at least 50%
They don't deserve better pay than the rest of the really hard working people.
January 12, 2010 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DJrocksthemic (anonymous) says...
The members of the Kansas legislature do already make less than most of the hard working people. Cutting their salaries by that number would only save the state about 78.5 million, no where near what is needed to supplement the short fall, most of them already make less than a liveable wage and have jobs at home to supplement their income. Sorry Alsrac that plan just isn't feesible, still waiting for the better plan.
January 12, 2010 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Again, I will pose these question/s to those who believe that everyone can and must afford to pay higher taxes and make the excuse for higher taxes, such as we are at war, we need better and costlier education systems, etc., etc. !
Are you/we as taxpayers ... responsible for the war that we are now fighting ... even though we are paying ... through the nose ... for a war on two fronts ....noone really wanted .... save a greedy few !
Are our/your children receiving a better quality education now, than those children of .... oh, say ... 30 years ago ?
And when the taxpayers of the City, County, State and Country can no longer afford to pay taxes .... what do you higher tax supporters propose .... when that situation arises ?
And why do you who support an uncontrolled spend and tax philosophy ..... believe that everyone .... including City, County, State, Federal governments, school districts, local school boards .... should not have to cut back on spending and making do with what they already have or what the taxpayers can afford to pay ?
Cutting spending in this present economic time seems to be a solid plan that everyone should follow .... not just those who pay taxes and receive no more in the way of pay !
January 12, 2010 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
methusla,
Yes. The schooling that kids receive today is better and more comprehensive than what folks got 30 years ago. As Louis Armstrong put it, "I hear babies cry, I watch them grow. They'll learn much more than I'll ever know."
When does anyone really want to be at war? I only mentioned war and patriotism to get the conservatives on board. Y’all don't want the terrorists do git ya, do ya? Better pay your taxes! LOL
'enry
January 12, 2010 at 2:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Our legislators receive the following pay....Kansas
$86.50/day (C)
$109/day (U) tied to federal rate.
This means our legislators receive $86.50 each and every calendar day (C) of every year ! They also recieve $109.00 for each and every time they are in attendance of official state legislative meetings (U) !
So if I am not mistaken when the State Legislature, Legislatures are in session the Legislators are paid a possible $195.50 each time they are actually doing or trying to do something and $86.50 per day ..... even if they are doing nothing !
How many of you/us working for a living make $ 86.50 when doing nothing ?
http://www.ncsl.org/LegislaturesElect...
January 12, 2010 at 2:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
HenryVII
I do not entirely agree with you on the education and schooling of our children !
It is and has been my experience, that what a child learns and the education a child recieves .... starts with the child wanting to learn and the commitment and desire of a teacher to teach those children who have the will and desire to learn and to be educated !
Without the desire of the children to learn and the willingness of a teacher to teach children, under adverse conditions .... no amount of money is going to help !
As for war, you are right ... no one in their right mind wants war ..... expecially a war with the wrong country and its leader or a war that goes nowhere, with no possible satisfactry end or a war to line some individual or beaurocrats pockets/bank account !
January 12, 2010 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
As for me, I am continuing to learn and be educated .... each and everyday ! Education only ceases when the persons will to learn ceases !
January 12, 2010 at 3:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Henry VIII
Sorry for taking you down a notch from VIII to VII think of it as a demerit ! Ha, Ha, Ha !
January 12, 2010 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
For instance, I have been teaching myself to make printed circuit boards and electronic circuitry, so I may fabricate my own.... home made ... lithium ion/nimh .... " Smart Battery Charger ! And I will soon be 68 years old ! So I guess my will to learn has not died yet !
January 12, 2010 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
It is a common complaint based on fact that kids in the U.S. do not perform as well as those in other countries, particularly Europe and Asia. Test scores like ACT and SAT substantiate that claim. It is not less school, but more that is needed. I can see doing without extra curriculum stuff, but not teachers and not academic resources.
You can't compare the quality of education today to that of 30 years ago because today's student must learn lessons far more complex. Technology alone speaks to that. In addition, expectations of today's student are much higher, particularly in the areas of math and science. Even now, we must import doctors from India and Asia because we don't have enough of our own.
And don't forget heating those buildings and paying for custodians and librarians and secretaries and cooks and buying books and computers and paying for special Ed.teachers.
As far as paying for two wars, what difference does it make whether we asked for it or not? The fact remains that we are indeed at war on two fronts and we must pay for it. No amount of complaining or blaming will change that. What is the alternative? No planes? No armament? Shall we starve our own troops? How do you suggest we handle the problem? Just pull out? What about all their injuries? Last but not least, do you have jobs for all the reserves who will be returning home? Many of those men's jobs in civilian life have since been cut due to the recession.
Don't mistake my post as being supportive of an "uncontrolled spend and tax philosophy," nay, far from it. I'm all for controlling budgets, but just remember that while cutting spending may be the consideration of some, cutting spending has already resulted in people losing their jobs. It has already happened here, and that makes for even fewer tax dollars collected.
I would suggest that the state go after those many, many cases of delinquent taxes, property taxes in particular. That should help because the list is very long.
January 12, 2010 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
DJ
By the time I pay all the taxes it is 50% or better of what I make.
This starts at the local level and goes all the way to the fed.
I for one would like to see your justification of the taxes that we pay now before I try to justify your or anyone else's increase.
January 12, 2010 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DJrocksthemic (anonymous) says...
Oh, by the way Methusala, anybody who makes more than 30K a year, makes more than $86 a day.
Oh and by the way that's only $28 more than minimum wage makes per day, on a seven day per week scale, if you expand the minimum wagers to seven days, you actually get less.
January 12, 2010 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Deepthoughts (anonymous) says...
Here's a thought:
Instead of raising taxes, how about they learn to balance a flipping budget. The taxpayers have to learn to do this and the taxpayers can't just go out and generate more income (like the government can just raise taxes to get more money), taxpayers actually have cut things and do without. Perhaps it is time that our big wig politicians do without! I'm sick and tired of paying for their greed and WASTE!
January 12, 2010 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
create
I totally agree that spending unnecessarily and letting individuals and corporations get away with hideing money and wealth that is and should have been taxed, but is not... has been the bane of the U.S.A. ... as well as other countries ....for many years .... perfect examples .... artificial turf ...landscape Ctys entrances ..... as well as otherthings ...... absolutely needed ? I think not !
More, better equipped class rooms .... possibly .... more better paid teachers .... I will concede to that .... overpaid government and civic leaders ....I am not sure ....but unnecessary and unneeded spending ..... definately not !
Why should you/me .... the already overburdened .... over taxed ..... taxpayer ... be expected to pay more and more and at the same time be required/asked to do with less and less ?
It is not really a matter of what we can do for our country.... It is a question of what can our country, government, government leaders, etc., do without ?
The Beatles song ... titled, Taxman .... is coming to " fruition " whether anyone wants to admit it or not ! Eventually every penney ... everyone makes is/will go to paying taxes and paying for uncontrolled government spending and then you will see a rea/inevitable social, U.S.A. governmental collapse and when that happens ..... either " Anarchy " will be the rule of the day or the U.S.A. will no longer be known as the U.S.A. !
January 12, 2010 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
DJrocksthemic
Our legislators, get paid $86.50 every day of the calander year, including Saturdays and Sundays and those days that they are golfing, fishing or whatever ! Do you get paid the same ?
(C) calendar day means every flippin day on the calendar !
And then they get paid $109.00 per day + the $86.50 (C) for each day that the legislature is in session and they attend....hence the purpose of role call .... so that means that they get paid $196.50 per day for every day they attend a leglislative session !
Also if they go to a college, etc. on a Saturday or Sunday or any day and speak at that function for a $10,000 dollar fee .... they still will make their $86.50 per day + $10,000 dollars for a speaking fee !
And this may not take into account things, like paid meals, paid hotel rooms, other paid benefits.... that you and I could only dream about !
Yes, I am sure that these poor old legislators are getting paid barely above poverty/minimum wage !
January 12, 2010 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I'd like to be clear about something. Just because a man or woman does not physically show up for work somewhere does not mean they are not working. They may be on the phone or computer at home or their place of business trying to conduct state business.
Before I retired from teaching, the one argument I kept hearing time and time again whenever it was time for a new contract was that teachers go home when the kids were out every day. Teachers have summers off. yadda yadda yadda. Wrong. Teachers at my school worked from 7:30 to 4:00 every week day. Many who taught the solid subjects like me took homework home nearly every single day. My day often ended at 10 or 11 after grading was done. No one witnessed how hard I worked. Just me. I was not physically at a job unless you count at my kitchen table.
The same is true of legislators. They are at work in many more ways than just being present at the capitol building. And you know what? If I were a legislator, and I were expert at some issue and others wanted to pay me for my expertise, you're darned right I'd accept a fee. That's the name of the game.
I teach quilting classes because I have skills others would like to learn. I don't do it for nothing. I can teach Englilsh composition at the college level from my home, from my computer without even getting out of my pajamas. They pay for that. I don't have to go to any building.
Were it up to some of you, something tells me you'd pay them little or nothing at all.
What is your worth? A plumber charges me $60 an hour. The Heating and Air guy charged me $75 to service my furnace this past October. He wasn't even here for 15 minutes. Electricians charge a pretty penny too. I paid someone $35 to shovel my walks. Do you know what a painter gets? A carpenter? A mechanic? A 10 minute oil change costs nearly $30. The man who mows my lawn charges $30. C'mon people.
January 12, 2010 at 5:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
But, a lot of the time these legislators are doing nothing that has to do with managing/running the City, County, State or Federal government ! And I do guess these people have skils other than sticking it to the taxpayers ! Skils, such as taking lobbyist/special interest money or hiding wealth/income in off shore accounts/shell companys, etc., !
If you would care to see some of the work these people do take a look at this,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/n...
January 12, 2010 at 8:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Or you might be interested in this report,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/n...
Our legislators at work or not at work !
January 12, 2010 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
create, if you got charged $75.00 from the heating and air guy for 15 minutes you got screwed. Call me and I will give you the name of a company that bills service charges by the 1/2 hour. I just paid them$32.50 for 1/2 hour of servicing my furnace. and the kid did a great job explaining things to me.
January 12, 2010 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Cut all sales tax exemptions......collect sales tax on all Internet sales......stop funding all interscholastic sports funding at the public school level......place a three year moratorium on all but emergency capitol expenditures.....
Just a few places to start!
January 13, 2010 at 8:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Will call you, Steve.
Thanks
January 13, 2010 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Will call you, Steve.
Thanks
A personal friend of mine is a state legislator who actually answers e-mails from constituents no matter how many received. Sometimes people just e-mail to bitch about the dumbest things that make no sense at all. They just want to be heard. They get answers too. It takes large chunks of time to answer all those e-mails, sensible ones or not. Time is valuable whether you're sitting at your kitchen table grading papers or answering e-mails on your home computer.
January 13, 2010 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Singling out one segment of the population to pay extra taxes is not what America is supposed to be about. If they are going to raise taxes, the only sensible tax to raise is sales tax, that is IF they were to remove all sales tax exemptions. Every legislative session there are applications for tax exempt status. In times of budget shortfalls, all current exemptions should be put on hold until the proposed and approved state budget is met.
Enacting a higher tax on tobacco claiming it will help save the budget while also announcing the desire to ban smoking in public places statewide is a real good example of why our government and the country is in the economic mess we are in. It's like taking one step forward and two steps back. In times of recession, if sales taxes and profit margins were lowered, I believe folks would be more inclined to go ahead and make the purchases they had hesitated on making before. Moving larger volumes of products produces more revenue for everyone, pretty simple concept really. Raising prices and taxes without increases in wages equals one thing and one thing only, economic doom.
And NO, we have not come close to cutting off education's arms, we've only reduced the amount of gravy on the meat and potatos.
January 13, 2010 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Go to Kansas Education: Public Policy in Kansas and elesewhere. According to this report "when allsources are considered schools have been cut less than 1.5% on average and schools are receiving more funding than in fiscal 2008."
January 14, 2010 at 1:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Go to Kansas Watchdog.org This site is good food for thought.
January 14, 2010 at 2:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Calling the sales tax the only tax that is imposed equally on all......is a joke......unless it is imposed on everything sold without exemptions. Currently almost all top end high price items are exempt from sales tax. Homes certainly are....including those that are bought to be used as rentals to produce incomes. Many private airplanes....almost all yachts.....machinery used for farming......vacation condo's in Vail....no sales tax collected on any.
What it is collected on without fail are those items normally deemed essentials of life.....food--clothing----household items...and school supplies. So the person making 30-K per year and spending 80 percent of that money on those necessities is being taxed on 80 per cent of his income. But the person making 300-K per year may be only spending 30 per cent of his income on those items...there fore he is only being taxed on 30 percent of his income. What's fair about that?
January 14, 2010 at 7:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
If I have to explain that yes, I meant sales tax on retail goods that everyone pays at one time or another, then the joke is on those who want to argue/debate about everything. I do believe I addressed the exempt status as well, guess perhaps you overlooked or didn't comprehend that either. We collect sales tax from people who are not residents of the state, when they stop and purchase goods. Would we get that money with property or income taxes?
Your last paragraph isn't worth responding to but I will be your huckleberry. Perhaps those in $30k/year bracket should have tried harder at life and made more money to gain the tax advantage. Maybe we should raise the taxes on homes over 1000 sq ft by 100% because people making enough money to live in larger homes don't need such big homes to survive and the poor folks only making $30k can't afford them. Let's raise property/sales taxes on brand new cars 100% because the poor working class folks can't afford to buy them on their $30k salaries. Why do those big wage earners think they need to buy $50k cars when workers struggle to buy a used $5k car?.
Another tax I think they should consider based on their tobacco philosophy, is raising taxes on cellphones. I think the tax should be based on the number of minutes used(so the poor underpaid lowly workers aren't over taxed). With the number of people walking around with them screwed in their ears, in some of the most rediculous places, they could collect a ton of money real quick or force people to quit using them publicly. They would also be preventing the need for a state wide public use ban legislation or use of cellphones while driving.
January 14, 2010 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
neighbor
Spoken truly like a person in the !00-K plus income range. I expected nothing less. I did however notice you called for an end to some undefined exemptions (though apparently not near all of them)......and was not challenging your post at all. In fact I thought I was supporting it. You really shouldn't be so defensive...the stress causes all kinds of health problems.
January 14, 2010 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
b3bill (anonymous) says...
It irritates me to hear various "officials", whether the Governor or local school district superintendents, etc., say something to the effect of "all the fat has been trimmed out of the budget and now we're cutting into the bone". To me that sounds like they're now saying they previously allocated and spent money for unnecessary reasons.
A responsible person/group of officials to their constituents would not have allowed "fat" in the budget at any time. They would have operated on a responsible budget at all times, not just when the money falls short and they're unwillingly being forced into it. If there was extra money before, it should have been allocated more responsibly for longer or later term use, such as for a rainy day fund, or to perhaps enhance the educational opportunities of all students in the school.
School districts are going to have to realize all of their spending matters, not just on big ticket items on the budget. It all adds up. Poor choices in spending does little to bring about much sympathy and understanding from many taxpayers like myself.
For example, in the midst of their well-publicized budget woes, Dist 252 South Lyon County, did not have school last Thursday and Friday, Jan 7 and 8 due to the weather. I'm not questioning that decision. The Olpe/Hartford basketball games scheduled for Jan 8 were rescheduled to Sat Jan 9. Does anyone remember how cold it was that day? The low temperature was something like -8 deg F that morning and the high about 10 deg F, and this was forecasted long before the game was rescheduled. How much did it cost to reheat the gym just for the games on such a cold day? The gym heating should have been on minimal setting during the days school was called off, plus the upcoming weekend. Instead the gym was heated up Sat Jan 9 just for the basketball games. Since the games were already being rescheduled (among the 2 high schools in the same district and within a very close in distance), why choose the following day when the high temperature was forecast to be so cold, perhaps one of the coldest days of the winter? I'm betting there was little, if any, concern over the cost of heating the gym.
It is actions such as this where some school districts do not seem to me like they're too concerned with extra spending or taking easy opportunities to save some money, yet they're crying they don't know how to reduce their budgets any further.
However, the schools think they need more money and the Gov thinks the taxpayers need to spend even more money in sales taxes for them. All I see out of this is for more irresponsible spending. All things need a correction at some time, such as the stock market. I feel it was high time for the schools budgets to be forced into a financial correction, requiring a very detailed study and accounting of all their spending. Many taxpayers have been for quite sometime, with little relief in sight.
January 14, 2010 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sociallyconsious (anonymous) says...
tbluma I could care less about your political views or even getting in the discussion of this topic, but you choose to make a "funny" which I consider to be in bad taste.
"Parkinsons Disease" is not something that should ever be used as a funny. Although it might be our govenors name. It also is a real illness which many people including myself, have family members dying from,
You might think I am a little too sensitive, and maybe I am. When you watch someone suffer for years, dying slowly before your eyes, you tend to see things differently.
Please think twice next time before you open your mouth or type with your hands. Sometimes a funny is not funny.
January 14, 2010 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Calling a sales tax, "a joke" is hardly a sign of being supportive. And no I don't make !00k-plus(yet) but I don't sit on my porch whining about it nor making sorry excuses why I don't have when someone else does.
January 15, 2010 at 6:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
And neither do I. In fact, my porch is still largely covered with snow because I have not had the time to do it justice due to the demands of my job.
Was simply pointing out what is often called the regressive nature of the sales tax because of its tendency to be applied more heavily (percentage wise) to lower income people. This argument has been around at least as long as I have and is well known in circles of people who are educated in such matters. So to say it's not worth responding to is to display a marked lack of knowledge on the subject...or a don't give a damn who it hurts as long as it is not me attitude.
The only way to correct this regressive tendency is to apply the tax to everything that is sold at an equal rate. That means eliminating virtually all exemptions. I ask again what is fair about applying a tax to virtually everything bought by a poor person...while exempting the tax from much of what a rich person buys. Please explain how that is fair--minus the ridiculous assertion that the rich shouldn't have to pay taxes on those things because they worked harder to get rich.
Now there is a statement not worthy of response!
January 15, 2010 at 6:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
neighbor
Since you may need further clarification, I was being supportive of the idea of a sales tax, if exemptions...all of them....were removed. But the exemptions your were referring to apparently only applied to those view the poor might now be escaping......and that I was not supportive of at all.
January 15, 2010 at 6:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Looking for my goat, cause someone got it!
All these state and local "administrators" coming out and saying "we have cut out all the fat, and now we are cutting down to the bone".
Perhaps if these "administrators" had cut the fat years ago we wouldn't be in this situation?
There was one on KVOE this morning saying he wished he had gone into truck driving instead of school superintendent, because of all this. I've got news for him, he wouldn't have all those tax dollars supporting him and the cuts that a truck driver has had to take over the last few years would show him and others what cutting down to the bone really means.
Not to mention if he ran his trucking business like SOME in SOME school districts run their business he would be unemployed and the truck repossessed.
January 15, 2010 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"Perhaps if these "administrators" had cut the fat years ago we wouldn't be in this situation"
Exactly! We all get too used to things being good in the good times and act like things will never be rough again. I always scoffed at people that lived during the great depression for how they lived so frugally ever since but I totally understand now. I wish now that I/we would have listened to them and followed their example.
January 15, 2010 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
It has nothing to do with cutting the fat in years past. The rule has always been that if state funds have not been used by the end of the fiscal year, they must be returned to the state. The key term here is USED. Those funds must be expended, they cannot be put into a savings account somewhere either. Gotta use em. How many districts or agencies do you think return those funds? Guess what? They find uses for those leftovers which some of you are referring to as "fat."
b3bill, good post, but gymnasiums, while not kept at very high temperatures, can't be shut down too low because there are adjacent locker rooms with showers, toilets etc. Can't let plumbing freeze and cause giant plumbing bills for want of a few degrees in temperature.
My question is this: When do you suggest those games be played? There is a playing schedule involved that is set. It was set last year. I suppose those games could be cancelled once and for all, but if so, where do you put the wins/losses for the sake of league records and state records? If those two teams get a bye, then shouldn't all teams get a bye? Just asking.
January 15, 2010 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
bisquit and neighbor
Good dialogue here about sales tax.
I for one would like to see income tax abolished and have a sales tax on everything.
One question of bisquit though.
Is there not a luxury tax on yachts,jewelry and the like?
And don't we pay taxes on our cars based on the purchase price?
The people who are on food stamps or whatever aren't using their money so sales tax is a mote point on that issue.
However I still think that the best tax is the sales tax because
everyone pays whether they are tourists,locals or illeagals.
January 15, 2010 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
The government thinks the best kind of tax is all of them and the only problem with them is that they are too few.
January 15, 2010 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodjoss (anonymous) says...
Everything is interconnected... Money cut from government agencies is money out of the hands of the private sector, too. It's not an all-or-nothing situation.
My salary is paid from the taxpayers of the State of Kansas. My salary goes to pay for my house, car, groceries, and everything else everyone else pays for. ALL of it goes to the private sector. Everything I buy at work comes from the private sector, too.
January 15, 2010 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
tbluma
You might find the following article, of some interest concerning luxury taxes, on Yachts,
Luxury Boats Tax Loophole, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/lux...
January 15, 2010 at 1:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
This article may also be of some interest, concerning luxury tax loopholes for luxury auto, etc.,
Yes, Size Matters - automobile taxation loopholes - Brief Article, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi...
January 15, 2010 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And here is what I could find on possible jewelry luxury tax loopholes,
IRS wants its cut of celebrity freebies, http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/...
January 15, 2010 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
This may just be the biggest tax loophole of all tax loopholes,
How the Rich Hide Their Wealth, http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?...
January 15, 2010 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Should or should not the government and it's employees have to adjust to these hard times like everyone else? My pay has been frozen for who knows how long(plus a steady reduction in benefits), yet my expenses keep going up. I can't just raise my income like the government raises it's intake(taxes). People keep saying "The government's here to help you." The government is your sweet sweet friend." "Trust the government." Say huh? Do wha? I say. We in the private sector pretty much all have been punched really hard in the right cheek by the economy as of late. Is it really helpful for the government to sock us a good one on the left cheek by taking more in taxes? I personally don't think so. People say "why complain about it now? Why didn't you complain before?" Because it's really starting to hurt now, that's why. They say that if you put a frog in a pot of boiling water it will jump out but if you put it in a pot of cool water and slowly bring it to a boil it will stay there and boil to death. The water's getting too warm for my blood. I don't care who started the fire. All I know is I don't like it.
January 15, 2010 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Meth both sites are interesting but they just prove that the sales tax needs to be on everyone with no exemptions.
The yacht deal was in Ca. so maybe there is still a fed. tax I don't know for sure.
The jewelry deal would be a gift tax or income.
I still think there's a luxury tax on jewlry but then again I'm not sure.The way the IRS works if there was a lux. tax on their gifts they were probably income taxed on the lux. tax.
January 15, 2010 at 2:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
For anyone who is interested here is another article on tax loopholes, Business: The Scandal of Secret Swiss Bank Accounts
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/art...
January 15, 2010 at 2:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Seriously
AMEN
January 15, 2010 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks
I agree with your analogy !
The problem is, yes the fire/taxes under the frogs/taxpayers pot started small, but is now in danger of becoming an out of control inferno/forest fire ! And once taxes are imposed, they very seldom are un-imposed ! Rather more and more taxes are imposed, because those who receive these tax moneys have gotten and will get used to even greater spending and taxing ! And those who are imposing more and more taxes, to be able to spend more and more , cannot, will not nor have the desire to reign their riduculous tax and spend policies ! Yes, I too bitch and complain about it, but being a little person, of no particular note, money or influence . All I can do is bitch and complain, in the hope that my bitching, complaining and opening the minds and eyes of the people to what is happening to us, it will cause such a ground swell of discontaint and protest with the current status quo of doing things, possibly those in the position we as taxpayers elected them to, will possibly see the error of their ways !
January 15, 2010 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Many small voices in harmony can make eardrums bleed. Let's do it!
January 15, 2010 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
giggles (anonymous) says...
Create, ususally you make pretty good sense to me, but with the post about having to spend the money or it goes back to the state, just doesn't cut it for me.
Let it go back. What is so wrong with returning it to the state? I don't know what they would do with it if they got it back, but spending on silly "fat" so you don't have to return it is rediculous.
Furthermore, for the government to hand out money but be so strict on how it can be spent that you cannot do what is most needed for. Instead you spend it on a frivolous waste (i.e. the astroturf) proving that both the school and the government are ignorant. You cannot have money for the right things if you spend it on all of the wrong things. IF YOU CANNOT SPEND IT RIGHT, DON'T SPEND IT AT ALL!
January 15, 2010 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Giggles, I think create's point is that the funds are SUPPOSED to go back to the state IF they are not used. But anytime those with the money and the power to decide have leftover funds........ they will hardly ever return it to the state. They'll make sure they find SOMEWHERE to spend it, so they don't have to give any back.
Kind of like if you gave your kid 10 pieces of candy and told him to give 1 to each of his friends, and give you back whatever was left over. Even if your kid only had 3 friends.......... he'd find a way to tell you the next day that there was no candy left over............. so the next time you give him candy to give to all his friends.... you wouldn't give him 3 pieces...... you'd give him 10.
Yes, I was a pretty smart kid ;-).
January 15, 2010 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
giggles (anonymous) says...
Open_eyes, I got the point. My point is, that they should be working above the level of children with candy.
That is exactly how we get into these shortfall situations. No one saves money or gives it back, they spend it on whatever they can, so they don't have to. Then when there is no fallback money to turn to, they whine that they don't have enough.
How would it work if I went home this weekend from work, spent all of my money and not even on things I needed, then went to work on Monday and whined to my boss that I needed more money?
It doesn't take a whole lot of brain power to know the answer to that question. It should be the same for them.
January 15, 2010 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Great analogy with the candy, open_eyes. That's exactly how it works.
giggles, ideally, the state should allow these agencies to save the money they don't use. But that's the problem, they don't. The unused funds have to be returned. I believe the leftover funds would likely be saved for a rainy day if it were allowed. In most cases anyway.
In the case of school districts, their funding is based on a head count of students. I don't know how much it is currently, but I think it's around 4 thousand dollars a head. I should have looked that up, but I didn't. Anyway, that's one of the reasons why small schools are having such a terrible time with budgeting, especially if their numbers have been declining. A school building is a school building and has to be maintained no matter how many kids attend that school.
I do know that USD 252 recently took pay cuts for administrators in order to help themselves with their budget woes.
January 15, 2010 at 4:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
My understanding is if they don't spend all the money and do give it back that return will also then run a serious risk of being deducted from your budget next year. So for the agency involved there becomes little incentive to return unused funds.
tbluma
You might be right on some luxury taxes...and I'm sure laws vary from state to state. But so do loopholes...some large enough to drive your yacht through. So if we really want to seriously consider switching from income to sales tax.....a move I could support under some conditions....I think we would be well served to close off those luxury taxes and their loopholes......and put those luxuries under the sales tax like everything else. I also think houses and other living quarters should not be exempt with the exception of a primary place of residence perhaps. Then the sales tax would truly be a fair and equitable tax. JMO
January 15, 2010 at 6:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Right, biscuitboy. If I couldn't find 1 of my three friends, and only gave away 2 pieces of candy, then I'd have to give mom back 8 pieces of candy....... then the next time I might only get 2 pieces. Exactly right, there is often little incentive to return unused funds.
Of course, if mom found out I had 3 friends but kept all 10 pieces of candy, next time it was time to dole out candy she'd say "Where's the other 7 pieces you had left over from last time? Didn't you save them?"
At which point I'd have to be honest and tell her about the 3 new friends I'd suddenly gained once word got around I had extra candy, the playground bully from the upper grade that made me give him 2 pieces or else he'd beat me up, the dog that ate 1 piece (plus my homework). Of course I didn't mention the best piece of candy I saved to give Betty Lou in exchange for the promise of a kiss behind the woodshop building at recess. (She took the candy and ran off without delivering the promised kiss).
You know, there's alot of parallels between where all my extra candy went and how leftover spending money disappears. In each and every case.............
January 15, 2010 at 7:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
You're right, biscuit boy, and thank you for bringing it up. If agencies do send the funds back to the state, the following year, a percentage of that amount will be deducted from the new allocation regardless what the new need might be.
January 15, 2010 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, funny story about losing a kiss and candy too. Sorry
Still funny.
January 15, 2010 at 8:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I should have married her............... just to get even ;-)
January 15, 2010 at 8:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
With those friends it sounds to me like you and I grew up in the same neighborhood. Only with me Betty Lou got dinner at Red Lobster and I let her drive my car......She ran off with it and I got nothing.....Of course, that was after I married her.
January 16, 2010 at 3:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
tbluma
One of the reasons I do like the sales tax over the income tax (with noted qualifications) is it's simplicity. Same rate applied to all things regardless of price. No deductions--no credits--no loopholes. That also is why I feel we should then close all of the loophole riddled taxes like luxury taxes if going to the sales tax as our source of tax revenue.
Plus...as I mentioned on another thread recently.....I also like the idea that it becomes very hard to escape or dodge......everybody has to buy things. Of course we almost certainly would see an increase in bartering...which then would have to become illegal to some degree.....but everything has some problems to overcome.
January 16, 2010 at 4:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
methusla
Thanks for your interesting and informative info on tax loopholes. At present they cost us untold sums in taxes and most exist just for that reason. Of course some of these tax loopholes are state laws written to protect a particular business such as yacht sales in California. Yacht sales in Kansas is not a big issue...but prairie yachts (aka combines) are. They are also exempt.
Of course when I was talking about switching from income to sales tax I was primarily referring to federal tax so closing exemptions would apply nationwide. I suppose each state could still feather the nest of some its favorite sons if they still chose to do so.
January 16, 2010 at 7 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
With regard to school expenses, the picture on the front page of those kids playing basketball reminds me that those jerseys, purchased by the school, are very, very expensive. They last for several years, thank goodness, but they are not cheap, especially when you are buying for an entire team plus extras. Game jerseys consist of those all white ones worn for home games, and those that are in school colors that are worn for away games.
January 16, 2010 at 7:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Excellent point about "prairie yachts" biscuit!!!!
January 16, 2010 at 7:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I can see just a tiny bit of difference between a water yacht, which is non-essential, purely for pleasure, and a "prarie yacht", which is an essential piece of machinery required for harvesting.
Until luxury yachts start doubling as commercial fishing vessels, and we farmboys start taking our dates to the drive-in in combines, I'll remain of that opinion ;-)
Although that does give me an idea....... turning the grainbin on a combine into a 300-bushel capacity hot tub........... hmmmm...........
January 16, 2010 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I like to eat. Farmers good.
January 16, 2010 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
good point on the "luxury" of combines, open_eyes. Without combines, one farmer couldn't feed 122 people.
I like tofu, go soybean farmers!
January 16, 2010 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
But open-eyes it could be argued that my pickup is an essential part of my conducting my job but I have to pay sales tax on that truck......and this is much more true of many people than it is me. seriously folks says he likes to eat so farmers are good. Well plumbers are also good when your toilet is overflowing but they still have to pay sales tax on their trucks. So what causes the diff.
But the real important thing here is that you are already starting back down the loophole road. One of the primary arguments in favor of the sales tax over the income tax is its simplicity and its equal application. Now already we are suggesting that maybe we should exempt combines......what will we suggest next. And before long you are right back where we are now with so many exemptions for so many favorite sons that any semblance of simplicity and equal application has been lost.
In my view the fishing trawler should also have sales tax applied. As with everything else, that additional cost will be passed on to the consumers anyway. so once again the little guy is the real loser....but what else is new!
January 16, 2010 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
The thing that concerns me about the sales tax dealy is that if the government gets most of their take from sales tax and they continue to spend like spider monkeys on crack the price of food will be too high (because of taxes) to afford unless you are too poor to afford it and get government money to buy it and I will work (and make "too much") but not be able to eat while others will not work and will be eating.
January 16, 2010 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
seriously.....so what's the difference between that and now?
January 16, 2010 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
The same scenario could occur with the present tax system.....may be even more likely.
January 16, 2010 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Yeah, I'm pretty much up a creek either way. Lucky me. I just hope Obama's plan to release Klingon technology from Area 51 works.
January 16, 2010 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And you are correct, biscuitboy...... my only point was that combines are not what a farmer (or anyone) would consider a "luxury". I know I sure never thought of it in any way, shape or form as a "yacht".
Although, during those hot summer days sweating and grimy while sitting in the (at that time) NON-air conditioned cab....... I would occasionally dream of being instead on some yacht in the Caribbean partying with a group of scantily-clad........ uhm......... uh........... socialites.. Somehow though I was just never able to see the similarities between the yacht and the combine.
However...... a plumber may write off the cost of the vehicle, gas spent (mileage) and so forth as an expense, and deduct it from his income. So the plumber does have some loopholes there.
January 16, 2010 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Plumbers and folks with jobs like that(me) can also write off tools that they purchase for work. Some people in government still see value in working, while others seem to value something else more.
I'd like to have a job where I could use a cloaking device and be able to write it off. That'd be neat.
January 16, 2010 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I think we all know that if the spend and tax merry-go-round that we are now on, either breaks, ( the taxpayers) , breaks down or is stopped by what ever means it takes to stop the " Spend/Tax, Tax/Spend ", " Tax/Spend " Merry-Go-Round of Horrors " and the ones who are operating this rediculous ride..this rediculous cycle of spend/tax-tax/spend will only end in a not very pleasant manner for anyone ! And I think most of us have enough common sense to know that once un-fettered spending and taxation to support unfettered spending starts, and has already started.. it becoumes one of the hardest things to reign in and gain control of.
Can anyone remember when there has been a repeal of any taxes, that have been previously enacted ?
January 16, 2010 at 4:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Actually I never heard anybody refer to a combine as a yacht except me...and I just did it because I thought it made a smooth transition from California's exemptions to ours......Should have known better...LOL
And sure. Plumber's do have their own exemptions.....as do doctors lawyers and Indian Chiefs I suppose. And all those little exemptions and loopholes combined is much of what's wrong with our current system.
You often hear people refer to either the sales tax or the flat tax as ways to reform and make some sense out of our tax system. But both concepts will crash and burn as total failures once we start giving an exemption or a loophole to every other person that comes down the pike. JMO
January 16, 2010 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
biscuit
Your last statement makes total sense. I agree wholeheartedly. A flat tax should be just that, flat. If you make 100,000 you pay 10% if you make 20,000 you pay 10% (just an example). Fair and simple. That's why it will never happen because neither politicians nor business persons want the system simple, it would make it too difficult for them to wheel and deal. Contrary to popular belief the politicians benefit as much if not more than the business people do from the current system. When they say they care, they are talking about themselves.
January 16, 2010 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I forgot to add ................... Live long and prosper.
January 16, 2010 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Flat tax would maybe be better than the present system but it still exepmts people who aren't in the system ie tourists and illeagals.
I have a little bit of a problem trying to stomach making a farmer pay sales tax on a $300,000 piece of equipment but then if they didn't have to pay income tax it would probably all come out in the wash.
The one that really irks me is when a farmer passes away and the gov. wants to collect a death tax from whom ever inherits it.
January 16, 2010 at 6:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Legislator's pay. They don't need the money we send. Ask Barnett about campaign donations from pharmaceutical and insurance companies and their lobbyests. WOW!!!!!!!!! And what does not come directly to them is donated to the State Party, THEN sent to them. Makes it look like it's not from pharma. Cool!
January 16, 2010 at 8:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I remember back in the late 70's early 80's, or somewhere thereabouts, the average farm yearly income was about $90,000..... and the average farm yearly expense was around $70,000. Farming has alot of overhead. Now I'm sure both of those numbers are vastly larger than they were then, and I'm guessing with the decrease in the small family farm and the rise of the bigger corporation farms the income is greater. But I guess the point is (at least then) for the average family farm their net income was roughly the same as the average American - but the costs and gross income were both alot higher. So I'm not sure if and how paying large amounts of taxes on expenditures when the net profit is the same would work out. For example...... Farmer A would pay alot more in taxes (because of high yearly costs of purchasing feed, seed, fertilizer, fuel, machinery, etc) - than Regular Joe B who has a factory job yet has the same net income at the end of the year. Which means after all is said and done.... net income wouldn't be the same.
Searching for more recent data I found this:
On average, farm household income has been roughly comparable to the median for all U.S. households since the 1970s. In 2004, the most recent year for which comparable data exist, the average farm household had an annua l net income of $81,480, while the average U.S. household netted $60,528. However, farm households that receive most of their income from farming experience more year-to-year fluctuations in household income than other households.
In recent years, 85-95 percent of farm household income has come from off-farm sources (including employment earnings, other business activities, and unearned income). The relative importance of off- farm income varies considerably from farm to farm, and declines as farm commodity sales increase. But even among the largest farming operations (the 8 percent of farming operations with annual sales exceeding $250,000), off- farm income accounts for 24 percent of farm household income, on average. For the 82 percent of U.S. farming operations that have annual sales of $100,000 or less, off- farm income typically accounts for all but a negligible amount of farm household income. As a result, for the majority of U.S. farm households, the availability of off- farm income is a more significant factor for financial wellbeing than are returns on farm production.
January 16, 2010 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I think you hit the nail on the head tbluma when you said it might all even out if they were not having to pay income tax. The key to all tax reform discussion is in the elimination of the myriad taxes, loopholes, and exemptions that we have now. Then you start all over again with a simple to understand, uniformly applied tax, levied from all citizens. The end result would have to be more equitable than what we have now.....even if that meant a few people who had been doing real well under the old system didn't fair as well under the new one. The whole idea of reform is to make the system equitable.....not to continue the maze of special breaks and loopholes available now.
January 17, 2010 at 4:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
I frequently refer to farmers in these discussions because they are arguably the backbone of our economy in this part of the world. I certainly have no axe to grind with farmers....not the way I like to eat for sure. :-)
But with machinery tax exemptions, various subsidies, and set aside programs, they do benefit from the public trough to one extent or another. It is for that reason only that I single them out at times. I am not qualified to express any opinion on how relevant or necessary that benefit might be to the health of the overall industry....just to point out that it does exist. Therefore it must be on the table when we talk about reforms.
I am sure your cost of operation compared to income data could be applied to some extent to other businesses.....such as say a small trucking company. But that trucking company I believe still has to pay sales tax on its new trucks.....a sizeable expense in its self.
But again it is equity I am looking for. If you want to exempt combines from a national sales tax fine. Then exempt all machinery bought for use by all businesses from the same tax....that is equity. But keep in mind.....the more we exempt from the tax the higher the tax is going to have to be on a loaf of bread or other essentials......and then we are right back to a regressive unfair tax applied most heavily (percentage wise) on the poor. And that is where we started this discussion.
January 17, 2010 at 4:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Clarification. I am not a farmer, and don't know to what extent
the various subsidy and set asides apply to farmers in this area...but I do know they apply to farmers as a whole. So when I am talking about tax reform I am primarily talking about the federal tax....therefore we must consider the entire picture not isolated examples.
January 17, 2010 at 4:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Well now, that gets me to thinking, biscuit. Here's a real consideration to make, not just a hypothetical one.
I bought a new snow shovel in December to replace the old junk one. I paid my tenant to use that shovel to clear the driveways and sidewalks by deducting $$ from his next month's rent. Worked for me and it worked for him.
True, it's only a shovel, but the principle remains. How do I handle that for my taxes? I have to report rents collected as income, and that shovel is a tool, a deductible expense. What about sales tax on that shovel? What about depreciation?
Is the amount I deduct from his rent an expense? Or does it just result in less income to be reported?
Getting deep here, but it's a practical consideration that even the smallest individual like me has to make.
January 17, 2010 at 7:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
It sure does create. That is probably what brought us to where we are today. Hence my thought that to affect real reform we must establish a system that eleminates all those pesky deductions and depreciations.....either a flat tax based on income....or a sales tax based on spending......no deductions...no Bull.
January 17, 2010 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
create,
Shovel = supplies towards rental, sales tax must be paid and not deducted, no depreciation as it is not a capital purchase.
Renter deduction for labor: amount you deducted from his rent for services should be reported as labor on a 1099 form and you deduct that amount as a business expense. Of course that would probably affect his tax filings.
easiest way to do it:
Report the normal rental income, thank your tenant for his labor with the reduced rent and eat the difference.
OR:
Next snowfall, don't have them shovel, get a ticket from the city and deduct the ticket cost as a cost of business. lawyer fees are deductible also.
Good morning!
January 17, 2010 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Here is something interesting I found when trying to find the last politician that actually talked mesningfully about tax reform. I know most will just dismiss any and all info because it came from the other team but it brings up a good point about the 16th Amendment. It does not address Klingon technology however. It's probably too old for that. KT was still pretty hush hush at that time.
Sales tax better than current IRS; but we’d end up with both
KEYES [To Forbes]: I think part of the problem is that folks would still be subject, under your plan, to an income tax. When they wanted a tax cut, they’d still have to beg their politicians. When under a sales tax system, they’d give themselves a tax cut by changing their pattern of consumption. If we really want to give people control of their money, shouldn’t we just abolish the income tax?
FORBES: I think if you abolish it for lower-income Americans, yes, that’s what I’d do. As for the national sales tax, either a flat tax or national sales tax would be much better that what we have today. But there are challenges for a national sales tax. Depending on what you choose to exempt, the rate can be 20% to 35%. So a kid comes and cuts your lawn, you owe a 35% tax. You buy a new house, 35% tax. And also, you better make sure you repeal the 16th Amendment, which enables the income tax, or you’re going to have both an income tax and a sales tax.
Source: (cross-ref. from Keyes) Phoenix Arizona GOP Debate Dec 7, 1999
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Stev...
January 17, 2010 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
create;
Or you could do what a greedy business person would do. Give him a break on the rent for shoveling and in a couple of months stick him with a rent increase to make up the difference.
January 17, 2010 at 8:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
LOL Steve, I had a landlord like that once. Then when we moved, he wouldn't give us back our deposit even though we gave two weeks notice, and left the place in better shape and tons cleaner than when we moved in. My husband even fixed three windows and replaced glass in two at our own expense. How did we handle the non-return of our deposit? My husband "explained" to him that windows have a way of disappearing in the middle of the night when rocks are used as magic wands. We got our deposit back.
BTW, I will use the easy way for the snow shoveling deduction and just eat the difference. Once again the buck stops with the little guy.
January 17, 2010 at 9:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
If and until unfair tax exemptions..the allowing of the hiding of all/any assets, wealth, and income..by those who are allowed to do so..a flat tax, regardless of what the amount of the tax ..still would not be absolutely fair or equitable.
For any form of tax to be fair or equitable, any/all unfair tax loop holes must be abolished or closed and enforcement would have to be much more aggressive. And I am sure that, considering the amount of power and influence these individuals/corporations, etc., both Domestic and Foreign have had on our government and legislators, who are and have been taking advantage of the existing tax loopholes would/will not look kindly upon any attempt to bring about fair/equitable tax reform of any kind and would, by any means available to them try and crush any tax reform that they perceive as forcing them to pay what they shoud have been paying in the first place or take away their ability to continue to defraud the/our Government ( We the people) and the rest of the taxpayers/people of the U.S.A. .
Therefore, any fair/equitable tax/flat tax reform or equitable reform of any kind, is going to be impossible. If and until the corruption/influence peddeling that has been the prevailing SOP in the U.S. Government is abolished, I am afraid it will be the same old " Business As Usual "
.
January 17, 2010 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
create, I am glad you took my "advice" in the spirit it was given.
Know what you mean about the buck stopping with the little guy.
All in all I would say it sounds like you have a good tenant that you rent to, and your tenant has a good landlord, and that is a blessing in itself.
January 17, 2010 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
My next question, will undoubtedly bring about a fire storm .
But it is a question that has haunted me for decades, and it does have to do with taxes . So, here is my question.
Why are churches and so called non-profit religious organizations, not taxed on moneys they collect, as donations ?
Are these donations that these churches/religious organizations collect/acquire, not used for operating expenses, parsonages/living quarters for the ministers, priests, etc. as well as for the purchase of vehicles, food, utility payments, vehicle gasoline, etc., and shouldn't using moneys from donations/collections, to make purchases and used as operating expenses, etc., be considered as pay or income ?
This has been a nagging question I have had for years and have never been able to find a satisfactory, sensible answer to. To me this is just another big tax loophole .
January 17, 2010 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
meth,
don't give up, we need to start a "VOTE FOR NONE OF THE ABOVE" movement.
imagine if you will, come November, Sam Brownback loses his bid for Governor and Jim Barnett loses his bid for Congress both to "NONE OF THE ABOVE". What a message that would send?
January 17, 2010 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Steve_Corbin
I, totally agree, my friend. But, is there anyone out there to vote for, who has any feeling as to what we, the little people are having to endure and put up with or who will not become as corrupt as those who are already in office or have been in office for years ?
January 17, 2010 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I brought it up as a point for consideration, using farming since I am familiar with it and it has been mentioned. But true..... any business....... if it grosses 60,000/year and has 40,000/year expenses is not going to pay anywhere near the tax of a business that grosses 300,000/year and has 280,000/year expenses. Both had 10,000/year left over net income when all was said and done. Basically the larger business will go broke and have a net loss due to the much higher sales tax they had to pay on their expenses.
January 17, 2010 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I totally agree with you meth that there is no real chance for tax reform in this country as long as there is a privileged class that thinks they should be allowed to play by rules different than the rest of us.....and politicians vulnerable to the grease that privileged class can deliver.
I don't have an answer to your question about the tax exemptions for churches other than further prove of that theocracy that many like to claim we don't have in this country.
I'm afraid if we had NONE OF THE ABOVE on the ballot he would be the one that was most qualified in most of our elections...but then the question becomes....Can He Govern?
January 17, 2010 at 10:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Well open_eyes...any business with a 300-K gross and 280-K in expenses probably needs to fold because of its low profitability.
Sure we can come up with horror story scenarios for all of this, but we can't make tax law based on the worst possible scenario....we must base it on reasonable expectations.
January 17, 2010 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
If the higher sales taxes paid by the larger business were not recovered adequately in receipts the business was either weak and deserving of failure.....or more likely it will just raise prices accordingly there by dumping its increased tax burden back onto you and me anyway. Like create said....the little guy never wins.
January 17, 2010 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well, I guess my little ole personal business, which is " Me Trying to Survive " on around $ 16, 000 per year after taxes and expenses, has little or no chance of surviving !
January 17, 2010 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
METH,
Maybe not now, but if "NONE OF THE ABOVE" was the winner in 1 or 2 elections then someone would step forward and the major parties would have viable candidates.
We voters have to quit voting for the lesser of two evils.
We voters have to quit voting for the one we feel will win because we want to vote for the winner.
We voters need a united front that says" We are sick and tired and we're not going to take it anymore."
We the voters have to quit "not voting cause we don't like the candidates" and vote "NONE OF THE ABOVE" . I'll get off my soapbox now, have a good day.
January 17, 2010 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I agree we need none of the above placed on every ballot for every election. Imagine the way things are now if we had a presidential election where Cand. A received twenty votes total, while Cand.B received only 18, because every body else refused to vote for the lessor of two evils. Why Cand.A would strut out with chest pushed out and head held high claiming the American People had spoken and given him a mandate for change. None Of the Above has to be on the ballot to show that it received 100 million votes.
January 17, 2010 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Biscuitboy, you stated: "If the higher sales taxes paid by the larger business were not recovered adequately in receipts the business was either weak and deserving of failure.....or more likely it will just raise prices accordingly there by dumping its increased tax burden back onto you and me anyway".
As the article stated, farm income is subject to much more fluctuations from year to year. So some years yes.... there may only be 20,000 profit out of 300,000 gross. And in some years..... a loss. How would the sales tax work then? You'd still be taxed just as heavily in a year you made 80,000 as in a year you lost 80,000.
Also....... when the day comes when a farmer gets to take his grain and livestock to market, look at what his expenses were, and set his price to guarantee him a certain percentage of profit................... well, you be sure and let me know ;-)
And Palin had something to do with some extra taxes on the oil companies in Alaska and we know what many people think of her around her so that can't be used as any valid argument - LOL.
I'm not trying to argue against a sales tax or any change in our tax system - just trying to point out some problems that would need to be addressed and evaluated if we did go that route. Nothing is ever quite a simple as it seems at first glance....
January 17, 2010 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I agree open_eyes that many problems would have to be worked out...and I have never stated for certain that I favored a sales tax over a flat income tax.....only that both had some good and bad points. But it sounds to me like the problems of unequal return from year to year could be just as serious for farmers with a flat tax. So now where do we go? But I feel one thing for certain. If we can't even start discussing tax reform without first starting to line up all the people that deserve some special consideration...then we are doomed from the start and just as well pack up our marbles and go home.
January 17, 2010 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I suppose in those years when you lost 80-K on the old farm you might then have to do what the rest of us do in lean times....tighten up the old belt and spend less. Then in those fat years when you made good money you could afford to spend more and pay more sales tax.
But if you had so many lean years and very few good ones you might then have to determine just how viable your operation was and act accordingly. That's what every other business has to do. In other words why should you expect tax breaks to make an otherwise non-viable operation viable....especially if those breaks went to only one type of business.
January 17, 2010 at 5:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Nobody should get a guarantee to a certain percentage of profit.....I'm sorry but I didn't understand that statement.
January 17, 2010 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I don't know, akami - the only way to tell for sure is to completely shut down all oil operations in Alaska, whether by choice or by terrorist attacks, and see what happens to the price of gasoline. (Given what I see everytime tensions rise in the middle east I think I could make an educated guess).
So everytime we have a drought or flood...... all farmers should just throw in the towel. (Enjoy your cheap food the following year..... ;-)
I NEVER said I had "so many lean years and very few good ones". I simply stated farm income has much more fluctuation from year to year (actually I didn't state it, the study did) - and asked what is to be done regarding a flat sales tax in the lean or losing years. Yes..... we tightened up the old belt and spent less......more than you can probably imagine. And in those good years we did pay more....... in income tax. Unfortunately, on a farm, it doesn't always work out quite the way you envisage. "Tightening the belt" in one year means making do with outdated broken down machinery for one more year (holding everything together with "baling wire", as we say, lol) - patching fences that are in dire need of replacement, and in some cases selling off part of the herd if need be. The better years are often spent "playing catch-up" - finally getting the badly needed better machinery, replacing the fence, building the herd back up to normal levels. It isn't all spent on Caribbean cruises and slot machines, or squirreled away to get one through the lean years. Now I realize I'm talking in very general terms - plenty of farmers blow money foolishly just like everyone else. And who knows what happens from year to year - even in 2 identical years a farmer might do better in one year because nothing breaks down, none of the cattle get sick, etc.... and the next year they spend more time repairing machinery than using it.
And all those scenarios could be applied to many businesses as well.
But again....... I think a flat sales tax is an idea that bears consideration - but I don't think it would be as simple to implement as everyone seems to think. But if we start "tweaking" it here and there...... as has been pointed out..... what is the point then? I'm not saying our income tax system is perfect but to me it does have its good points as well. Like any system, it has been and is abused by too many special interest loopholes here and there - some are justified, some are not. You make more profit.... you pay more tax. You make less profit... .you pay less tax.
January 17, 2010 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
As happens so often with us.....after hours of wrangling we end up pretty close together. And I agree in large part to most all of your last post. I remain less supportive of the present tax system than you apparently are because I believe it is too the point that almost nobody understands it. The few that do are using that understanding to steal untold millions in unpaid taxes from you and I.
And those rip-offs aren't occurring at that level on grandpa's farm or mom and pops shop.......they are occurring at the highest levels of business and finance. That apparently makes me madder than it does you!
January 18, 2010 at 3:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I do want to add that I realize and respect the difficulties the farmer has to deal with. So many variables...so much risk. I certainly don't want anyone thinking I'.m down on farmers because I am not. It is a profession that only the bravest or the most foolhardy would dare enter.
January 18, 2010 at 5:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, you say, "And Palin had something to do with some extra taxes on the oil companies in Alaska and we know what many people think of her around her so that can't be used as any valid argument - LOL."
Baiting again I see. Just a thought here.
While every Alaskan, man, woman, and child, do indeed receive in excess of $1500 oil rebate each year, that has also become a big problem for that state when a large number of families depend so heavily on it that in too many cases, it's the only income period. What has that "bonus" done to motivate Alaskans to work or in some way provide for themselves? In addition, many set up residency in Alaska just to get the rebate, but live elsewhere. They go back each year to visit their money, a practice I find to be particularly distasteful, and certainly fraudulent. Sounds like Palin is doing like the opposing party is often accused of. Just thinkin'.
biscuitboy, those marbles you plan to pack up when you go home -- since you've been using them in the game, have you paid the correct gaming fee or "tax"? Just wonderin'.
January 18, 2010 at 6:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Huh.....Yeah.....Huh....Ummm
I want to see my attorney!
January 18, 2010 at 7:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Unfortunately, another rebate recently offered the American people has become rife with fraud. According to CNN money news this morning, nearly 90,000 cases of fraud have been uncovered with regard to the mortgage rebate program. Some of those applications have been attributed to small children, age 4 and 5. Isn't it amazing what some people do with their children's social security numbers?
I know, I know, no matter what the program, no matter whose ideas, Sarah Palin's or Barack Obama's, the fraudsters are out there and vigilance will have to be practiced. I'm just glad to hear that 90,000 cases have been uncovered. That says something about the government agency responsible for policing rebate applications. Too bad I had to use the word policing, but that's what it will take.
January 18, 2010 at 7:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I have often said on here I do not believe that the tax rate should be capped for the extremely wealthy (at least at the point it currently is). I don't thing the extremely wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. And yes, there are alot of loopholes that need to be closed. However...... some of these loopholes are not in and of themselves wrong.....it's just that they are being abused. As create pointed out..... its a constant battle to do what is correct and at the same time keep it from being abused and misused. And yes, I was "baiting" on the Palin remark a bit. I never said if I agreed with it or not - just that since according to some here she's too dumb to come in out of the rain....... I just wanted to point out someone was suggesting (something she added to) as a good idea......
And I agree - giving many money that they have come to rely on and taking away their motivation to work for themselves......... sounds like a common Republican complaint, doesn't it? Create, you switching parties? Makes Palin sound like a Democrat, doesn't it? I'm all confused now! LOL ;-)
January 18, 2010 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
If the government is going to have programs and tax breaks whether they are for the poor or rich they(the government) needs to do everything they can to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. I don't think they have done a very good job at this. I believe the problem is that if someone points out a problem with a particular program or whatever the people in favor of that "whatever" defend it to the death, fraud and all. Like when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being questioned on whether they need more over sight, Barney Frank defended it and said there was no problem and was all offended that it was even brought up. How dare anyone question something he supports?!? It's not just him or his team either, this happens all over government. One team hates it when the other team scores. What the politicians fail to realize, or maybe they do and just don't care, is that we the people always seem to lose. The politicians never seem to lose, you'll never see a politician in the poor house............... well maybe Marion Barry. Crack kills, dude.
January 18, 2010 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Akami
The oil and timber from Alaska and Oregon are probably on state owned land. The grain from Kansas is on private land.
Which is neither here nor there except there are a lot of trade regulations that effect grain that don't effect oil and timber.
Also the insurance on crops doesn't work like the insurance on your house or car. Big difference. Sounds to me like you'd better keep you day job and hope you still make enough to eat.
January 18, 2010 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
In thinking more about a flat tax...... just idle ponderings here.... in VERY general terms....
Take 2 families (non-farm, just employed folks) - 1 makes 30,000/year, has 4 kids. The other makes 300,000/year, 1 kid. Under the current system (barring loopholes) - the richer pays more than 10 times in taxes each year as the poorer (10x income, plus being in a higher bracket, rightfully so). Plus the poorer has more deductions for more dependents.
So with a flat tax...... the richer has, say a 10x more expensive house..... a 10x more expensive car..... 10x more expensive clothes and house furnishings (very doubtful, they probably have the 10x house, the 2x car, and the 5x clothes). So initially say because of the flat tax they still paid 10x as much in taxes as the poorer on their initial purchases.
What then? Once everything is paid for, what about daily life? Is their daily lifestyle week in and week out 10x more expensive than the poorer families? Do they eat 10x as much more expensive food? Doubtful.... since the poorer family has to feed 6 and the richer feeds 3....... is the cable bill 10x higher for the rich family? Is the grocery bill 10x? Utilities? Everything they buy? Sure... they'll take that cruise every year while the poor family goes camping. But again, in VERY general terms..... do people always live daily expense-wise in direct proportion to their income? Next here is the argument that people that want to save on taxes will cut back on their lifestyle, etc..... but can they truly cut back to where it will be proportional to those with more? Can the poor family truly live on 1/10 the weekly lifestyle as the richer?
Again....... just idle musings..... I don't have the answer.... other than to repeat again that I'm not sure a flat tax would be all that simple and fair to implement. Without alot of serious study...... and probably tweaking..... probably based on net income..... which would bring us right back to where we began.....
January 18, 2010 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open-eyes
If I am understanding your last post correctly.....that is exactly what started this conversation in the first place. And the short answer is no....they do not spend ten times more on food and other daily living expenses. That is what would make enacting the sales tax as it is applied at present so unfair...so regressive.
That is then what started out the conversation about the need to eliminate the exemptions....so the upper income family then would pay a more equal percentage of their income to the tax relative to the poorer family.
But as you pointed out....it would still not be totally equally applied even if all exemptions were removed...except maybe in the case of the gang-banging drug dealer that spends all his money on gold chains and Escalades. But wait.....he probably wouldn't be paying many taxes anyway!
January 18, 2010 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Akami I'm pretty sure your lot is taxed just like mine.
On the last assed value. I serriously doubt that an acre of land would bring as much in the country as if it were in town.
And farmers sometimes do lose the ground that their grandpa wanted to give them because they can't afford the death tax imposed on the property and their have been instances when farmers lost their property because they couldn't pay their property taxes.
The point being is unless you own your own business you don't have anything invested in your income but a lunchbox,maybe some tools and possibly a vehicle that you may need just to get get to work. If you own your own business you ought to know more about how things work.
You may even be working someplace that the city or state gave a tax break to just to get them where they are.
Don't bitch to me about a farmer with your mouth full of the best, cheapest and most abundant food in the world.
I will have no sympathy.
As for how is that fair? I don't know. Is it fair if it doesn't doesn't rain or it hails and the farmer doesn't make enough off of his crop to pay his taxes? That's his living your lot is just an investment or an inheritance.
No, I don't know about you but no one told me life was fair.
January 18, 2010 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Exactly. It seems nothing is fair to everyone..... so we do the best we can. The problem is..... often.....those that have the money.... are the ones that get to impose the tax laws to give themselves the biggest breaks
January 18, 2010 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Bisquit
Playing the devil's advocate here.
10% of a dollar is the same on my dollar as it is on T Bone Pickens dollar.
So why isn't it (fair) to the rich and the poor?
If I make $30000 I pay $3000, T Bone makes $300 mil. he pays $30 mil.
January 18, 2010 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
That is why we have a sliding scale. The richer you are.... the higher percentage you pay. People making 30,000 don't pay the same percentage as those making 300 million. But there is where I disagree with the cap - at least where it is at currently.
January 18, 2010 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
tbluma;
Life is unfair, you got that right.
open_eyes,
just wondering, if a person makes 1 million what should the tax rate be?
300 million?
Just wondering what you think is a fair and equitable tax rate for the "wealthy" person is?
I know if I made 300 million a year i wouldn't mind paying a 80% tax rate, EXCEPT I would know that the government would just p-ss it away.
January 18, 2010 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
I guess I just don't subscribe to the fact that just because a person is considered rich that they should have to pay more taxes % wise than any one else.
It will never happen but if we did away with all of the exemptions it would equal out.
January 18, 2010 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'm not really sure what I think it should be without alot of thought. What is the top cap right now...... 40%? I think it should be higher........ but I don't think it should go all the way to 80. Maybe somewhere in between.......55 or 60? And I'm not saying it should be a linear line either.
You bring up one reason for loopholes (of a sort).... if you want to give money directly to a charity, (that you believe is more efficient and won't "p-ss so much of it away"), then it is deductible. So here we go back down the deductables and credits road.....
January 18, 2010 at 12:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Steve
Are you talking about making $300M free and clear or before taxes?
January 18, 2010 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
All depends on your definition of rich. $250,000/year? $2.5 mil? $25 mil/year?
My definition of the filthy rich tends to be towards the top end of that. To someone making $15,000/year, anyone making over 30 is rich.
January 18, 2010 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Please correct me if I'm wrong...... but barring any loopholes and deductions, just looking at straight income tax rates - there is never a point on the scale where you get taxed more than you make. In other words... there is never a point where you get into a bracket where you pay > $1 for every dollar you make.
I used to suck up all the OT I could when working at the Beef. Yes...... I got taxed heavier on it.... but I still made more. I got time-and-a-half. But I still brought home more out of that $1.50 than I brought home out of the $1 at straight time. Not a higher PERCENTAGE.... but it was still worth the extra money in my paycheck. Give me 40 hours at OT or 40 hours at Straight Time and I can tell you which I would prefer ;-)
January 18, 2010 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sorry.... hit the button before I was finished.
In other words..... out of every dollar at straight time, I might pay 25 cents in income tax (25% tax rate).
But for every $1.50 I made at time-and-a-half.... I might pay at a rate of 35%.
Straight time I take home 75 cents for every hour. OT I take home $1.50 * 65% = 98 cents. I still come out ahead..... just not as far ahead as we think. But I'll still take it.
Gee.... I'd love to be in a bracket where I pay 60% of my income in taxes.....and only have $20 million left over.... But I don't think someone making 30,000/year should pay 60% in taxes.
January 18, 2010 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
But I'm sure if I made $50 million/year I'd bitch loudly about taxes too ;-)
January 18, 2010 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
In other words, akamai.... I believe your analogy about the poor man and overtime is completely false. Yes, it is diminishing returns...... but you're doing the same work. You're not working 1.5 times harder on overtime than you did on straight time. You're doing the same work.... and you're still bringing home more than you did per hour during your 40 hour week.
January 18, 2010 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And that is why, akamai.....the man with 3 children can claim them as dependents and pay less tax. Among other things. We bitch about all the deductions and complexities of our tax code but some of them make sense, ya gotta admit.
The big problem is those that will always abuse it. Well, that pretty much is a problem in every facet of life.
January 18, 2010 at 1:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
????.... I don't understand what you directed at me there....
I grew up on a farm. I worked 8 hours at a factory job (for someone else) and then went home and worked another 10 on the farm (for myself).
Maybe you don't know me either......?
January 18, 2010 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I lived in a vicious circle. I didn't have the money to fix the plow unless I worked overtime. But if I worked overtime I didn't have time to do the plowing......... ;-)
January 18, 2010 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Gosh darn it folks.
Life is a bitch!
Life is unfair !
but it is still better than the alternative!
January 18, 2010 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
tbluma
I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that the rich man should pay a higher percentage in taxes either.....especially not when you are talking about a flat tax or national sales tax. But I do think he should pay the same. But if you enact a national sales tax...or even a flat tax...and leave the majority of the deductions and exemptions in place that we have today (breaks that normally apply much more to upper income than lower), then you have the rich paying a much lower percentage of gross income than lower income folks would pay. It's the exemptions and deductions that make it unfair.
So then if you leave in place a system like we have now.....with all of those upper income loaded deductions and exemptions in place like we do now......then I believe you can make a case for the rich to pay a higher percentage because they are getting more breaks off the top.
I hope that makes it clear.
January 18, 2010 at 6:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Steve what I typed and what I wanted to ask were 2 different things. You said you wouldn't mind paying 80% on $300M.
Would that be after all of the state,local,SS,unemployment,and property taxes and is that $300M after expenses.
Just curious because I sure wouldn't agree with 80% taxes on any of my income.
Bisquit
Would normal opperating expenses and input costs be deducted before taxes?
Here's kinda where I'm coming from. If I make $50000 and pay 10% but have to pay 40% if I make $5M where is my incentive to move up.I'm thinking as an owner of a business not as a person who doesn't have anything invested but their time.
It's kinda like being on welfare, why get off of welfare if I can do just fine where I'm at?
Also what kind of exemptions apply more to the upper than to the lower income earners?
January 18, 2010 at 6:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
tbluma
50-K minus 10 percent tax equals 45-K net income.
5-million minus 40 percent tax equals 3-million net income. I would say a net gain of 2,955,000 dollars a year would be more incentive to me than staying on welfare.
Exemptions or deductions for business travel and expenses, depreciation on machinery and vehicles, sales tax exemptions on private airplanes, yachts, vacation condos and multiple dwellings, write offs on expenses and contributions, just to name a few. Of course poor people good take the same sales tax exemption...but then how many poor people buy a yacht or a vacation condo in Vail?
January 18, 2010 at 6:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
I will pay the extra penny on top of the other extra pennies that I already have to pay so I can get out of the store without being arrested for not paying for my merchandise because I have no choice now and I will have no choice if they decide to go ahead and hike the tax another penny later when they decide that they cannot eliminate the tax as they said that they would do I will continue to pay because I am proud to be Amrikan and everyone else is just unpatriotic so there
January 18, 2010 at 7:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
little kids won't get to ride the coin operated horses and airplanes or get some thing out of the big colorful coin operated bubble gum and surprise machines which will make them scream louder and longer but that is alright because I just walk out of the store faster so I don't have to hear the screaming kids who cannot ride the ride or get the candy because their parents have to pay that quarter to the tax man
January 18, 2010 at 7:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Bisquit correct me if I'm interpreting what you say in the wrong way but it sounds to me like you don't believe that the cost of doing business should be deductible. I don't happen to believe that multiple dwellings and yachts should be deductible but depreciation on machinery etc. sounds reasonable.
My example above was $50000 gross vs $5M gross.
40% on the $5M is way to much if it cost me $4M to make it and I don't get to deduct any of it.
January 18, 2010 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
To finish my thought.
If I too pay 10% on the $5M that is $500000.
Which is then 50% of what I made after expenses.
January 18, 2010 at 7:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
tbluma
Whether or not the cost of doing business is deductible kinda depends on how the rest of the code is handled. But I guess first we may need to decide if we are talking about personal taxes or business taxes. And I admit I mixed some of each in my examples. Theoretically, the cost of a yacht or a vacation condo should be a personal expense in my mind and then should in no way be subject to exemption or deduction under a flat rate or sales tax. I would think the same about write-offs and charitable contributions as well as the cost of your children's education. All of these things are available to some extent now.
Business expenses could be another matter. There certainly is some rational to allow such deductions and exemptions as they apply to strictly business accounts. The problem arises when you start having a blurring between business and personal expenses. An extreme case might be the guy that has a business that nets fifty million a year...pays himself a 80-K salary and lives large off of the company account while writing it all off as a business expense. This again is an example of the type of twist and dodge available to more wealthy people that few poor can ever take advantage of. I ask why should the rich be allowed to do it then.
So again it all depends on how it is written. Tax codes at present are written weighted to help the rich if for no other reason than that the rich can buy the influence to make sure they are written that way. I don't want the rich to pay more than their share.....I just want them to pay their share without hiding it all behind exemptions, deductions, and shelters.
January 18, 2010 at 8:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
tbluma
Did this make my position more clear?
January 19, 2010 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
After paying the additional sales tax I will not be able to afford to purchase a lottery ticket so the state will get a little here but loose a little there so it all balances out in the end. Right?
January 19, 2010 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
tbluma, actually my comment about 80% tax was in fun.
But then 20% of 300 million would be a pretty good wage.
The way our government is printing and spending money now and the resulting inflation it may be only a few years before we all make 300 million a year. The trouble is it will only be worth about 10 K in todays money.
January 19, 2010 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Given the choice of bringing home 20% of 300 million or bringing home 95% of 50,000....... I'll take the former ;-)
January 19, 2010 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Prior to Hitler's rise to power in Germany it was rumored that inflation had risen to the place where it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. It's doubtful that ever really happened...but hyper inflation was the grease that brought the Hitler machine to the fore.
January 19, 2010 at 5:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I agree open-eyes...I'll take that deal any day, any time, any place.
January 19, 2010 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
tbluma
Just a thought.....or maybe more of a question.
You express great interest in what incentive remains to move up if tax rates increase the more money you make. Lets look at that question from a different perspective.
What incentive does a business owner have to increase his earnings by running a lean mean operation, if we allow him to write-off all his business expenditures no matter how wasteful, extravagant, or just plain foolish they might be?
January 19, 2010 at 6:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Bisquit
The only answer I have for that is..........
Only true expenses should be allowed as deductions.
January 20, 2010 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Point taken.
January 20, 2010 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rabblerouser (anonymous) says...
Tax the poor and reward the rich. Why do they insist on taxing the basic necessities of poor people? The more they tax, the less we have. Now they want to take the food out of our childrens mouth. It would be better to ELLIMINATE WASTE, COMBINE COMPATIBLE DEPARTMENTS AND STAFF AND INSIST ON ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. IN SHORT, RUN THE GOVERNMENT LIKE A BUSINESS OR LIKE AMERICANS HAVE TO RUN THERE OWN HOUSEHOLDS. SPEND ONLY WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY AND CUT WHENEVER AND WHEREEVER POSSIBLE. Kansans have had to do this every day since the economy took it's downturn and our government should bear part of the burden and be part of the solution, not part of the problem!
January 22, 2010 at 6 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )