Signs of the Times - and a question

[piece-itpete]

LOL!

ebacon, we could enforce uniform standard countrywide. Then they would just move offshore.

Pete

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

LOL!

ebacon, we could enforce uniform standard countrywide. Then they would just move offshore.

Pete

Don't be a dick. I'm just saying that there are known causes and effects.

One of the biggest games politicians play after they make a big mess is shrug and say well, no one could predict such an outcome. That's bullshit. History has repeated itself so many times that's it not even funny to hear the excuse any more.

Sarcasm like yours lets the sh*tsticks get away with it.

[d-ray657]

The governor of Kansas and the Republican legislature have passed a tax plan that makes almost all business income exempt from taxation, but leaves the taxes on wages in place. It takes a huge chunk out of the state budget. The theory is that the lost tax revenue will be made up when the low taxes induce enough businesses to relocate to Kansas. The tax cut comes at a time when the state is already struggling to meet its obligations, and it will result in drastic cuts in among other things, education. As far as I am concerned, that is counter-productive, at least here in Johnson County. One way JC has been able to compete for businesses is by having a top-flight public school system. The cuts put that advantage at risk.

Beyond the practical objection to the plan, it seems to me to be extremely unbalanced against the working folks. Wages earners will now carry a significantly higher burden of funding the state's obligation, while the "job creators" get a free ride. I suppose we will see if the plan actually works or not, because the primaries put more tea party types into the general election (removing the more moderate republicans), so it is likely that the plan will remain in place.

BTW, Whell, I should mention that I appreciate the effort at maintaining the tone of this thread (particularly after I gave you a little poke in the welcome thread ).

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The governor of Kansas and the Republican legislature have passed a tax plan that makes almost all business income exempt from taxation, but leaves the taxes on wages in place. It takes a huge chunk out of the state budget. The theory is that the lost tax revenue will be made up when the low taxes induce enough businesses to relocate to Kansas. The tax cut comes at a time when the state is already struggling to meet its obligations, and it will result in drastic cuts in among other things, education. As far as I am concerned, that is counter-productive, at least here in Johnson County. One way JC has been able to compete for businesses is by having a top-flight public school system. The cuts put that advantage at risk.

Beyond the practical objection to the plan, it seems to me to be extremely unbalanced against the working folks. Wages earners will now carry a significantly higher burden of funding the state's obligation, while the "job creators" get a free ride. I suppose we will see if the plan actually works or not, because the primaries put more tea party types into the general election (removing the more moderate republicans), so it is likely that the plan will remain in place.

BTW, Whell, I should mention that I appreciate the effort at maintaining the tone of this thread (particularly after I gave you a little poke in the welcome thread ).

Regards,

D-Ray

Beyond the philosophical objections, what have been the results of the legislation?

Yes, I saw that poke. I was honored.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Beyond the philosophical objections, what have been the results of the legislation?

Yes, I saw that poke. I was honored.

It hasn't been implemented yet. It's brand spanking new.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Starting with the Lewis Powell memo to the Chamber of Commerce corporations have gradually taken over the government. Oh there are still a handfull of Congressmen and Senators who are not for sale. Given this sstate of affairs it seems rather pointless to say the government is anti business when it is business.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Starting with the Lewis Powell memo to the Chamber of Commerce corporations have gradually taken over the government. Oh there are still a handfull of Congressmen and Senators who are not for sale. Given this sstate of affairs it seems rather pointless to say the government is anti business when it is business.

Under the current set up, IMHO, the interests and objectives of politicians and business are quite different, though both are ultimately in the game for self-interest and self enrichment.

[d-ray657]

A couple of things. If we tax capital gains as any other income, those retirees would probably be paying a rate lower than the current capital gains rate.

Second, the example you have been giving of vacant buildings and for lease signs - if you are talking about economically depressed areas where there is a need for a subsidy to attract investment - I think we have been in agreement that a subsidy is probably warranted. That does not, however, justify an across the board tax cut for the purpose for the purpose of stimulating investment where there is considerable evidence that such investment is not taking place despite significant cash reserves.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

A couple of things. If we tax capital gains as any other income, those retirees would probably be paying a rate lower than the current capital gains rate.

Depends on their tax bracket of course. But a married couple filing jointly pays 15% in regular federal income tax between roughly $18000 and $70000 in income. At $71K and above that couple would pay 25%. The rates would be roughly the same for short term capital gains taxes, but 10% or 20% respectively for long term gains.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Second, the example you have been giving of vacant buildings and for lease signs - if you are talking about economically depressed areas where there is a need for a subsidy to attract investment - I think we have been in agreement that a subsidy is probably warranted. That does not, however, justify an across the board tax cut for the purpose for the purpose of stimulating investment where there is considerable evidence that such investment is not taking place despite significant cash reserves.

Regards,

D-Ray

OK. I guess this is where the rubber hits the road. Where evidence are you using to draw your conclusions? Are you looking back at the reports from a year or two ago about businesses not investing cash? With the pending increase in capital gains taxes that will occur in 2013, what is the incentive to invest if the value of that investment will be diminished by future tax law?

The more I speak to business owners - and these are small and medium sized businesses - they are very risk averse right now. Between the changes in health care law and the impending changes in tax law, they are very much playing a "wait and see" game right now.

Between the mushrooming "for sale / for lease" signs, and the feedback that I hear and see frequently, it would seem that these folks would be encouraged by a more favorable / predictable business climate.

[ebacon]

When a business decides where to go it takes much more into consideration than taxes. In fact taxes are probably the least concern. That's not to say that taxes can't make a difference. They certainly can when all other things are practically equal.

Other factors that businesses consider are:
Market
Utility costs
Shipping costs for supplies and finished goods
Real estate costs
Political climate for issues such as zoning, easements, and environmental issues
Local employee pool
Quality of living to attract employees
Airports
Traffic
Crime
Construction/reconstruction costs
etc.

Where we see tax incentives come into play is when a business has narrowed down to two or three final locations. At that stage of the process we see local and/or state governments start to bid incentives.