Jump to content

Kansas: Trouble in Conservative Paradise


downzy

Recommended Posts

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/10/sam_brownback_s_ruinous_economic_policies_the_kansas_governor_s_experiments.html

"With his power secured, Brownback turned up the heat. In 2013 he proposed another round of tax cuts that would eliminate income taxes and maintain a high sales tax. Critics blasted the plan, noting the extent to which it was a massive tax increase on the poorest Kansans: For instance, replacing 50 percent of income tax losses with a sales tax would raise taxes on the lowest earners by 2.5 percent. But Brownback promised new revenue ($777 million in state earnings) and broad prosperity. “We’re on a path of growth and job creation, so I say, ‘Come to Kansas,’ ” he said. “We’re paving the way to make Kansas the best place in America to raise a family and run a business.”

A year later Kansas is among the most dysfunctional states in the country. Even after cuts in schools, colleges, libraries, and social services, Kansas can’t keep up with expenses. This year, it faced a huge shortfall in personal income tax receipts, and had to end tax rebates for food and child care to help fill the hole. And overall, it faces a $900 million budget shortfall by 2019, even as the top income tax rate is scheduled to decline to 3.9 percent by 2018. Both Moody’s and S&P have downgraded the state’s bond rating, and economic growth has been poor. Far from giving Kansas a bright new future, Brownback plunged it into chaos."

Interesting how, when given the opportunity to institute the far right policy platform, it falls on its face. Though, I'm not advocating a true-blue left wing platform would work any better (see Greece). How this will affect American politics going forward should be interesting. If your read the article a little further, it outlines how what happens in Kansas might result in Democrat control of the Senate in the upcoming election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all the same everywhere. Borrow and spend more than you can ever pay back. The tax rates simply hasten the inevitable: counterparties coming to the realization that they ain't getting their money back. Ever. Not unless the debt is monetized away and is worth nothing in real terms.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've sometimes wondered how right leaning states, pro-business, no income tax, low property tax - such as Florida - can flourish while left leaning states, with extremely high taxes in almost all sectors, such as California, seem to struggle.

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've sometimes wondered how right leaning states, pro-business, no income tax, low property tax - such as Florida - can flourish while left leaning states, with extremely high taxes in almost all sectors, such as California, seem to struggle.

Especially considering all right leaning people are evil, non-caring, morally corrupt, poor people hating, hate mongers who only care about their own bank accounts!! Every single one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've sometimes wondered how right leaning states, pro-business, no income tax, low property tax - such as Florida - can flourish while left leaning states, with extremely high taxes in almost all sectors, such as California, seem to struggle.

Um, California has done better since the 2008 recession than Florida with respect to job creation:

093014krugman1-tmagArticle.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've sometimes wondered how right leaning states, pro-business, no income tax, low property tax - such as Florida - can flourish while left leaning states, with extremely high taxes in almost all sectors, such as California, seem to struggle.

Um, California has done better since the 2008 recession than Florida with respect to job creation:

093014krugman1-tmagArticle.png

I was referring to state budgets....which is basically what you were referring to in the OP.

I haven't researched this that much but I tend to hear about California's state government money problems a lot more than Florida's....and the average person in California pays double-digit figures (as a %) more in taxes than the average person in Florida does. Between the state tax rates, property tax rates, sales tax rates, etc....

Florida ranks #3 in the nation as least taxed state, when adjusted for cost of living while California ranks 50th, when adjusted for cost of living.

http://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416/

California had a major budget crisis from 2008 - 2012, had to borrow billions from the Federal government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9312_California_budget_crisis

While Florida, is on pace to have a 1.2 billion surplus this year:

http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/126162

Why is that?

And I won't even get into business taxes and regulation.

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've sometimes wondered how right leaning states, pro-business, no income tax, low property tax - such as Florida - can flourish while left leaning states, with extremely high taxes in almost all sectors, such as California, seem to struggle.

Um, California has done better since the 2008 recession than Florida with respect to job creation:

093014krugman1-tmagArticle.png

I was referring to state budgets....which is basically what you were referring to in the OP.

I haven't researched this that much but I tend to hear about California's state government money problems a lot more than Florida's....and the average person in California pays double-digit figures (as a %) more in taxes than the average person in Florida does. Between the state tax rates, property tax rates, sales tax rates, etc....

Florida ranks #3 in the nation as least taxed state, when adjusted for cost of living while California ranks 50th, when adjusted for cost of living.

http://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416/

California had a major budget crisis from 2008 - 2012, had to borrow billions from the Federal government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9312_California_budget_crisis

While Florida, is on pace to have a 1.2 billion surplus this year:

http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/126162

Why is that?

And I won't even get into business taxes and regulation.

And yet California has done a better job than both Kansas (deeply conservative) and Florida (moderately conservative, relatively) in job creation.

The point of the thread is to argue against the right-wing mantra that less regulation, less taxation, and less government will translate into a better state economy. We can clearly see that just isn't the case in Kansas, where Governor Brownback was elected to office on the promise of turning Kansas into a "red-state model" by which other Republicans can use in their campaigns in other states. Or as in Brownback's words, "See, we've got a different way, and it works."

But it clearly hasn't. That's the point.

But I'll indulge your comparison of California and Florida a little bit more KK since I don't think you're either being honest with your comparison or you are not fully aware of what's going on in either state as you think you are.

First, as for your data on taxation, it's highly flawed and not a great source to make your argument. The problem lies with the fact that it uses a median national average to compare states without considering the fact that each state will have different a income/tax average. In other words, in states where people earn more you're going to see higher tax revenues on a per capita basis. This is why Nebraska is down there with California and New York, as the average Nebraskan makes more money than the national average. As a result, Nebraska as a state will pull in more tax revenue per person than someone from say, Florida. Considering costs of living relative to taxation only makes sense if one factors in average earned income for that particular state, which the study does not. Regardless, even if you want to discount my rebuttal on this, it still proves that a state like California, which saw a tax increase last year and is supposedly a far less business-friendly environment, still outperformed Florida and Kansas with respect to job creation since the recession peak.

Second, with respect to your point about California having a major budget crisis, this is true. But it was also true for many other states, including Florida, which borrowed $1.6 billion from the Federal government the same time as California was borrowing (so too did 30 other states, btw). Sure, this is a smaller amount than what California borrowed, but understand that these loan was specific to covering unemployment benefits. And that makes sense, since 2008 - 2011 saw almost all states face a massive influx in unemployment benefit claims, far more than their state systems were designed for at that time. And since California has nearly double the population and hence likely to have many more people who find themselves suddenly out of work, it made sense that California needed to borrow money from the Federal government to help pay for unemployment benefits. Look, I'm not hear to defend the California's balance of accounts, since it's been terrible for years, but it's not your best argument when your own state also borrowed billions for the same reason.

Third, $1.2 billion surplus for Florida this year? Wow, that's pretty good. That's only a little more than one-third of the surplus that California reported this year, pegged around $3 billion for FY 2014. Guess you didn't realize that.

The reality is that right wing (and left wing) ideology are not guaranteed proposals to state prosperity. I'll acknowledge that some of the best economic performing states in the U.S. are managed by Republican governors, but then Republicans need to acknowledge that most of the worst performing states are also governed by Republican lawmakers. If supply-side economics, deregulation, and austerity was the proven path to prosperity, then why is it failing in places like Kansas and other deeply red states? And why is California, a state that you argue is riddled with business taxes and regulations (and also saw a tax increase last year), doing pretty well the last few years in both its ability to manage its fiscal standing and create jobs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've sometimes wondered how right leaning states, pro-business, no income tax, low property tax - such as Florida - can flourish while left leaning states, with extremely high taxes in almost all sectors, such as California, seem to struggle.

Especially considering all right leaning people are evil, non-caring, morally corrupt, poor people hating, hate mongers who only care about their own bank accounts!! Every single one of them.

Strawman.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've sometimes wondered how right leaning states, pro-business, no income tax, low property tax - such as Florida - can flourish while left leaning states, with extremely high taxes in almost all sectors, such as California, seem to struggle.

Um, California has done better since the 2008 recession than Florida with respect to job creation:

093014krugman1-tmagArticle.png

I was referring to state budgets....which is basically what you were referring to in the OP.

I haven't researched this that much but I tend to hear about California's state government money problems a lot more than Florida's....and the average person in California pays double-digit figures (as a %) more in taxes than the average person in Florida does. Between the state tax rates, property tax rates, sales tax rates, etc....

Florida ranks #3 in the nation as least taxed state, when adjusted for cost of living while California ranks 50th, when adjusted for cost of living.

http://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416/

California had a major budget crisis from 2008 - 2012, had to borrow billions from the Federal government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9312_California_budget_crisis

While Florida, is on pace to have a 1.2 billion surplus this year:

http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/126162

Why is that?

And I won't even get into business taxes and regulation.

And yet California has done a better job than both Kansas (deeply conservative) and Florida (moderately conservative, relatively) in job creation.

The point of the thread is to argue against the right-wing mantra that less regulation, less taxation, and less government will translate into a better state economy. We can clearly see that just isn't the case in Kansas, where Governor Brownback was elected to office on the promise of turning Kansas into a "red-state model" by which other Republicans can use in their campaigns in other states. Or as in Brownback's words, "See, we've got a different way, and it works."

But it clearly hasn't. That's the point.

But I'll indulge your comparison of California and Florida a little bit more KK since I don't think you're either being honest with your comparison or you are not fully aware of what's going on in either state as you think you are.

First, as for your data on taxation, it's highly flawed and not a great source to make your argument. The problem lies with the fact that it uses a median national average to compare states without considering the fact that each state will have different a income/tax average. In other words, in states where people earn more you're going to see higher tax revenues on a per capita basis. This is why Nebraska is down there with California and New York, as the average Nebraskan makes more money than the national average. As a result, Nebraska as a state will pull in more tax revenue per person than someone from say, Florida. Considering costs of living relative to taxation only makes sense if one factors in average earned income for that particular state, which the study does not. Regardless, even if you want to discount my rebuttal on this, it still proves that a state like California, which saw a tax increase last year and is supposedly a far less business-friendly environment, still outperformed Florida and Kansas with respect to job creation since the recession peak.

Second, with respect to your point about California having a major budget crisis, this is true. But it was also true for many other states, including Florida, which borrowed $1.6 billion from the Federal government the same time as California was borrowing (so too did 30 other states, btw). Sure, this is a smaller amount than what California borrowed, but understand that these loan was specific to covering unemployment benefits. And that makes sense, since 2008 - 2011 saw almost all states face a massive influx in unemployment benefit claims, far more than their state systems were designed for at that time. And since California has nearly double the population and hence likely to have many more people who find themselves suddenly out of work, it made sense that California needed to borrow money from the Federal government to help pay for unemployment benefits. Look, I'm not hear to defend the California's balance of accounts, since it's been terrible for years, but it's not your best argument when your own state also borrowed billions for the same reason.

Third, $1.2 billion surplus for Florida this year? Wow, that's pretty good. That's only a little more than one-third of the surplus that California reported this year, pegged around $3 billion for FY 2014. Guess you didn't realize that.

The reality is that right wing (and left wing) ideology are not guaranteed proposals to state prosperity. I'll acknowledge that some of the best economic performing states in the U.S. are managed by Republican governors, but then Republicans need to acknowledge that most of the worst performing states are also governed by Republican lawmakers. If supply-side economics, deregulation, and austerity was the proven path to prosperity, then why is it failing in places like Kansas and other deeply red states? And why is California, a state that you argue is riddled with business taxes and regulations (and also saw a tax increase last year), doing pretty well the last few years in both its ability to manage its fiscal standing and create jobs?

I don't think you're understanding my question to you. How can a state such as Florida flourish with ZERO income tax (yes, so that pretty much puts your whole "income based" theory out the window, btw) - there is no state income tax in Florida, so income level is meaningless when it comes to taxes) have a perfectly operational budget - WITH a surplus while a state like California has to tax their residents in the double-digits in order to survive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've sometimes wondered how right leaning states, pro-business, no income tax, low property tax - such as Florida - can flourish while left leaning states, with extremely high taxes in almost all sectors, such as California, seem to struggle.

Um, California has done better since the 2008 recession than Florida with respect to job creation:

093014krugman1-tmagArticle.png

I was referring to state budgets....which is basically what you were referring to in the OP.

I haven't researched this that much but I tend to hear about California's state government money problems a lot more than Florida's....and the average person in California pays double-digit figures (as a %) more in taxes than the average person in Florida does. Between the state tax rates, property tax rates, sales tax rates, etc....

Florida ranks #3 in the nation as least taxed state, when adjusted for cost of living while California ranks 50th, when adjusted for cost of living.

http://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416/

California had a major budget crisis from 2008 - 2012, had to borrow billions from the Federal government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9312_California_budget_crisis

While Florida, is on pace to have a 1.2 billion surplus this year:

http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/126162

Why is that?

And I won't even get into business taxes and regulation.

And yet California has done a better job than both Kansas (deeply conservative) and Florida (moderately conservative, relatively) in job creation.

The point of the thread is to argue against the right-wing mantra that less regulation, less taxation, and less government will translate into a better state economy. We can clearly see that just isn't the case in Kansas, where Governor Brownback was elected to office on the promise of turning Kansas into a "red-state model" by which other Republicans can use in their campaigns in other states. Or as in Brownback's words, "See, we've got a different way, and it works."

But it clearly hasn't. That's the point.

But I'll indulge your comparison of California and Florida a little bit more KK since I don't think you're either being honest with your comparison or you are not fully aware of what's going on in either state as you think you are.

First, as for your data on taxation, it's highly flawed and not a great source to make your argument. The problem lies with the fact that it uses a median national average to compare states without considering the fact that each state will have different a income/tax average. In other words, in states where people earn more you're going to see higher tax revenues on a per capita basis. This is why Nebraska is down there with California and New York, as the average Nebraskan makes more money than the national average. As a result, Nebraska as a state will pull in more tax revenue per person than someone from say, Florida. Considering costs of living relative to taxation only makes sense if one factors in average earned income for that particular state, which the study does not. Regardless, even if you want to discount my rebuttal on this, it still proves that a state like California, which saw a tax increase last year and is supposedly a far less business-friendly environment, still outperformed Florida and Kansas with respect to job creation since the recession peak.

Second, with respect to your point about California having a major budget crisis, this is true. But it was also true for many other states, including Florida, which borrowed $1.6 billion from the Federal government the same time as California was borrowing (so too did 30 other states, btw). Sure, this is a smaller amount than what California borrowed, but understand that these loan was specific to covering unemployment benefits. And that makes sense, since 2008 - 2011 saw almost all states face a massive influx in unemployment benefit claims, far more than their state systems were designed for at that time. And since California has nearly double the population and hence likely to have many more people who find themselves suddenly out of work, it made sense that California needed to borrow money from the Federal government to help pay for unemployment benefits. Look, I'm not hear to defend the California's balance of accounts, since it's been terrible for years, but it's not your best argument when your own state also borrowed billions for the same reason.

Third, $1.2 billion surplus for Florida this year? Wow, that's pretty good. That's only a little more than one-third of the surplus that California reported this year, pegged around $3 billion for FY 2014. Guess you didn't realize that.

The reality is that right wing (and left wing) ideology are not guaranteed proposals to state prosperity. I'll acknowledge that some of the best economic performing states in the U.S. are managed by Republican governors, but then Republicans need to acknowledge that most of the worst performing states are also governed by Republican lawmakers. If supply-side economics, deregulation, and austerity was the proven path to prosperity, then why is it failing in places like Kansas and other deeply red states? And why is California, a state that you argue is riddled with business taxes and regulations (and also saw a tax increase last year), doing pretty well the last few years in both its ability to manage its fiscal standing and create jobs?

I don't think you're understanding my question to you. How can a state such as Florida flourish with ZERO income tax (yes, so that pretty much puts your whole "income based" theory out the window, btw) - there is no state income tax in Florida, so income level is meaningless when it comes to taxes) have a perfectly operational budget - WITH a surplus while a state like California has to tax their residents in the double-digits in order to survive?

Florida still collects roughly around $32 billion dollars in taxes every year. I'd dispute your contention that Florida has "flourished," as many other states (including California) have recovered all the jobs lost as a result of the great recession whereas Florida has not.

Florida may not tax income, but it sure as shit taxes everything else. If you refer here, you'll see that Florida is in the top ten of all U.S. states when it comes to property and sales taxes (as a percentage of total revenue). So the state of Florida may not tax income directly, but it does so through other avenues. Other than income and corporate tax rates, Florida receives a greater share of its income from taxing property, sales/commerce, and licensing than California does. It's just a matter of what levers a state government wish to pull with respect to how it taxes its citizens.

So the question becomes, if California taxes its citizens and corporations at a higher rate than Florida, why has it done a better job at recovering the job losses of the great recession? Doesn't conservative dogma predict that states with lower income and corporate tax rates do better in creating jobs than states with higher rates? Doesn't appear to be the case in this comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've sometimes wondered how right leaning states, pro-business, no income tax, low property tax - such as Florida - can flourish while left leaning states, with extremely high taxes in almost all sectors, such as California, seem to struggle.

Um, California has done better since the 2008 recession than Florida with respect to job creation:

093014krugman1-tmagArticle.png

I was referring to state budgets....which is basically what you were referring to in the OP.

I haven't researched this that much but I tend to hear about California's state government money problems a lot more than Florida's....and the average person in California pays double-digit figures (as a %) more in taxes than the average person in Florida does. Between the state tax rates, property tax rates, sales tax rates, etc....

Florida ranks #3 in the nation as least taxed state, when adjusted for cost of living while California ranks 50th, when adjusted for cost of living.

http://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416/

California had a major budget crisis from 2008 - 2012, had to borrow billions from the Federal government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9312_California_budget_crisis

While Florida, is on pace to have a 1.2 billion surplus this year:

http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/126162

Why is that?

And I won't even get into business taxes and regulation.

And yet California has done a better job than both Kansas (deeply conservative) and Florida (moderately conservative, relatively) in job creation.

The point of the thread is to argue against the right-wing mantra that less regulation, less taxation, and less government will translate into a better state economy. We can clearly see that just isn't the case in Kansas, where Governor Brownback was elected to office on the promise of turning Kansas into a "red-state model" by which other Republicans can use in their campaigns in other states. Or as in Brownback's words, "See, we've got a different way, and it works."

But it clearly hasn't. That's the point.

But I'll indulge your comparison of California and Florida a little bit more KK since I don't think you're either being honest with your comparison or you are not fully aware of what's going on in either state as you think you are.

First, as for your data on taxation, it's highly flawed and not a great source to make your argument. The problem lies with the fact that it uses a median national average to compare states without considering the fact that each state will have different a income/tax average. In other words, in states where people earn more you're going to see higher tax revenues on a per capita basis. This is why Nebraska is down there with California and New York, as the average Nebraskan makes more money than the national average. As a result, Nebraska as a state will pull in more tax revenue per person than someone from say, Florida. Considering costs of living relative to taxation only makes sense if one factors in average earned income for that particular state, which the study does not. Regardless, even if you want to discount my rebuttal on this, it still proves that a state like California, which saw a tax increase last year and is supposedly a far less business-friendly environment, still outperformed Florida and Kansas with respect to job creation since the recession peak.

Second, with respect to your point about California having a major budget crisis, this is true. But it was also true for many other states, including Florida, which borrowed $1.6 billion from the Federal government the same time as California was borrowing (so too did 30 other states, btw). Sure, this is a smaller amount than what California borrowed, but understand that these loan was specific to covering unemployment benefits. And that makes sense, since 2008 - 2011 saw almost all states face a massive influx in unemployment benefit claims, far more than their state systems were designed for at that time. And since California has nearly double the population and hence likely to have many more people who find themselves suddenly out of work, it made sense that California needed to borrow money from the Federal government to help pay for unemployment benefits. Look, I'm not hear to defend the California's balance of accounts, since it's been terrible for years, but it's not your best argument when your own state also borrowed billions for the same reason.

Third, $1.2 billion surplus for Florida this year? Wow, that's pretty good. That's only a little more than one-third of the surplus that California reported this year, pegged around $3 billion for FY 2014. Guess you didn't realize that.

The reality is that right wing (and left wing) ideology are not guaranteed proposals to state prosperity. I'll acknowledge that some of the best economic performing states in the U.S. are managed by Republican governors, but then Republicans need to acknowledge that most of the worst performing states are also governed by Republican lawmakers. If supply-side economics, deregulation, and austerity was the proven path to prosperity, then why is it failing in places like Kansas and other deeply red states? And why is California, a state that you argue is riddled with business taxes and regulations (and also saw a tax increase last year), doing pretty well the last few years in both its ability to manage its fiscal standing and create jobs?

I don't think you're understanding my question to you. How can a state such as Florida flourish with ZERO income tax (yes, so that pretty much puts your whole "income based" theory out the window, btw) - there is no state income tax in Florida, so income level is meaningless when it comes to taxes) have a perfectly operational budget - WITH a surplus while a state like California has to tax their residents in the double-digits in order to survive?

Florida still collects roughly around $32 billion dollars in taxes every year. I'd dispute your contention that Florida has "flourished," as many other states (including California) have recovered all the jobs lost as a result of the great recession whereas Florida has not.

Florida may not tax income, but it sure as shit taxes everything else. If you refer here, you'll see that Florida is in the top ten of all U.S. states when it comes to property and sales taxes (as a percentage of total revenue). So the state of Florida may not tax income directly, but it does so through other avenues. Other than income and corporate tax rates, Florida receives a greater share of its income from taxing property, sales/commerce, and licensing than California does. It's just a matter of what levers a state government wish to pull with respect to how it taxes its citizens.

So the question becomes, if California taxes its citizens and corporations at a higher rate than Florida, why has it done a better job at recovering the job losses of the great recession? Doesn't conservative dogma predict that states with lower income and corporate tax rates do better in creating jobs than states with higher rates? Doesn't appear to be the case in this comparison.

Downzy, your are out of your element on this one.

The reason Florida's total income is based on property taxes and sales taxes is because that's almost all Florida taxes. So of course as a % of total revenue they will be higher.... :lol: Florida's property tax rates ARE AMONG THE LOWEST IN THE COUNTRY....and it's sales tax rates are about average. Both property taxes and sales taxes are lower in Florida than they are in California......business taxes are also among the lowest in the country, much lower than California's.

And you have yet to answer my question.

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've sometimes wondered how right leaning states, pro-business, no income tax, low property tax - such as Florida - can flourish while left leaning states, with extremely high taxes in almost all sectors, such as California, seem to struggle.

Um, California has done better since the 2008 recession than Florida with respect to job creation:

093014krugman1-tmagArticle.png

I was referring to state budgets....which is basically what you were referring to in the OP.

I haven't researched this that much but I tend to hear about California's state government money problems a lot more than Florida's....and the average person in California pays double-digit figures (as a %) more in taxes than the average person in Florida does. Between the state tax rates, property tax rates, sales tax rates, etc....

Florida ranks #3 in the nation as least taxed state, when adjusted for cost of living while California ranks 50th, when adjusted for cost of living.

http://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416/

California had a major budget crisis from 2008 - 2012, had to borrow billions from the Federal government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9312_California_budget_crisis

While Florida, is on pace to have a 1.2 billion surplus this year:

http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/126162

Why is that?

And I won't even get into business taxes and regulation.

And yet California has done a better job than both Kansas (deeply conservative) and Florida (moderately conservative, relatively) in job creation.

The point of the thread is to argue against the right-wing mantra that less regulation, less taxation, and less government will translate into a better state economy. We can clearly see that just isn't the case in Kansas, where Governor Brownback was elected to office on the promise of turning Kansas into a "red-state model" by which other Republicans can use in their campaigns in other states. Or as in Brownback's words, "See, we've got a different way, and it works."

But it clearly hasn't. That's the point.

But I'll indulge your comparison of California and Florida a little bit more KK since I don't think you're either being honest with your comparison or you are not fully aware of what's going on in either state as you think you are.

First, as for your data on taxation, it's highly flawed and not a great source to make your argument. The problem lies with the fact that it uses a median national average to compare states without considering the fact that each state will have different a income/tax average. In other words, in states where people earn more you're going to see higher tax revenues on a per capita basis. This is why Nebraska is down there with California and New York, as the average Nebraskan makes more money than the national average. As a result, Nebraska as a state will pull in more tax revenue per person than someone from say, Florida. Considering costs of living relative to taxation only makes sense if one factors in average earned income for that particular state, which the study does not. Regardless, even if you want to discount my rebuttal on this, it still proves that a state like California, which saw a tax increase last year and is supposedly a far less business-friendly environment, still outperformed Florida and Kansas with respect to job creation since the recession peak.

Second, with respect to your point about California having a major budget crisis, this is true. But it was also true for many other states, including Florida, which borrowed $1.6 billion from the Federal government the same time as California was borrowing (so too did 30 other states, btw). Sure, this is a smaller amount than what California borrowed, but understand that these loan was specific to covering unemployment benefits. And that makes sense, since 2008 - 2011 saw almost all states face a massive influx in unemployment benefit claims, far more than their state systems were designed for at that time. And since California has nearly double the population and hence likely to have many more people who find themselves suddenly out of work, it made sense that California needed to borrow money from the Federal government to help pay for unemployment benefits. Look, I'm not hear to defend the California's balance of accounts, since it's been terrible for years, but it's not your best argument when your own state also borrowed billions for the same reason.

Third, $1.2 billion surplus for Florida this year? Wow, that's pretty good. That's only a little more than one-third of the surplus that California reported this year, pegged around $3 billion for FY 2014. Guess you didn't realize that.

The reality is that right wing (and left wing) ideology are not guaranteed proposals to state prosperity. I'll acknowledge that some of the best economic performing states in the U.S. are managed by Republican governors, but then Republicans need to acknowledge that most of the worst performing states are also governed by Republican lawmakers. If supply-side economics, deregulation, and austerity was the proven path to prosperity, then why is it failing in places like Kansas and other deeply red states? And why is California, a state that you argue is riddled with business taxes and regulations (and also saw a tax increase last year), doing pretty well the last few years in both its ability to manage its fiscal standing and create jobs?

I don't think you're understanding my question to you. How can a state such as Florida flourish with ZERO income tax (yes, so that pretty much puts your whole "income based" theory out the window, btw) - there is no state income tax in Florida, so income level is meaningless when it comes to taxes) have a perfectly operational budget - WITH a surplus while a state like California has to tax their residents in the double-digits in order to survive?

Florida still collects roughly around $32 billion dollars in taxes every year. I'd dispute your contention that Florida has "flourished," as many other states (including California) have recovered all the jobs lost as a result of the great recession whereas Florida has not.

Florida may not tax income, but it sure as shit taxes everything else. If you refer here, you'll see that Florida is in the top ten of all U.S. states when it comes to property and sales taxes (as a percentage of total revenue). So the state of Florida may not tax income directly, but it does so through other avenues. Other than income and corporate tax rates, Florida receives a greater share of its income from taxing property, sales/commerce, and licensing than California does. It's just a matter of what levers a state government wish to pull with respect to how it taxes its citizens.

So the question becomes, if California taxes its citizens and corporations at a higher rate than Florida, why has it done a better job at recovering the job losses of the great recession? Doesn't conservative dogma predict that states with lower income and corporate tax rates do better in creating jobs than states with higher rates? Doesn't appear to be the case in this comparison.

Downzy, your are out of your element on this one.

The reason Florida's total income is based on property taxes and sales taxes is because that's almost all Florida taxes. So of course as a % of total revenue they will be higher.... :lol: Florida's property tax rates ARE AMONG THE LOWEST IN THE COUNTRY....and it's sales tax rates are about average. Both property taxes and sales taxes are lower in Florida than they are in California......business taxes are also among the lowest in the country, much lower than California's.

And you have yet to answer my question.

The guy using wrong figures is accusing someone else of being out of their element. Rich!

Florida property taxes are not among the lowest in the country, not even close. In fact, they're higher than California's, with Florida average property tax rate sitting at 0.97 percent whereas California taxes property at 0.74 percent. See here.

Sorry, what question do you want me to answer? The one based on your assertion that Florida "flourishes" despite having no income tax? Again, flourish is a relative word. It's unemployment rate is decidedly average, with 6.7 percent of Floridians out of work. Its rank with regards to poverty prevention is among the lowest in the U.S. With respect to infrastructure, Florida sits below average of all U.S. states. With respect to healthcare, Florida sits 33rd in the country.

Does Florida do better, in some respects, than California? Absolutely. But this isn't the point of the thread. It's meant to point out that the conservative playbook does not always produce the results its supporters claim it does. Kansas Governor Brownback was elected on an very conservative platform, spent the last four years implementing that platform, and has seen his state descend into financial and social disrepair. Your comparison of California and Florida to counter this claim doesn't seem to help. Now that I have answered the question you continually accuse me of dodging, how about you answer the question I've asked you in every post: how has the higher taxed state of California done better at job creation than the lower taxed state of Florida? Sure, Florida fairs well when one only considers the state's balance of accounts, but it also spends far less on its citizens and state as a result.

Also, if Florida is doing so well, why are voters now favouring former Governor Crist to the current, staunchly conservative Governor Scott?

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article2417872.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've sometimes wondered how right leaning states, pro-business, no income tax, low property tax - such as Florida - can flourish while left leaning states, with extremely high taxes in almost all sectors, such as California, seem to struggle.

Um, California has done better since the 2008 recession than Florida with respect to job creation:

093014krugman1-tmagArticle.png

I was referring to state budgets....which is basically what you were referring to in the OP.

I haven't researched this that much but I tend to hear about California's state government money problems a lot more than Florida's....and the average person in California pays double-digit figures (as a %) more in taxes than the average person in Florida does. Between the state tax rates, property tax rates, sales tax rates, etc....

Florida ranks #3 in the nation as least taxed state, when adjusted for cost of living while California ranks 50th, when adjusted for cost of living.

http://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416/

California had a major budget crisis from 2008 - 2012, had to borrow billions from the Federal government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9312_California_budget_crisis

While Florida, is on pace to have a 1.2 billion surplus this year:

http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/126162

Why is that?

And I won't even get into business taxes and regulation.

And yet California has done a better job than both Kansas (deeply conservative) and Florida (moderately conservative, relatively) in job creation.

The point of the thread is to argue against the right-wing mantra that less regulation, less taxation, and less government will translate into a better state economy. We can clearly see that just isn't the case in Kansas, where Governor Brownback was elected to office on the promise of turning Kansas into a "red-state model" by which other Republicans can use in their campaigns in other states. Or as in Brownback's words, "See, we've got a different way, and it works."

But it clearly hasn't. That's the point.

But I'll indulge your comparison of California and Florida a little bit more KK since I don't think you're either being honest with your comparison or you are not fully aware of what's going on in either state as you think you are.

First, as for your data on taxation, it's highly flawed and not a great source to make your argument. The problem lies with the fact that it uses a median national average to compare states without considering the fact that each state will have different a income/tax average. In other words, in states where people earn more you're going to see higher tax revenues on a per capita basis. This is why Nebraska is down there with California and New York, as the average Nebraskan makes more money than the national average. As a result, Nebraska as a state will pull in more tax revenue per person than someone from say, Florida. Considering costs of living relative to taxation only makes sense if one factors in average earned income for that particular state, which the study does not. Regardless, even if you want to discount my rebuttal on this, it still proves that a state like California, which saw a tax increase last year and is supposedly a far less business-friendly environment, still outperformed Florida and Kansas with respect to job creation since the recession peak.

Second, with respect to your point about California having a major budget crisis, this is true. But it was also true for many other states, including Florida, which borrowed $1.6 billion from the Federal government the same time as California was borrowing (so too did 30 other states, btw). Sure, this is a smaller amount than what California borrowed, but understand that these loan was specific to covering unemployment benefits. And that makes sense, since 2008 - 2011 saw almost all states face a massive influx in unemployment benefit claims, far more than their state systems were designed for at that time. And since California has nearly double the population and hence likely to have many more people who find themselves suddenly out of work, it made sense that California needed to borrow money from the Federal government to help pay for unemployment benefits. Look, I'm not hear to defend the California's balance of accounts, since it's been terrible for years, but it's not your best argument when your own state also borrowed billions for the same reason.

Third, $1.2 billion surplus for Florida this year? Wow, that's pretty good. That's only a little more than one-third of the surplus that California reported this year, pegged around $3 billion for FY 2014. Guess you didn't realize that.

The reality is that right wing (and left wing) ideology are not guaranteed proposals to state prosperity. I'll acknowledge that some of the best economic performing states in the U.S. are managed by Republican governors, but then Republicans need to acknowledge that most of the worst performing states are also governed by Republican lawmakers. If supply-side economics, deregulation, and austerity was the proven path to prosperity, then why is it failing in places like Kansas and other deeply red states? And why is California, a state that you argue is riddled with business taxes and regulations (and also saw a tax increase last year), doing pretty well the last few years in both its ability to manage its fiscal standing and create jobs?

I don't think you're understanding my question to you. How can a state such as Florida flourish with ZERO income tax (yes, so that pretty much puts your whole "income based" theory out the window, btw) - there is no state income tax in Florida, so income level is meaningless when it comes to taxes) have a perfectly operational budget - WITH a surplus while a state like California has to tax their residents in the double-digits in order to survive?

Florida still collects roughly around $32 billion dollars in taxes every year. I'd dispute your contention that Florida has "flourished," as many other states (including California) have recovered all the jobs lost as a result of the great recession whereas Florida has not.

Florida may not tax income, but it sure as shit taxes everything else. If you refer here, you'll see that Florida is in the top ten of all U.S. states when it comes to property and sales taxes (as a percentage of total revenue). So the state of Florida may not tax income directly, but it does so through other avenues. Other than income and corporate tax rates, Florida receives a greater share of its income from taxing property, sales/commerce, and licensing than California does. It's just a matter of what levers a state government wish to pull with respect to how it taxes its citizens.

So the question becomes, if California taxes its citizens and corporations at a higher rate than Florida, why has it done a better job at recovering the job losses of the great recession? Doesn't conservative dogma predict that states with lower income and corporate tax rates do better in creating jobs than states with higher rates? Doesn't appear to be the case in this comparison.

Downzy, your are out of your element on this one.

The reason Florida's total income is based on property taxes and sales taxes is because that's almost all Florida taxes. So of course as a % of total revenue they will be higher.... :lol: Florida's property tax rates ARE AMONG THE LOWEST IN THE COUNTRY....and it's sales tax rates are about average. Both property taxes and sales taxes are lower in Florida than they are in California......business taxes are also among the lowest in the country, much lower than California's.

And you have yet to answer my question.

The guy using wrong figures is accusing someone else of being out of their element. Rich!

Florida property taxes are not among the lowest in the country, not even close. In fact, they're higher than California's, with Florida average property tax rate sitting at 0.97 percent whereas California taxes property at 0.74 percent. See here.

Sorry, what question do you want me to answer? The one based on your assertion that Florida "flourishes" despite having no income tax? Again, flourish is a relative word. It's unemployment rate is decidedly average, with 6.7 percent of Floridians out of work. Its rank with regards to poverty prevention is among the lowest in the U.S. With respect to infrastructure, Florida sits below average of all U.S. states. With respect to healthcare, Florida sits 33rd in the country.

Does Florida do better, in some respects, than California? Absolutely. But this isn't the point of the thread. It's meant to point out that the conservative playbook does not always produce the results its supporters claim it does. Kansas Governor Brownback was elected on an very conservative platform, spent the last four years implementing that platform, and has seen his state descend into financial and social disrepair. Your comparison of California and Florida to counter this claim doesn't seem to help. Now that I have answered the question you continually accuse me of dodging, how about you answer the question I've asked you in every post: how has the higher taxed state of California done better at job creation than the lower taxed state of Florida? Sure, Florida fairs well when one only considers the state's balance of accounts, but it also spends far less on its citizens and state as a result.

Also, if Florida is doing so well, why are voters now favouring former Governor Crist to the current, staunchly conservative Governor Scott?

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article2417872.html

I was mistaken about overall property tax rates but when you add county, local and city taxes, California is about as high or the same as Florida's. And since property values are much higher in California than in Florida, the average property tax a person pays in California (the actual amount) is substantially higher than what a person pays in Florida. (On average).

And we're arguing two completely different things. Your initial post was basically stating that conservatives are mismanaging the state funds, possibly causing a crisis in Kansas... and alluding to the fact that a conservative approach does not work. I basically asked you why it seemed to work well in Florida, while in California, where it's citizens are taxed the most, (the progressive approach)works....but it only works because of the high tax rates....while in Florida, it works....with low tax rates.

I'm basically saying that it comes down to management....not necessarily Conservative vs. Progressive.

As you should know by now, I am moderate in my views....I like to look at both sides of the equation....and Charlie Crist is as moderate as they come, imo. When he was governor of Florida, he was actually a moderate Republican.... he then switched to independent,.... and now is running as a Democrat.....and yes, I would like to see him win. Scott has done a fairly decent job, but he has made unnecessary cuts to education (which doesn't make sense, imo) and apparently, he has a less than stellar past in the private sector, which currently seems to be turning a lot of heads.

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was mistaken about overall property tax rates but when you add county, local and city taxes, California is about as high or the same as Florida's. And since property values are much higher in California than in Florida, the average property tax a person pays in California (the actual amount) is substantially higher than what a person pays in Florida. (On average).

And we're arguing two completely different things. Your initial post was basically stating that conservatives are mismanaging the state funds, possibly causing a crisis in Kansas... and alluding to the fact that a conservative approach does not work. I basically asked you why it seemed to work well in Florida, while in California, where it's citizens are taxed the most, it works....but it only works because of the high tax rates....while in Florida, it works....with low tax rates.

I'm basically saying that it comes down to management....not necessarily Conservative vs. Progressive.

As you should know by now, I am moderate in my views....I like to look at both sides of the equation....and Charlie Crist is as moderate as they come, imo. When he was governor of Florida, he was actually a moderate Republican.... he then switched to independent,.... and now is running as a Democrat.....and yes, I would like to see him win. Scott has done a fairly decent job, but he has made unnecessary cuts to education (which doesn't make sense, imo) and apparently, he has a less than stellar past in the private sector, which currently seems to be turning a lot of heads.

With respect to the part I've bolded, that is not what I'm arguing. It's not a matter of mismanaging state resources, but rather what polices are put into place on how those resources are utilized. Brownback had four years to experiment with right-ideology (low or eliminated tax, reduce regulations, etc.) and it didn't work. Florida is a special case. Kansas isn't Florida. It doesn't have the tourist dollars that roll in like Florida does. To say that Florida proves that less taxation works is to ignore the fact that not all states are blessed with year round warm temperatures, white sandy beaches, and Disney World. Moreover, as I've alluded to in my last post, Florida isn't an outlier with respect to employment or citizen wellbeing. There's a lot of great things about Florida, but I'm not sure many stem from government policy.

In regards to your contention that it's all about management, please show me one source where it places the blame of Kansas's problems at the feet of mismanagement. Sure, sometimes there's issue of graft, corruption, or incompetence, but I can't find anything that puts the blame on the management of resources when it comes to what currently ails Kansas. There are good policies and bad policies, just like there are bad managers and good managers. Placing the blame on managerial incompetence ignores the true source of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was mistaken about overall property tax rates but when you add county, local and city taxes, California is about as high or the same as Florida's. And since property values are much higher in California than in Florida, the average property tax a person pays in California (the actual amount) is substantially higher than what a person pays in Florida. (On average).

And we're arguing two completely different things. Your initial post was basically stating that conservatives are mismanaging the state funds, possibly causing a crisis in Kansas... and alluding to the fact that a conservative approach does not work. I basically asked you why it seemed to work well in Florida, while in California, where it's citizens are taxed the most, it works....but it only works because of the high tax rates....while in Florida, it works....with low tax rates.

I'm basically saying that it comes down to management....not necessarily Conservative vs. Progressive.

As you should know by now, I am moderate in my views....I like to look at both sides of the equation....and Charlie Crist is as moderate as they come, imo. When he was governor of Florida, he was actually a moderate Republican.... he then switched to independent,.... and now is running as a Democrat.....and yes, I would like to see him win. Scott has done a fairly decent job, but he has made unnecessary cuts to education (which doesn't make sense, imo) and apparently, he has a less than stellar past in the private sector, which currently seems to be turning a lot of heads.

With respect to the part I've bolded, that is not what I'm arguing. It's not a matter of mismanaging state resources, but rather what polices are put into place on how those resources are utilized. Brownback had four years to experiment with right-ideology (low or eliminated tax, reduce regulations, etc.) and it didn't work. Florida is a special case. Kansas isn't Florida. It doesn't have the tourist dollars that roll in like Florida does. To say that Florida proves that less taxation works is to ignore the fact that not all states are blessed with year round warm temperatures, white sandy beaches, and Disney World. Moreover, as I've alluded to in my last post, Florida isn't an outlier with respect to employment or citizen wellbeing. There's a lot of great things about Florida, but I'm not sure many stem from government policy.

In regards to your contention that it's all about management, please show me one source where it places the blame of Kansas's problems at the feet of mismanagement. Sure, sometimes there's issue of graft, corruption, or incompetence, but I can't find anything that puts the blame on the management of resources when it comes to what currently ails Kansas. There are good policies and bad policies, just like there are bad managers and good managers. Placing the blame on managerial incompetence ignores the true source of the problem.

Actually, that was one of the answers I initially was looking for...I wanted to see your reaction...see how far off topic you would take it....but you did well, and eventually figured out one of the main reasons, anyway.... :P If you would have stated those were the reasons Florida doesn't necessarily compare with the Kansas situation, I would have accepted it as a logical conclusion...I may not have completely agreed with it, but it's close enough.... :lol:

As far as management vs. policy, when it comes to the government, they are practically interchangeable, imo. Semantics. If you want to call it policy, I'm ok with that.

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was mistaken about overall property tax rates but when you add county, local and city taxes, California is about as high or the same as Florida's. And since property values are much higher in California than in Florida, the average property tax a person pays in California (the actual amount) is substantially higher than what a person pays in Florida. (On average).

And we're arguing two completely different things. Your initial post was basically stating that conservatives are mismanaging the state funds, possibly causing a crisis in Kansas... and alluding to the fact that a conservative approach does not work. I basically asked you why it seemed to work well in Florida, while in California, where it's citizens are taxed the most, it works....but it only works because of the high tax rates....while in Florida, it works....with low tax rates.

I'm basically saying that it comes down to management....not necessarily Conservative vs. Progressive.

As you should know by now, I am moderate in my views....I like to look at both sides of the equation....and Charlie Crist is as moderate as they come, imo. When he was governor of Florida, he was actually a moderate Republican.... he then switched to independent,.... and now is running as a Democrat.....and yes, I would like to see him win. Scott has done a fairly decent job, but he has made unnecessary cuts to education (which doesn't make sense, imo) and apparently, he has a less than stellar past in the private sector, which currently seems to be turning a lot of heads.

With respect to the part I've bolded, that is not what I'm arguing. It's not a matter of mismanaging state resources, but rather what polices are put into place on how those resources are utilized. Brownback had four years to experiment with right-ideology (low or eliminated tax, reduce regulations, etc.) and it didn't work. Florida is a special case. Kansas isn't Florida. It doesn't have the tourist dollars that roll in like Florida does. To say that Florida proves that less taxation works is to ignore the fact that not all states are blessed with year round warm temperatures, white sandy beaches, and Disney World. Moreover, as I've alluded to in my last post, Florida isn't an outlier with respect to employment or citizen wellbeing. There's a lot of great things about Florida, but I'm not sure many stem from government policy.

In regards to your contention that it's all about management, please show me one source where it places the blame of Kansas's problems at the feet of mismanagement. Sure, sometimes there's issue of graft, corruption, or incompetence, but I can't find anything that puts the blame on the management of resources when it comes to what currently ails Kansas. There are good policies and bad policies, just like there are bad managers and good managers. Placing the blame on managerial incompetence ignores the true source of the problem.

Actually, that was one of the answers I initially was looking for...I wanted to see your reaction...see how far off topic you would take it....but you did well, and eventually figured out one of the main reasons, anyway.... :P If you would have stated those were the reasons Florida doesn't necessarily compare with the Kansas situation, I would have accepted it as a logical conclusion...I may not have completely agreed with it, but it's close enough.... :lol:

As far as management vs. policy, when it comes to the government, they are practically interchangeable, imo. Semantics. If you want to call it policy, I'm ok with that.

Really?? You were just waiting for me to point out the obvious? :P

But the fact remains that certain states can get away with less taxation because they're blessed by geography or resources. In Canada, the province of Alberta does not have an income tax because it makes so much money off its oil reserves. The problem becomes when politicians point to Alberta as proof that low taxation works (as Alberta's unemployment rate is lower than the national average) without acknowledging that it's not the province's lack of income tax that matters but the money made off oil. Using Florida to suggest that a no income tax system would work in every other state ignores the fact that Florida has the largest tourist economy than any other state on a per capita basis (though Hawaii might have you beat).

What we do know is that while the national economy has improved, Kansas's economy has not. And it has not because of assumptions made by elected officials who prophesize the benefits of supply-side economics. Not going to argue that all tax cuts are bad, as there exists many examples throughout U.S. history where tax reductions have proved beneficial. But in the case of Kansas, it has proven that cuts to income tax and a reduction in regulations is not a guarantee vehicle for growth.

In terms of police very management, I think my distinction could be made clearer by an example. You could argue that the policy of Obamacare is a good thing but the implementation of said policy has been poor. Here in Ontario, one could argue that the policies of the previous governing party were fine, but its management of those policies were proven inept (an example of which is the ruling Liberal party cancelled a couple of gas power plants for political reasons, which ended up costing the province $1 billion in cancelation penalties). I think it's folly to conflate poor policy decisions with poor management skills. They are not one in the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was mistaken about overall property tax rates but when you add county, local and city taxes, California is about as high or the same as Florida's. And since property values are much higher in California than in Florida, the average property tax a person pays in California (the actual amount) is substantially higher than what a person pays in Florida. (On average).

And we're arguing two completely different things. Your initial post was basically stating that conservatives are mismanaging the state funds, possibly causing a crisis in Kansas... and alluding to the fact that a conservative approach does not work. I basically asked you why it seemed to work well in Florida, while in California, where it's citizens are taxed the most, it works....but it only works because of the high tax rates....while in Florida, it works....with low tax rates.

I'm basically saying that it comes down to management....not necessarily Conservative vs. Progressive.

As you should know by now, I am moderate in my views....I like to look at both sides of the equation....and Charlie Crist is as moderate as they come, imo. When he was governor of Florida, he was actually a moderate Republican.... he then switched to independent,.... and now is running as a Democrat.....and yes, I would like to see him win. Scott has done a fairly decent job, but he has made unnecessary cuts to education (which doesn't make sense, imo) and apparently, he has a less than stellar past in the private sector, which currently seems to be turning a lot of heads.

With respect to the part I've bolded, that is not what I'm arguing. It's not a matter of mismanaging state resources, but rather what polices are put into place on how those resources are utilized. Brownback had four years to experiment with right-ideology (low or eliminated tax, reduce regulations, etc.) and it didn't work. Florida is a special case. Kansas isn't Florida. It doesn't have the tourist dollars that roll in like Florida does. To say that Florida proves that less taxation works is to ignore the fact that not all states are blessed with year round warm temperatures, white sandy beaches, and Disney World. Moreover, as I've alluded to in my last post, Florida isn't an outlier with respect to employment or citizen wellbeing. There's a lot of great things about Florida, but I'm not sure many stem from government policy.

In regards to your contention that it's all about management, please show me one source where it places the blame of Kansas's problems at the feet of mismanagement. Sure, sometimes there's issue of graft, corruption, or incompetence, but I can't find anything that puts the blame on the management of resources when it comes to what currently ails Kansas. There are good policies and bad policies, just like there are bad managers and good managers. Placing the blame on managerial incompetence ignores the true source of the problem.

Actually, that was one of the answers I initially was looking for...I wanted to see your reaction...see how far off topic you would take it....but you did well, and eventually figured out one of the main reasons, anyway.... :P If you would have stated those were the reasons Florida doesn't necessarily compare with the Kansas situation, I would have accepted it as a logical conclusion...I may not have completely agreed with it, but it's close enough.... :lol:

As far as management vs. policy, when it comes to the government, they are practically interchangeable, imo. Semantics. If you want to call it policy, I'm ok with that.

Really?? You were just waiting for me to point out the obvious? :P

But the fact remains that certain states can get away with less taxation because they're blessed by geography or resources. In Canada, the province of Alberta does not have an income tax because it makes so much money off its oil reserves. The problem becomes when politicians point to Alberta as proof that low taxation works (as Alberta's unemployment rate is lower than the national average) without acknowledging that it's not the province's lack of income tax that matters but the money made off oil. Using Florida to suggest that a no income tax system would work in every other state ignores the fact that Florida has the largest tourist economy than any other state on a per capita basis (though Hawaii might have you beat).

What we do know is that while the national economy has improved, Kansas's economy has not. And it has not because of assumptions made by elected officials who prophesize the benefits of supply-side economics. Not going to argue that all tax cuts are bad, as there exists many examples throughout U.S. history where tax reductions have proved beneficial. But in the case of Kansas, it has proven that cuts to income tax and a reduction in regulations is not a guarantee vehicle for growth.

In terms of police very management, I think my distinction could be made clearer by an example. You could argue that the policy of Obamacare is a good thing but the implementation of said policy has been poor. Here in Ontario, one could argue that the policies of the previous governing party were fine, but its management of those policies were proven inept (an example of which is the ruling Liberal party cancelled a couple of gas power plants for political reasons, which ended up costing the province $1 billion in cancelation penalties). I think it's folly to conflate poor policy decisions with poor management skills. They are not one in the same.

Like I stated earlier, I haven't researched the subject that much and the majority of my statements (as evident by some of my errors) were strictly from memory and personal experience. I also don't feel strongly enough about the subject (either way) to warrant debating you on it. And what I meant about policy and management is that they go hand in hand. You implement a policy and then manage it....but whatever..... :lol:

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...