Let's do it, conspiracy theory time......

[mrsleeve]

i stand to benefit as well, i think at about the same slight degree. but i make more than double the median US earner's income, so there you go. i just barely made it into the safe zone (after years of work and learning on the fly and being thirsty as fuck for new opportunities).

here's my conspiracy theory question- what the fuck is the economic benefit to our country as a whole of making sure the poor stay poor? wouldn't we all be better off if the larger demographic of our country had more spending power? why do conservatives want that? what the hell is their end game?

lower corportate taxes = lots of US based business bringing billions back in to reinvest into the business here. Getting more people employed and greater opportunities for people to haul them selves up the ladder like you and I and many others have..... I have not looked at the current version of the bill, from what I gleaned form the original proposals was I was going to see an effective tax increase overall for a very busy and year and a very minimal decrease on a slow year with very little change for the more average work load years.

Seems like maybe we might be trying to do something a little different and more "originally American" than the past 50 years of the Cloward and Piven strategy. I dont see this as a give away to the 1% but more to try to attract/encourage more business and investment here, and regain some of lost real productivity in the general economy. Thats the thing is its not working it can be changed again in a couple decades

"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” - Ben Franklin

[parkerbink]

lower corportate taxes = lots of US based business bringing billions back in to reinvest into the business here. Getting more people employed and greater opportunities for people to haul them selves up the ladder like you and I and many others have..... I have not looked at the current version of the bill, from what I gleaned form the original proposals was I was going to see an effective tax increase overall for a very busy and year and a very minimal decrease on a slow year with very little change for the more average work load years.

Seems like maybe we might be trying to do something a little different and more "originally American" than the past 50 years of the Cloward and Piven strategy. I dont see this as a give away to the 1% but more to try to attract/encourage more business and investment here, and regain some of lost real productivity in the general economy. Thats the thing is its not working it can be changed again in a couple decades

"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” - Ben Franklin

Sounds peachy except big business is making profits hand over fist already and not "trickling down" or bringing jobs back. It has been proven time & time again (Ronny, Bush 2, etc) that lowering taxes does not "trickle down"

Easy in poverty? Who the fuck ants to be poor?

[decay]

"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” - Ben Franklin

first point- that was more than 200 years ago and we are not in the same socioeconomic situation.

second point- decreasing tax burden on low income earners is NOT some kind of gift or benefit. that argument is two pantsful of horseshit.

third point- see what happened when kansas got a big corporate tax break. it didn't "trickle down" to anyone, or create more jobs, they just kept the extra profits and the state as a whole went bankrupt. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpac...ut-experiment/ so negative on that as well.

[mrsleeve]

^

More competition with other 1st word nations corporate tax structures keeps and attracts more business to this country. More business, more investment = MORE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES across all fields and and income levels. Do you have a 401k, IRA etc.... or investment portfolio???? Then you should be doing just fine with the profits companies are making and its "trickleing" to you just fine if you are invested well ( I know I am way way up over the last 12 months across most of my investments). Where was I implying that decreasing the taxes on low to middle income earners was a gift and not a good thing it is, lower taxes for everyone is a good thing overall from every individual to corporation to small business ???? I merely stated I didnt see it as a "give away" to the 1% as much of the media and your brethern like to attempt to portray it.

Easy in poverty is a relative term, some people are content with their section 8 housing and free food, that covers 2 of the biggest motivators to get off ones ass, empty belly and no roof over ones head......... Yes things have changed, but the fundamental human condition has not, we all need stuff to survive, and if you are able bodied and other wise not a "special case" then you should strive to provide those things for you self. As I have said in the past, I am all for a safety net of some kind as anyone could find themselves in need of a bit of help at some point, that said it should not be a "career option"

Edit: from a quick off the cuff response, Kansas total Economic output equates to less than 1% of the national GDP with little industry on the nonfarm side of things to draw upon, with little infrastructure to entice big business to locate and settle in quickly..... And just what did the expect to happen when putting pass though income taxation to 0% of course there was going to be a lot of shifting to tax sheltering for S corps and those with that option available to them selves....... Seems to me your article is attempting to conflate undesirable fly over Kansas business climate to the Largest desirable economy in the world by a wide margin, now if this same thing was attempted in CA and this same result occurred then, there would a far better case to draw parallel conclusions with. There is far more variables to how this works, on the larger scale than your article leads one to to think.

[decay]

MORE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

you haven't addressed the part where i demonstrated that to be untrue with kansas as an example, within the last decade. come back to reality, sleeve, the water's fine.

[mrsleeve]

As I pointed out in the Edit, Kansas didnt attract business due to other factors that govern business investment, such as OTHER business to support or having infrastructure to support them in place, or even being a desirable place to locate them selves such as say the Bay area of CA, Vs. A corn field in the middle of nowhere that no one has ever heard of.

Companies would locate in the largest economy in the world Vs DNRC for a whole host of reasons, just like Google, apple, Telsla, Uber etc... chose to locate in CA Vs Kansas......

[decay]

read my post again, sleeve, you're trying to answer questions i'm not asking.

[supermansocks95]

A corn field in the middle of nowhere that no one has ever heard of.

Last I heard, Nebraska was known for corn... We're known for wheat, mate. Also, enough of that generalizing bullshit. Not arguing against the fact that most businesses choose more populated areas over anything else. Just fuck you for that flyover bullshit. There's actually plenty of opportunity in manufacturing here, if you're not a little bitch and can get your hands dirty.

[z31maniac]

Try again Sleeve, I work for the 2nd largest software company in the world.

They just leased and built out another 35% of the space on this floor to expand to the OKC office, along with expanding the Commerce team by something like 35% this year.

And they aren't really growing employees in the home office area, nearly all of those hires have been outside of California.

[mrsleeve]

Last I heard, Nebraska was known for corn... We're known for wheat, mate. Also, enough of that generalizing bullshit. Not arguing against the fact that most businesses choose more populated areas over anything else. Just fuck you for that flyover bullshit. There's actually plenty of opportunity in manufacturing here, if you're not a little bitch and can get your hands dirty.

LOL I prefer to live in a traditionally considered fly over state as well, I like rural / farm communities. I grew up that way and still live in a (what most people consider) remote area. thought this was a well known point of view of mine. The point of the matter was there is not the draw to live in place like we live and why most companies tend to locate them selves where more people with the skills they want/need to be or would be willing to live, and people like Decay like living in cramped urban areas filled with hippster approved brew houses, organic farmers markets and grocers, places that sell used clothing for high end prices, and places that serve coffee with titles that include Soy- Nonfat-cold brew etc on every other street corner with the occasional S&M club for good measure. Not wheat/corn fields or forests as far as the eye can see in all directions where city populations are measured by the hundred, places where the local hardware store has what you need and knows what and where it is, not just what was featured on property brothers last week.

Try again Sleeve, I work for the 2nd largest software company in the world.

They just leased and built out another 35% of the space on this floor to expand to the OKC office, along with expanding the Commerce team by something like 35% this year.

And they aren't really growing employees in the home office area, nearly all of those hires have been outside of California.

Buddy, your telling me your employer, is not getting any tax incentives local/state/property to locate them selves in these places???? I know there are large multi nationals branching out to less expensive places to locate offices/RD facilities /2ed head quarters etc with in the US, this is a good thing and likely fleeing some of the tax burdens placed on them where they are located now, but they are getting some local incentives to do it and you know this, your being purposefully obtuse here, and I know you know better.... Look at all the cities big and medium courting Amazon for their 2ed US HQ offering all kinds of things from tax holidays to infrastructure construction to entice amazon to pick their fair city....

Lastly Decay, again your article leaves many factors out of it leading the reader to a conclusion. But a little digging into the history of taxation in the great state of KS. Shows a history of trial and error and volatility since the 1960s. In fact the only income tax cuts in the 12 plan were individuals small business, the states Corporate tax rates remained unchanged during that time frame at 7% and property taxes remained unchanged. This very likely did not lead to attracting many large out of state company's to the state since they were not included in the cut. When the cut was for wage earners and pass through business like S-corps, LLC, or Sole Proprietors with out much in the way of restrictions so there were nearly double the estimate that took advantage of the pass though tax shelter...... Again what did they expect to happen...... When you have nearly 200k more people taking advantaged of the pass though income by switching how they are paid or pay them selves then of course the "numbers" are going to show a decrease in people "employed" on W2 type payroll. If placed in the same situation I would try and shift my pay scale to a sole proprietor and work as independent contractor providing services to my current employer, its cuts their over head with only having to write me 1 check for total compensation for time billed, and not have to worry about my deductions and what not, and it would lower my tax burden to the state so that would be worth the headache to do my own deductions, win win for both of us..... You cant get pissed at people for playing by the rules laid out for them to play by......

Also much of the Kansas "budget shortfall" in the years post cuts can be attributed to profit taking in 2012 to avoid higher taxation after the bush cuts expired on capital gains on investments. Adding to both over estimation on income generated in the state. Some states in that same time frame saw a revenue increase, then a decrease due to this shifting of profit taking to avoid the higher taxes the next year.......

interesting counter point

https://www.atr.org/cbo-disproves-paul-davis%E2%80%99s-talking-points-kansas-revenue-numbers

[z31maniac]

Tax incentives, no. Just cost of operating as far as rent and salaries are much lower here.

[supermansocks95]

I just work at a bank that's in a few counties. There are opportunities in manufacturing here, but because I'm the only parent that gives a damn in my daughter's situation, I decided to go to this job instead of working swing shifts so I can be in her life as much as possible. Luckily, this move to IT is proving to get me paid around how much I would've made at some of the manufacturing jobs anyways. But yeah I get ya. If I owned a company and wanted to make it a big thing, CA would probably be the way to go.

[decay]

people like Decay like living in cramped urban areas filled with hippster approved brew houses, organic farmers markets and grocers, places that sell used clothing for high end prices, and places that serve coffee with titles that include Soy- Nonfat-cold brew etc on every other street corner with the occasional S&M club for good measure.

i live here because this is where the tech jobs are, and managing/troubleshooting enterprise internet infrastructure is what i turned out to be good at, post-military.

i can tell you that the people at the S&M clubs will be the last ones to tell you how to live your life.

[mrsleeve]

i live here because this is where the tech jobs are, and managing/troubleshooting enterprise internet infrastructure is what i turned out to be good at, post-military.

Right thank you for helping to prove my point, with your personal touch. Your making out well thats a good thing and thats all that matters. Let me know when you are willing to keep doing what your doing for a 40+% pay cut and live in Olathe because your employer will save money. (Supper: I am not picking on Kansas ) Good idea for them if they can retain the people that work for them for the move, most people who live where you do dont want to move to Kansas and will stay in their homes and find someone where in the bay area that needs a similar skill set.

Oh and if that makes your sticker peck out..... then have it, I dont care what you and other consenting adults do thats awesome for you. The point was, you likely wont find that outside of places similar to where you live now, other than maybe in some local guys basement where the 9 like minded people of the county meet all cloak and dagger like on every 3rd Tuesday so their kids 3rd grade teacher dose not find out, but only if you know the right people to ask to get an invite. Not with sign front with neon and twinkly lights on main street between Alice's resale shop and The Greasy Spoon...

[decay]

all the more reason for me to stay. i'd rather live in a place where everyone has the freedom to live whatever life they want, without being judged for it, as long as they're not harming anyone else. that's what our country is supposed to be about.