Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Tax Relief Will Grow Economy

February 6, 2013

Taking less money out of Ohioans’ pockets while making it easier for small businesses to thrive seems like a clear path to more jobs and a better economy in the Buckeye Stat....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(50)

LogHog

Feb-06-13 7:39 AM

many times things are not what they seem...esp. with the Govt. The Gov's plan looks more like just the same old play only with the line shifting before the call..If the states economy is doing better and the states coffers are better, Why the shift now?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Feb-06-13 7:55 AM

smoke-n-mirrors! Cut taxes on a and raise taxes on b......

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Thebudman

Feb-06-13 10:00 AM

When will a wealth tax (it's unconstitutional, but won't matter) be imposed on wealthy and successful Americans to confiscate funds for redistribution to America's poor and unsuccessful?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Wheeldog

Feb-07-13 7:42 PM

Tax Relief Will Grow Economy???? Since when? This has become the mantra of arch conservatives spoken almost as an expression of a religious conviction. Indeed, it is said so often that virtually no one even questions its accuracy. In fact, studies have indicated that tax cuts, particularly for the more affluent, do not translate into economic improvements. They do, however, tend to increase the wealth gap within the general population. You may want a tax cut for personal reasons, but don't expect it to necessarily improve the general economy.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

promo61

Feb-07-13 10:08 PM

He's following the example set by republican governors in states like Kansas, where taxes have been cut and economic revival resulted. 2.4.13 WSJ "Party Eyes 'Red-State Model' to Drive Republican Revival"

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Feb-08-13 9:11 AM

Kansas received 25% of it's budget from the feds (same tax payer different collector) in 2008. In 2011 they received 32% from the feds! Smoke-n-mirrors....

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Feb-08-13 11:07 AM

Dawg, Never heard of cutting tax rates and getting economic growth? Coolidge Kennedy Reagan Clinton Bush 43 Every one cut rates, and revenue increased.

Yeah, Clinton. Congress forced through a cut in capital gains rates, and the collections incresed. The Treasury website had the take by year by type of tax. Look it up, don't just blither.

When you make it more attractive to do something, more people do it. when it's less, fewer people will. If you take all the risk, and the tax men will take half, some people won't bother, if they take a third, more will take the risk.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Feb-08-13 11:12 AM

dyin' Might be interesting to see what that money came from was for, and actual dollars. I bet it's mostly fed subsidies for extended unemployment and mandated increases in Medicaid. Also would be interesting to see how the state revenue has changed since the GOP got control. Bet you would be unpleasantly surprised.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Feb-08-13 11:19 AM

Three of the fastest economically growing areas in the nation are in Texas. Unemployment in the second biggest state well below the national average. More and more businesses relocating from California.

No state income tax, and a balanced budget. Legislature meets ONCE, every TWO years, passes the budget and whatever bills are pending, and goes home. If it wasn't important enough to get support, it doesn't get passed, and you have to wait another two years.

So tell me Dawg, how having lower taxes doesn't help.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Feb-08-13 11:24 AM

Both of you, the problem has been all along that no matter how much money comes in, they spend it faster. Pure and simple.

The reason LBJ was able to pay for both the Great Society and VietNam was Kennedy had produced enough economic growth that the cash flow could cover everything. Remember, back then Medicare was just getting started, and Social Security was a tidal wave of money coming in, and most seniors only collected for seven years, not twenty like now.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Wheeldog

Feb-08-13 1:07 PM

old, do a little in-depth research reading on taxes in the U.S. and economic growth. Absolutely, taxes are always unpopular, especially it it is your taxes or my taxes we are talking about. Everybody wants their taxes to go down and cheer any politician who claims he or she will reduce them. However, at the end of the day the direct impact on economic growth is virtually unmeasurable. Nonetheless, we want lower taxes, so most people are willing to believe that cutting taxes will help the economy. Economic studies suggest that is a false premise. It's like believing that prayer will cure cancer. Whenever taxes are cut the nation almost invariably just borrows more money from foreign countries. Roads must still be built and maintained, the military funded, schools paid for, etc., etc.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Feb-09-13 12:29 AM

So in other words Dawg, the fact that unemployment dropped like a rock, and personal income tax revenues almost doubled when Reagan cut the top rate by almost 70%, was just a coincidence?

Yeah, right.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Feb-09-13 12:39 AM

BTW, Dawg, I've been busy and haven't been looking at this site for a while. I haven't seen too many posts from you about peak oil recently.

Got a friend that works for Halliburton's downhole division. You know, the evil fracking guys. He tells me they are finding so much oil and gas with the new techniques, there is serious thought ANWR may not even be needed for the next 50 years or more. Even though Michigan has a gas field larger than the state, little drilling is happening because there's very little liquid present. Estimates are there's two CENTURIES worth of gas in the fields they already know about.

Texas has reached production rates like the 70s. And the second biggest producer is North Dakota, whick didn't pump a drop just 10 years ago.

So much for peak oil.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Feb-09-13 6:56 AM

Old, So medicare and unemployment payments from the federal goberment to cover the extra costs would cause an increase in the percentage of federal money for the state of Kansas budget?

If these programs cost 100 million more and the feds reimburse based on the program costs, the state budget percentage from the feds increases? How can that be??

as I said, "smoke-n-mirrors."

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

Feb-09-13 8:33 AM

"Tax Relief Will Grow Economy????"

From the NY Times, "WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief." "The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses." The unemployment rate was 4.5% when that article was published (2006). Yeah, tax relief never works!!!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

Feb-09-13 8:40 AM

"They do, however, tend to increase the wealth gap within the general population."

Income inequality has increased under the current administration! From Censusdotgov "Income Inequality

Based on the Gini index, income inequality increased by 1.6 percent between 2010 and 2011; this represents the first time the Gini index has shown an annual increase since 1993, the earliest year available for comparable measures of income inequality. The Gini index was 0.477 in 2011. (The Gini index is a measure of household income inequality; zero represents perfect income equality and 1 perfect inequality.) Income inequality also increased between 2010 and 2011 when measured by shares of aggregate household income received by quintiles. The aggregate share of income declined for the middle and fourth quintiles. The share of aggregate income increased 1.6 percent for the highest quintile and within the highest quintile, the share of aggregate income for the top 5 percent increased 4

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

Feb-09-13 8:41 AM

"The share of aggregate income increased 1.6 percent for the highest quintile and within the highest quintile, the share of aggregate income for the top 5 percent increased 4.9 percent. The changes in the shares of aggregate income for the lowest two quintiles were not statistically significant."

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

Feb-09-13 8:42 AM

"Economic studies suggest that is a false premise."

Which studies are you referring to here?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Feb-09-13 8:53 AM

WVEXPAT states facts, wienerdawg just blows smoke out his origicies.

Dawg just proves my adage that liberals are liberals because they are totally misinformed and dismiss the facts that refutes their tunnel vision as Fox News Propaganda.

Sure glad Wienerdawgs tend to cluster in backwoods podunks where they can't harm the general population with their 1960's flower child jibberish.

Hey, hows that Global Warming thing working out for Boston??

Oh yeah, it is Climate Change so HOT weather or EPIC winter storms, all caused by CO2.

BBBwhahahahahahahahah!

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Feb-09-13 11:38 AM

The Kansas plan:

"Last year’s measure cut the state’s three income tax brackets (6.45 percent, 6.25 percent and 3.5 percent) to two (4.9 percent and 3 percent). It eliminated income taxes entirely for nearly 200,000 small businesses. It also included some measures to compensate for the cost of the cuts, such as the elimination of a child care tax credit, a food sales tax refund and a property tax refund for renters. But it didn’t touch many of the large credits and deductions Brownback had targeted, including the mortgage interest deduction, the charitable contribution deduction and the earned income tax credit that benefits low-income workers."

Cut taxes on a and increase taxes on b...Smoke-n-mirrors!

If you don't "decrease" spending then you run deficits (most states require balanced budgets) or raise revenue! No real secret to this formula....

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Feb-09-13 11:44 AM

Old, I guess you didn't read the memo!

The sales tax was passed under the assumption of a "temporary" increase. D or R they are all just spending someone else's money...tax payer!

"Meanwhile, the state’s forecasts predict that Kansas will collect $700 million less in revenue in fiscal year 2014, which begins July 1, than in fiscal year 2013. In December, legislative staff forecast a $295 million shortfall for fiscal year 2014, even if the state uses up all $470 million it expects to have in reserve at the end of fiscal year 2013."

"Steve Anderson, Brownback’s budget director, said in December that the governor will ask for the sales tax to stay at 6.3 percent instead of falling to 5.7 percent on July 1 as scheduled, then use the money for a new round of income tax cuts."

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Feb-09-13 12:01 PM

So cutting income tax and raising sales tax would be nice if we didn't have to purchase anything.....

"Overall, says Gardner, Kansas’ total state and local tax burden (including sales, income and property taxes) on the poorest 20% of Kansas households (with income of less than $19,000) will rise 1.4 percentage points to 10.6% of income, while the burden on the top 1% (with income of $424,000 or more) will fall 2.2 percentage points to 4.9% of their incomes."

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Feb-09-13 5:13 PM

For Low information Wienerdawgs:

Mark Laroche: Obama Stimulus versus Bush Tax Cuts

... 'But Bush did indeed cut taxes, most notably in 2003. Did that policy “fail”? How did it’s results compare to Obama’s record? It’s true that the private sector has added 4.6 million new jobs over the past 30 months. But during the 30 months after the Bush tax cuts went into effect in August 2003, the private sector actually added even more jobs – 5.3 million according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Survey.

Moreover, the new jobs added under Obama have been lower-paying jobs, reducing real median household income by more than $2,000; the Bush tax cuts, in contrast, enabled the private sector to add more jobs while simultaneously increasing real median household income, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder — Households by Median and Mean Income: 1967 to 2011.'

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Feb-09-13 5:15 PM

Obama Stimulus versus Bush Tax Cuts for low information Wheel dogs:

As a result, under Obama in the last three years, 2.7 million more Americans fell into poverty. In contrast, during the three years following the enactment of the Bush tax cuts, the number of Americans in poverty actually fell, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Table 2. Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2011.

In addition, during Obama’s first three years, more than 11 million more Americans went on Food Stamps. That’s more than four times as many as were added during the three years following the Bush tax cuts, according to the USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs (Data as of August 30, 2012).

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Feb-09-13 5:17 PM

Obama Stimulus versus Bush Tax Cuts for low information Wheel dogs:

When Obama was inaugurated in 2009, he inherited a record budget deficit, due to a substantial drop in revenue from the recession, combined with Bush’s massive TARP spending (which Obama voted for in the Senate). Nevertheless in the four years since then, Obama has managed to decrease this whopping deficit by just 6 percent. In contrast, by increasing revenues, the Bush tax cuts over four years slashed the deficit by 60 percent.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 50 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: