KCRag Forum

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Its an issue because the repubs know the only way they have a chance to crack into any votes in KCMO and St. Louis it to offer up populist garbage. 

Hilarious!  As if tax cuts are reallllll popular in the cities, vis a vis big spending programs.


Good one dude.

Maitre D wrote: Good one dude.

You have another theory as to why the republican candidates would be pushing a big tax cut in the two cities where their party traditionally receives no support whatsoever?

LenexatoKCMO wrote: You have another theory as to why the republican candidates would be pushing a big tax cut in the two cities where their party traditionally receives no support whatsoever?

B/c they push tax cuts wherever they go - urban, suburban, rural, wherever.

If you can prove the GOP traditionally supported the E-tax here but suddenly switched, I'd smell the rat a bit easier.

Maitre D wrote: B/c they push tax cuts wherever they go - urban, suburban, rural, wherever.

So they aren't really talking about cutting Sales Tax?  Property Tax?  State Income Tax?  - Or any state tax for that matter - just conveniently two local taxes that they will not have to take any responsibility for the budget consequences, in the two local jurisdictions they desperately need to make up ground in?  Yeah I am going way out on a limb . . . . &&&&

LenexatoKCMO wrote: So they aren't really talking about cutting Sales Tax?  Property Tax?  State Income Tax?  - Or any state tax for that matter - just conveniently two local taxes that they will not have to take any responsibility for the budget consequences, in the two local jurisdictions they desperately need to make up ground in?  Yeah I am going way out on a limb . . . . &&&&

I'm sure they favor cutting taxes across the board so I'm not following you.  As for "making up ground"....puh-leeze.  They never get votes in the cores, and rarely campaign or spend money in those places.  I highly doubt this is a desperation "scorched earth" strategy as you imply.

Let's not forget also that increasing a particular tax will actually reduce revenues from it, because of people on the margins deciding not to participate in the taxed behavior anymore.

Maitre D wrote: I'm sure they favor cutting taxes across the board so I'm not following you.   As for "making up ground"....puh-leeze.  They never get votes in the cores, and rarely campaign or spend money in those places.  I highly doubt this is a desperation "scorched earth" strategy as you imply.

Do you honestly believe that this is just a good ol'fashion example of low-tax republican ideology or are you bullshitting for the sake of arguing?  I really find it hard to believe that you wouldn't be able to see the bigger picture in this situation.  

How is it not? Republicans get killed in Jackson and St. Louis counties. What would be the reason aside from ideology?

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Do you honestly believe that this is just a good ol'fashion example of low-tax republican ideology or are you bullshitting for the sake of arguing?  I really find it hard to believe that you wouldn't be able to see the bigger picture in this situation.  

Well, you called removing a tax 'populist'....so perhaps you don't see the big picture here.

Most populists love taxes, b/c it's a method of wealth redistribution.

NDTeve wrote: How is it not? Republicans get killed in Jackson and St. Louis counties. What would be the reason aside from ideology?

It is precisely the fact that they have little-to-no constituency that exposes the motive.  Why propose a massive, massive tax cut that only benefits a group of people who don't traditionally vote for you if you aren't hoping to win over some swing votes?  That, plus the icing on the cake benefit that you don't have to lift a finger to deal with the aftermath or balance any budget.  Its lazy pandering - you get to offer a popularist benefit to folks outside of your traditional base and someone else gets to clean up the mess.  Lets see 'em apply that same ideology on the same grand scale at the state level where they will actually have to be responsible for repercussions and then I will start to buy the motives.  Yeah Right.  

Maitre D wrote: Well, you called removing a tax 'populist'....so perhaps you don't see the big picture here.

Most populists love taxes, b/c it's a method of wealth redistribution.

Way to change the argument. 

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Way to change the argument. 

Not changing anything.  Merely stating that appealing to urbanites with tax relief, isn't going to prove successful.  Therefore, it undercuts your belief that the GOP is "pandering"

KCMO has never met a tax they didn't like.  So tax relief isn't appealing to them.  You know that.

It's inconsistent and hypocritical for democrat voters to be swayed by tax cuts. I've never understood how both democrats and republicans alike use these proposals to pander to people that by their party line, vote for higher taxes.

Maitre D wrote: KCMO has never met a tax they didn't like.   So tax relief isn't appealing to them.  You know that.

I think it might be fairly informative to compare the history of votes for local taxes, school levies, etc. in Red as Red Joco v. Blue as Blue KCMO - I think you would be amazed at how willing those god-fearing repubs in Johnson County are to tax themselves for local interests.  The rates didn't manage to be so much higher over there by voting taxes down. 

bahua wrote: It's inconsistent and hypocritical for democrat voters to be swayed by tax cuts. I've never understood how both democrats and republicans alike use these proposals to pander to people that by their party line, vote for higher taxes.

Sadly their are an amazing amount of voters in this country of all political persuasions that seem to favor politicians that both spend lavishly and cut taxes at the same time - It seems like the best of both worlds as long as you don't worry about pesky little details like fiscal solvency.

As long as people are foolish enough to believe that its possible to deliver more services while taking in less money, politicians will keep stooping. 

LenexatoKCMO wrote: I think it might be fairly informative to compare the history of votes for local taxes, school levies, etc. in Red as Red Joco v. Blue as Blue KCMO - I think you would be amazed at how willing those god-fearing repubs in Johnson County are to tax themselves for local interests.  The rates didn't manage to be so much higher over there by voting taxes down. 

Prove that.  JoCo certainly taxes themselves for education, but I've been told many times on this board that JoCo hates taxes and won't pay for squat.


So tell me about all these tax hikes JoCo approves.

Maitre D wrote: Prove that.  JoCo certainly taxes themselves for education, but I've been told many times on this board that JoCo hates taxes and won't pay for squat.


So tell me about all these tax hikes JoCo approves.

Other than the soccer stadiums amd BSII, what local tax initiative have they ever voted down?  Prior to that they were batting close to 100% pass rate.  In fact, I know the school districts used to brag that a levy had never once failed in the history of the county.  Wow, they voted down a bloated soccer plan once - what a bunch of anti-tax spendthrifts!  &&&

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Other than the soccer stadiums amd BSII, what local tax initiative have they ever voted down?  Prior to that they were batting close to 100% pass rate.  In fact, I know the school districts used to brag that a levy had never once failed in the history of the county.  Wow, they voted down a bloated soccer plan once - what a bunch of anti-tax spendthrifts!  &&&

Good.  Then you'll have no problem countering the MO faction here that says JoCo was formed (and only exists today) b/c of anti-tax sentiment.  And refusal to pay taxes for "social issues" such as education.


Glad to have you on board.

JoCo is a suburb.

JoCo votes like a suburb, conservative and anything for the "children" which isn't a bad thing I suppose.  Blue Springs, Lee's Summit etc are the same way.  Voting is so freaking boring now that I finally had to register in Blue Springs.  Schools schools schools....

For the most part, JoCo doesn't get a chance to vote on major issues like KCMO, so it's hard to tell on that stuff, but I think they would vote for regional stuff if the leaders of the county/state would let them and we had the regional leadership to give people good plans to vote on.

Back to the kcmo etax, anybody have any stats on exactly how much this tax generates vs say the property taxes?  I would be curious to see how much property taxes would have to be raised to make up the difference.

Maitre D wrote: Good.  Then you'll have no problem countering the MO faction here that says JoCo was formed (and only exists today) b/c of anti-tax sentiment.   And refusal to pay taxes for "social issues" such as education.


Glad to have you on board.

I was never in that camp - I have always been more inclined to believe the suburbs evolved from a combination of fear of poor brown skinned people desegregating and the phony mass marketing of Shangri La-style utopia.  But that is a topic for a different thread.