Kudos to Missouri legislature overriding Governor Nixon's tax cut veto... (California: transfer, purchases)

[geofra]

A tax cut without corresponding spending cuts is as fiscally irresponsible as spending increases without corresponding tax increases. Congrats conservatives, successfully pandering to the public in this way makes a liberal proud if not jealous.

[nealrm]

Originally Posted by geofra

A tax cut without corresponding spending cuts is as fiscally irresponsible as spending increases without corresponding tax increases. Congrats conservatives, successfully pandering to the public in this way makes a liberal proud if not jealous.

Please read the bill before you post. If you had, you would know that this bill only limits the growth to taxes collected, it does not cut taxes. If tax revenue increases over $150 million dollar over three year, it reduces that rate of collection. Since it only goes into effect when tax revenue rise, no is not a need to cut spending.

I suggest you spend more time reading and less time listening to propaganda.

[marigolds6]

Originally Posted by nealrm

Please read the bill before you post. If you had, you would know that this bill only limits the growth to taxes collected, it does not cut taxes. If tax revenue increases over $150 million dollar over three year, it reduces that rate of collection. Since it only goes into effect when tax revenue rise, no is not a need to cut spending.

I suggest you spend more time reading and less time listening to propaganda.

The initial cut, though, takes effect whether or not revenue increases.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by nealrm

Please read the bill before you post. If you had, you would know that this bill only limits the growth to taxes collected, it does not cut taxes. If tax revenue increases over $150 million dollar over three year, it reduces that rate of collection. Since it only goes into effect when tax revenue rise, no is not a need to cut spending.

I suggest you spend more time reading and less time listening to propaganda.

That's sort of like saying "you aren't getting a pay cut, your salary just isn't growing with inflation". There's no need to cut spending, you just have to figure out how to keep spending the same amount on roads and schools while the population grows.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by s.davis

Maybe you missed the fact that while they are cutting 600 million (mostly from upper income tax brackets), they are trying to pass an 800 million sales tax hike (which would mostly be paid for by citizens in KC and StL) to pay for roads in rural MO.

Trying to pass?

I'm happy when income taxes are cut period. It's one of the few times government gets something right - letting tax payers keep more of their money. Oh, and if the so-called wealthy benefit - guess what - the so-called wealthy are paying most of the taxes.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by Versatile

Give them time and they will. This bunch of supposed legislatures are constantly passing bills that do nothing for us and take away from us or are just time wasting bills . I ref: the bill to allow you to junk cars that are ten years old. Old car theft rates in KC and St Louis have skyrocketed. The bill to over ride Federal gun laws. They know from day one it is unconstitutional but they waste time and OUR money doing it.

First income tax cut in 100 years is real legislation.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by DinsdalePirahna

Great be like Kansas, Lose your bond rating. Underfund your schools and then come screaming to Blue States to cover your arses when you can't make ends meet.

I promise we wont be like California.

[geofra]

Originally Posted by nealrm

Please read the bill before you post. If you had, you would know that this bill only limits the growth to taxes collected, it does not cut taxes. If tax revenue increases over $150 million dollar over three year, it reduces that rate of collection. Since it only goes into effect when tax revenue rise, no is not a need to cut spending.

I suggest you spend more time reading and less time listening to propaganda.

Actually, the $150 million threshold for a certain fiscal year would depend on comparisons between the previous fiscal year and the highest amount of net general revenue collected in any of the three years before that. If the comparison is over the threshold the rate reductions (0.1% per year until a maximum 0.5% reduction is reached; i.e., from a 6% rate to 5.5%) apply.

A half a percent reduction is not much of a cut - around a $130 total (over 4 years, ultimately) for me. Inflation will eliminate that in a heartbeat. And I don't receive the benefit of an increase in the personal deduction (applies to those earning less than $20,000). I don't know how the business side will affect me. I don't own a business or have shares in a business; so, I assume I'll get zero benefit there.

If this is intended to get me to spend more money in this economy, it won't, not with a $130/(4 years*24 pay periods) = $1.35 extra in my paycheck. If this is intended to buy me back into the Republican fold, it won't. I can be bought, but not for buck-thirty-five, thank you very much.

Of course since this state has no money whatsoever, why should I expect anymore coming back to me?

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

Trying to pass?

I'm happy when income taxes are cut period. It's one of the few times government gets something right - letting tax payers keep more of their money. Oh, and if the so-called wealthy benefit - guess what - the so-called wealthy are paying most of the taxes.

The wealthy who inherit all of the nation's capital from their parents and grow it by paying slave wages to their workers have to pay more taxes than the poors.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

The wealthy who inherit all of the nation's capital from their parents and grow it by paying slave wages to their workers have to pay more taxes than the poors.

Wow, another internet socialist pops out of the woodwork. Those evil rich people all inherited their money, not fair.