goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: MakeItRain on January 25, 2013, 04:41:54 PM
-
I told all of you that this amendment proposal to cap boat taxes was a bad idea. You dummies said that the proposal would increase boat tax revenue because more people in border communities would register their boats in Kansas. Well...
http://www.kansas.com/2013/01/15/2636900/kansas-boat-taxes-would-be-gradually.html#emlnl=Afternoon_Headlines_Newsletter
slightly dated link but who cares. Kansas is already broke and the morons in the state are actually removing revenue sources. I hope all of you who voted for the amendment and don't or won't own boats are going to be happy with making up these phased out boat taxes with your increased property taxes.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgifsoup.com%2Fview3%2F3397918%2Fthat-s-my-boat-o.gif&hash=02bf85d68771173c5e68d721de7ac02aa93fd283)
-
Prop taxes are about to get really bad for other reason. When Brownback was running, there was an exchange about prop taxes making up for underfunding of schools. He basically said that he has no controls over prop taxes and then when on to talk about the schools learning how to function with less funding. Now the KS Supreme court has ruled the current funding level unconstitutional and said that the state wide amount would need to be increased by what equates to approximately $400M. A day or two later, Brownback announces another income tax cut.
Guess where the money will prob end up coming from?
-
Prop taxes are about to get really bad for other reason. When Brownback was running, there was an exchange about prop taxes making up for underfunding of schools. He basically said that he has no controls over prop taxes and then when on to talk about the schools learning how to function with less funding. Now the KS Supreme court has ruled the current funding level unconstitutional and said that the state wide amount would need to be increased by what equates to approximately $400M. A day or two later, Brownback announces another income tax cut.
Guess where the money will prob end up coming from?
He also wants to remove the cap on the local option budgets (currently 27 percent of the state aid amount a district receives) to hide the fact he wants to destroy funding for k-12 education.
Also this session: the selection of judges will be changed from a largely non-partisan panel to the ultra-conservative legislature and the state's constitution will be changed so the legislature can determine suitable school funding to be $1 plus a hearty eff you for the kids.
-
brownback is a complete rough ridin' idiot. source-two people who work in the state budget office.
-
brownback is a complete rough ridin' idiot. source-two people who work in the state budget office.
nice source
-
You dumbfucks look pretty rough ridin' stupid saying you'd rather pay 6% of your income in taxes than another fraction of a percent on your house.
-
Also, LOL at the notion that the state is broke or that some cherry picked district court is able to tell the legislature the increase in school funding is insufficient.
Agreed, Brownback is kind of a dumbfuck. But the stuff your bitching about makes him 1/100 the dumbfuck Obama is.
-
Also, LOL at the notion that the state is broke or that some cherry picked district court is able to tell the legislature the increase in school funding is insufficient.
Agreed, Brownback is kind of a dumbfuck. But the stuff your bitching about makes him 1/100 the dumbfuck Obama is.
Brownback is absolutely a dumbfuck. I don't think anything in this thread proves it. In fact this thread kind of works against that notion as he seems to be getting his policies passed.
-
It always dumbfounds me that anyone would be upset about paying less money to the government. We all complain about how inefficient and stupid our government is, but some people want to give them more money to waste. If you are truly concerned about the poor, go find some and help them out. Government sucks at it.
-
Giving govt money to waste and adequately funding education and not cowardly passing the responsibility on to other measures that equate to us funding ed and other political policies that were cut at one level only to be force funded at another are basically the same thing. Brownback is cuting in one area to save others but we will have to fund those cut through prop taxes thus not accomplishing his initial intent. So what is he saving us? What good are his cuts if they will simply be funded by the same ppl, just at s diff category of tax.
-
It always dumbfounds me that anyone would be upset about paying less money to the government. We all complain about how inefficient and stupid our government is, but some people want to give them more money to waste. If you are truly concerned about the poor, go find some and help them out. Government sucks at it.
Nice strawman.
-
This thread has been a treat to read.
-
wow. I love it when people expose Fake like this. Fantastic work.
-
The problem with your argument (as best as I can tell what it is) is that its based on a false premise. You think the education budget is being reduced when in reality its being increased.
When Sebelius was governor the state had a $500m deficit, smaller education budget and less revenue. None of you nitwits thought the state was broke then and there wasn't some leftist judge ordering the state to spend more money. Brownback comes in and consolidates a bunch of government offices doing duplicative or little work, shrinking admin overhead without effecting the "benefit" and you throw a fit. Then you make allusions to services lost and picking up the tab locally with your best example being some article on boat taxes.
Sorry if you great aunt lost her 13 hr a week $36,0000 a year job in Topeka, but the state shouldn't have to pay for that. Notice I use "state" in the context of its citizens not its government. I encourage all of you to start thinking that way.
-
The problem with your argument (as best as I can tell what it is) is that its based on a false premise. You think the education budget is being reduced when in reality its being increased.
When Sebelius was governor the state had a $500m deficit, smaller education budget and less revenue. None of you nitwits thought the state was broke then and there wasn't some leftist judge ordering the state to spend more money. Brownback comes in and consolidates a bunch of government offices doing duplicative or little work, shrinking admin overhead without effecting the "benefit" and you throw a fit. Then you make allusions to services lost and picking up the tab locally with your best example being some article on boat taxes.
Sorry if you great aunt lost her 13 hr a week $36,0000 a year job in Topeka, but the state shouldn't have to pay for that. Notice I use "state" in the context of its citizens not its government. I encourage all of you to start thinking that way.
not 100% sure you understand education budgeting.
-
dumbasses
-
The problem with your argument (as best as I can tell what it is) is that its based on a false premise. You think the education budget is being reduced when in reality its being increased.
When Sebelius was governor the state had a $500m deficit, smaller education budget and less revenue. None of you nitwits thought the state was broke then and there wasn't some leftist judge ordering the state to spend more money. Brownback comes in and consolidates a bunch of government offices doing duplicative or little work, shrinking admin overhead without effecting the "benefit" and you throw a fit. Then you make allusions to services lost and picking up the tab locally with your best example being some article on boat taxes.
Sorry if you great aunt lost her 13 hr a week $36,0000 a year job in Topeka, but the state shouldn't have to pay for that. Notice I use "state" in the context of its citizens not its government. I encourage all of you to start thinking that way.
not 100% sure you understand education budgeting.
Why? Because I'm not taking cover from the falling sky based on some unfounded vague speculation?
The #butthurt argument (again, as best as I can tell) is that reduced state spending will force local govt to pick up the bill. That's a false premise in the education context. Not sure what other "services" are affected, other than a bunch govt salaried wastoids will have to get a real job. There were some allusions to other programs being brought under the education umbrella, of course nothing was specified.
Educate me you snarky bad person. Or is this just another exercise in bitching about nothing because ya'll ain't got nuttin to bitch about.
-
FSD is like 1/100,000 the dumbfuck kk is.
-
FSD is like 1/100,000 the dumbfuck kk is.
:surprised:
-
Brownback is a stud
-
FSD is like 1/100,000 the dumbfuck kk is.
:surprised:
damn.
:frown:
-
Ha ha, just joshin.
-
I wouldn't read many boat tax rants, but I will ALWAYS read a MIR boat tax rant.
-
To save everyone not Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) (ENR for short) from FSD here's how the conversation would go:
ENR: Base state aid (the money actually distributed to districts) has been cut
FSD: Doesn't matter, overall state spending has increased
ENR: Yes, it's increased for things like health care/pension costs, the latter of which is still underfunded by $8 billion
FSD: Unions are dumb, only dumbasses join unions
ENR: :facepalm:
-
To save everyone not Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) (ENR for short) from FSD here's how the conversation would go:
ENR: Base state aid (the money actually distributed to districts) has been cut
FSD: Doesn't matter, overall state spending has increased
ENR: Yes, it's increased for things like health care/pension costs, the latter of which is still underfunded by $8 billion
FSD: Unions are dumb, only dumbasses join unions
ENR: :facepalm:
:facepalm:
-
Good to know that a large portion of teacher compensation isn't included in "money sent to districts". :facepalm:
-
The problem with your argument (as best as I can tell what it is) is that its based on a false premise. You think the education budget is being reduced when in reality its being increased.
When Sebelius was governor the state had a $500m deficit, smaller education budget and less revenue. None of you nitwits thought the state was broke then and there wasn't some leftist judge ordering the state to spend more money. Brownback comes in and consolidates a bunch of government offices doing duplicative or little work, shrinking admin overhead without effecting the "benefit" and you throw a fit. Then you make allusions to services lost and picking up the tab locally with your best example being some article on boat taxes.
Sorry if you great aunt lost her 13 hr a week $36,0000 a year job in Topeka, but the state shouldn't have to pay for that. Notice I use "state" in the context of its citizens not its government. I encourage all of you to start thinking that way.
Dear chest thumping Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!):
The first court case to strike the school funding formula came when Sebelius was governor. 1 (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jun/22/timeline_events_school_finance_lawsuit/?kansas_legislature) Frothing retards, like you, ie the KS legislature, were so enraged by this so called "judicial activism" they wanted to changed the way the supreme court was formed in order to attack the court. 2 (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/feb/09/committee_considers_changing_selection_supreme_cou/) This became another example of how people with diminished intellectual capacity, ie nearly the entirety of the right composing the legislature, can not handle getting their own way in matters of importance. The larger issue here for schools funding as it relates to taxes is that much of school funding is derived from property taxes. 3 (http://sitemaker.umich.edu/finaldompierre.356/how_public_schools_are_funded) That is why the school system was devastated as a result of the subprime mortgage collapse and resulting economic recession. 4 (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/11/4006491/court-orders-kansas-to-increase.html) Now when it comes to Brownback and his ass hattery, we have an issue with his plan is to pay lip service to funding schools with proposals of increased funding while chopping the legs out from under the pool of funding he purposes to expand. The panel of judges clearly and emphatically castigated the legislature, and quite frankly idiots who think they can sneak this nonsense through, for their dishonesty when approaching the issue of school funding. 5 (http://www.shawneecourt.org/DocumentCenter/View/457) Now I don't expect you to be able to read, or even comprehend, the entire decision. But the focus in Kansas is that the legislature, since Sebelius, has consistently failed to approve a school funding formula which complies with the constitutional mandate to adequately fund the education of Kansas children. The line that you are attempting, and failing to tow, is the same anti-intellectual, lack of common sense approach, which has been plaguing the legislature since the ultra conservative forces have allied to destroy all levels of education in Kansas through the guise of lowering taxes.
1. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jun/22/timeline_events_school_finance_lawsuit/?kansas_legislature
2. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/feb/09/committee_considers_changing_selection_supreme_cou/
3. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/finaldompierre.356/how_public_schools_are_funded
4. http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/11/4006491/court-orders-kansas-to-increase.html
5. http://www.shawneecourt.org/DocumentCenter/View/457
-
So neither the state nor local govt is adequately funding schools, yet the amount of money spent on schools has never been higher and the number of students fewer.
Seems like quite the conundrum. Somebody isn't being honest here. Thank you for sharing your enraged, abusive, point of view.
-
You're really awful at posting. Only you would use 'enraged' like 3rd grader, not-uh you are as a response.
Keep in mind school funding has been decreasing over the last 3 years and from 2000 to 2010 there are more kids in Kansas. But that is using facts, so let me preemptively apologize for that.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
Color me surprised you don't value the constitution when it comes to rhetoric though.
-
So neither the state nor local govt is adequately funding schools, yet the amount of money spent on schools has never been higher and the number of students fewer.
Seems like quite the conundrum. Somebody isn't being honest here. Thank you for sharing your enraged, abusive, point of view.
$/student is down drastically.
-
I told all of you that this amendment proposal to cap boat taxes was a bad idea. You dummies said that the proposal would increase boat tax revenue because more people in border communities would register their boats in Kansas. Well...
http://www.kansas.com/2013/01/15/2636900/kansas-boat-taxes-would-be-gradually.html#emlnl=Afternoon_Headlines_Newsletter
slightly dated link but who cares. Kansas is already broke and the morons in the state are actually removing revenue sources. I hope all of you who voted for the amendment and don't or won't own boats are going to be happy with making up these phased out boat taxes with your increased property taxes.
I mean, rly?
Kansas took in less than $5 million in revenue from property taxes on boats in 2010. That's a piss in the sewer when you consider the State took in $6.5 billion in tax revenue that year (a maximum 0.077% loss in total revenue). :lol:
Approximately 83,000 boats are registered in Kansas right now. Over 70% of these boats are 13+ years or older, and the total number of boats registered in Kansas has decreased by almost 20% over the last decade per Dan Hesket, the boating law administrator for KDWPT. Kansas is lagging behind - surrounding states have adopted less taxes overall on boats, with some states taking in less direct revenue per boat than Kansas would if this 0% property tax is instated. In Kansas, the majority of boat trailers will still be required to be tagged and registered so that revenue will not change, but would increase with each "new boat". The State is betting that "new boat" revenue from sales tax, 8M trailer tags, gas tax, costs of ownership, etc. will make up for the $5 million property tax revenue per year loss. Any money that KDWPT takes in directly from additional boat registration, camping fees, license sales, etc. is less money that the State has to fund KDWPT with.
Cobalt Boats (who accounts for 4-5% of the world's market) and four other boat manufacturing plants are in Kansas as well, and I bet this was involved in the decision making process.
-
So neither the state nor local govt is adequately funding schools, yet the amount of money spent on schools has never been higher and the number of students fewer.
Seems like quite the conundrum. Somebody isn't being honest here. Thank you for sharing your enraged, abusive, point of view.
$/student is down drastically.
link?
-
So neither the state nor local govt is adequately funding schools, yet the amount of money spent on schools has never been higher and the number of students fewer.
Seems like quite the conundrum. Somebody isn't being honest here. Thank you for sharing your enraged, abusive, point of view.
$/student is down drastically.
link?
On phone. Will get to it later
-
I told all of you that this amendment proposal to cap boat taxes was a bad idea. You dummies said that the proposal would increase boat tax revenue because more people in border communities would register their boats in Kansas. Well...
http://www.kansas.com/2013/01/15/2636900/kansas-boat-taxes-would-be-gradually.html#emlnl=Afternoon_Headlines_Newsletter
slightly dated link but who cares. Kansas is already broke and the morons in the state are actually removing revenue sources. I hope all of you who voted for the amendment and don't or won't own boats are going to be happy with making up these phased out boat taxes with your increased property taxes.
I mean, rly?
Kansas took in less than $5 million in revenue from property taxes on boats in 2010. That's a piss in the sewer when you consider the State took in $6.5 billion in tax revenue that year (a maximum 0.077% loss in total revenue). :lol:
Approximately 83,000 boats are registered in Kansas right now. Over 70% of these boats are 13+ years or older, and the total number of boats registered in Kansas has decreased by almost 20% over the last decade per Dan Hesket, the boating law administrator for KDWPT. Kansas is lagging behind - surrounding states have adopted less taxes overall on boats, with some states taking in less direct revenue per boat than Kansas would if this 0% property tax is instated. In Kansas, the majority of boat trailers will still be required to be tagged and registered so that revenue will not change, but would increase with each "new boat". The State is betting that "new boat" revenue from sales tax, 8M trailer tags, gas tax, costs of ownership, etc. will make up for the $5 million property tax revenue per year loss. Any money that KDWPT takes in directly from additional boat registration, camping fees, license sales, etc. is less money that the State has to fund KDWPT with.
Cobalt Boats (who accounts for 4-5% of the world's market) and four other boat manufacturing plants are in Kansas as well, and I bet this was involved in the decision making process.
that was a lot of words just to say "the State of Kansas shouldn't give a crap about losing a minimum of $5 million dollars in revenue." Remember that arts funding that the Tea Party Pastor stole? I do, it was well under $1 million, weird that they now don't care about $5 million in revenue.
-
Glad I'm out of Kansas and in a state that is looking at better options for tax revenues :bigtoke:
-
that was a lot of words just to say "the State of Kansas shouldn't give a crap about losing a minimum of $5 million dollars in revenue." Remember that arts funding that the Tea Party Pastor stole? I do, it was well under $1 million, weird that they now don't care about $5 million in revenue.
Quite the opposite, really. There was no active opposition by the general populous to boats being taxed. State agencies were actually the ones who campaigned and eventually put the amendment on the ballot. The State is trying to capture more total revenue in their process, but by indirect means (increased boat ownership). However, a higher percentage of the $5 million that is directly tied to owning a boat in Kansas is going be bypassed from the education and general building funds to the KDWPT, who is responsible for boat oversight and regulation.
-
that was a lot of words just to say "the State of Kansas shouldn't give a crap about losing a minimum of $5 million dollars in revenue." Remember that arts funding that the Tea Party Pastor stole? I do, it was well under $1 million, weird that they now don't care about $5 million in revenue.
Quite the opposite, really. There was no active opposition by the general populous to boats being taxed. State agencies were actually the ones who campaigned and eventually put the amendment on the ballot. The State is trying to capture more total revenue in their process, but by indirect means (increased boat ownership). However, a higher percentage of the $5 million that is directly tied to owning a boat in Kansas is going be bypassed from the education and general building funds to the KDWPT, who is responsible for boat oversight and regulation.
The article MIR linked says they are phasing out the boat tax completely. How will increased boat ownership increase revenues when there is no tax in place to collect them?
-
that was a lot of words just to say "the State of Kansas shouldn't give a crap about losing a minimum of $5 million dollars in revenue." Remember that arts funding that the Tea Party Pastor stole? I do, it was well under $1 million, weird that they now don't care about $5 million in revenue.
Quite the opposite, really. There was no active opposition by the general populous to boats being taxed. State agencies were actually the ones who campaigned and eventually put the amendment on the ballot. The State is trying to capture more total revenue in their process, but by indirect means (increased boat ownership). However, a higher percentage of the $5 million that is directly tied to owning a boat in Kansas is going be bypassed from the education and general building funds to the KDWPT, who is responsible for boat oversight and regulation.
The article MIR linked says they are phasing out the boat tax completely. How will increased boat ownership increase revenues when there is no tax in place to collect them?
He answered that question in his post, did you not read it?
-
Remember everyone, none of this stuff matters. Try not to get so angry.
-
You're really awful at posting. Only you would use 'enraged' like 3rd grader, not-uh you are as a response.
Keep in mind school funding has been decreasing over the last 3 years and from 2000 to 2010 there are more kids in Kansas. But that is using facts, so let me preemptively apologize for that.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
Color me surprised you don't value the constitution when it comes to rhetoric though.
Hmmmmmmm... according to the KSDE webpage the opposite of everything you said above is true.
Color me unsurprised. Probably a conspiracy
-
You're really awful at posting. Only you would use 'enraged' like 3rd grader, not-uh you are as a response.
Keep in mind school funding has been decreasing over the last 3 years and from 2000 to 2010 there are more kids in Kansas. But that is using facts, so let me preemptively apologize for that.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
Color me surprised you don't value the constitution when it comes to rhetoric though.
Hmmmmmmm... according to the KSDE webpage the opposite of everything you said above is true.
Color me unsurprised. Probably a conspiracy
well lets see...I've posted the census data that KSDE links to. So I think you're just wrong here.
-
Remember everyone, none of this stuff matters. Try not to get so angry.
Mo boats, mo problems