Forecasters at the Kansas Department of Labor badly underestimated the demand for unemployment benefits, as did many other economists. But one reason Kansas’ Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund is running out of money is that businesses haven’t consistently paid into the fund in recent years. Because it believed the trust fund had an adequate balance, the Legislature halted unemployment taxes from 1995 through 1999, saving employers an estimated $556 million in taxes. Reduced tax rates have also been in effect the past three years, which saved employers an estimated $286 million. Such reductions seemed like good policy at the time, as no one expected the economy to contract so severely and so quickly. And lower taxes might have helped some businesses employ more workers. It’s also worth recalling that many GOP legislators were initially opposed this past session to a minor law change that enabled the trust fund to draw down nearly $70 million in federal stimulus dollars.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DavidB on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Monkeyhawk on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Monkeyhawk on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
23 Comments
Phillip,
Of course, the Kansas DOL was well aware of the moratorium.
So the question remains how did the DOL so badly miss the mark on their projection?
And lower taxes might have helped some businesses employ more workers. And lower taxes might have helped some businesses employ more workers. And lower taxes might have helped some businesses employ more workers. And lower taxes might have helped some businesses employ more workers. And lower taxes might have helped some businesses employ more workers. And lower taxes might have helped some businesses employ more workers. And lower taxes might have helped some businesses employ more workers. And lower taxes might have helped some businesses employ more workers.
It hasn’t been working AmWay. We were better off under Clinton’s tax rate, admit it.
Having worked closely with the Chamber of Commerce in one of our 1st Cities, I visit often with the individual members and we often talked about their business. I’ve been priviledged to work with venture capitalists who reviewed many business plans for market planning and pricing, mission statements, cash flow, financials, and information related to starting or investing in private businesses in our local area.
There is no dount in their minds that lower taxes allow them to hire more personnel. No doubt.
The only interaction PMomma has with business owners is at the Mcdonalds drive thru window.
But do continue to follow me around and inject your trollish love to my posts.
From the header: “Because it believed the trust fund had an adequate balance, the Legislature halted unemployment taxes from 1995 through 1999, saving employers an estimated $556 million in taxes. Reduced tax rates have also been in effect the past three years, which saved employers an estimated $286 million.”
SpamWay speculates as he spams his own post with multiple copies of the same sentence: “And lower taxes might have helped some businesses employ more workers.”
Sigh. The lower taxes clearly did NOT result in sufficent increases in employment to offset the lost tax revenue that has created the crisis that is the subject of this thread. The crisis that is the subject of this thread was clearly aggravated by the loss of revenue due to already existing tax cuts. This is an example of the stupidity that states engage in (that often doesn’t even know a political party). When times are good and the budget is in the black, rather than save the money collected for a rainy day, cut taxes and “give the money back to the tax payer”. The money collected from the business went to a specific purpose, and the state cut those taxes twice, the first time when economic times were relatively good, the second time, because we now have a legislature that is largely composed of faux fiscal conservative ideologues, the taxes were cut and remained cut even after the economic times turned bad. And now, we don’t have the funds to meet demand.
This is an example of fiscal irresponsibility. Period.
The ‘jawless fish’ sighs, then releases he’s been out of mouthwash for weeks, excuses himself and then rushes off for a salt water and lemon gargle.
I suppose to a Lib, in times of surplus, it’s a bad idea to cut taxes.
And to a Lib, in times of deficits, it’s a bad idea to cut taxes.
#
Regular
Posted August 16, 2009 at 10:33 am | Permalink
The ‘jawless fish’ sighs, then releases he’s been out of mouthwash for weeks, excuses himself and then rushes off for a salt water and lemon gargle.
#
JimJohnson
Posted August 16, 2009 at 12:23 pm | Permalink
I suppose to a Lib, in times of surplus, it’s a bad idea to cut taxes.
And to a Lib, in times of deficits, it’s a bad idea to cut taxes.
============================================
Reg offers his usual ‘what does this have to do with anything’ post.
jj offers that tax cuts are good, but time and again its been proven detrimental. Witness the current situation after the meltdown: the state has to borrow from the feds.
So what is it jj, tax and prepare for the future, or cut taxes and borrow from the feds? Seems every boy scout would know the answer to that.
“The ‘jawless fish’ sighs, then releases he’s been out of mouthwash for weeks, excuses himself and then rushes off for a salt water and lemon gargle.”
Fiiiine. Just for you.
Re: Regular
DNFTT
“I suppose to a Lib, in times of surplus, it’s a bad idea to cut taxes.
“And to a Lib, in times of deficits, it’s a bad idea to cut taxes.”
Re: The spam troll
Don’t feed it.
Well JM, for once in your life, consider the Spending side of the budget equation.
You are so one dimensional.
Yawnnnnn………
Yeah Amway, that’s why Clinton era had more JOBS. You never post facts do you.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
I suppose you’ll say I didn’t post the stats. Unemployment rates since 1990.
Broken Link Pmom.
That link JUST WORKED a minute ago.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000
Ok its the same link, but reset the parameters to 1990 thru now.
Unemployment by Year (July Data)
Year Jul
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.7
1996 5.5
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.3
2000 4
2001 4.6
2002 5.8
2003 6.2
2004 5.5
2005 5
2006 4.7
2007 4.7
2008 5.8
2009 9.4
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
#
JimJohnson
Posted August 16, 2009 at 1:03 pm | Permalink
Well JM, for once in your life, consider the Spending side of the budget equation.
You are so one dimensional.
Yawnnnnn………
=============================================
No, I just understand that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. What do you think we’re seeing now?
And, yes, I did consider the spending side of the budget: We’re borrowing from the feds because a)we cut taxes b)unemployment is way up c)the tax revenues are way down.
If that’s one dimensional, I guess I fit the profile.
Unemployment: 2009 9.4
Cutting taxes sure didn’t prepare for that, did it, jj? No boy scout badge for you this year.
LOL the stats prove my point, and now he’s trying to hijack the open thread. Guess he doesn’t like the topic over there right now.
You had a point Pmom?
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.7
1996 5.5
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.3
2000 4
Avg 5.2375 Clinton
2001 4.6
2002 5.8
2003 6.2
2004 5.5
2005 5
2006 4.7
2007 4.7
2008 5.8
Avg 5.2875 Bush
Avg 5.2375 Clinton
Avg 5.2875 Bush
Thanks, jj, but you can also add in the next two years to Bush’s total.
JMWalker is a perfect example of how liberals will change the facts – to meet their end.
When faced with facts, libs will change them. Then call anyone disputing their new facts a liar.
Is it any wonder most Americans do not trust the democrats to reform healthcare?
Wonder how you can fudge facts on health; heart attacks, cancer deaths, infant mortality, longevity……..
JJ posted facts. Now it is O.K., for a liberal to blame Bush for the following years – but it is not O.K. to change the basic facts.
Those are not disputable (unless you want to question the source – which is always appropriate.)
JMWalker, if we can’t trust you on this – what can we trust you on?