To the editor:
On Feb. 14, the Kansas House Committee on Taxation held hearings on the so-called flat income tax bill, HB 2061. The reduction in state government revenues from HB 2061 would be almost twice as large as the Brownback income tax cut fiscal train wreck. Analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, ITEP, predicted 49% of the individual income tax reduction would go to the richest 20% of Kansans. The bottom 20% of earners would receive 4.1% of the tax reduction. The top 1% of Kansas wage earners would see an average tax cut of $11,510, while the bottom 20% would receive a $192 tax cut.
On Feb. 23, the Senate approved SB 169, which compared to HB 2061, provides an even larger tax cut for the wealthy and a smaller cut for lower income Kansans.
The dark money funded political propaganda organizations that promoted these bills inferred that they would increase Kansas jobs. The number of jobs that they promised was zero. This would match the number of jobs provided by the Brownback income tax cut. In 2015, the Kansas Legislative Research Department found there was no evidence that the Brownback business income tax cut caused new jobs. If even a fourth of the 34,400 gain in nonfarm jobs that occurred during the first two years had been caused by the income tax cuts, the income tax revenue loss would have been $75,000 per year per job.
These propaganda organizations stated our progressive income tax may be called immoral because those of us with the most money pay a higher rate. But we also pay sales and property taxes. Those of us with the most money pay a smaller share of our income for our total state and local tax bill than those of us with less. Kansans with the top 1% of income pay only 7.4% of their income in total taxes while those in the bottom 20% pay 11.4%, according to the most current analysis from ITEP.
A key indicator of how we should distribute our tax burden is the growth in our nation’s total wealth. The Congressional Budget Office tracked the changes in the distribution of wealth from 1989 to 2019. In 1989, the 40% of families in the 51st to 90th percentiles held 37% of the nation’s total wealth. In 2019, they held only 26%. In 1989, the 1% of families in the top 1% held 27% of the wealth. In 2019, they held 34%. In 1989, the 50% of families in the 0 to 50th percentiles held 4% of the nation’s total wealth. In 2019, they held only 2%. This is not some small portion of our population with special limitations or poor life management decisions. It is half of us. Half of us saw a miniscule 4% share of total wealth, shrink to 2%.
Those of us in the top 20%, who hold over 72% of our nation’s wealth, should not receive a tax reduction over twice as large as those of us in the bottom 50%, who hold only 2%. Morality and common sense say just the opposite.
Rather than the proposed flat tax, we should use the increase in state income tax revenue to help decrease property and sales taxes. We could still reduce total taxes, but this would switch the major benefit to moderate- and lower-income Kansans rather than the wealthiest. We can do this, but only if we change who represents us in the legislature. We need common sense, moderate, independent thinking legislators who defy political party bosses and the dark money political organizations they align with.
John Sturn
Ellinwood
