Kansas economists predicted last week that the state’s tax income will grow at a 5 percent rate between now and the end of the budget year, June 30, and continue to grow throughout the next budget year.
This optimistic forecast came as a new group on the state scene, “Kansans for No Income Tax,” began a five-city tour to rally support for killing the income tax.
The official revenue estimate is made twice a year. It is used by lawmakers to set policy and make management decisions. The bean counters say the state will bring in $205 million more than previously anticipated this fiscal year and grow by another $293 million in the next fiscal year, which begins July 1.
Unemployment in the state is expected to drop a little from its current 7 percent.
These welcome signs of a stable state economy shouldn’t touch off a spending spree — or be used to justify tax cuts.
Kansas just went through three years of recession-forced budget reductions. The state’s public schools were ravaged. Services to the disabled have been slashed. Highway funds have been diverted to other areas. There are several places for every extra dollar the state can collect to be well spent.
Repealing the income tax would put the state right back into crisis mode. Huge new cuts would have to be made unless the Legislature passed new taxes to replace the lost income.
The claim that killing the income tax would pay for itself through the growth in business and personal income which would be created is an unproved, unprovable myth.
KANSAS probably should root out the weeds that have tangled around the roots of its tax structure over the years. Every democratic governmental unit should. Each passing year brings new exemptions, pokes new loopholes into tax laws, and creates new ways for special interest groups to pay a little less, making the system a little less fair and effective. Periodic reforms are essential.
But the goals of tax reform must always be to (1) raise the money needed to serve the people well; (2) to tax the people according to their ability to pay with a fair system that requires something from everyone. The fairness test is best met with a combination of taxes on property, income and consumption.
The other basic in this discussion is process. Step one is to decide what the people want their government to do. Step two is to decide how to pay for doing those things. When these priorities get reversed and the focus is on taxes rather than the needs of the people, it becomes impossible to make rational decisions on government.
— Emerson Lynn, jr.
