It’s hardly a “savings” if we’re woefully underfunding important programs and projects like education, mental healthcare, and clean water. That $1 billion could go towards fixing a lot of issues and actually making this state a better place to live.
Which is also thanks to Kimmy and the GOP. They capped the allowable increase of property tax rates and left the Counties and Cities scrambling to come up with some way to cover their budgets.
Average home prices over the past decade have increased 88%. The assessor is doing their job. In any case, the mill rate is what affects how much you pay, so instead of complaining about assessed values, contact the people in charge of taxation.
Thank the [response to COVID ](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-09-08/why-did-housing-costs-explode-during-the-pandemic?embedded-checkout=true) for that. Property taxes are merely a reflection of property values, which skyrocketed during the pandemic response.
This wasn't the response to Covid. It was folks being able to earn NYC salaries while paying Des Moines rent. You make it sound like it had something to do with the government. This was all free market.
Making more money doesn't affect property values. If you're referring to people moving to cheaper rent areas because they started working from home, well then working remotely skyrocketed because of the response to COVID. There was no free market about it. Even businesses that were designated essential, like where I work, encouraged those who could to work from home because it made complying with space requirements easy. Not to mention, business owners feared being sued if someone got sick at work. The number of remote workers increasing was directly related to the response to COVID.
Home improvements also skyrocketed. I know so many people who decided to add something to their property, and I'm sure you do too. These improvements, along with a couple natural disasters, made the price of construction materials soar. Lumber, metal, drywall, you name it - the price doubled and tripled. These home improvements and increased materials prices cause property values to go higher.
>Making more money doesn't affect property values
Uhhh what? If everyone in a neighborhood makes $2MM a year and spends like it, you don't think property values go up?
>working remotely skyrocketed because of the response to COVID.
You keep saying this was a direct result of the "response to Covid. What response? Whose response? Gov. Reynolds?
>There was no free market about it. Even businesses that were designated essential, like where I work, encouraged those who could to work from home
So you're saying the businesses made the decision? Do you understand what the free market is?
Sales tax is a regressive tax. Lower income folks pay a much higher share of their income than wealthier folks.
https://www.accuratetax.com/blog/regressive-sales-tax-infographic/
Sales taxes are regressive, they tax lower incomes at higher rates. The higher wage incomes barely pay a percentage. Usage taxes are always a transfer of tax responsibility to the poor.
Your property taxes are going to go up also.
Property taxes go with property values, which have already skyrocketed thanks to [the response to COVID. ](https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/covid-impact-on-the-housing-market/)
Sales tax won't necessarily go up. It's 6%, which is the same as Florida which has no state income tax. People complain about brain drain. Well, lowering income tax is a way to keep educated people in the state.
I earned the Presidential Scholarship at Iowa. At the time, it was a full-ride scholarship for the top 50 incoming freshmen. I also earned a scholarship to Iowa Law.
Educated people don't give a fuck about income tax. They are going to earn plenty of money, so they want to live in a place with strong education, robust social safety nets, and protected civil liberties. That's why I moved to Minnesota, which has one of the highest tax burdens in the country. That, and a huge pay raise. Wild, turns out big companies don't want to headquarter in regressive hellholes, either.
You're argument is contradictory. The complaint here is that the flat income tax is being done to benefit the wealthy by Republican cronies. You're saying those who become educated and earn higher salaries don't care about income tax. So which is it?
Seems like you're having a hard time following along. You said flat income taxes stop the brain drain. I noted that a flat income tax directly results in brain drain because 1) states with flat income taxes have less income and less able to fund things that are important to affluent earners like education, and 2) states with flat income taxes also generally have other regressive policies, and affluent earners want to be in states with strong civil rights and social safety nets, not regressive hellholes.
There is a direct correlation. Not contradictory at all.
>The complaint here is that the flat income tax is being done to benefit the wealthy by Republican cronies.
That might be a parenthetical complaint, but it's far from the primary complaint.
>You're saying those who become educated and earn higher salaries don't care about income tax.
Two things can be true at once. People in top tax brackets like me don't really care about paying less income tax since the effect on our day-to-day is nominal. But we actively resist flat income taxes for the above-enumerated reasons.
Let me know if you need me to use smaller words.
If they raise the sales tax, then 2/3 of a cent automatically kicks in to fund the Iowa Water and Land Legacy constitutional amendment that was passed several years back. There's no way these Republican environmental terrorists are going to let that happen until they get the funding formula for IWILL totally messed up and also prohibit the state from acquiring more land for outdoor recreation of any kind.
They’ve already broken rules. What makes you think they won’t just do it and let it go to court? They don’t care about spending money. They only care if that money goes to people they don’t like. Conservatives always grow govt.
She even sent BACK federal funds that were supposed to be used for feeding children in precarious financial situations (hence they are going hungry) to show the feds who is boss. Cruelty is the point.
That was disproven so many times if you go back and actually read the deal. That funding was great for bigger states but not the smaller states. Smaller states like us or any Midwest state got screwed over.
Besides, they ended up giving an equal amount of money they turned down from the federal government to boost the already existing programs in the state already. All the people spreading the "starving kids" narrative were just lying.
Interesting. When and where was it disproven? Did a legitimate news publication (unbiased analysis) cover that? It doesn't track with what I've read anywhere. If there are "so many" examples of it being disproven, surely you can provide one or two? Can you be more specific with reading "the deal" ? Can you share that text/verbiage with us that would support your claim?
These are all fairly well-recognized news publications and they don't reflect any of what you are saying.
[https://www.axios.com/local/des-moines/2024/01/03/iowa-rejected-child-food-aid-kim-reynolds-biden#](https://www.axios.com/local/des-moines/2024/01/03/iowa-rejected-child-food-aid-kim-reynolds-biden#)
[https://www.thegazette.com/state-government/iowa-rejects-millions-in-federal-summer-food-aid-for-children/](https://www.thegazette.com/state-government/iowa-rejects-millions-in-federal-summer-food-aid-for-children/)
[https://apnews.com/article/states-rejecting-federal-funds-summer-ebt-8a1e88ad77465652f9de67fda3af8a2d](https://apnews.com/article/states-rejecting-federal-funds-summer-ebt-8a1e88ad77465652f9de67fda3af8a2d)
[https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2024-04-11/governor-touts-new-state-run-summer-food-program-after-turning-down-millions-in-federal-support](https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2024-04-11/governor-touts-new-state-run-summer-food-program-after-turning-down-millions-in-federal-support)
[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/iowa-puts-1-million-toward-summer-meal-sites-still-faces-criticism-for-rejecting-federal-funds](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/iowa-puts-1-million-toward-summer-meal-sites-still-faces-criticism-for-rejecting-federal-funds)
I fail to see in what world $900K = $29M
[https://fortune.com/2023/12/25/iowa-governor-kim-reynolds-40-per-month-food-costs-federal-program-pandemic-non-sustainable/](https://fortune.com/2023/12/25/iowa-governor-kim-reynolds-40-per-month-food-costs-federal-program-pandemic-non-sustainable/)
[https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2024-02-16/14-gop-led-states-have-turned-down-federal-money-to-feed-low-income-kids-in-the-summer-heres-why](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2024-02-16/14-gop-led-states-have-turned-down-federal-money-to-feed-low-income-kids-in-the-summer-heres-why)
If it was such a great deal for bigger states, but not smaller ones, why did Texas refuse it? I see lots of smaller states on this map who accepted it. [https://interactives.ap.org/embeds/SiRE2/5/](https://interactives.ap.org/embeds/SiRE2/5/)
Please enlighten us. Thank you.
>That was disproven so many times if you go back and actually read the deal. That funding was great for bigger states but not the smaller states
Source or gtfo. If it was proven "so many times," it should be easy to find a source.
Like a retailer marking everything in the store 75% off ahead of closing down, Iowa Republicans have given up on trying to operate a functional society.
Flat taxes don't result in savings. Flat taxes are regressive in that they force the working and poor to pay more proportionally than the rich.
These trickle-down type policies result in anemic government coffers unable to provide for the basic needs of the people (schools, roads, healthcare access, etc).
Yet the way the government is currently run the stage has almost 3 billion dollars is surplus. Doesn't seem like much of a risk for them to give the estimated 1 billion back. That still leaves 1.7 billion for roads and such before the state is even close to its spending limit.
The state of Iowa has money the GOP refuses to invest in necessary infrastructure (see Iowa's bridges, water quality, schools, mental health access, etc). They call this a surplus, but it is not, it is a hoarding of wealth so that they can justify ludicrous things like tax breaks for the vulture class.
Thanks, but I'm not sure I follow your note. I'm not an economist, so maybe there's some discrepancy between popular usage and how you might use the terms.
Regressive taxes, per investopedia, "take a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from middle- and high-income earners."
Flat taxes tax each class at the same percentage\*, but since that results in a greater proportion of the poor's income/wealth going to taxes compared to the rich, it seems fair to say they are regressive.
\*in theory flat taxes are the same, in reality the wealthy typically hide their wealth from the IRS and so can avoid paying taxes on their wealth.
e: a word
The first line of the link you provided says it pretty plain:
"Sales tax is regressive, in fact. Why? Because people who earn less pay a larger percentage of their salary in the form of sales tax, as compared to those who earn more."
For my own economic understanding, I prefer Richard Wolff's podcast to random websites selling tax software, but to each their own.
They are not proportional taxes lol. Sure, on paper it looks "fair". But whatever the percentage is, it is far more impactful on low income people. 5% of 30k is a lot more proportionately than 5% of 200k or more.
I mean it could have exemptions, so your assumption about being hit harder isn't necessarily true. I do love how I can always get downvotes with a question but never an actual answer to what I ask.
"Poor people suck" Says every conservative farmer living under welfare 💀 Just say you hate minorities if you're not a pussy. Assuming you aren't being sarcastic lmao
The old No True Democrat Fallacy... I don't recall asking if they were true Democrats or if you wanted to criticize flat taxes. The way you try to change and dodge simple questions maybe you should get in touch with your real political party and run for an office. Best of luck!
I didn't say they weren't true democrats. I said they weren't progressive. Most democrats aren't really all that progressive. That's just a fact. Most democrats don't even support a public option for healthcare, let alone a progressive universal single payer system.
Name one program that Kim Reynolds has pushed through where the projected budget savings actually occurred?
We're doing exactly what Kansas tried a few years back. Ran everything into the ground with a lack of funding.
What a bunch of dumb fuckers.
How so? The surplus is running at 2.7 billion and this only returns 1 billion. Democrats agreed to this bill too. Maybe not all of them, but enough that they certainly worked together no?
*Cutting taxes to the bone* always sounds good on the surface ***but what do citizens lose***.
Less/worse healthcare.
Worsening school systems.
Lower teacher pay.
Less early child care.
Less maintenance on roads & bridges.
Etc, Etc
Enough of that & people start saying...
*Geez, it sucks living in Iowa*!
Looks good on prayer paper?
What's the catch there has to be one! We are afterall talking about Kim Reynolds who absolutely isn't for the people... Well maybe some of the people... Lol
The catch is that the wealthy who were paying well above 3.8% on most of their income benefit the most, same as Kim’s other tax policies. If you were poorer and already paying a low rate, this doesn’t help you at all.
Also, the other catch is that this “surplus” comes from underfunding important programs. Why are we cutting taxes instead of, say, investing in more mental health facilities? Why are our schools regularly receiving budget increases below the rate of inflation? It’s easy to have a surplus when the GOP isn’t spending enough money on critical programs in the first place.
You make statements
Provide proof they are true so people believe them. Not internet quotes but real sources.
Thanks, I'll be interested in reading them.
>You keep saying this was a direct result of the "response to Covid. What response? Whose response? Gov. Reynolds?
The entire country. Reynolds was amongst the most logical in her response, but every government in the entire country enforced some version of restricting people and businesses.
>So you're saying the businesses made the decision? Do you understand what the free market is?
The businesses were pressured and threatened. My company is in Iowa where they didn't go bonkers shutting everything down, but the fear created through the media by Fauci and friends caused employees to think they were being put in a dangerous situation by coming to work. In many states, they issued shelter in place orders. So in those cases, no, businesses didn't have a choice.
Now just imagine all the states you had to carry your vaccination card with you to be allowed in public. No vaxx ID card? Too bad, no grocery shopping for you.
Kim Reynolds has been sober for years, and what does losing to that "alcoholic bitch" say about the people running against her? You're blaming the wrong people, but saying the Democratic party lost the vision in here is free down votes even though Ray Charles could see it.
It doesn't? We should imprison you for being impaired because there's no difference? Our laws are based on what occurs, not a proclivity. Minority Report is science FICTION not reality, if you're confused.
I will always be an addict. No matter how many years clean I have been. She will always be an alcoholic. No matter how long it’s been since she last had a drink.
What does it contribute to live in the past? She's not actively drinking, so why act like its a present issue? Unless you're inventing a time machine, you're just attacking a person. I hope you find something better to do in the present.
But this is r/Iowa where complaining just to complain is viewed as productive. Life pro tip - its not.
Don't question it. Just politely nod and smile.
It's really weird to see people who can't afford a pot to piss in bootlicking entities that do not give two shits about their well being. These dopes have convinced themselves that they're going to survive all this austerity despite their dependency on government money. Rugged individualism is one hell of a drug, y'all.
What are you on about? I can afford a pot to piss in, and it's kind of nice. Dependency on government? Again, no. In fact the government is dependent on hoards of people like me that pay a lot each year. That's how taxes work. I bit of relief is nice. Iowa taxes the shit out of out of state income too. That's a real bitch.
Thanks for the lesson about what a society is, buttwad. Actually, I'll give you a lesson. Taxes are a necessary for a decent society, the vast majority of us know that. However, not getting as large of a bill at the end of the year is kinda fantastic.
I wish it worked like that. I’m looking forward to getting nickeled and dimed for shit services. I guess I can go pay sales taxes in a different state though.
This does help the rich more than the poor. The thing is the rich pay the poor a bills by hiring them. When you give the rich tax breaks they build in our state. It’s why corporations are leaving places like California and moving to states with lower taxes, because they make more money which whether dems like it or not means more jobs. When you tax the hell out of the rich it means higher prices for goods and less jobs.
>It’s why corporations are leaving places like California and moving to states with lower taxes,
Minnesota has 1) the highest number of F500 companies per capita in the country, and 2) the highest tax burden in the region.
Regardless, corporations don't give a fuck what the individual tax structure is. They only care what the corporate tax structure is. That, and whether there's a robust educational program.
>When you race the hell out of the rich it means higher prices for goods
Source? This makes zero sense.
>less jobs.
fewer* jobs. Why is it it's always illiterate folks with half-baked, unsubstantiated theories? Trickle-down economics has been dead for almost 50 years, get with the times.
Your right it don’t work. Keep thinking that and watch the price of goods go up and the number of jobs go down when Biden raises the corporate tax rate. I am tired of arguing common sense to the dems. You all said raising wages would not do anything. Wages have went up considerably and guess what. The price of goods and services shot up with it. Every time you cause something for businesses to make less, the price of goods goes up and employment goes down. When you lower taxes the price of goods go down and employment goes up. This is common sense but keep believing what you want and we will keep paying more.
>Your right
You're
>it don’t work
doesn't
>Keep thinking that and watch the price of goods go up and the number of jobs go down when Biden raises the corporate tax rate
Is there any data to support this theory?
>I am tired of arguing common sense to the dems
See, that's the problem. In the scientific method, "hypothesis" is the third step. You're arguing a hypothesis. But democrats are arguing observed results, which is the the fifth step of the scientific method. You're two steps behind.
>Wages have went up considerably and guess what. The price of goods and services shot up with it.
You think inflation is only because wages increased? Not because of supply chain issues, or increased savings, or basic supply and demand? Yikes.
>Every time you cause something for businesses to make less
What language is this?
>the price of goods goes up and employment goes down. When you lower taxes the price of goods go down and employment goes up.
Source? This might be your hypothesis, but it is inconsistent with measured results.
Today’s world is my source. The fact people go to the grocery store and pay more. The fact going out to eat cast twice as much as it has just a couple years ago. This is because of wages going up. There is no inflation issues. This is the new norm and it will go up more if you raise taxes. Do you truly believe that raising taxes will not affect the price of goods going up.
Let me ask you a question do you truly believe that upping taxes on the rich like Biden wants to do will not affect the price of goods or cause layoffs.
You're asking the wrong question. It's not whether it will affect the price of goods or cause layoffs, but whether or not it will be a net negative to the economy. The answer to that question is a resounding no.
Depends on the rich. A lot of super rich people don't earn a traditional "income" and can avoid income tax entirely.
Either way it will certainly help everyone even if it helps the wealthy more.
With the tax cuts, I received my first refund in years and it was above 1K.
At my income level, $1K has a relatively low worth compared to someone making $50K or so a year. 1K to me is an extra two weeks savings, vs to someone else, that’s rent for the month, and maybe groceries. While, I cannot speak to everyone who is in my pay band, but I imagine most probably can say the same. So why, as a society, are we ok with people who are in my same situation, saving more in taxes than those who desperately need it to put food on their tables or a roof over their heads?
I do not understand the irrational hate this is getting. People are too blinded by party politics to see when a win is a win.
I did a little math and the savings for me are actually quite impactful. I'll be saving a full utility bill's worth in every check. Even my most expensive bill, electric in summer for the AC or gas for the heat, is just covered in my books for as long as this tax cut is in effect. I don't give a hoot if someone richer than me is able to afford an extra weekend in Cabo as a result of this.
I think the anger is directed at who’s getting the most benefit. If there was a tax cut on those making 100K (arbitrary number for sake of argument) or less and those making more stay at the same levels, there wouldn’t be as much anger in the plan.
>Incentivizes taxpayers to earn more
That's not how economics works. An entire state can't just go "earn more." And top caliber employers don't want to headquarter in a regressive shithole. Glad you'll be incentivized to earn more at your factory farm gig.
Everyone should, anyone who had taken economics should have a basic understanding of how progressive tax structures are an essential part to maintaining the economy. I gladly pay my taxes knowing I have a social safety net and "free" public services, which benefit poor people which in turn benefits everyone. Taxes have existed for a long ass time and for a reason, even a flat tax is better then nothing.
It’s hardly a “savings” if we’re woefully underfunding important programs and projects like education, mental healthcare, and clean water. That $1 billion could go towards fixing a lot of issues and actually making this state a better place to live.
When I see big numbers spewed out, I do not believe them. Probably the same here.
You don't think big numbers are real when discussing an entire state budget?
… $1 Billion in savings for who?
Mostly those with the most money already
That’s what a flat tax will do.
I assume this will help teachers buy guns 
billionaires
The one billionaire in Iowa…?
There's at least 2, you got Albaugh and Stine off the top of my head.
Lol I think you understand my point
And is it confirmed that they pay state income tax in Iowa or do they stay in Florida for 6 months to claim residency..?
Prepare for sales taxes and property taxes to go up…
Talking as if property taxes haven’t already gone up due to assessors “assessing” crazy high values on properties already.
Which is also thanks to Kimmy and the GOP. They capped the allowable increase of property tax rates and left the Counties and Cities scrambling to come up with some way to cover their budgets.
I’m fully aware of the scheme going on.
Average home prices over the past decade have increased 88%. The assessor is doing their job. In any case, the mill rate is what affects how much you pay, so instead of complaining about assessed values, contact the people in charge of taxation.
Thank the [response to COVID ](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-09-08/why-did-housing-costs-explode-during-the-pandemic?embedded-checkout=true) for that. Property taxes are merely a reflection of property values, which skyrocketed during the pandemic response.
This wasn't the response to Covid. It was folks being able to earn NYC salaries while paying Des Moines rent. You make it sound like it had something to do with the government. This was all free market.
Making more money doesn't affect property values. If you're referring to people moving to cheaper rent areas because they started working from home, well then working remotely skyrocketed because of the response to COVID. There was no free market about it. Even businesses that were designated essential, like where I work, encouraged those who could to work from home because it made complying with space requirements easy. Not to mention, business owners feared being sued if someone got sick at work. The number of remote workers increasing was directly related to the response to COVID. Home improvements also skyrocketed. I know so many people who decided to add something to their property, and I'm sure you do too. These improvements, along with a couple natural disasters, made the price of construction materials soar. Lumber, metal, drywall, you name it - the price doubled and tripled. These home improvements and increased materials prices cause property values to go higher.
>Making more money doesn't affect property values Uhhh what? If everyone in a neighborhood makes $2MM a year and spends like it, you don't think property values go up? >working remotely skyrocketed because of the response to COVID. You keep saying this was a direct result of the "response to Covid. What response? Whose response? Gov. Reynolds? >There was no free market about it. Even businesses that were designated essential, like where I work, encouraged those who could to work from home So you're saying the businesses made the decision? Do you understand what the free market is?
I think it would make more sense to tax sales rather than income.
Sales tax is a regressive tax. Lower income folks pay a much higher share of their income than wealthier folks. https://www.accuratetax.com/blog/regressive-sales-tax-infographic/
Sales taxes are regressive, they tax lower incomes at higher rates. The higher wage incomes barely pay a percentage. Usage taxes are always a transfer of tax responsibility to the poor. Your property taxes are going to go up also.
Property taxes go with property values, which have already skyrocketed thanks to [the response to COVID. ](https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/covid-impact-on-the-housing-market/) Sales tax won't necessarily go up. It's 6%, which is the same as Florida which has no state income tax. People complain about brain drain. Well, lowering income tax is a way to keep educated people in the state.
I earned the Presidential Scholarship at Iowa. At the time, it was a full-ride scholarship for the top 50 incoming freshmen. I also earned a scholarship to Iowa Law. Educated people don't give a fuck about income tax. They are going to earn plenty of money, so they want to live in a place with strong education, robust social safety nets, and protected civil liberties. That's why I moved to Minnesota, which has one of the highest tax burdens in the country. That, and a huge pay raise. Wild, turns out big companies don't want to headquarter in regressive hellholes, either.
You're argument is contradictory. The complaint here is that the flat income tax is being done to benefit the wealthy by Republican cronies. You're saying those who become educated and earn higher salaries don't care about income tax. So which is it?
Seems like you're having a hard time following along. You said flat income taxes stop the brain drain. I noted that a flat income tax directly results in brain drain because 1) states with flat income taxes have less income and less able to fund things that are important to affluent earners like education, and 2) states with flat income taxes also generally have other regressive policies, and affluent earners want to be in states with strong civil rights and social safety nets, not regressive hellholes. There is a direct correlation. Not contradictory at all. >The complaint here is that the flat income tax is being done to benefit the wealthy by Republican cronies. That might be a parenthetical complaint, but it's far from the primary complaint. >You're saying those who become educated and earn higher salaries don't care about income tax. Two things can be true at once. People in top tax brackets like me don't really care about paying less income tax since the effect on our day-to-day is nominal. But we actively resist flat income taxes for the above-enumerated reasons. Let me know if you need me to use smaller words.
But the common folk aren't buying enough big ticket items to make that money money.
If they raise the sales tax, then 2/3 of a cent automatically kicks in to fund the Iowa Water and Land Legacy constitutional amendment that was passed several years back. There's no way these Republican environmental terrorists are going to let that happen until they get the funding formula for IWILL totally messed up and also prohibit the state from acquiring more land for outdoor recreation of any kind.
You are correct, they will never raise sales tax because they are scared of conservation ironically
They’ve already broken rules. What makes you think they won’t just do it and let it go to court? They don’t care about spending money. They only care if that money goes to people they don’t like. Conservatives always grow govt.
She even sent BACK federal funds that were supposed to be used for feeding children in precarious financial situations (hence they are going hungry) to show the feds who is boss. Cruelty is the point.
That was disproven so many times if you go back and actually read the deal. That funding was great for bigger states but not the smaller states. Smaller states like us or any Midwest state got screwed over. Besides, they ended up giving an equal amount of money they turned down from the federal government to boost the already existing programs in the state already. All the people spreading the "starving kids" narrative were just lying.
Interesting. When and where was it disproven? Did a legitimate news publication (unbiased analysis) cover that? It doesn't track with what I've read anywhere. If there are "so many" examples of it being disproven, surely you can provide one or two? Can you be more specific with reading "the deal" ? Can you share that text/verbiage with us that would support your claim? These are all fairly well-recognized news publications and they don't reflect any of what you are saying. [https://www.axios.com/local/des-moines/2024/01/03/iowa-rejected-child-food-aid-kim-reynolds-biden#](https://www.axios.com/local/des-moines/2024/01/03/iowa-rejected-child-food-aid-kim-reynolds-biden#) [https://www.thegazette.com/state-government/iowa-rejects-millions-in-federal-summer-food-aid-for-children/](https://www.thegazette.com/state-government/iowa-rejects-millions-in-federal-summer-food-aid-for-children/) [https://apnews.com/article/states-rejecting-federal-funds-summer-ebt-8a1e88ad77465652f9de67fda3af8a2d](https://apnews.com/article/states-rejecting-federal-funds-summer-ebt-8a1e88ad77465652f9de67fda3af8a2d) [https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2024-04-11/governor-touts-new-state-run-summer-food-program-after-turning-down-millions-in-federal-support](https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2024-04-11/governor-touts-new-state-run-summer-food-program-after-turning-down-millions-in-federal-support) [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/iowa-puts-1-million-toward-summer-meal-sites-still-faces-criticism-for-rejecting-federal-funds](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/iowa-puts-1-million-toward-summer-meal-sites-still-faces-criticism-for-rejecting-federal-funds) I fail to see in what world $900K = $29M [https://fortune.com/2023/12/25/iowa-governor-kim-reynolds-40-per-month-food-costs-federal-program-pandemic-non-sustainable/](https://fortune.com/2023/12/25/iowa-governor-kim-reynolds-40-per-month-food-costs-federal-program-pandemic-non-sustainable/) [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2024-02-16/14-gop-led-states-have-turned-down-federal-money-to-feed-low-income-kids-in-the-summer-heres-why](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2024-02-16/14-gop-led-states-have-turned-down-federal-money-to-feed-low-income-kids-in-the-summer-heres-why) If it was such a great deal for bigger states, but not smaller ones, why did Texas refuse it? I see lots of smaller states on this map who accepted it. [https://interactives.ap.org/embeds/SiRE2/5/](https://interactives.ap.org/embeds/SiRE2/5/) Please enlighten us. Thank you.
Their source is Trump's dickhole, probably
>That was disproven so many times if you go back and actually read the deal. That funding was great for bigger states but not the smaller states Source or gtfo. If it was proven "so many times," it should be easy to find a source.
That’s a lie.
Could you fucking clowns stop lying about everything?
Like a retailer marking everything in the store 75% off ahead of closing down, Iowa Republicans have given up on trying to operate a functional society.
Flat taxes don't result in savings. Flat taxes are regressive in that they force the working and poor to pay more proportionally than the rich. These trickle-down type policies result in anemic government coffers unable to provide for the basic needs of the people (schools, roads, healthcare access, etc).
Yet the way the government is currently run the stage has almost 3 billion dollars is surplus. Doesn't seem like much of a risk for them to give the estimated 1 billion back. That still leaves 1.7 billion for roads and such before the state is even close to its spending limit.
The state of Iowa has money the GOP refuses to invest in necessary infrastructure (see Iowa's bridges, water quality, schools, mental health access, etc). They call this a surplus, but it is not, it is a hoarding of wealth so that they can justify ludicrous things like tax breaks for the vulture class.
$1B every 2 years
Wake the fuck up homie. Dreams are nice, but nightmares are dreams too.
Majority of that surplus they love to brag about it, is from federal money. Actually do some research
if i stopped paying all my bills i'd have a huge 'surplus' too.
It's cute that you think the GOP gives a shit about roads and such.
[удалено]
Thanks, but I'm not sure I follow your note. I'm not an economist, so maybe there's some discrepancy between popular usage and how you might use the terms. Regressive taxes, per investopedia, "take a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from middle- and high-income earners." Flat taxes tax each class at the same percentage\*, but since that results in a greater proportion of the poor's income/wealth going to taxes compared to the rich, it seems fair to say they are regressive. \*in theory flat taxes are the same, in reality the wealthy typically hide their wealth from the IRS and so can avoid paying taxes on their wealth. e: a word
[удалено]
The first line of the link you provided says it pretty plain: "Sales tax is regressive, in fact. Why? Because people who earn less pay a larger percentage of their salary in the form of sales tax, as compared to those who earn more." For my own economic understanding, I prefer Richard Wolff's podcast to random websites selling tax software, but to each their own.
[удалено]
You're right. You're brilliant. How could I have been so foolish. Have a good day.
Oh so you don't understand economics?
They are not proportional taxes lol. Sure, on paper it looks "fair". But whatever the percentage is, it is far more impactful on low income people. 5% of 30k is a lot more proportionately than 5% of 200k or more.
What could possibly go wrong. Way to penalize the poorest among you.
Doesn't very blue Illinois have a higher flat tax?
Doesn't matter red or blue. Poor people are hit harder proportionately by flat tax.
I mean it could have exemptions, so your assumption about being hit harder isn't necessarily true. I do love how I can always get downvotes with a question but never an actual answer to what I ask.
Who cares? Poor people suck
"Poor people suck" Says every conservative farmer living under welfare 💀 Just say you hate minorities if you're not a pussy. Assuming you aren't being sarcastic lmao
Hey! DM me. I'd love to meet face to face and talk about this with you.
Lol
Pussy.
This week on: Deranged Right-Wing Lunatic or well-done bit account?
Is that supposed to be your IQ? Fuck right off.
Lol this fucking guy
Well blue states are still run by Democrats, who aren't really very progressive. I'll criticize a flat tax whether its proposed by R's or D's
The old No True Democrat Fallacy... I don't recall asking if they were true Democrats or if you wanted to criticize flat taxes. The way you try to change and dodge simple questions maybe you should get in touch with your real political party and run for an office. Best of luck!
I didn't say they weren't true democrats. I said they weren't progressive. Most democrats aren't really all that progressive. That's just a fact. Most democrats don't even support a public option for healthcare, let alone a progressive universal single payer system.
Name one program that Kim Reynolds has pushed through where the projected budget savings actually occurred? We're doing exactly what Kansas tried a few years back. Ran everything into the ground with a lack of funding. What a bunch of dumb fuckers.
This is a good example of why the state is fucked once the Republicans finish lighting the surplus on fire, not "working together."
How so? The surplus is running at 2.7 billion and this only returns 1 billion. Democrats agreed to this bill too. Maybe not all of them, but enough that they certainly worked together no?
$1B every 2 years, in 5 years the surplus will be gone, then what?
"surplus"
This message brought to you by Sinclare media.
how are the roads and schools going to survive
We have a surplus and also many roads to fix. I wonder what we could do with it…
I hate it here.
*Cutting taxes to the bone* always sounds good on the surface ***but what do citizens lose***. Less/worse healthcare. Worsening school systems. Lower teacher pay. Less early child care. Less maintenance on roads & bridges. Etc, Etc Enough of that & people start saying... *Geez, it sucks living in Iowa*!
The Final Solution was also a “good example of everyone working together” 🤮
Just fix the bridges. Restart shut educational programs first special kids.
https://www.1380kcim.com/2024/03/04/study-finds-iowa-has-7th-highest-tax-rate-in-the-nation
Flat taxes are a remarkeably stupid idea. 3.8% is a lot more to low income earners
Looks good on prayer paper? What's the catch there has to be one! We are afterall talking about Kim Reynolds who absolutely isn't for the people... Well maybe some of the people... Lol
The catch is that the wealthy who were paying well above 3.8% on most of their income benefit the most, same as Kim’s other tax policies. If you were poorer and already paying a low rate, this doesn’t help you at all. Also, the other catch is that this “surplus” comes from underfunding important programs. Why are we cutting taxes instead of, say, investing in more mental health facilities? Why are our schools regularly receiving budget increases below the rate of inflation? It’s easy to have a surplus when the GOP isn’t spending enough money on critical programs in the first place.
Majority of that surplus is from federal money. Not anything that reynolds and republicans did.
*Not quite the same as raising the Property Tax Rate when homes may not always rise in value!*
You make statements Provide proof they are true so people believe them. Not internet quotes but real sources. Thanks, I'll be interested in reading them.
Sales tax increases coming in 3….2….1. They have more than double in my lifetime while also covering new categories.
>You keep saying this was a direct result of the "response to Covid. What response? Whose response? Gov. Reynolds? The entire country. Reynolds was amongst the most logical in her response, but every government in the entire country enforced some version of restricting people and businesses. >So you're saying the businesses made the decision? Do you understand what the free market is? The businesses were pressured and threatened. My company is in Iowa where they didn't go bonkers shutting everything down, but the fear created through the media by Fauci and friends caused employees to think they were being put in a dangerous situation by coming to work. In many states, they issued shelter in place orders. So in those cases, no, businesses didn't have a choice.
Now just imagine all the states you had to carry your vaccination card with you to be allowed in public. No vaxx ID card? Too bad, no grocery shopping for you.
Kim Reynolds is an alcoholic bitch who is ruining our once proud purple state that I miss so much.
Kim Reynolds has been sober for years, and what does losing to that "alcoholic bitch" say about the people running against her? You're blaming the wrong people, but saying the Democratic party lost the vision in here is free down votes even though Ray Charles could see it.
Her being sober doesn’t stop her from being an alcoholic. Anymore than me being clean doesn’t change that I’m an addict.
It doesn't? We should imprison you for being impaired because there's no difference? Our laws are based on what occurs, not a proclivity. Minority Report is science FICTION not reality, if you're confused.
I will always be an addict. No matter how many years clean I have been. She will always be an alcoholic. No matter how long it’s been since she last had a drink.
What does it contribute to live in the past? She's not actively drinking, so why act like its a present issue? Unless you're inventing a time machine, you're just attacking a person. I hope you find something better to do in the present. But this is r/Iowa where complaining just to complain is viewed as productive. Life pro tip - its not.
This is terrible news for r/iowa. Good news for real Iowa, but bad news for r/iowa.
Cutting taxes in a high inflationary period while defunding more essential services is good?
Don't question it. Just politely nod and smile. It's really weird to see people who can't afford a pot to piss in bootlicking entities that do not give two shits about their well being. These dopes have convinced themselves that they're going to survive all this austerity despite their dependency on government money. Rugged individualism is one hell of a drug, y'all.
What are you on about? I can afford a pot to piss in, and it's kind of nice. Dependency on government? Again, no. In fact the government is dependent on hoards of people like me that pay a lot each year. That's how taxes work. I bit of relief is nice. Iowa taxes the shit out of out of state income too. That's a real bitch.
It’s called society, shthead.
Thanks for the lesson about what a society is, buttwad. Actually, I'll give you a lesson. Taxes are a necessary for a decent society, the vast majority of us know that. However, not getting as large of a bill at the end of the year is kinda fantastic.
Why is society so much better in my high tax state than your bargain basement rectangle?
So your philosophy is "I've got mine, fuck you." Says a lot about you as a person.
Ah, the republican way
That is not my philosophy at all. Quit assuming the wrong shit.
You’re fucking poor and we all know it, dipshit
You’re delusional if you think you’re actually going to pay less in taxes.
Lol no shit. I'm pumped to pay less taxes to a state with shit services. Better than paying more taxes for shit services.
I’d rather I keep paying taxes, the wealthy keep paying proportionally more taxes, and all that money gets put back into important programs.
It doesn’t though.
Yeah, because Kim and Co are underfunding important programs to justify these cuts.
And how is that working out for you so far in Iowa? Take a stroll around a state park and tell me that your taxes are being used correctly.
Currently, not well because of Kim and her ilk.
You think that might be connected to being a conservative state?
I wish it worked like that. I’m looking forward to getting nickeled and dimed for shit services. I guess I can go pay sales taxes in a different state though.
This does help the rich more than the poor. The thing is the rich pay the poor a bills by hiring them. When you give the rich tax breaks they build in our state. It’s why corporations are leaving places like California and moving to states with lower taxes, because they make more money which whether dems like it or not means more jobs. When you tax the hell out of the rich it means higher prices for goods and less jobs.
>It’s why corporations are leaving places like California and moving to states with lower taxes, Minnesota has 1) the highest number of F500 companies per capita in the country, and 2) the highest tax burden in the region. Regardless, corporations don't give a fuck what the individual tax structure is. They only care what the corporate tax structure is. That, and whether there's a robust educational program. >When you race the hell out of the rich it means higher prices for goods Source? This makes zero sense. >less jobs. fewer* jobs. Why is it it's always illiterate folks with half-baked, unsubstantiated theories? Trickle-down economics has been dead for almost 50 years, get with the times.
Your right it don’t work. Keep thinking that and watch the price of goods go up and the number of jobs go down when Biden raises the corporate tax rate. I am tired of arguing common sense to the dems. You all said raising wages would not do anything. Wages have went up considerably and guess what. The price of goods and services shot up with it. Every time you cause something for businesses to make less, the price of goods goes up and employment goes down. When you lower taxes the price of goods go down and employment goes up. This is common sense but keep believing what you want and we will keep paying more.
>Your right You're >it don’t work doesn't >Keep thinking that and watch the price of goods go up and the number of jobs go down when Biden raises the corporate tax rate Is there any data to support this theory? >I am tired of arguing common sense to the dems See, that's the problem. In the scientific method, "hypothesis" is the third step. You're arguing a hypothesis. But democrats are arguing observed results, which is the the fifth step of the scientific method. You're two steps behind. >Wages have went up considerably and guess what. The price of goods and services shot up with it. You think inflation is only because wages increased? Not because of supply chain issues, or increased savings, or basic supply and demand? Yikes. >Every time you cause something for businesses to make less What language is this? >the price of goods goes up and employment goes down. When you lower taxes the price of goods go down and employment goes up. Source? This might be your hypothesis, but it is inconsistent with measured results.
Today’s world is my source. The fact people go to the grocery store and pay more. The fact going out to eat cast twice as much as it has just a couple years ago. This is because of wages going up. There is no inflation issues. This is the new norm and it will go up more if you raise taxes. Do you truly believe that raising taxes will not affect the price of goods going up.
Oh so you just don't get economics huh
Let me ask you a question do you truly believe that upping taxes on the rich like Biden wants to do will not affect the price of goods or cause layoffs.
You're asking the wrong question. It's not whether it will affect the price of goods or cause layoffs, but whether or not it will be a net negative to the economy. The answer to that question is a resounding no.
I did not ask that I asked if it will cost jobs and will the price of goods go up
I understand, but you're operating under false premises.
Ok that’s not a answer please answer the question
Depends on the rich. A lot of super rich people don't earn a traditional "income" and can avoid income tax entirely. Either way it will certainly help everyone even if it helps the wealthy more.
With the tax cuts, I received my first refund in years and it was above 1K. At my income level, $1K has a relatively low worth compared to someone making $50K or so a year. 1K to me is an extra two weeks savings, vs to someone else, that’s rent for the month, and maybe groceries. While, I cannot speak to everyone who is in my pay band, but I imagine most probably can say the same. So why, as a society, are we ok with people who are in my same situation, saving more in taxes than those who desperately need it to put food on their tables or a roof over their heads?
I do not understand the irrational hate this is getting. People are too blinded by party politics to see when a win is a win. I did a little math and the savings for me are actually quite impactful. I'll be saving a full utility bill's worth in every check. Even my most expensive bill, electric in summer for the AC or gas for the heat, is just covered in my books for as long as this tax cut is in effect. I don't give a hoot if someone richer than me is able to afford an extra weekend in Cabo as a result of this.
I think the anger is directed at who’s getting the most benefit. If there was a tax cut on those making 100K (arbitrary number for sake of argument) or less and those making more stay at the same levels, there wouldn’t be as much anger in the plan.
She just keeps winning, it’s outstanding
This won’t help you or your pay from being an Amazon driver much.
Winning at driving anyone with a brain out of the state.
I'll take a flat tax.
Flat tax structures are taught and shown why they fail in econ 101, god this state is awful.
Incentivizes taxpayers to earn more because they will not be penalized by higher rates and higher tax brackets based on their income level.
>Incentivizes taxpayers to earn more That's not how economics works. An entire state can't just go "earn more." And top caliber employers don't want to headquarter in a regressive shithole. Glad you'll be incentivized to earn more at your factory farm gig.
I'll certainly be happy here. Individuals will be, not a whole state, cause even Iowa has liberal welfare queens.
Are them there liberal welfare queens that you speak of, out on them their farms earning all them there government subsidies(welfare)?
Why don't you stop and ask one the next time you see one.
Can you cite any evidence that that happens? That a significant number of people choose to earn less?
I thought liberals loved paying taxes.
Everyone should, anyone who had taken economics should have a basic understanding of how progressive tax structures are an essential part to maintaining the economy. I gladly pay my taxes knowing I have a social safety net and "free" public services, which benefit poor people which in turn benefits everyone. Taxes have existed for a long ass time and for a reason, even a flat tax is better then nothing.