Kansas Democrats (and some Republicans) are campaigning on some very expensive programs, and they’re aren’t adding it up for us.
A sampling of campaign literature from Kansas Democratic candidates in south and west Wichita for the Kansas Legislature1 reveals several common threads:
- Few will identify themselves as Democrats.
- Eliminating the LLC loophole is popular.
- Eliminating or reducing sales tax on food is popular.
- Eliminating the 2015 sales tax increase is popular.
- Fully funding schools is popular.
- None of these show the cost of these ideas, nor do they offer ideas on how to pay for these things, except for eliminating the LLC loophole.
What will these things cost? Here’s some figures.
LLC loophole and food sales tax: This year a bill was proposed in the Kansas Legislature to restore taxation of non-wage business income, that is, to eliminate the so-called “LLC loophole.” It would also reduce the sales tax on food from 6.5 percent to 2.6 percent. The fiscal note for this bill estimated an increase in tax revenue to the state of $260.9 million from the non-wage business income, and a loss of revenue to the state of $234.1 million for the sales tax reduction.2
Extrapolating the food sales tax figures implies that eliminating the sales tax on food would mean a loss of revenue to the state of $435 million, assuming no change in consumer behavior.
Rollback general sales tax: In 2015 when the legislature voted to raise the statewide sales tax from 6.15 percent to 6.50 percent on July 1, 2015, it was estimated that revenue to the state would increase by 164.2 million. For fiscal year 2017, by 186.7 million.3
(By the way, the tax on cigarettes was increased by an estimated $40.39 million. If we’re rolling back sales tax increases, we should roll back this 50 cent per pack increase, too. I haven’t seen any advocates for this.)
Fully funding schools: Who knows what “full funding” really means? The Kansas Supreme Court believes it — and it alone — has the ability to put a number on this. A consensus seems to be developing at around $450 million per year in additional school funding is what the court may order.
Adding up the costs (using some numbers a few years old): $260.9 million – $435 million – $164.2 million – $450 million equals -$1,310.1 million in changes to annual general fund revenue. ($-1,350.5 million if we want to be fair to smokers.)
This is the proposed change to Kansas general fund revenue that these candidates omit from their campaigns. It is the amount by which taxes must be raised, or spending be cut (or a combination of taxes and cuts). Some of these numbers are estimates that could be off by a lot. There can be some quibbling, such as reducing the food sales tax instead of eliminating it, which will change the numbers. But there’s no doubt that the plans Kansas Democrats propose will cost a lot of money.
Total revenue to the general fund in 2016 was $6,073.4 million. Major sources include:
Income taxes (individual, corporate, financial institution): $2,640.8 million
Excise taxes (sales, compensating use, cigarette, liquor, severance): $2,927.7 million
So if the state wanted to raise spending by, say, $1.310 billion dollars, it would have to raise income taxes by 49.7 percent, or excise taxes by 44.7 percent. Or a combination. Either way, that’s a lot.
When you see candidates for the Kansas Legislature — Democratic and Republican — mention these programs, ask if they know how much they will cost. Ask whose taxes will be raised or whose programs will be cut.
And ask this really important question: Just how will all this make Kansas a better state?
- Photographs of a number of pieces may be viewed in this folder at Flickr: https://flic.kr/s/aHskMJfGNc. ↩
- Kansas Legislature. HB 2444. Eliminating the business non-wage income tax exemption and reducing the sales tax rate on food. http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2015_16/measures/hb2444/. ↩
- Kansas Legislature. Revenue Enhancements and Other Provisions; Senate Sub. for HB 2109, as amended by House Sub. for SB 270 and HB 2142. http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2015_16/measures/documents/summary_hb_2109_2015.pdf. ↩