Kansans get more politics than policy in criticism of the Legislature’s flat tax plan | Opinion

It’s understandable that Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, and the leaders of the Kansas House and Senate, both Republicans, would disagree on tax policy. The priorities of Overland Park are very different from those of Colby, and debates about public policies such as this are important and welcome.

But in the recent fight over a statewide flat tax, Sunflower State voters are being poorly served.

In announcing her veto, the governor came out swinging: “I support responsible tax cuts, but I refuse to sign into law a reckless flat tax that would take us back to Brownback while doing next to nothing for the middle class. This flat tax experiment would overwhelmingly benefit the super wealthy and I’m not going to put our public schools, roads, and stable economy at risk just to give a break to those at the very top.”

It’s a political trope word salad with a side order of class division and some fearmongering by name-checking a former governor who’s been out of office for six years. As a scare tactic and purely political statement, it may work. But it’s not a counterproposal or a real look at the issue.

More to the point, it’s not grounded in reality.

Progressives like to argue that such a tax reform benefit the rich, and said to to a Star news reporter in a story on the governor’s veto. But the rich always pay the most in taxes, and would continue to do so under this proposal.

Michael Austin of the Kansas chapter of Americans for Prosperity (a right-leaning public policy organization) generated household tax liabilities under Kelly’s bill and the one she opposes. Under the bill Kelly vetoed, a family of four with a household income of $30,000 would have a tax liability (after standard deduction and exemptions) of less than $4. Under the plan Kelly prefers, that same family would have a tax liability of $341.

What about the wealthiest 1% of earners? If that same Kansas family earned $700,000, Kelly vetoed a bill that would tax them $35,178.53. She prefers to tax them $37,902. Were that same family earning $70,000 (the median household income in Kansas), their tax liability would be $2,103.53. Under the plan Kelly prefers, that family would have a tax liability of $2.032.50.

There’s not much daylight between what the governor thinks is reckless and what she says is reasonable. And when the numbers don’t support the rhetoric? The arguments are usually about politics, not policy.

The governor’s claim that the bill she vetoed would result in a budget shortfall is also political theater. Dave Trabert of the Kansas Policy Institute (also a right-leaning organization) writes that, according to the Kansas Legislative Research Department, what Kelly claims put the state “economy at risk” is not the revenue generated by the tax she vetoed, but $1.6 billion of additional spending she is inserting into her forecasts. That spending has not yet been approved by the Legislature, and it is unlikely that it will.

The question is not whether to cut taxes — both the governor and the Legislature are advancing tax cuts — but how. Republicans argue their reform brings Kansas in line with other states and makes Kansas a more attractive place to live and work. Residents of neighboring Missouri are certainly paying attention.

Readers are welcome, even encouraged, to be skeptical of the arguments made here and by other proponents of reform. These issues are difficult and important and literally affect everyone’s pocketbook. As a result, political leaders need to act accordingly and, as we were all told to do by our teachers, show their work.

Proponents of a flat tax have shown their work. Gov. Kelly has failed to do so, choosing instead to mislead, employ scare tactics and divide voters.

Kansans deserve better.

Patrick Tuohey is co-founder of Better Cities Project, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit focused on municipal policy solutions, and a senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to Missouri state policy work.