California Prop 30 job killing tax hikes 1 year later

[ksen]

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/20/6564879/states-job-growth-defies-predictions.html

Dire predictions about jobs being destroyed spread across California in 2012 as voters debated whether to enact the sales and, for those near the top of the income ladder, stiff income tax increases in Proposition 30. Million-dollar-plus earners face a 3 percentage-point increase on each additional dollar.

“It hurts small business and kills jobs,” warned the Sacramento Taxpayers Association, the National Federation of Independent Business/California, and Joel Fox, president of the Small Business Action Committee.

So what happened after voters approved the tax increases, which took effect at the start of 2013?

Last year California added 410,418 jobs, an increase of 2.8 percent over 2012, significantly better than the 1.8 percent national increase in jobs.

Well now . . .

 

[dismal]

Would you accept a similarly shoddy "proof" if it were for an economic argument you were not ideologically predisposed to favor?

 

[ksen]

it's ok buddy. I know it gets to be traumatic when your arguments against raising taxes keep getting shown to be bunk whenever the historical case is looked at and whenever real world incidences keep showing they're wrong.

We have multiple examples of higher taxes not affecting economic or job growth and we have Oklahoma, most recently, showing how tax cuts are disastrous for a government's finances and state economic performance.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

it's ok buddy. I know it gets to be traumatic when your arguments against raising taxes keep getting shown to be bunk whenever the historical case is looked and whenever real world incidences keep showing they're wrong.

We have multiple examples of higher taxes not affecting economic or job growth and we have Oklahoma, most recently, showing how tax cuts are disastrous for a governments finances state economic performance.

Yep. Our "high tax" state just ticked down another notch in unemployment.

Although most states are seeing a return to full employment thanks to Obama disastrous economic plans.

 

[dismal]

it's ok buddy. I know it gets to be traumatic when your arguments against raising taxes keep getting shown to be bunk whenever the historical case is looked and whenever real world incidences keep showing they're wrong.

We have multiple examples of higher taxes not affecting economic or job growth and we have Oklahoma, most recently, showing how tax cuts are disastrous for a governments finances state economic performance.

The question can be answered "yes" or "no".

Do you think there has ever been a state or a country that raised taxes and had employment go down?

This question can also be answered "yes" or "no".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Do you think there has ever been a state or a country that raised taxes and had employment go down?

This question can also be answered "yes" or "no".

Yes.

 

[dismal]

Do you think there has ever been a state or a country that raised taxes and had employment go down?

This question can also be answered "yes" or "no".

Yes.

So you believe that never in the history of humanity has there ever been a tax increase that was not immediately followed by a surge in employment?

If this is true I can't imagine why some people would say economics is hard because the data is ambiguous.

Cause this result doesn't sound ambiguous. And yet this result does not seem to be commonly cited either. Strange.

 

[ksen]

Do you think there has ever been a state or a country that raised taxes and had employment go down?

Who cares?

The OP is about the specific instance of California Prop 30 and the predictions made by its opponents and the failure of those predictions.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yes.

So you believe that never in the history of humanity has there ever been a tax increase that was not immediately followed by a surge in employment?

Sorry that your red herring turned out to be a dichotomous questions that doesn't elicit the answer you were um... fishing for. The question I answered was a Yes/No, which is what you asked for. Now you follow it up with a loaded question. The question you asked was if there was ever a tax hike and employment has gone down. My answer was yes and I can provide a multitude of examples.

Poor attempt. C-

 

[ksen]

It's like dismal forgets that we aren't arguing that tax hikes cause massive economic growth or employment. We're just saying that they don't automatically mean massive economic contraction and job loss . . . like every conservative/libertarian argues ever.

 

[dismal]

It's like dismal forgets that we aren't arguing that tax hikes cause massive economic growth or employment. We're just saying that they don't automatically mean massive economic contraction and job loss . . . like every conservative/libertarian argues ever.

Ah, a strawman rears its head.

I think people would generally argue they cause some loss at the margin and the impact of a small increase would not be observable within the general noise of the economy.

The funny thing is you are the one who rushed in here with this news as if it had some great import, so you are the one with the silly position.

 

[ksen]

Ah, a strawman rears its head.

Yes it did in post #2.

I think people would generally argue they cause some loss at the margin and the impact of a small increase would not be observable within the general noise of the economy.

Sure, except the Prop 30 opponents did not argue that way. They argued it would cause mass job loss and capital flight . . . which it hasn't.

The funny thing is you are the one who rushed in here with this news as if it had some great import, so you are the one with the silly position.

Which silly position is that? There's a lot to choose from.

 

[Trausti]

California still has one of the highest unemployment rates: http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

Prop 30 targeted personal income and sales tax, not corporate income tax. So not sure if it would have an immediate impact on job growth. However, there is evidence that higher-income Californians are ditching the state for lower-income tax pastures:
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_22555254/higher-taxes-rich-california-residents-consider-move-cheaper
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/State-leaders-closely-watch-migrating-millionaires-5135090.php
With them go any future investments they might have planned. I live in Washington state. We have a steady trickle of California refugees who pronounce with glee that by moving north their take-home wage increased substantially. (No income tax here.)

Nonetheless, the exodus of companies out of California has been trending for some time now:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/04/30/texas-v-california-this-aint-over-when-toyota-leaves/
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/moved-342887-companies-texas.html

Coastal California is a pleasant place to live and work. But everyone has a limit on the premium they'd pay for it.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

With them go any future investments they might have planned.

Yes, because a good investment is local.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

California still has one of the highest unemployment rates: http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

Prop 30 targeted personal income and sales tax, not corporate income tax. So not sure if it would have an immediate impact on job growth. However, there is evidence that higher-income Californians are ditching the state for lower-income tax pastures:

Yeah. Raising income taxes only has a slow effect on jobs. It reduces the incentive to start companies and it causes flight, it doesn't change the behavior of companies that already exist much.

Something like a decade ago we got a lot of that flight. It was common to refer to them as refugees from the People's Republic of California. They were streaming in at a rate of thousands a month.

 

[SimpleDon]

Would you accept a similarly shoddy "proof" if it were for an economic argument you were not ideologically predisposed to favor?

It is interesting to that instead of doing the obvious and showing why the rather straight forward presentation of a fact is a shoddy proof in your opinion you jumped to question of ideology. Is this the prism that you first view facts through, ideology?