Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
California Raised Taxes The World Didn't End...  
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3696 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2647 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Not yet at least, but it is still an experiment in progress of sorts.
8 months ago, California raised taxes on its highest income residents, attracting predictions of doom and end-of-times from some Conservatives. Wonkblog had a look at the consequences so far, and the best description is... nothing to see.

California's recovery is continuing at the same pace as the national average, job growth has slowed down a little compared to 12 months ago though, but in the last month, the state still managed to add half the jobs of the US total.

I guess the only conclusion so far is that it takes the wealthy more than 8 months to liquidate all their assets and move away from California...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-year-its-economy-hasnt-collapsed/
To be continued!


I've got $h*t to do
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2580 times:

So unemployment remains higher than the rest of the nation (and ticking up again) and job growth is slower than before the tax increase and you want to call that success? Okay.

User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2915 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2576 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 1):

So unemployment remains higher than the rest of the nation (and ticking up again) and job growth is slower than before the tax increase and you want to call that success? Okay.

Can you tie that decisively into the tax increase?

I don't think so.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2563 times:

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 2):

So it just stalled then?


User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11122 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 3):
So it just stalled then?

But can you tie it directly to the tax increase?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5247 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Thread starter):
Not yet at least, but it is still an experiment in progress of sorts.
8 months ago, California raised taxes on its highest income residents, attracting predictions of doom and end-of-times from some Conservatives. Wonkblog had a look at the consequences so far, and the best description is... nothing to see.

California's recovery is continuing at the same pace as the national average, job growth has slowed down a little compared to 12 months ago though, but in the last month, the state still managed to add half the jobs of the US total.

I guess the only conclusion so far is that it takes the wealthy more than 8 months to liquidate all their assets and move away from California...

The real thing that happened is that it caught people off guard with it being implemented retroactively. The wealthy that got slammed with it would have planned for it otherwise but they had already done and earned and filed based on earlier laws so the retroactive aspect just hit them hard. Now the wealthy are re-planning for the new environment. And while there is always the call to move out, the interesting thing is that each year more wealthy people move into the state than move out, but they are of course tax-planned for this and do not get "hit" like what just happened. It did piss a whole lot of people off though and I would not be surprised to see a net outflow for a year or two due to that.

I am firmly against the tax increase, I think California has enough resources and revenue and tax inflows to well support itself and its needs but we waste an enormous amount of money.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2484 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 4):
But can you tie it directly to the tax increase?

What's your evidence that it didn't harm the economy or that its moving right along in spite of the increase?

The article provides none. In fact, the article is a bit of a joke. It says... "Look! The California economy didn't tank after a tax increase! Just don't look at the economic indicators that say otherwise, they don't matter!"

The world is dumber because of that article.


User currently onlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5247 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2478 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 6):
What's your evidence that it didn't harm the economy or that its moving right along in spite of the increase?

And the same but opposing question has been asked of you: What evidence do you have to support your position that it is harming the economy? I am fine with you asking your question but can you answer the one posed to you?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2915 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 6):
What's your evidence that it didn't harm the economy or that its moving right along in spite of the increase?

You are the one making the claims, therefore the burden of proof falls upon you.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2850 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...rnia-jobs-20130817,0,5492397.story
Here is a little more balanced article by the Times.

There good news and bad.
It indicates only 25% of the jobs added not 50% still nothing to scoff at.
California added 38K jobs but 36K fell off the unemployment rolls with a net gain of 2K jobs that would be just a little disconcerting.

Okie


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2419 times:

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 8):
You are the one making the claims, therefore the burden of proof falls upon you.

What claim? The factual claim about unemployment and job growth being stagnate since the tax was implemented?

That's right there for you to see.


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4252 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 5):
I think California has enough resources and revenue and tax inflows to well support itself and its needs but we waste an enormous amount of money.

One man's waste is another man's investment. The real problem here is there is a shrinking class of taxpayers (proportionally) to an increasing base of entitlement seekers and other government spending. And that is not sustainable long term without a negative impact. I don't think anyone who was serious about the issue ever said California will fall off into the ocean as a result of the increased taxes. The bigger concern is you can't keep increasing your revenues through tax increases on a certain class of individuals if that tax base class does not grow proportionally.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3696 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2370 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 1):
So unemployment remains higher than the rest of the nation (and ticking up again) and job growth is slower than before the tax increase and you want to call that success?

I don't think there's a claim of success other than to point out the mass exodus promised hasn't happened yet. Unemployment is higher than the rest of the nation, but it has been decreasing at the same rate as the country overall, and the implementation of the higher tax has not, so far, changed that.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 11):
The bigger concern is you can't keep increasing your revenues through tax increases on a certain class of individuals if that tax base class does not grow proportionally.

While it is true, it is equally true that not every increase will have dramatic consequences and lead to an exodus en masse, as some would like us to believe. California seems to show, so far, that there is a bit of room to increase tax rates without adverse consequences overall. Obviously there is a limit, but we haven't reached it yet apparently.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11122 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2308 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 11):
The bigger concern is you can't keep increasing your revenues through tax increases on a certain class of individuals if that tax base class does not grow proportionally.

And to keep giving everything to a few will help? How has that been working so far? All we have heard is "don't tax the job creators" yet the 'job creators' only seem to create part-time, low wage jobs and then get everyone to complain about those who take the part-time low wage jobs as the ones who are the problem.

Your solution seems to be to give even more to those at the top who have done nothing to help. How about we try trickle up economics for 40 years and see how the economy does?

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 6):
What's your evidence that it didn't harm the economy or that its moving right along in spite of the increase?

So, the answer to the question is a question.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2915 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2304 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 10):
The factual claim about unemployment and job growth being stagnate since the tax was implemented?

You are making an obvious implication between the stagnation of job growth and the tax increase.

That's where I'm looking for a justification.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2202 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 12):

Except that unemployed people leaving the state for jobs in another state would cause unemployment in the state they left to decline would it not? The point being, the article makes a claim but then fails at providing evidence while discounting economic indicators as if they don't matter. In other words, the article is a joke.


User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2915 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2168 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 15):
The point being, the article makes a claim but then fails at providing evidence while discounting economic indicators as if they don't matter.

The only claim the article makes is that higher taxes has not caused our economy to go to hell, and it hasn't.

You are trying to connect stagnating growth, something that could be for a multitude of reasons, to the higher tax rate. You're the one not providing any evidence or warrants for the statement.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2668 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (7 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 16):
You're the one not providing any evidence or warrants for the statement.

Feedest ye notte yon trolls. This is pointless. You're not gonna get an answer from him.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 16):

The article didn't prove anything either. That's my point. The article makes a declaration about the California economy. In the process of making said declaration it also says to just ignore the economic indicators. It's absurd. I pointed out the absurdity of it. I don't have to provide you with anything. It's all in the article. Did you even read the article?



Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 17):

Calling someone a troll, while acting like one. Nice.


User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2915 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2096 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 18):
The article makes a declaration about the California economy.

The article only makes a declaration on the fact that the economy didn't collapse due to the tax increase.

You obviously contend otherwise, yet the only thing you use to back that up is that growth has stagnated--this is not something that can be directly linked to the tax increase. That's the only 'economic indicator' that you point out, and it doesn't make sense.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2062 times:

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 19):

Then why waste the bandwidth writing the article in the first place? That's my whole point. It's not that complex.


User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2915 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (7 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2055 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 20):
Then why waste the bandwidth writing the article in the first place? That's my whole point. It's not that complex.

Waste the bandwith? It is a blog--some guy wrote a short article, and it makes a valid point. That's all.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1999 times:

The exodus has been happening gradually. It takes some time for employers to decide whether to move to Arizona, Texas, or some of the other states that are making their pitches.

California trails the economic recovery that the rest of the country is supposedly experiencing. Southern California trails Northern California.

Where I work, they aren't hiring in California, but they do hire elsewhere. The workload for products created in California is being migrated to Texas, without physically moving anyone. Hiring is there, layoffs are here. The brainpower they need in California feeds that migration, but we are no longer in an office. They closed the office and we work from home, which means they save on office rent, and the office leasing market contracts, those who service the offices stay working only if replacement tenants can be found.

This kind of activity happens largely under the radar of those who are tracking the out-migration, but the bleeding continues. In the meantime, the absence of large news-making facility re-locations is taken as tolerance for tax increases.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4252 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 12):
it is equally true that not every increase will have dramatic consequences and lead to an exodus en masse

All increases are incremental. Where it matters is how the overall tax burden ends up comparing to other locations. California could probably sustain a higher tax environment than other states because it has many things that appeal to the average person, in particular its climate and geography and, until the last decade, its economic environment. But there is a tipping point whereby people will look at the positives and decide the negatives outweigh them.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 12):
California seems to show, so far, that there is a bit of room to increase tax rates without adverse consequences overall.

I would say the adverse consequences are still playing out, considering the tax increase went into effect less than a year ago. And so far, notwithstanding the tax increase, California does seem to be lagging the national average in economic recovery.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 13):
All we have heard is "don't tax the job creators" yet the 'job creators' only seem to create part-time, low wage jobs

Do you have statistics to prove this, or is this just a regurgitated political statement? While the number of part-time jobs has increased proportionally, that increase is relatively small. Moreover, it is just as likely a reaction of employers to avoid government mandates that increase their costs.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 13):
Your solution seems to be to give even more to those at the top who have done nothing to help.

Really? Who do you think has created the jobs that have resulted in the unemployment rate going down from ~9% to the current 7.4%? Who do you think created the roughly 150 million jobs that currently exist in the private sector that keep all those millions of people employed? Or do you think someone other than "those at the top" created the jobs?

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 22):
California trails the economic recovery that the rest of the country is supposedly experiencing.

And that is the real story in this dialogue about California's latest tax on the rich.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently onlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11122 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1902 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 23):
Or do you think someone other than "those at the top" created the jobs?

Mom and pop stores did. Local businesses did. Small businesses did.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 23):
Do you have statistics to prove this,
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
shows part time for both economic and non-economic reasons in all industries went up between March and July. Google and Bureau of Labor Statistics are your friends.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineaerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4674 posts, RR: 48
Reply 25, posted (7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1856 times:

As a small business owner in California I have been hit extremely hard by this tax increase. Fortunately, I can pass it along to my customers - who have deep pockets, the US government and various governments around the world. However, I have been looking to move my company to another state since I feel these tax increases and tax levels are getting out of hand. I have not hired more employees nor will I.


"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (7 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1809 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 13):
And to keep giving everything to a few will help? How has that been working so far? All we have heard is "don't tax the job creators" yet the 'job creators' only seem to create part-time, low wage jobs and then get everyone to complain about those who take the part-time low wage jobs as the ones who are the problem.

"Giving" everything to a few? What exactly does that mean, or is it just something that gets thrown into a rhetoric laden conversation?

We know that the 'job creators' are mostly creating part time employment. It shows the lack of confidence that employers have in the economy. Whether it is retailers, child care, or delivery companies they just aren't committing, so they hire people for 3/4 of a job.

What does "get everyone to complain that the ones who take the part-time low wage jobs are the problem"? The politicians who sustain this mess are the problem.

In California, the attitude for many years was that we could just spend a little more money for some noble purpose because it would mean "just a couple lattes" for the citizens. So this repeats itself a few times, and everyone dutifully gives a couple lattes here, and a couple lattes there. After some time, latte consumption shrinks 10%, and it follows that every 10th latte shop closes. The latte shop doesn't pay their employees anymore. The latte shop doesn't pay rent to a landlord any more. The latte shop doesn't pay taxes to the government anymore. The landlord pays less tax to the government now. The employees don't have a paycheck to make a payroll deduction from. Now the government has less revenue. What should they do? The answer is to look for more revenue. The latte shop, the landlord, and the employees can't compel anyone to pay them, but the government can, so up go taxes on the ones who survived this round of contraction.

Brilliant plan, isn't it?



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (7 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1360 times:

This thread reminds me of a cartoon I saw of California Gov. Jerry Brown with an attractive woman on his arms labled "Business". Texas Gov. Rick Perry drives up next to them on the street looking like a jack*** in a huge Cadillac with bull horns on the hood. He toots the horn letting Lady Business know he's available. Well obnoxious of Gov. Perry or not Lady Business is checking him out. Gov. Brown remarks, "Honey can you believe he'd even think you'd be interested . . . Honey?"

California is indeed a large state and our most populous. In many ways since it joined the Union in 1850 it became the American Dream. A century and a half later though it is losing that attraction for better or worse.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"Did The World Just End Without Me?" posted Fri Jul 21 2006 05:35:27 by CanadianNorth
20 Ways The World Could End. posted Tue Jan 20 2004 02:22:53 by MILESAR
Surviving The End Of The World In 2012, In France posted Fri Dec 24 2010 08:15:44 by oly720man
LHC: How Will The World End? posted Fri Aug 7 2009 16:41:05 by DocLightning
Must Be The End Of The World People Are Shopping! posted Mon Dec 22 2008 07:59:51 by Derico
Large Hadron Collider = End Of The World? posted Tue Sep 9 2008 09:45:50 by JFKTOWERFAN
So What's With 2012, The End Of The World? posted Mon Feb 18 2008 17:43:57 by UAL747
The End Of The World Cup? posted Sat Oct 14 2006 05:23:52 by Derico
The World Is Going To End Tommorow At Midnight... posted Wed Jun 14 2006 04:30:57 by Jfkaua
End Of The World? (Skidmarks' Latest Nationality) posted Fri Feb 10 2006 16:07:49 by Thom@s