4 ms·

I think you missed the point, ie: refuting the dire predictions of the anti-tax crowd, none of which came to pass. This will no doubt fail to stop the usual hue

by steveax 12y ago

I think you missed the point, ie: refuting the dire predictions of the anti-tax crowd, none of which came to pass. This will no doubt fail to stop the usual hue and cry in the future, as that particular demographic seems to be evidence proof.

adventured 12y ago
Doesn't have anything to do with being in the midst of a temporary, extreme asset bubble for both stocks and real estate courtesy of trillions in Fed stimulus, does it? Let's look at how California did in the late 1990s and the lead up to 2008, and how it performed when those fake asset bubbles exploded. Then let's add in some computation for the downside risk to the current situation. The job numbers are the best case scenario, and only exist due to the largest stimulus program in world history. Someone should be asking: what happens when that doesn't exist?
cynicalkane 12y ago
I understand there's a tiny fringe of vocal people who are constantly predicting doom, for various reasons, but I don't understand how you can characterize these people being wrong as victory for your opinion, nor why this is, to quote the HN guidelines, "of interest to hackers". I think even the median Tea Partier, if you put the irons to his feet, would admit that tax increases cannot by themselves blast away several percent worth of economic growth. There is certainly some small minority of people who think otherwise, out of whom the author of this article would happily build a large straw man.
- beedogs 12y ago
  The median Tea Partier would have absolutely no idea how to follow an economic conversation. EDIT: Come on, guys, you know it's true.
bjt 12y ago
The evidence given by the article (job growth numbers) is insufficient to prove whether the tax hike killed jobs or not. It's quite possible that the effect is negative, as claimed by taxpayers associations, but that it's small, so the larger positive effect of the current tech boom dominates the total. A good economist would try to hold more things constant to tease out whether the effect exists. Maybe break down the job growth numbers by area of the state (not all areas are in a tech boom, but all would face the same state tax policy). Or break it down by industry (have non-tech companies lost jobs?). Or break it down by size of company (since the opponents claimed that small businesses would be particularly hard hit).
- jeffdavis 12y ago
  Also it might be interesting to compare different time periods to see long-term effects. Regardless, the conclusion of such a study would certainly be more complex than "taxes {good|bad}".
- bsder 12y ago
  > The evidence given by the article (job growth numbers) is insufficient to prove whether the tax hike killed jobs or not. It's quite possible that the effect is negative, as claimed by taxpayers associations, but that it's small, so the larger positive effect of the current tech boom dominates the total. Um, no, science doesn't work that way. Anti-tax folks made predictions. Those predictions did not come to pass. That's a negative result. The anti-tax predictions have been falsified with some level of confidence. It is NOT required for pro-tax position to be proven true in order for the anti-tax position to be proven false. Let's be clear. The anti-tax people did not make a prediction of "might be too small to measure"; they made a prediction of doomsday which has proven to be false. And, if your position is, this is sufficiently small that it got swamped, then your anti-tax hypothesis is STILL false. Consequently, raising taxes is useful because A) the downsides appear quite limited (too small to measure) and B) the upsides are quite significant.
  - testrun 12y ago
    I think it is to early to call. It passed in 2012, it is now 2014. We will see. The business wheel turns slowly and cost increases like this have an effect on business decisions in the long run.
  - nemothekid 12y ago
    >Um, no, science doesn't work that way. I'm hard pressed to believe you can apply any sort of "science" to macroeconomics - its way to hard too isolate a single variable.
  - vehementi 12y ago
    > Consequently, raising taxes is useful because A) the downsides appear quite limited (too small to measure) Well let's be clear about that - one piece of evidence shows a lack of doomsday. Next trial could show something big that appears for different reasons (different set of circumstances etc.) I agree with you in any case - but let's be accurate in our claims!

by steveax 12y ago

adventured 12y ago

Doesn't have anything to do with being in the midst of a temporary, extreme asset bubble for both stocks and real estate courtesy of trillions in Fed stimulus, does it? Let's look at how California did in the late 1990s and the lead up to 2008, and how it performed when those fake asset bubbles exploded. Then let's add in some computation for the downside risk to the current situation. The job numbers are the best case scenario, and only exist due to the largest stimulus program in world history. Someone should be asking: what happens when that doesn't exist?

cynicalkane 12y ago

I understand there's a tiny fringe of vocal people who are constantly predicting doom, for various reasons, but I don't understand how you can characterize these people being wrong as victory for your opinion, nor why this is, to quote the HN guidelines, "of interest to hackers". I think even the median Tea Partier, if you put the irons to his feet, would admit that tax increases cannot by themselves blast away several percent worth of economic growth. There is certainly some small minority of people who think otherwise, out of whom the author of this article would happily build a large straw man.

beedogs 12y ago
The median Tea Partier would have absolutely no idea how to follow an economic conversation. EDIT: Come on, guys, you know it's true.

bjt 12y ago

The evidence given by the article (job growth numbers) is insufficient to prove whether the tax hike killed jobs or not. It's quite possible that the effect is negative, as claimed by taxpayers associations, but that it's small, so the larger positive effect of the current tech boom dominates the total. A good economist would try to hold more things constant to tease out whether the effect exists. Maybe break down the job growth numbers by area of the state (not all areas are in a tech boom, but all would face the same state tax policy). Or break it down by industry (have non-tech companies lost jobs?). Or break it down by size of company (since the opponents claimed that small businesses would be particularly hard hit).

jeffdavis 12y ago
Also it might be interesting to compare different time periods to see long-term effects. Regardless, the conclusion of such a study would certainly be more complex than "taxes {good|bad}".
bsder 12y ago
> The evidence given by the article (job growth numbers) is insufficient to prove whether the tax hike killed jobs or not. It's quite possible that the effect is negative, as claimed by taxpayers associations, but that it's small, so the larger positive effect of the current tech boom dominates the total. Um, no, science doesn't work that way. Anti-tax folks made predictions. Those predictions did not come to pass. That's a negative result. The anti-tax predictions have been falsified with some level of confidence. It is NOT required for pro-tax position to be proven true in order for the anti-tax position to be proven false. Let's be clear. The anti-tax people did not make a prediction of "might be too small to measure"; they made a prediction of doomsday which has proven to be false. And, if your position is, this is sufficiently small that it got swamped, then your anti-tax hypothesis is STILL false. Consequently, raising taxes is useful because A) the downsides appear quite limited (too small to measure) and B) the upsides are quite significant.
- testrun 12y ago
  I think it is to early to call. It passed in 2012, it is now 2014. We will see. The business wheel turns slowly and cost increases like this have an effect on business decisions in the long run.
- nemothekid 12y ago
  >Um, no, science doesn't work that way. I'm hard pressed to believe you can apply any sort of "science" to macroeconomics - its way to hard too isolate a single variable.
- vehementi 12y ago
  > Consequently, raising taxes is useful because A) the downsides appear quite limited (too small to measure) Well let's be clear about that - one piece of evidence shows a lack of doomsday. Next trial could show something big that appears for different reasons (different set of circumstances etc.) I agree with you in any case - but let's be accurate in our claims!