3 ms·

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

by 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 bjt 12y ago

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!