IL bucked the trend and raised taxes significantly to address their budget woes and the result? Jobs are leaving the state and consequently that can't be good for revenues!
http://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/arti … ource=4362
Now compare that to WI where Walker cut taxes and reigned in spending in Feb and in July half of the new jobs created nationwide were in, you guessed it, WI!
http://maciverinstitute.com/2011/07/wis … -for-june/
Why can't libs just comprehend the facts? Socialism=FAIL
It's not half of the new jobs created nationwide, it's half of the net jobs created nationwide, which is a pretty key difference. And basically meaningless. Texas (+32,000), California (+28,800), Michigan (+18,000), Minnesota (+13,200), and Massachusetts (+10,300) all added more jobs than Wisconsin (+9,500), and if you do the math the same way the WI Dept. of Workforce Development did, Texas, California, and Michigan were responsible for roughly 170%, 160%, and 100% of the nation's job growth in that month respectively.
Hi LadyLove. Thanks for posting these links. Unfortunately, they do nothing to prove your claim “Tax Increases Cost Jobs & Hurts The Economy.”
We live in a pluralistic republic that draws its strength from assimilating conflicting national objectives. But I cringe when combating ideologies use rancor or arguments that abuse facts, common sense, and logic.
Have you noticed how often people claim to know what’s best for the country and then say something that proves they wouldn’t qualify for local dog warden? I bet you have. It happens too often. Most of the time, they offer illogical statements or flawed conclusions to mislead themselves and their readers into believing something is a fact when it may actually be untrue.
Take for example the fallacious reasoning that declares jobs declined following an increase in taxes therefore, taxes cause the loss of jobs. The flaw in this type of thinking is called “post hoc” and it mistakenly assumes that if two events occur in a sequence then the second had to be caused by the first.
You can learn about weak and false logic at http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html. It offers this definition of “post hoc” fallacies:
Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later. For example, if I register for a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it's true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time aren't really related as cause and effect. That is, correlation isn't the same thing as causation.
A reasonable and logical observer knows that the increase in taxes might or might not be one of many possible factors that explain the loss of jobs, but your post doesn’t show us that one is really the only cause for the other. Where is your explanation of the process by which the tax increase is revealed to be the only possible reason for fewer jobs?
The second link in your post is equally useless as a proof. After two faulty arguments, you accuse others of not comprehending the facts and then make a totally indefensible statement “Socialism=FAIL”. Is it possible that you are unaware of the socialist leaning economies thriving in the free world today?
My thanks again, Lady, for the informative links. I respect your viewpoints and I look forward to reading more of your original opinions supported by factual data.
Of course from the standpoint of logic you can saying that my statement is a fallacy. For my statement to be true would require more facts at your disposal. For example a history of instances showing a corelation between taxes and economic activity and there are numerous examples of this through out history. Indeed job loss might not be directly the effect of a tax increase. The tax increase might have caused people to move to nearby areas to escape a higher tax burden, say WI for example, and.that would have lowered demand for goods possibly leading to layoffs and closed business.
I think we can both agree with the following, if one makes a fixed amount of income, and after paying a fixed amount of expenses has some amount of disposal income, and suddenly their fixed expenses increases, all other things being equal they will have less disposal income.
That is not a fallacy is it Q?
I can walk you through the other logic that would lead to my conclusion and show you other correlations and probably write a book about it and compare socialism to capitalism in tbe process but it would be impractical to be a post in a forum.
Thanks for your kind response and your gental reminder of the use of proper logic to reach valid conclusions.
Hmmmph...I would ventursd to guess the jobs left IL because they didn't want to be responsible, and jobs went to WI because Walker gutted collective bargaining rights.
Race to the bottom,....if they want to be bottom feeders, let them go to Dubai!
by Quilligrapher3 years ago
From a CNN report GOP divide over Obama tax plan goes public, November 28, 2012:"A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also showed that a solid majority of respondents -- two thirds -- supports the...
by safiq ali patel3 years ago
From January 1st 2013 Taxes in the United States of America go upwards. People in the United States of America will pay higher taxes from this day. What is your opinion of these Tax Rises?
by JeniferD6 years ago
I read in the news today that "Obamanomics" is working, according to some marketing firm. I don't see a clue where I live. How about the rest of my fellow hubbers?
by Onusonus3 years ago
I know I'm making 80 less dollars a month this year, how about you?
by lady_love1585 years ago
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … on_LEADTopFor all of his fans that insist he's as pure as driven snow... WSJ documents one of his lies. Yeah sure he didn't raise taxes!
by AnnCee5 years ago
Get real Mr. President. I'll hold my breath!
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.