Nahh Cyrano….everyone you’re chatting with…they’re all Tardsly…err I mean Ted! If you just address him and not his finger puppets these conversations go so much smoother!

1. Ceteris paribus

2. Correlation does not imply causation

3. “The Laffer Curve is everywhere misundestood (sic) (even I think by Art Laffer himself).”
Devin Finbarr

Actually, JFK said it in 1962, and the JFK-LBJ tax cuts of 1964 spurred the economy and raised tax revenues.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmHdqWPB_S8

You wrote: “Tax-increase critics, including yours truly, never said the Prop. 30 tax increase would prevent growth, only that during a recovery jobs growth would be less than it otherwise might be; and during a recession, jobs losses would be greater than under lower taxes.”

Not true. My Bee piece quotes the official ballot statement of Prop 30 opponents: ““It hurts small business and kills jobs.”
See the difference?

I compared the official “kills jobs” claim to the actual results, while you fabricated. Had jobs declined I would have reported that. I also reported that the reasons California enjoyed jobs growth in 2013 more than 50% better than the national average are complex, giving historical context. You neglected to take note of that.

You also make an assertion that I did not. Read your first two sentences, which distort what I wrote. Since you suggest that you know rhetoric, can you see the huge difference?

My Bee piece made clear that economic theory and actual evidence shows that income taxes increases on high earners do not affect decisions on hiring, yet you ignore this. Some types of tax increases would put a damper in hiring, as my Bee piece notes, but you fail to tell your readers that.

You cite Silicon Valley as unique. Don’t tell that to other high tech centers. But what of the fact, contained in the graphic with my piece, that all nine Central Valley counties that are among the top 10% nationally in the size of their job markets enjoyed above-average growth?

Comparing political claims to actual results is a cornerstone of journalism, though seldom practiced in this era of glitzmongering and covering what politicians say instead of what they do. Since I was a teenager reporting for two weeklies in Santa Cruz County in 1967 I have been looking out for the interests of taxpayers. Just two of my investigations — as officially measured by Congress’s tax experts — resulted in stopping more than a quarter trillion in tax dodges. Note that T – more than $250 billion.

The tax system does not operate at all as most politicians and voters – and you – understand. Its actual workings are detailed in my bestselling and award-winning trilogy: PERFECTLY LEGAL, FREE LUNCH and THE FINE PRINT. For example, many big corporations turn a profit on their taxes, a story I broke 12 years ago that was later confirmed by a Congressional investigation that produced a four-volume, 1,800-page study. I have written numerous pieces explaining this, which stems from a 1986 change to Section 531.

My Bee piece also addressed the crucial role taxes play in creating the commonwealth goods and services that form the foundation on which private wealth creation (and our liberties) rely. The Framers understood this. They created our Constitution specifically so government would have the power to tax and to regulate commerce, neither of which existed during the failed first American Republic.

You also ignore the value of commonwealth amenities paid for with taxes. My Bee Op-Ed showed why star scientists who leave California prefer Washington State to Texas, both states that do not tax individual income. Where else are star scientists attracted? New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts, high tax states all.

You express amazement at one line of my piece, revealing your certitude about well-studied issues you clearly do not understand. Worse, you do not even honestly cite what I wrote and come up with a silly analogy that ignores the differences in income versus gift and estate taxes. If you researched before you wrote you would not be amazed, but you would be informed.

The men who founded this wonderful country believed in policies based on facts and reason. You start off misstating what I wrote, go on to rewrite history and to ignore inconvenient facts, all to justify your pre-conceived viewpoint, a simplistic one that fails to distinguish among different types of taxes. Neither economic theory or empirical evidence support you. And you compound this by not fairly describe what I wrote, but instead criticize my piece using stuff you just made up.

Backpedaling?

Old Republican wives tale:

“If you reduce the tax *rate*, tax *revenue* will increase…..it happens every time.”

So sayeth Limbaugh, Hannity,…….and Seiler.

It never was true.

And saying a tax increase is *actually* a decrease sounds like 1984 doublespeak.

Thanks for quoting me. First, the state still has a “wall of debt,” as Gov. Brown acknowledges, of at least $340 billion.

Second, today I do have a different perspective because 18 months have passed. Brown has turned out to be more reasonable on the budget than he seemed to be back in Jan. 2013, and much better than Schwarzenegger.

Third, I will conceded that I was wrong on revenues going down. I didn’t see that taxes actually were going down in relation to the Schwarzenegger tax increases, something I realized only last week, which is a pro-business action.

“Vicious criticism” is a response to illogical posts. The increased sales tax costs the average California family about $100 a year.

$150 month spending reduction would be a gross overreaction.

” Tax-increase critics, including yours truly, never said the Prop. 30 tax increase would prevent growth, only that during a recovery jobs growth would be less than it otherwise might be; and during a recession, jobs losses would be greater than under lower taxes.”
………………….
John Seiler, Jan. 3, 2013

“Within the next few months we’ll see how hard the tax increases have sapped the economy. If history is any guide, it’s going to be bad. The reduced economic activity could end up reducing revenues to all levels of government, ironically making the fiscal and debt crises worse.

California Political Review
………………….

I never said it would “prevent growth”, I only said it would REDUCE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY!!!

” See the difference?”