Was it the TAX HIKES???

[newtothegame]

Policy Chart: Illinois Loses Most Jobs in the Nation

In a trend that continues to worsen, more Illinoisans found themselves unemployed in the month of July.

Illinois lost more jobs during the month of July than any other state in the nation, according to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report. After losing 7,200 jobs in June, Illinois lost an additional 24,900 non-farm payroll jobs in July. The report also said Illinois’s unemployment rate climbed to 9.5 percent. This marks the third consecutive month of increases in the unemployment rate.

Illinois started to create jobs as the national economy began to recover. But just when Illinois’s economy seemed to be turning around, lawmakers passed record tax increases in January of this year. Since then, Illinois’s employment numbers have done nothing but decline.


Data released today by the bureau confirms this downward trajectory. When it comes to putting people back to work, Illinois is going backwards. Since January, Illinois has dropped 89,000 people from its employment rolls.
http://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4362



/uploads/media/unemployment_screenshot.jpg (http:///uploads/media/unemployment_screenshot.jpg)

[Tom]

Must be the taxes were not high enough.
Better double them and get those jobs back.

[cj's dad]

Maybe the high unemployment rate is contributing to this:

http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/

[ArlJim78]

and they're not done yet. a property tax increase for Chicago has Rahm's blessing (because we must invest in education:lol: ) and a big toll increase is in the works. the Illinois model is the incubator for the progressive ideal. in other words an economic basket case.

[JustRalph]

There has to be a breaking point when comes to taxes. It has been reached in several states.........NY Ca and now Ill

I am looking at State Tax Free states only for my next move. Not sure when. But they are at the top of my list

[Striker]

After the company that was located in Blue Island, IL(forget the company name) just announced it was moving to Indiana and taking over 200 jobs there yesterday, our amazing Gov Quinn says that the state is doing well right now and is right where he wants it to be. WTF are you talking about?

[mostpost]

Job losses are being caused by the Recession not by tax rates
There are nine states with no state income tax.
Three of them have higher unemployment rates than Illinois.
Nationwide there are twenty two states with higher tax rates than Illinois which have lower unemployment rates. By contrast five states with higher rates also have higher unemployment than Illinois.

[boxcar]

Job losses are being caused by the Recession not by tax rates

Really? So you agree, then, that raising taxes won't do any positive good for the employment situation, correct? You don't seem to be on the same page as your messiah. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Really? So you agree, then, that raising taxes won't do any positive good for the employment situation, correct? You don't seem to be on the same page as your messiah. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Tax hikes are needed as part of the program to reduce the national debt. Raising taxes will not have a negative effect on the employment situation (See Clinton years). Targeted stimulus spending will have a positive effect.

[newtothegame]

Tax hikes are needed as part of the program to reduce the national debt. Raising taxes will not have a negative effect on the employment situation (See Clinton years). Targeted stimulus spending will have a positive effect.

So, could you please point to the article...and the graph (which by the way shows the time th tax hikes were put in place, and you see the affect. Show me otherwise!

[bigmack]

Tax hikes are needed as part of the program to reduce the national debt.
Start by taxing those that currently contribute nothing. Rev-up a nice VAT and start getting some of that underground/off-the-books loot.

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=mostpost]Raising taxes will not have a negative effect on the employment situation (See Clinton years).

But would it have a positive effect? If you say it would, then you contradicted what you said earlier because taxes would have an impact on employment.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Start by taxing those that currently contribute nothing. Rev-up a nice VAT and start getting some of that underground/off-the-books loot.
Typical rethug talking point.

NYT...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html


....Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation

....Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

[bigmack]

Typical rethug talking point.
What a perfect article for you. It takes the simple aspect of Federal taxes and goes way beyond talking about other taxes. Just like all your idiotic modeling graphs. Mumbo-jumbo.

The article points out 47 percent is not wrong and that CBO data "suggests." You live for data that goes your way that suggests. :lol:

[hcap]

Read the rest. If that is not too hard for you to do before you do your Snidely Whiplash bit

[Saratoga_Mike]

Typical rethug talking point.

NYT...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html


....Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation

....Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.

This analysis includes payroll taxes. If you look at just federal income taxes, the number is closer to the often-cited 45% to 50% stat.

[Robert Goren]

Start by taxing those that currently contribute nothing. Rev-up a nice VAT and start getting some of that underground/off-the-books loot.You mean like horse race bettors? ;)

[hcap]

This analysis includes payroll taxes. If you look at just federal income taxes, the number is closer to the often-cited 45% to 50% stat.
Ok here is another analysis explaining WHY this is the case.And the change is slight from prior administrations.

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/07/27/why-do-people-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2/
The large percentage of people not paying income tax is often blamed on tax breaks that zero out many households’ income tax bills and can even result in net payments from the government. While that’s the case for many households, a new TPC paper shows that about half of people who don’t owe income tax are off the rolls not because they take advantage of tax breaks but rather because they have low incomes.


Here is the PDF of the original paper

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf



I dis post on this subject earlier

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1135401#post1135401


" This is something conservatives repeat routinely, somehow forgetting repeatedly to explain that what they really mean is that half of Americans pay no federal income tax but do pay plenty of other taxes. When you call them out on this wee mistake they tend to get offended — though somehow, never quite offended enough to stop saying it.

But put that aside. Even stated accurately, you might be wondering how it is that so many people end up not paying any federal income tax. Today the Tax Policy Center has the answer for you. In 2011 they estimate that 46% of Americans will pay no federal income tax. Donald Marron breaks this down:

* 23% pay nothing because they're poor. A couple making less than $19,000, for example, doesn't owe anything after their $11,600 standard deduction and two exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero. As Bob Williamson puts it, "The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax."

* 10% are elderly and pay nothing because their Social Security benefits are exempt from federal income taxes.

* 7% pay nothing thanks to provisions in the tax code designed to benefit low-income families: the earned income tax credit, the child credit, and the childcare credit account.

And the other 6%? Their taxes are zero for a variety of reasons: above-the-line deductions and tax-exempt interest; itemized deductions; education credits; other credits; and reduced rates on capital gains and dividends. TPC's report has all the gruesome details.

But for the vast bulk of nonpayers, the explanation is simple: the federal tax code is designed not to tax either poor families or working class families with children, and there are more of these in American than you'd think. One way or another, it turns out, this accounts for about 40% of the country."

--------------------------------------