Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have to recoup the loss of middle class income and consumption tax somewhere, and it makes sense that it would come from the wealthy, and the cuts to the military, not Medicare.
My graph shows that revenues as a percent of GDP have been relatively stable since in modern times.
The difference is your graph only looks at federal tax revenue, the graph I showed looks at all tax revenue. The graph below show them broken down by federal, state & local.
In looking at the impact of the size of government and the tax load on the economy I think it's more important to look at total taxes. I also think the growth in total government spending reflects duplication at the federal level of functions that are already being performed at the state and/or local level (e.g. education).
Either way, the original comment that tax revenues as a percent of GDP are at their lowest level in history is totally false.
1. Tax revenues as a % of GDP is the lowest on record so no, 2.2T isnt enough
2. We can't be a imperial power and have low taxes. We need to get out of the middle east.
3. We need to tax the rich because they are the ones with the money
If imperialism is what's killing us then that would be true.
National Defense will take up $738 Billion for 2011.
Medicare, SS, Income Security, Health and Veterans Benefits are $2.306 trillion dollars.
We can't pay off our debt unless we want a contraction in currency. (our currency only exists because of our debt)
Also, we could tax every person making over $1 million a year at 100% from dollar one and it would not even cut half of the deficit, we are very far from starting to pay down debt.
The difference is your graph only looks at federal tax revenue, the graph I showed looks at all tax revenue. The graph below show them broken down by federal, state & local.
...
Either way, the original comment that tax revenues as a percent of GDP are at their lowest level in history is totally false.
So your argument is that you agree that federal taxes, as a percent of GDP, has been stable in modern time but it's state and local taxes that have risen.
Well, let's look at that. What did much of the country look like in the 1940s? Most was sparsely populated and mostly rural. Many farm areas didn't even have electricity or paved roads.
Do you think that maybe there is a good reason that state and local taxes rose -- and for good reason?
So your argument is that you agree that federal taxes, as a percent of GDP, has been stable in modern time but it's state and local taxes that have risen.
Well, let's look at that. What did much of the country look like in the 1940s? Most was sparsely populated and mostly rural. Many farm areas didn't even have electricity or paved roads.
Do you think that maybe there is a good reason that state and local taxes rose -- and for good reason?
There should have been a spike in taxes as those areas were developed but now we have created a massive local government infrastructure. Millions of middle level bureaucrats draw billions for doing nothing.
Don't think that Bell CA was an anomaly, it goes on everywhere. IN Newport Beach Life Guard are Making $100k while supervisor's are making $200k.
There is massive bloat in local government, most of the costs you described were paid for via bonds, not permanent employees.
1. Tax revenues as a % of GDP is the lowest on record so no, 2.2T isnt enough
2. We can't be a imperial power and have low taxes. We need to get out of the middle east.
3. We need to tax the rich because they are the ones with the money
Regarding #1: This statement only makes sense if increasing gov spending is a goal!
We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
Originally posted by hilgi
We can't pay off our debt unless we want a contraction in currency. (our currency only exists because of our debt)
Also, we could tax every person making over $1 million a year at 100% from dollar one and it would not even cut half of the deficit, we are very far from starting to pay down debt.
It depends if your goal is to efficiently and fairly raise revenue to fund the government or to punish those who make more money than the rest of us?
If it is punishment no matter the consequences than have at it, you will see how inefficient using a shot gun approach to tax policy is.
I prefer designing a system to tax privilege, not just arbitrary income or wealth levels.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
