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.
Your numbers are completely invalid. You are including State and local revenue along with federal revenue. (besides have two 1997 figures)
If you are going to bring up the housing bubble, then clearly state and local revenues should be included right? Especially since property taxes are paid at a local level, not federal.
You didnt at all trample my statements, in fact you validated them because I said the 1.4% in the story was wrong, you pretty much called me stupid, while then saying the figure was 8%..
Well, in your defense, I don't think teaching difference between annualized growth, or adjusted for inflation etc are a part of sixth grade math curriculum.
Quote:
BS. I started responding to this thread by saying the 1.4% in the story was WRONG
And you did nothing more than make a statement and excuses.
Well, in your defense, I don't think teaching difference between annualized growth, or adjusted for inflation etc are a part of sixth grade math curriculum.
And you did nothing more than make a statement and excuses.
So now your rationality in defending the 1.4% was correct, to then going on to say it was 8%, is an adjustment for inflation excuse? Why dont you stop, because in either scenario you still dont get 1.4% that you defending earlier as true.. You just continue to make things up.
So now your rationality in defending the 1.4% was correct, to then going on to say it was 8%, is an adjustment for inflation excuse? Why dont you stop, because in either scenario you still dont get 1.4% that you defending earlier as true.. You just continue to make things up.
I feel obligated not to stop because of the sheer ignorance and stupidity in your arguments. And I won't be, until you either learn what those numbers are or develop the ability to debate in more than regurgitated sentences.
Your numbers are completely invalid. You are including State and local revenue along with federal revenue. (besides have two 1997 figures)
Example from your source: 2000:
Federal Direct Revenue...$2.0 trillion
State Direct Revenue.....$1.0 trillion
Local Direct Reveue.......$0.7 trillion Total Revenue..........$3.7 trillion
This is the chart, from your source, of federal revenue for the same periods:
Year Total Direct Revenue-fed $ trillion
1997...1.58
1998...1.72
1999...1.83
2000...2.03
2001...1.99
2002...1.85
2003...1.78
2004...1.88
2005...2.15
2006...2.41
2007...2.57
2008...2.52
2009...2.10
2010...2.16
2011...2.30
One 1997 was obviously a typo.Even your figures show that federal tax revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts went into effect, and so did total revenue.
I included total revenue, not just federal income tax, because the Bush tax cuts were good for the entire country, our tax policies effect everyone not just the feds.
If you are going to bring up the housing bubble, then clearly state and local revenues should be included right? Especially since property taxes are paid at a local level, not federal.
If you are trying to claim that the Bush tax-cuts increased federal revenue you don't include State and Local tax revenue. That makes it falsely appear that flip taxes in NY are increasing federal revenue, which they did not, and letting the Bush tax-cuts take credit for tax increases at the state level.
One 1997 was obviously a typo.Even your figures show that federal tax revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts went into effect, and so did total revenue.
Those numbers are smaller than the number in 2000 ($2.31). How are they an increase?
Quote:
I included total revenue, not just federal income tax, because the Bush tax cuts were good for the entire country, our tax policies effect everyone not just the feds.
But do you use total revenue to compute federal deficits? I haven't seen that.
I feel obligated not to stop because of the sheer ignorance and stupidity in your arguments. And I won't be, until you either learn what those numbers are or develop the ability to debate in more than regurgitated sentences.
Thanks for stopping because it'll save us all from listing to you justify your inability to do math. Under no circumstances does going from $3T in spending to $3.8T in 3 1/2 years result in 1.4% increase.
You can sit here and target me by saying I'm stupid, or that I cant understand the numbers, but those are the numbers and you, yourself said earlier the figure was 8%.. now your back to I'm stupid...
If you are trying to claim that the Bush tax-cuts increased federal revenue you don't include State and Local tax revenue. That makes it falsely appear that flip taxes in NY are increasing federal revenue, which they did not, and letting the Bush tax-cuts take credit for tax increases at the state level.
That really should be obvious.
Please share with me what federal tax revenues climbed as a result to the housing bubble if you are going to now pretend thats responsible for the revenue increase, coincidently at the same time the tax cuts were put into place.
Furthermore, again, dont you think if you are going to credit the increase in revenues to the housing bubble, then wouldnt the decrease be attributed to the tech bubble? Or does one not count but the other one does, simply because only 1 of them supports your "bush bad" attitude?
You can sit here and target me by saying I'm stupid, or that I cant understand the numbers, but those are the numbers and you, yourself said earlier the figure was 8%.. now your back to I'm stupid...
Thanks for stopping because it'll save us all from listing to you justify your inability to do math. Under no circumstances does going from $3T in spending to $3.8T in 3 1/2 years result in 1.4% increase.
There you go again. But, for starters, how about you calculate annualized rate of growth over four years with your numbers? I'm assuming you will adjust for inflation as well? Let me see what you come up with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Please share with me what federal tax revenues climbed as a result to the housing bubble if you are going to now pretend that saved the economy, coincidently at the same time the tax cuts were put into place.
You do realize that the federal tax revenue in 2000 has been matched only twice in the entire decade, don't you? And that, while ignoring population growth and the size of economy. It also helped that this bubble FINALLY created decent number of private sector jobs in 2005 and 2006 in otherwise a disaster of a decade.
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.
