Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-11-2011, 10:57 PM
 
6,371 posts, read 11,822,634 times
Reputation: 6802

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
the bush tax cuts were good except for the fact that they resulted in increased revenue to the federal government. taxes need to be cut and revenue to the federal government needs to go down.
2001 tax revenues as a % of GDP: 19.5%
2010 tax revenues as a % of GDP: 14.9%

GDP in 2010 was $14.5 trillion. So if we had 4.6% higher tax revenues that amounts to $670 billion more in revenues. The deficit was $1.147 trillion. So the deficit would have been around $477 billion, or 3.3% of GDP.

I'm sorry but only an irrational person would say that spending alone is the problem or that further tax cuts would solve anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2011, 07:52 AM
 
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 40,529,027 times
Reputation: 24590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willy702 View Post
2001 tax revenues as a % of GDP: 19.5%
2010 tax revenues as a % of GDP: 14.9%

GDP in 2010 was $14.5 trillion. So if we had 4.6% higher tax revenues that amounts to $670 billion more in revenues. The deficit was $1.147 trillion. So the deficit would have been around $477 billion, or 3.3% of GDP.

I'm sorry but only an irrational person would say that spending alone is the problem or that further tax cuts would solve anything.
spending alone is the problem with regards to the federal government. every state has its own bloated governmnet, we dont need a huge almighty federal government on top of the state governments. i have no desire to see that % you quoted go up one bit, not to mention that i believe your GDP figure includes government spending, so by spending a ton they have impacted that %.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2011, 08:09 AM
 
48,505 posts, read 96,589,733 times
Reputation: 18303
Even Obama has said the spending is unsustainable. But it seems he want the same old plan;Tax and spend. he proposes tax increases and now more stimulus pending.He no long as the majority to pass what he did and now he calls for tax increases have recently sign a extention on Bush tax cuts;then says he will not accept any extension on debt ;now that he has payed the SSo card.He seems determined to default knowing that republican will not raise taxes. he seems to have alrady preempted McConnell plan b with none of his own.After going thru raisng taxes by Bush tax cut debate they seem to want to push to the edge.Obama is not showing the ability to lead at all ;so we may see hwta his plan is if any when the ceiling is not raised;if he has one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2011, 11:15 AM
 
4,074 posts, read 4,113,853 times
Reputation: 2031
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
I'm all about trimming the fat and re-evaluating, but I just doubt you can trim that much.

I think everyone is conveniently forgetting that there was this little housing bubble that popped in 2008 that has caused so much unemployment, decline in housing values, etc. that impacts TAX REVENUE. The correlation between the housing bubble and falling tax revenues and budgetary issues is nearly 100%. Tax REV is the key driver here. You can cut spending but I think the root of the issue is less revenue is being collected during the nation's worst economic recession since the Great Depression. It's not rocket science to me.
There is nothing wrong with tax revenue for being down if the federal government act like a private sector. That mean, when profit fall, you fine way to reduce expensive. Even if it mean downsizing the work force. However, government did none of them. In the matter of face, when there is a crisis, government always expand.

Look at how much money have had spent after Obama took office. He extended the far, took us to a new war. If we just stop all these wars, we would have save closed to a trillion.

SSN/Medicare can probably be funded again.

I hope Ron Paul so we can opt out of the system for those who choice too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2011, 02:07 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,546 posts, read 21,350,868 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bily Lovec View Post
not to nit-pic

They are no longer the Bush Tax cuts, they now belong to Obama, please refer to them in that manner.
Thanks
sad but true. i wonder if conservatives would let liberals get away with calling them the "Obama Tax Cuts". hehehe
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 12:41 AM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,871,134 times
Reputation: 4459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willy702 View Post
2001 tax revenues as a % of GDP: 19.5%
2010 tax revenues as a % of GDP: 14.9%

GDP in 2010 was $14.5 trillion. So if we had 4.6% higher tax revenues that amounts to $670 billion more in revenues. The deficit was $1.147 trillion. So the deficit would have been around $477 billion, or 3.3% of GDP.

I'm sorry but only an irrational person would say that spending alone is the problem or that further tax cuts would solve anything.
federal revenue collected continues to increase:

Federal Revenues Have More Than Tripled Since 1965

and yet we are further in debt than at any time in history.

we are taking in 2.1 trillion dollars but, unfortunately, are spending 3.77 trillion.

who would have thought that 2.1 trillion dollars wouldn't be enough money for a budget? i hope everyone realizes that with debt saturation we aren't going to be making up that shortfall anytime soon and things ARE going to change, like it or not.

Last edited by floridasandy; 07-14-2011 at 12:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 10:29 AM
 
3,327 posts, read 4,341,060 times
Reputation: 2892
We don't need to raise taxes.
We need to close loopholes and actually enforce the rates.

Per the MO, the powers that be have completely diverted the public view on this. Making this about "raising rates" and not about the out of control tax evasion pervasive amongst the wealthy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 10:37 AM
 
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 40,529,027 times
Reputation: 24590
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawaweewa View Post
We don't need to raise taxes.
We need to close loopholes and actually enforce the rates.

Per the MO, the powers that be have completely diverted the public view on this. Making this about "raising rates" and not about the out of control tax evasion pervasive amongst the wealthy.
i dont like the terminology "closing loopholes" with regards to this current negotiation. its bs games the democrats are trying to play. pretty much all republicans want to simplify the tax code. but talking about corporate jet and oil subsidies is just playing class warfare games. you want to end the mortgage interest tax deduction also? thats a loophole and a lot bigger than the corporate jet deduction and oil subsidies. so dont tie the two issues together and when we have moved past this issue lets see how willing the democrats really are to talk about tax reform.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 10:41 AM
 
3,327 posts, read 4,341,060 times
Reputation: 2892
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
i dont like the terminology "closing loopholes" with regards to this current negotiation. its bs games the democrats are trying to play. pretty much all republicans want to simplify the tax code. but talking about corporate jet and oil subsidies is just playing class warfare games. you want to end the mortgage interest tax deduction also? thats a loophole and a lot bigger than the corporate jet deduction and oil subsidies. so dont tie the two issues together and when we have moved past this issue lets see how willing the democrats really are to talk about tax reform.
I don't care about democrat this or republican that.

There are loopholes much larger and more pervasive than the jet subsidy.
You're buying into the political arguments.

The fact is that the wealthy do not pay anywhere near their rates. Why? Tax evasion. Whether it be legal or illegal. That's a fact. Go talk to any tax lawyer about the situation.

The wealthy don't want a simpler tax system. That's just smoke and mirrors. They know it'll never be implemented (at least not in their lifetime). They love the current system precisely because it's so exploitable. The 100k that they spend on tax lawyers a year is well worth the complicated system that allows them low effective rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 10:42 AM
 
536 posts, read 1,425,924 times
Reputation: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willy702 View Post
2001 tax revenues as a % of GDP: 19.5%
2010 tax revenues as a % of GDP: 14.9%

GDP in 2010 was $14.5 trillion. So if we had 4.6% higher tax revenues that amounts to $670 billion more in revenues. The deficit was $1.147 trillion. So the deficit would have been around $477 billion, or 3.3% of GDP.

I'm sorry but only an irrational person would say that spending alone is the problem or that further tax cuts would solve anything.
Who cares about % of GDP. What was GDP in 2001, I'm guessing lower. And btw, who says that GDP in 2010 would have been the same (ie. as high) if companies and individuals had to pay higher taxes.

A bigger % of a smaller pool can still result in less revenue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top