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.
For a $14.5 Trillion economy, a 6% “acceptable” range (between 15% and 21%) translates to nearly $900 Billion in revenue. How about the fact that 15% of the GDP (much less slightly less than that) is the worst in tax revenue that we’ve seen since 1950? Normal, averaged over time would be 18% if not slightly more. With that being said, let us look at numbers, in constant 2010 dollars:
Federal Tax Revenue, 2000: $2.6 Trillion (GDP: $12.4 Trillion)
Federal Tax Revenue, 2010: $2.2 Trillion (GDP: $14.5 Trillion)
According to your argument, the GDP grew by 17% so, tax revenue should have. Instead, it shrunk by 16%.
false numbers again ein??
btw the gross COLLECTIONS of INDIVIDUAL income tax in 2000 was 1.13 trillion and in 2007 was 1.36 trillion...total from CORPORATE taxes in 2000 235 billion and in 2007 395 billion......total from employement tax (payroll(ss/medicare) in 2000 639 billion and in 2007 was 849 billion..........
btw the gross COLLECTIONS of INDIVIDUAL income tax in 2000 was 1.13 trillion and in 2007 was 1.36 trillion...total from CORPORATE taxes in 2000 235 billion and in 2007 395 billion......total from employement tax (payroll(ss/medicare) in 2000 639 billion and in 2007 was 849 billion..........
Tax Revenue is more than Federal Individual Income Tax Revenue. I will gladly present you THOSE numbers as well, if you care (and in fact, have made it a part of my argument in one of these threads today).
Right - my argument was an example with a flat amount.
However, the tax revenue percentage is still within the 15%-21% window.
According to the chart, the GDP and tax revenues are still mirroring each other to some extent.
What's the difference? The government used it's credit card to inject stimulus in targeted areas.
The American people (collectively) did not get a stimulus. That's why the tax revenue dip in its graph is way more pronounced than the GDP dip. Unemployment is way up - and since we pay taxes, tax revenues will be reduced. Consumption is down - that also factors in lower tax revenues. Home building is a great multiplier of the economy - but that is way down.
But even with these changes, we are still within that 15%-21% window. GDP still needs to increase, but the money needs to get to the American people - not through redistribution, but through manufacturing and commerce.
This is great work. Your charts illustrate another huge problem with letting 10% of the people pay 70% of the taxes: incomes at the top are very volatile. When recessions strike, revenues from overly-progressive tax rates just plummet. Obama's intent to collect an even higher share of total taxes from the top end will increase the volatility of government revenues.
The Simpson Bowles commission recommendation, the basis of the Gang of Six plan, broadens and widens the tax base while collecting more total dollars to help close the deficit. It would offer far more stability in the revenue stream.
Your charts show the volatility of revenues--it is a major source of deficit the last couple of years.
Hopefully Obama will bite off on the Gang of Six deal, and give up his base-exciting, demagogic, counter-productive plan for employers: continue the beatings until morale improves.
Tax Revenue is more than Federal Individual Income Tax Revenue. I will gladly present you THOSE numbers as well, if you care (and in fact, have made it a part of my argument in one of these threads today).
If I'm lying, those sources must be. Now, go ahead and prove it.
you certainly are spinning..dont care what some 'usgovernmentspending' site says
and the TOTAL revenue was the numbers I posted
I gave the WHOLE GAMBIT.....:
COLLECTIONS of INDIVIDUAL income tax in 2000 was 1.13 trillion
.............. ...total from CORPORATE taxes in 2000 235 billion
... total from employement tax (payroll(ss/medicare) in 2000 639 billion
for a TOTAL of total revenue in 2000 was 2.09 trillion...
you certainly are spinning..dont care what some 'usgovernmentspending' site says
and the TOTAL revenue was the numbers I posted
I gave the WHOLE GAMBIT.....:
COLLECTIONS of INDIVIDUAL income tax in 2000 was 1.13 trillion
.............. ...total from CORPORATE taxes in 2000 235 billion
... total from employement tax (payroll(ss/medicare) in 2000 639 billion
for a TOTAL of total revenue in 2000 was 2.09 trillion...
Don't trust them? Just tell me, what was the total federal tax revenue in 2000, 2004, 2007, 2008 (preferably in constant dollars so I don't have to do what you should) and what was the spending in those years. Both, as a percentage of GDP.
do you really want to show that we are spending HALF today in defense compared to what was spend in a peacetime year of 1980?????? well do ya....really????
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.
