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.
Here's my plan, deadlock the deficit committee. That would trigger a 1.2 trillion dollar spending cut across the government. Then deny an extension of the Bush tax cuts. That would reduce the deficit by 4 trillion dollars. This would stop the GOP's extreme agenda of gutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. What do yall think?
its laughable that you seriously think that letting the current tax rates expire and go back to pre 2001 levels will increase revenues to the government over ten years by $4 trillion, especially when even the best the democrats say is $700 billion over ten years. you have failed on so many levels, as has your dear leader chairman maobama.
Here's my plan, deadlock the deficit committee. That would trigger a 1.2 trillion dollar spending cut across the government. Then deny an extension of the Bush tax cuts. That would reduce the deficit by 4 trillion dollars. This would stop the GOP's extreme agenda of gutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. What do yall think?
so you think nothing in Medicare Medicaid ad SS can be reformed for deficit reduction?
its laughable that you seriously think that letting the current tax rates expire and go back to pre 2001 levels will increase revenues to the government over ten years by $4 trillion, especially when even the best the democrats say is $700 billion over ten years. you have failed on so many levels, as has your dear leader chairman maobama.
You have your information wrong. Democrats were opposing keeping the Bush tax rates for the rich, which would cost about 700 billion dollars over ten years. I'm saying let all of the tax cuts expire to reduce the deficit by 4 trillion.
It's not surprising you don't know what you're talking about.
So you are saying the CBO is wrong? Federal Tax Revenues from 2003 to 2006 Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. As a result, receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points (see Table 1).
No, I'm saying that you don't understand the CBO report that you posted. Did you read actually read it for yourself, or just pull it from an email attachment?
From the report's paragraph on Corporate Tax Revenue:
Quote:
Corporate Income Tax Revenues. Roughly two-thirds of the increase of 1.5 percentage points in corporate income taxes relative to GDP can be attributed to increases in corporate profits, according to current measures in the national income and product accounts (NIPAs). With the effects of legislation excluded, NIPA profits before taxes increased from about 9 percent of GDP in 2003 to about 13 percent in 2006, which, at prevailing tax rates, boosted corporate revenues by roughly 1.0 percentage point relative to GDP. In addition, legislation directly increased corporate tax receipts by 0.2 percentage points of GDP, mainly by the establishment and subsequent expiration of provisions that allowed partial expensing of investment in equipment; those provisions first reduced, and then increased, the tax base upon which the corporate tax is levied. The remaining 0.2 percentage-point increase in corporate tax revenues relative to GDP is explained by other factors that influenced the effective tax rate on profits, such as capital gains realizations by corporations.
Note that the biggest increase in the Corporate Tax revenue is from the economy recovering, not from any legislation. When you compare the trough of a recession in 2003 with the third year of an economic recovery (jobless though it was) - its understandable that there's going to be an increase in corporate tax revenues. Corporations don't pay taxes when they have no profits; corporations pay taxes when they do have profits.
The second biggest increase in Corporate Tax revenue is from the legislation allowing the expiration of certain corporate tax breaks on equipment. That's an effective tax increase, or at least that's what Grover Norquist would call it.
The remaining increase in Corporate Tax revenue is from capital gains realized by corporations
Note that in no part of the paragraph does the author of the report claim that lowering corporate taxes increased corporate tax revenue.
Here's the paragraph on Individual Tax Revenue:
Quote:
Individual Income Tax Receipts. The 0.6 percentage-point increase in individual income tax receipts was the combined result of some factors that acted to reduce those revenues relative to GDP and others that acted to raise them. The NIPA measures of income that constitute the underlying base of the individual income tax--principally wages and salaries--fell relative to GDP, reducing receipts relative to GDP by 0.4 percentage points.With any potential macroeconomic effects excluded, the impact of legislation enacted over the period--including increases in the child credit and reduced tax rates on dividends--reduced revenues by 0.5 percentage points relative to GDP. In the other direction, higher realizations of capital gains (including any effects associated with legislated reductions in tax rates) added 0.3 percentage points to the ratio of individual income tax revenues to GDP. The remainder of the increase in individual revenues relative to GDP, measuring 1.1 percentage points, resulted from "real bracket creep" and a variety of potential factors that cannot be evaluated fully until more complete data are available. Such potential factors include shifts in the share of aggregate taxable income accruing to households with higher marginal tax rates; changes in taxable incomes relative to the NIPAs' measures of personal incomes; and changes in retirement income, the alternative minimum tax, and tax deductions.
Note what the author of the report is saying - some parts of individual tax revenue actually fell because of lower tax rates. In fact, he states that tax revenue was reduced specifically because of the child tax credits and because of the lower tax rates on dividends.
The author goes on to say that the other part of individual tax revenue that rose was because people moved into higher tax brackets and paid a higher tax rate on that income.
Here's Table 2 from the report:
Table 2. Sources of Growth in Tax Revenues
as a Percentage of GDP from 2003 to 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual Corporate
Income Income Other Total
Taxes Taxes Taxes Revenues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income Growth in NIPAs -0.4 1.0 -0.2 0.5
Individual Capital Gains 0.3 n.a. n.a. 0.3
Legislation -0.5 0.2 0 -0.2
Other 1.1 0.2 0 1.3
Total 0.6 1.5 -0.2 1.9
Notice that the Legislation line indicates a -0.2 decrease to that tax revenue growth - at least according to the author of the report.
Quote:
Please share with me your qualifications so I can compae them to the CBO's because the revenue grew both in real dollars, and as a % of GDP.
My only qualification is that I read the report that you presented.
Did you?
Last edited by djmilf; 11-19-2011 at 06:45 PM..
Reason: Table 2 added
so you think nothing in Medicare Medicaid ad SS can be reformed for deficit reduction?
Sure. Raise the cap on what the rich put into SS. Problem solved. Allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. That lowers the cost of the program. Allow importing drugs from Canada. That lowers the cost of the program. Slowly raise the age of Medicare eligibility. Hire more investigators to root out abuse and fraud in Medicare. Doing that would reduce the cost of the program without privatizing it and turning it into a voucher program because it's obvious Americans have rejected that approach to reforming Medicare. I'm glad Democrats didn't cave to Paul Ryan and the right-wing.
our congress lacks the volition to stop deficit spending.
3 years and no balanced budget.
where i worked when you didnt do your job, they fired you.
only person with the power to deliver ultimatum to congress in the commander and chief
he could desolve congress if they dont give budget and declare national emergency.
strong stuff and probably last resort.
certainly political suicide.
same dilemma is faced by CA-- congressional impasse.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 11-19-2011 at 06:52 PM..
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.
