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.
Want to see how higher taxes on the rich DON'T create higher revenue? Take a look at the revenues NOT realized in California since the income tax rate was increased 29% to 13.3%
Revenue collected decreased 10% below what was budgeted.
I never asserted that tax increases harm economy...all they do is allocate more money into the hands of government during a boom cycle. That's all.
Again, deflection. Did you read the CRS Report?
Quote:
Yes... you used my point... and then this.
So basically... you call somebody stupid for ignoring details... but then willfully point out you're ignoring details. LOL
No, I simply recycled the word that you used. Don't like it? Don't spell it here. Instead, learn to stick to the point you made, and points made against it. This was your point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
The revenue-to-GDP ratio hasn't changed in 80 years...
This was my response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Incorrect. The devil is in the details. It has changed significantly since 2001. Average federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP by decade:
1961-1970: 18.0%
1971-1980: 17.9%
1981-1990: 18.2%
1991-2000: 18.8%
2001-2010: 17.1% (16.7% if we account 2001 revenue having residual Clinton effect)
Now, you could argue that over 50 years, revenue has been 18% of the GDP. And it would serve as a good cover from the realities of the 2000s when that average has been met only twice. In fact, under Clinton tax rates, $919 Billion was additional revenue compared to the average of 18.2%. Under Bush tax rates, $1.1 Trillion under. That is a $2 Trillion turn around into the red.
Quote:
All you care about is that the government in fact DID collect more money than future administrations (because of the boom). But you recognize (by your own words) that the economy did NOT grow because of taxation.
If I made that claim, I'm sure you can provide a link to it. I look forward to it. Hint: There's a reason I provided a link to that CRS Report. I agree with it. The question is: do you?
Quote:
So what is your argument for more taxes?? Simply that they do not hurt the economy? lol....
That is your comprehension of the arguments being placed. I can't do much about your abilities. My argument is based on the premise of the OP: Higher Taxes versus Revenues.
Quote:
They are a 1:1 relationship...
A 1:1 relationship warrants that if there is no growth in deficit, there can be no growth in debt. We know that to be not true. We can have a balanced budget next year, but the debt still goes up. No?
Quote:
If you are arguing Tax as a percent of GDP then that goes into paying off the national debt!
No, I'm simply discussing the premise of the OP: Tax Rates to Revenue relationship. Not debt, not spending, not deficits. It is YOU who has chosen to deflect, likely to avoid a focused conversation.
Do you think closing loop holes is an effective tax increase (an argument you made and have supported previously)?
1-There were two tax cuts: 2001 and 2003.
2-Tax revenues are expected to rise with economy. In good times, we have seen tax revenues to be 18% of the GDP, not the case for most of 2000s. You can surely say... but it increased from 2003 to 2004. But, tax revenue in 2004 was lower than it was in 1998. And measured against GDP, in 1998, tax revenue was 19.9% (+1.7% above average of 40 years) compared to 16.1% in 2004 (2.1% below average of 40 years, and the lowest since 1951).
I think closing loop holes will bring in revenue. I support Simpson Bowles because it seems the logical compromise between two divergent views
And you would know why, if you followed the advice in my post, rather than respond to it. For that matter, explain to me you understanding of how deficit and debt are tied together. Does zero budget deficit next year guarantee:
1-An increase in debt?
2-A status quo on debt?
3-A decrease in debt?
A budget deficit or surplus is not the same as the change in government debt. Key word is "Budget". There is a lot of off budget spending such as FICA and USPS and also offsetting expenses and receipts which make the budget quite useless as a tool for measuring spending.
So a zero budget deficit guarantees NOTHING with regard to federal debt.
That's why even though we had a few years of BUDGET surplus under Clinton, we did not have a DEBT reduction.
The federal budget is a very poor yardstick to measure if the government is spending more than it collects. The bottom line is DEBT. Regardless of the labels, if DEBT increases, the government spent more than it collected.
No, I simply recycled the word that you used. Don't like it? Don't spell it here. Instead, learn to stick to the point you made, and points made against it. This was your point:
Recycled? You mean used? I don't care if you use the word...I just figured the irony was amusing...you pointed out ignoring of details and then proceeded to....ignore details, lol.
*shrugs*
Quote:
This was my response:
If I made that claim, I'm sure you can provide a link to it. I look forward to it. Hint: There's a reason I provided a link to that CRS Report. I agree with it. The question is: do you?
No, I don't agree with it. At all...
It's nothing but long winded and convoluted prognostication. Perhaps, since it's your personal conviction, you'd like to point out what you agree with. I'd be happy to refute it.
Quote:
That is your comprehension of the arguments being placed. I can't do much about your abilities. My argument is based on the premise of the OP: Higher Taxes versus Revenues.
Your report is garbage...all it does it talk about how taxes "may" or "may not" affect certain institutions investments, savings and spending and consumer confidence.
Again, if you recall....earlier in this thread I explicitly said taxation is a placebo.
Quote:
A 1:1 relationship warrants that if there is no growth in deficit, there can be no growth in debt. We know that to be not true. We can have a balanced budget next year, but the debt still goes up. No?
Let me backtrack.. Hand in Hand.
But yes, the debt still goes up even with a balanced budget. And that matters!!
Quote:
No, I'm simply discussing the premise of the OP: Tax Rates to Revenue relationship. Not debt, not spending, not deficits. It is YOU who has chosen to deflect, likely to avoid a focused conversation.
Tax rates increase revenue. But revenue is just that....money taken in.
Tax revenue as a % of GDP has remained, relatively, flat....You can't ignore the trivial percentage under Clinton and apply a sexy number like 900+ Billion and try to pass it off as tax revenue being a boon to the economy. The sheer number was simply a result from a boom in economy (mainly from oil production)..... a boom that Bush was not afforded during his term.
A budget deficit or surplus is not the same as the change in government debt. Key word is "Budget". There is a lot of off budget spending such as FICA and USPS and also offsetting expenses and receipts which make the budget quite useless as a tool for measuring spending.
So a zero budget deficit guarantees NOTHING with regard to federal debt.
That's why even though we had a few years of BUDGET surplus under Clinton, we did not have a DEBT reduction.
Correct. Hence my previous post.
Quote:
The federal budget is a very poor yardstick to measure if the government is spending more than it collects. The bottom line is DEBT. Regardless of the labels, if DEBT increases, the government spent more than it collected.
You're into "I only want to talk about spending" mode, again.
Reading is one thing, understanding it is another. I will not be surprised to have the opportunity to learn about it shortly.
Quote:
Recycled? You mean used? I don't care if you use the word...I just figured the irony was amusing...you pointed out ignoring of details and then proceeded to....ignore details, lol.
If I had ignored the details, you wouldn't be running around for cover, with deflections. It didn't serve you well when you were told that the federal revenue as a percent of GDP has been dramatically low since 2001.
Quote:
No, I don't agree with it. At all...
It's nothing but long winded and convoluted prognostication. Perhaps, since it's your personal conviction, you'd like to point out what you agree with. I'd be happy to refute it.
Its a report. You either agree with it, or disagree with it. But I doubt you read it, past the first few sentences anyway. What is rather amusing is that the report actually is about lack of evidence between economy and tax rates. What was your point on THAT subject again?
Quote:
Your report is garbage...all it does it talk about how taxes "may" or "may not" affect certain institutions investments, savings and spending and consumer confidence.
And it arrives at this conclusion with details covered as opposed to simply emotional quotations that you did:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
Tax hikes increase revenue.....and water is wet.
What I CAN show you how it doesn't affect economic prosperity at all....
Except that it extends the rules both ways: no correlation between economic growth and tax rates.
Quote:
Again, if you recall....earlier in this thread I explicitly said taxation is a placebo.
I didn't.
Quote:
But yes, the debt still goes up even with a balanced budget. And that matters!!
Good.
Quote:
Tax rates increase revenue. But revenue is just that....money taken in.
Correct.
Quote:
Tax revenue as a % of GDP has remained, relatively, flat....You can't ignore the trivial percentage under Clinton and apply a sexy number like 900+ Billion and try to pass it off as tax revenue being a boon to the economy.
No, I like details. The stupid dislike them (borrowing from you, one more time). Generalizations can work, especially if details instill pain. It is why I think it is important to recognize that when we talk about fiscal responsibility, we consider the details. Such details when coupled with math, present facts that broad brushed graphical representations don't.
Quote:
The sheer number was simply a result from a boom in economy (mainly from oil production)..... a boom that Bush was not afforded during his term.
The only argument I take out of this is that economy did not grow with Bush in office but it boomed under Clinton. However, when you consider tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, you can't use that argument. The fact is, that the percentage itself declined.
I think closing loop holes will bring in revenue. I support Simpson Bowles because it seems the logical compromise between two divergent views
That neither party embraces it is also another reason it likely makes the most sense.
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.
