- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,903
- Reaction score
- 19,583
- Location
- Rocky Mtn. High
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Wow (again).... do you have read other people's posts or do you just continue to robo-post you same tired stuff without really addressing other peoples points?
I said Federal Revenues include payroll taxes (such as FICA), not federal income tax. It is federal revenues that exceed $2T annually... and it is federal revenue that increased after the Bush tax cuts. This is because the increase in payroll taxes masked the decrease in income tax revenue.
If we just speak of income taxes... individual income tax revenue has NEVER exceeded $1.2T, it it decreased by 20% after the Bush tax cuts (um, cut taxes, you expect to cut tax revenue.... it worked well.) Individual income tax revenues fell from just north of $1T in 2000 to less than $.8T four years later.. a 20% drop (NOT an increase, as you continually state) Even if you threw corporate income taxes, federal income tax revenue never exceeds $1.5T... about 1/2 of what you are telling us you get from "bea.gov". Your numbers are NOT correct.
You asked where I got my numbers. Unlike you, I actually gave you a link to the actual budget and its tables (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf).
I directed you to table 2.1, where, if you bothered to follow my link you would have 1) not asked where the numbers came from, 2) not challenged me as to whether I actually have looked at the budget since that is exactly what is at the other end of the link and 3) you would have seen actual Individual Income Tax Revenue, Corporate Income Tax Revenue, Excise Tax Revenue and Social Insurance and Retirement receipts (various payroll taxes), etc.... all of the components of Federal Revenue, year by year since 1934. You will note that Federal Revenue, all in, never exceeded $2.568T....yet, your numbers are larger (you cited $2.79T per BEA.gov for 2008) That can not be.
Let's try another (in)sanity check on your numbers. You often speak of the $3.8T cost of government (2009). My numbers (from table 3.1 of the budget, see link) confirm this.... but this spending includes disbursements for social security. So, if you are stating that income tax revenue is $2.79T, and total expenditures are $3.9T (2009), then the deficit is but $1T.... but wait, the expenditures income spending on social security (see table 3.1) and your revenues do not (as you state they are federal income tax revenues)... so, to make apples be apples, we need to add the $.9T the government received from Social Insurance and Retirement receipts (see table 2.1) and our total revenues for 2008 are now, according to your intrepretation of BEA numbers are now $3.7T ($2.79T federal income tax + $.9T payroll tax). Let's see, $3.7T revenue versus $3.9T expenditures (forgive mixing 2009 and 2008), so our deficit, according to your BEA numbers is just $200B. Either you have solved our deficit problem while the rest of us are busy fussing about it, or (I think a bit more likely) your federal income tax revenue numbers are not correct and thus do not support your argument.
As a professional numbers guy, with a posted link to the actual table at BEA.gov from which you extracted, derived or otherwise created your numbers, I might be able to help you with the reconciliation.
Last edited:
