oops i foprgot you ignored a massive gdp drop due to clintons dot com bubble bursting,and heavily increased revenue fro the dot com bubble building,but hey you wont include they or aknowledge it,cuz it hurts your cause unless its for claiming taxes raise revenue.
just the fact your own source shows revenue dropping before bush tax cuts were encated and rising after they were throws your entire argument out the window.TRY AGAIN>
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP
as this source shows revenue as a percentage of gdp fluctuates with gdp and not rates,or else we would have lost revenue going from 94% tax on the rich to 28% under reagan,but the exact opposite occurred,your math only works against weak minded who are too incompetent to study imperical data and averages across decades.
Interesting series of arguments if your premise was correct and you read your charts correctly. Given each are a fail, let's reset.
1) there was no 'massive gdp drop due to clinton's dot com bubble bursting' Where is it. The numbers do not reflect any year over year gdp drop, just a slowing of growth. I even added an additional year of tax receipts and gdp to my chart so that it shows results from Oct 1, 1998 (the beginning of fiscal year 1999) through Sept 30 2009. The .com bubble began to burst in April 2000 once the market realized the absurd valuations of stocks that could lead to AOL buying Time/Warner with its paper. So the data per the table below should give coverage on both sides of the event... note no year over year down tick in gdp.
2) The Bush tax cuts directly affected only individual income tax rates. Using only the chart you provided (
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP) you will note the individual income tax receipts as a percentage of GDP dropped by 10ish% before the tax cuts (10.2 for fiscal year 2000, ending 9/30/200) to 7-8%. They dropped a solid 2 percentage points, never recovering. Moreover, aggregate income tax collections fell 19.6% and took 6 years to return to 2000 levels growing a much slower rate than GDP growth.
Now, if the notion that tax cuts lead to tax revenue growth were true, than aggregate collections should grow faster than the GDP rate under the notion that in a more prosperous economy more people and businesses are paying taxes at a higher effective rate than in a less prosperous economy. However, if tax cuts are just tax cuts or the economic impact is nominal at best, than tax receipts lag GDP growth, which is exactly what happened with the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.
So back to your original point:
fun fact,raising the taxes on the rich wont raise enough money for anything,infact estimates by cbo are based off of no variables existing,this is why i hate cbo as it has been wrong 98% of the time.
in actuallity the tax costs will cost next to nothing across the board or break even,and going by gdp growth from the tax cuts to now,and with % of gdp as income tax staying fairly constant,the tax cuts didnt cost a dime,this is liberals arguing that you cant use household finances for economies,but using household finances to calculate tax cuts,and ignoring all variables,as variables are bad in liberal math.
Kindly show us in your chart ( (
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP) where you see that "...% of gdp as income tax staying fairly constant..."? Again, in columns 1 or 1 and 2, which show individual and corporate income taxes as a function of GDP, well I sure don't see it. In fact, everything I see says the opposite.... You might want to study your "imperical data" a bit closer next time.
Now, we often hear people the Cons cite that total receipts increased after the 2001/03 tax cuts. It is true that total revenue actual grew faster than income tax revenue, but this is classic how to lie with statistics as 40% of total revenue is FICA (payroll taxes), which by design, is going to grow year over year, even in a weak economy. Citing this is falling into the lie that Cons have been selling. The reality is that 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were largely masked by FICA grow, which in essence, meant we used FICA to fund the tax cuts.
My argument is strictly with the last 10 years. The tax cuts and tax restructurings (not the same thing) of the 1980's had many more complicating factors. Happy to discuss that merits of that another, though I have not studied that as closely as the lie that the Bush tax cuts were revenue neutral. Although tax cuts in certain circumstances and when properly directed can be a effective stimulus, the failure of the Bush cuts dispels the notion that they work when broadly distributed or every time.
