It does seem that you have a reading comprehension problem and don't know the difference between population growth and job growth. Population growth means more deductions from taxes, job growth means more taxpayers. let me know if that still isn't clear.
I mentioned that population growth lead to more people paying taxes. Can we assume that I understand that taxes which are not paid do not contribute to tax revenue?
Are you willing to grant me that and let the semantics go?
It seems that the general upward trend in tax revenue may be in part a function of the growth of the number of persons in the tax base.
Cool? Or should we tweak the language a little more?
Apparently we didn't have any population growth when tax revenue dropped in your example.
I only said that population growth leads to the general trend upward.
AFAICT, it seems population growth would have to be about 100% responsible for any trend upward in order for a short term shrinkage of tax revenue to mean that the population did not grow.
If you are truly interested in revenue data then you obviously see that revenue went up AFTER the tax cuts so how can that be? Obama supporters seem to have a problem with that reality.
Now to me, that doesn't seem like the right question.
Looking at the data it seems to me that the natural state of affairs is for the tax revenue to go up. That seems to be the default.
The trend of tax revenue growth over the last century or so actually appears to have an almost exponential curve to it generally speaking. So not only does it seem to be on an upward trajectory, it seems to be increasing the rate at which it grows.
These two general trends, the upward movement and the increasing rate of growth, persist over the decades.
So, imho, the question isn't so much as to why revenue went up. The general trajectory of federal tax revenue for the last century or so seems to be one which is accelerating upward. For w/e reasons, revenue goes up.
1) Obviously tax revenues increased for decades and decades before the tax cuts, so there must be at least one other factor related to the growth of federal tax revenue beside these particular tax cuts.
2) Also, it seems that after a slight dip, the trajectory of tax revenue growth returned to the same slope it had been on before Bush took office. So that means that it is a definite possibility that that kind of growth can exist independent of the Bush era tax cuts. At least imho.
3) Since the kind of growth seen after the Bush era tax cuts is pretty much the same as growth before Bush took office and is in line with the general historical trend of increasing growth and increasing growth rate don't you think it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility some portion of the growth in tax revenue after the Bush era tax cuts was an effect of those tax cuts and how much was the result of other influences?
Imho, the question is how can you quantify the difference between the general historical trend and the actions of a particular party, policy or president. I don't think that a cursory examination of these few data such as we're doing here can make that determination.
I think you think that a cursory examination of these few data can enable you to quantify the difference between the general historical trend and the actions of a particular party, policy, or president. If you
can show how much of the growth is the result of that specific policy and how much of the growth is from the other factors which contribute the general historical trend for tax revenues, it'd really cool for you to do so here on DP.
Or perhaps you feel that there is not any general historical trend of increasing tax revenue to make the differentiation from? idk.
What are your thoughts on the possibility that other factors beside the Bush era tax cuts could be responsible in any degree for tax revenues returning to the historical trend of growth? Implausible? Or worth considering for a moment?
Seems like you are getting into the weeds and ignoring the basic arguments of liberals and that is that tax revenue dropped after tax cuts.
What's the relevance of me ignoring that argument?
I haven't made that argument. You haven't made that argument. Why should I comment on that argument?
Why are you bringing up that argument?
Is it one that you can handily defeat?
If so, kudos to you. Have at it. Enjoy.
When you figure out the four components of GDP you will get your answer. Human behavior drives economic activity and tax revenue
How coy.
To be brief, I have asked the question more clearly above. You can choose to make your case and bring it to the table. Kind of the place for it, being
DP and all. But that is not the only choice available to you.
I look forward to anyone here pulling something out of their to explain that one
After you explain about why I would know the answer to that question I'd be glad to imagine something for you. But, if you skipped the middle man, you could just imagine something up for yourself I s'pose. My imagination isn't one of my best features.
The first set of numbers includes SS and Medicare which LBJ in his wisdom put on budget
I mean where did you get them? What parameters did you have to put into what web site to generate them?
How can I replicate them / find these numbers for myself?
