• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boehner Asks Debt Panel to Take on Tax Breaks, Reject Hike

perhaps you can show me where we had a reduction of revenue?
because I'm not seeing it.
heritage-spending-revenue-gap-6-2010.jpg
I know this is all still a ratio thingy above instead of actual numbers, but I thought that you may like to see the above graph which shows that the revenue decreased as a percentage of GDP. Of course, revenue may have actually increased less quickly than the GDP and we would get a similar graph.

But I thought you might find the graph interesting and relevant to your point about the change in govt receipts. This indicates that there MAY have been a "reduction of revenue" that you are "not seeing."
 
Revenue rises and falls with GDP, not tax rates. so, for example, we see in the last two recessions is when it has fallen raw, as opposed to merely as a % of GDP:

growth-federal-spending-revenue-850.jpg
 
the percentage doesn't stay the same - it varies within a historical range of about 1-1.5%. The graphs point out that it doesn't matter what the income tax rates on the wealthy are - given a government of about 19-20% of GDP, you're going to get about 18.5-19.5% of GDP in revenue.
I wasn't trying to say that the percentage stayed the same. I am making a point using a hypothetical "if." It's a point about the nature of using percentages to show increases or decreases in raw numbers.

You offered the graph as evidence that the receipts had not fallen. However, since what you offered was not the data for the receipts themselves, but rather the ratio of the receipts to the GDP, the graph doesn't distinguish between changes to the GDP and changes to the receipts. As such, from the graph offered, we can't tell if receipts actually followed the pattern of the ratio, or if changes in the other variable in the ratio, GDP, had an impact.

It seems to me, imho, that 9/12 is the same percentage as 3/4. But in the latter, the quantity is much lower. ymmv. Couldn't it be that the revenue as a percentage of GDP could remain more or less the same while actual revenue and GDP decrease? Am I mistaken about the math?
revenue goes up at roughly the same rate that GDP goes up, yes. dependent, again, on the relative size of government.
So then we're agreed that 3/4 = 9/12 even though 3 is much less than 9 and 4 is less than 12?


Maybe if we looked at a different statistic we could find something more illuminating about the net change in receipts. idk. What do you think?
I would look to see a correlation between years of solid private sector growth and years of revenue increase, both in raw and whether or not it occurred as a share of GDP.
Alternatively, we could examine the receipt data itself and see where and when it changed to see if there had or had not been a "reduction of revenue."
Just a thought.
 
I wasn't trying to say that the percentage stayed the same. I am making a point using a hypothetical "if." It's a point about the nature of using percentages to show increases or decreases in raw numbers.

You offered the graph as evidence that the receipts had not fallen. However, since what you offered was not the data for the receipts themselves, but rather the ratio of the receipts to the GDP, the graph doesn't distinguish between changes to the GDP and changes to the receipts. As such, from the graph offered, we can't tell if receipts actually followed the pattern of the ratio, or if changes in the other variable in the ratio, GDP, had an impact.

as i recall, someone made the claim that changes to marginal tax rates had resulted in our deficits. as revenues did not drop with tax rates, this is incorrect - which is what I was attempting to show. someone responded by pointing out that revenues as a % of GDP had gone below the historical average lately, and so I pointed out that that is the typical response to an increase in the size of government - we have increased our government lately to a post-war high as a % of GDP, and so our revenues are at a post-war low as a % of GDP.

So then we're agreed that 3/4 = 9/12 even though 3 is much less than 9 and 4 is less than 12?

naturally - if you want a bigger slice, you have to grow the pie.

Alternatively, we could examine the receipt data itself and see where and when it changed to see if there had or had not been a "reduction of revenue."

Just a thought.

at what points?
 
Revenue rises and falls with GDP, not tax rates. so, for example, we see in the last two recessions is when it has fallen raw, as opposed to merely as a % of GDP:

growth-federal-spending-revenue-850.jpg

Revenue rises and falls with GDP, all things being equal. But changes in the tax rate are multipliers and also have a significant impact.
 
Revenue rises and falls with GDP, all things being equal. But changes in the tax rate are multipliers and also have a significant impact.

All this class warfare rhetoric! Are you really that jealous of someone who has more than you? This has to be an act on your part?
 
All this class warfare rhetoric! Are you really that jealous of someone who has more than you? This has to be an act on your part?

What has class warfare or jealousy got to do with the fact that tax rates affect revenue?
 
What has class warfare or jealousy got to do with the fact that tax rates affect revenue?

That is all you have been spouting for as long as I have seen you in this forum. Rates are a starting point but that is about it. What people pay is all that matters and right now the top 1% pay 38% of all FIT but that isn't enough. Still waiting for what the fair share is for the rich to pay? I guess everybody paying their fair share means that the rich have to pay more than 38% whereas 47% paying nothing is their fair share?
 
That is all you have been spouting for as long as I have seen you in this forum. Rates are a starting point but that is about it. What people pay is all that matters and right now the top 1% pay 38% of all FIT but that isn't enough. Still waiting for what the fair share is for the rich to pay? I guess everybody paying their fair share means that the rich have to pay more than 38% whereas 47% paying nothing is their fair share?

All I said is that tax rates affect revenue. How does that involve jealousy or class warfare?

As for the rest of it, did you ever ask yourself WHY so many aren't paying FIT? Perhaps you should think about it for a minute. You support policies that contribute to income disparity. Well, congratulations. The rich are richer, the poor are poorer, and the middle class is getting smaller and smaller. Now that the rich have so much of the country's wealth, of course they have to pay more in taxes. Duh.

And of course many of the poor and middle class don't pay FIT because the taxes they would owe are cancelled out by the child tax credit, which was signed into law by Ronald Reagan.
 
All I said is that tax rates affect revenue. How does that involve jealousy or class warfare?

As for the rest of it, did you ever ask yourself WHY so many aren't paying FIT? Perhaps you should think about it for a minute. You support policies that contribute to income disparity. Well, congratulations. The rich are richer, the poor are poorer, and the middle class is getting smaller and smaller. Now that the rich have so much of the country's wealth, of course they have to pay more in taxes. Duh.

And of course many of the poor and middle class don't pay FIT because the taxes they would owe are cancelled out by the child tax credit, which was signed into law by Ronald Reagan.

As usual you miss the point, you are the one concerned about govt. revenue, you are the one calling for the rich to pay more, you are the one that believes we have a revenue problem, not me. I am pointing out that if you want revenue there is a place to get it other than going after the ones paying the most now.

When did this country become one where a large group of people believe they are "entitled" to the income earned by others? still waiting for a definition of fair share which you continue to ignore? The only way to enact a fair share tax is with the flat tax or the consumption tax where everyone pays something and people are taxed on what they use. Progressive taxes create class warfare and envy which you show on every post. Tell me how much more of your income are you sending in that required? No one is stopping you, Buffet or anyone else from sending in more income if you feel we have a revenue problem.
 
As usual you miss the point, you are the one concerned about govt. revenue, you are the one calling for the rich to pay more, you are the one that believes we have a revenue problem, not me. I am pointing out that if you want revenue there is a place to get it other than going after the ones paying the most now.

When did this country become one where a large group of people believe they are "entitled" to the income earned by others? still waiting for a definition of fair share which you continue to ignore? The only way to enact a fair share tax is with the flat tax or the consumption tax where everyone pays something and people are taxed on what they use. Progressive taxes create class warfare and envy which you show on every post. Tell me how much more of your income are you sending in that required? No one is stopping you, Buffet or anyone else from sending in more income if you feel we have a revenue problem.
yes conservative, we have a revenue problem, we are not bringing in enough, yes conservative, we also have a spending problem, and we need to address both problems, increasing revenue and decreasing spending....as has been explained to you a thousand and one times, to get our fiscal house in order, we have to address both.
 
yes conservative, we have a revenue problem, we are not bringing in enough, yes conservative, we also have a spending problem, and we need to address both problems, increasing revenue and decreasing spending....as has been explained to you a thousand and one times, to get our fiscal house in order, we have to address both.

I have no problem with increasing revenues, but I have a major problem with increasing taxes especially in the middle of a near-recession. Based on the comments by Boehner, it appears he is saying the same thing.
 
I have no problem with increasing revenues, but I have a major problem with increasing taxes especially in the middle of a near-recession. Based on the comments by Boehner, it appears he is saying the same thing.
boehner only cares about getting a republican into the whitehouse, and refuses to acknowledge reality, that the republican mantra of 'lower taxes is the cure all' is a load of hot air...he is interested in padering to his base....my opinion might be different if over the last 30 years, the republicans actually practiced what they preached, about fiscal responsibility.
 
yes conservative, we have a revenue problem, we are not bringing in enough, yes conservative, we also have a spending problem, and we need to address both problems, increasing revenue and decreasing spending....as has been explained to you a thousand and one times, to get our fiscal house in order, we have to address both.

When are you going to stop buying the lies coming from this Administration?

IRS Data Show Most Millionaires Pay Taxes At Higher Rate Than Middle Class | Fox News

Until the govt. gets its act together and stops spending and then puts 25 plus million Americans that are unemployed and under employed back to work full time, I will never support tax hikes. You, on the other hand, buy what liberals tell you just like you buy what the union stewards tell you. Try doing some research for a change.
 
boehner only cares about getting a republican into the whitehouse, and refuses to acknowledge reality, that the republican mantra of 'lower taxes is the cure all' is a load of hot air...he is interested in padering to his base....my opinion might be different if over the last 30 years, the republicans actually practiced what they preached, about fiscal responsibility.

Isn't that what the Democrats did in 2007-2008? Were the deficits during the Bush term higher or lower when the Republicans controlled the Congress vs. Democrats controlling the Congress?
 
boehner only cares about getting a republican into the whitehouse, and refuses to acknowledge reality, that the republican mantra of 'lower taxes is the cure all' is a load of hot air...he is interested in padering to his base....my opinion might be different if over the last 30 years, the republicans actually practiced what they preached, about fiscal responsibility.

ahhh, you're bringing crocodile tears to my eyes. Obama is doing nothing but playing politics. He is pandering to his base by acting as if a puny tax on corporate jets will solve all our economic problems. Dem Senators and Reps will not even vote for his phoney bill.

It was only a year ago that Obama was saying that taxes should NEVER be raised during a recession. While we may not be in a textbook definition of a recession, we are awfully close and the majority of people believe are in one.
 
ahhh, you're bringing crocodile tears to my eyes. Obama is doing nothing but playing politics. He is pandering to his base by acting as if a puny tax on corporate jets will solve all our economic problems. Dem Senators and Reps will not even vote for his phoney bill.

It was only a year ago that Obama was saying that taxes should NEVER be raised during a recession. While we may not be in a textbook definition of a recession, we are awfully close and the majority of people believe are in one.

And the Republicans are doing something different? Both are pandering to their party and pointing fingers at the other side claiming it's all their faults while doing nothing to actually fix the problem. That's what we get with the Republocrats, a lot of finger pointing and words...no action. Both sides engage in this behavior and somehow people want to pretend that Republicans and Democrats ain't the same pile of ****.
 
And the Republicans are doing something different? Both are pandering to their party and pointing fingers at the other side claiming it's all their faults while doing nothing to actually fix the problem. That's what we get with the Republocrats, a lot of finger pointing and words...no action. Both sides engage in this behavior and somehow people want to pretend that Republicans and Democrats ain't the same pile of ****.

Most people know that the Obama proposal solves nothing and I have yet to see a proposal from you. I have given mine many times so rather than whine and complain which most third party advocates do how about a plan from you?
 
And the Republicans are doing something different? Both are pandering to their party and pointing fingers at the other side claiming it's all their faults while doing nothing to actually fix the problem. That's what we get with the Republocrats, a lot of finger pointing and words...no action. Both sides engage in this behavior and somehow people want to pretend that Republicans and Democrats ain't the same pile of ****.

If I had claimed that Republicans didn't do the same, you might have a point.
 
Most people know that the Obama proposal solves nothing and I have yet to see a proposal from you. I have given mine many times so rather than whine and complain which most third party advocates do how about a plan from you?

What proposals has your party come up with that will make a difference? Anything? Anything? Didn't think so.
 
And the Republicans are doing something different? Both are pandering to their party and pointing fingers at the other side claiming it's all their faults while doing nothing to actually fix the problem. That's what we get with the Republocrats, a lot of finger pointing and words...no action. Both sides engage in this behavior and somehow people want to pretend that Republicans and Democrats ain't the same pile of ****.

Have we gotten action from the Democrats?

Oh, wait; yes we have, lots of action. How's that worked out for the country, so far?
 
What proposals has your party come up with that will make a difference? Anything? Anything? Didn't think so.

Opening up drilling, lossening job killing regulations, stop trying to raise taxes on people every other month; just a few off the top of my head.

The biggest thing the Republicans have going for them, is that they know the government can't fix the economy, nor create jobs.
 
What proposals has your party come up with that will make a difference? Anything? Anything? Didn't think so.

I asked you for your proposals and get nothing but more whining. For your information I don't have a party, I am a conservative but vote Republican because they are the better alternative. Think about it, Gore, Kerry, and Obama. Why would you vote for them? Staying home or voting for a third party just assures those leftwing nuts get elected and re-elected
 
Opening up drilling, lossening job killing regulations, stop trying to raise taxes on people every other month; just a few off the top of my head.

The biggest thing the Republicans have going for them, is that they know the government can't fix the economy, nor create jobs.

That sad belief is the biggest thing the GOP has going for them?!?!?!?!?!? And how does that translate into some sort of asset?
 
What proposals has your party come up with that will make a difference? Anything? Anything? Didn't think so.
And this is exactly my point... well, part of my point.

We can do absolutely nothing. This would be mean a slow and agonizingly slow recovery (or us sinking back into a recession).

Or we can do something.

The options presented are defunding and dismantling America's safety nets and weakening government agencies in an effort to save money when we currently already have an infrastructure that is near collapse. Cut regulations right after we just came from a near depression enabled by a lack of oversight and regulations. This is what the Republicans are in support of.

The other option is to borrow more money and get people back to work in an effort to stimulate the economy to pull us out of any immediate danger while fixing our aging and decreipt nation. Raise taxes on the wealthiest of us to further support this action, while cutting some useless government agencies and maintaining our countries safety nets. This is what Obama is offering.

I choose to act. Whichever party is trying to do something for the majority of Americans, is the party I'll support.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom