Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

upsideguy · Dec 31, 2011

Conservative said:
You can get the information at BEA.gov, they get their data from the checkbook of the United States, Treasury Dept.

Here is what BEA.gov shows for Federal Income Tax revenue by year

2000 2202.8
2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Wrong numbers!

You are mixing up your numbers once again, Cons. The numbers above are not Federal Income taxes by total receipts, including social security. We discussed this once before. Total federal income tax revenue has NEVER exceeded $1.5T, which it did in 2007. See table, Schedule 2.1 of the budget which is a table of actual receipts. The Income tax columns are highlighted as well as totaled on the far right.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/hist.html

upsideguy · Dec 31, 2011

LesGovt said:
Are you saying that the Bush tax cuts for the middle class actually increased revenue?

If he is saying that, he would be wrong.... especially given his numbers included payroll tax receipts, which did go up during the first decade of the century.

Of course, if you look at actual federal income tax revenues, they dropped 19.2% after the Bush tax cut and then took 6 years to recover, growing at a much slower rate than the growth in GDP, as illustrated below:

Neomalthusian · Dec 31, 2011

treedancer said:
Sooo looking at these numbers, explain your theory of The Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the treasury.

That isn't the theory though. The theory is that higher tax rates are not necessarily associated with any significantly higher revenues (as % of GDP). It wasn't tax hikes of the Clinton years that nearly balanced the budget.

And anyway, capital gains taxes were diced during those years, which is how the very richest make all their money and enjoy lower effective tax rates than the rest of the productive class.

Conservative · Dec 31, 2011

upsideguy said:
If he is saying that, he would be wrong.... especially given his numbers included payroll tax receipts, which did go up during the first decade of the century.

Of course, if you look at actual federal income tax revenues, they dropped 19.2% after the Bush tax cut and then took 6 years to recover, growing at a much slower rate than the growth in GDP, as illustrated below:

you always have to tell part of the story and give half truths. I have to believe that you are here for distortion. The Bush tax cuts were in two phases, 2001 tax rebate was implemented the end of fiscal year 2001 and accellerated in July 2003. Further it seems like you don't remember 9/11/2001. How do you explain 2004-2007 with those tax cuts?

Such passion you have for higher taxes, wonder why and please don't tell me it has to do with the deficit?

Conservative · Dec 31, 2011

Neomalthusian said:
That isn't the theory though. The theory is that higher tax rates are not necessarily associated with any significantly higher revenues (as % of GDP). It wasn't tax hikes of the Clinton years that nearly balanced the budget.

And anyway, capital gains taxes were diced during those years, which is how the very richest make all their money and enjoy lower effective tax rates than the rest of the productive class.

Here is the basic math that liberals want the American people to ignore. Anyone believe raising the taxes on the rich will change this picture much?

This rather brilliantly cuts thru all the political doublespeak we get. It puts it into a much better perspective.

Lesson # 1:

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts: $385

Got It ?????

OK now Lesson # 2: Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:

Let's say, You come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood....and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.

What do you think you should do ......

Raise the ceilings, or pump out the crap?

Your choice is coming Nov. 2012

Conservative · Dec 31, 2011

upsideguy said:
Wrong numbers!

You are mixing up your numbers once again, Cons. The numbers above are not Federal Income taxes by total receipts, including social security. We discussed this once before. Total federal income tax revenue has NEVER exceeded $1.5T, which it did in 2007. See table, Schedule 2.1 of the budget which is a table of actual receipts. The Income tax columns are highlighted as well as totaled on the far right.

Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2010

View attachment 67120476

Yes, you are right, I posted total revenue and not just FIT revenue but your chart shows FIT revenue by year. How do you explain it going up AFTER the full implementation of the Bush tax cuts which happened in July 2003, almost the end of fiscal year 2003 which ended in September? You do notice that FIT revenue did go UP after full implementation?

Imnukingfutz · Dec 31, 2011

treedancer said:
Did you not say in post #565 the following?” The Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the treasury. “

To which I replied with a graph, which showed that, wasn’t the case with Clinton; who raised taxes in 1993, and the economy took off shortly thereafter. Your statement about the Clinton tax increase that “the economy was strong enough to handle it” kinda makes me wonder, when you consider the state of the economy at the time.

10 million unemployed, record deficits, poverty and welfare rolls growing, incomes losing ground to inflation, jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression. Looks like a microseism of what we are now facing doesn’t it?:2wave:

The economy in 1992-1993 was pretty decent.

If you would have read the rest of my posts on this issue you would understand just WHY the tax hikes paid off during the early Clinton years, I stated where FIRST you lower tax rates to jump start the economy. AFTER the economy recovers, tax rates raise to staff off inflation. Both in combination result in higher revenue.

The tax hikes under Clinton were OK because the economy could handle it, it was strong, it had a lot going for it; dot com boom, computer revolution, good strong trade etc...but his mistake on taxes came at the end of his tenure when the economy was slacking and they didnt lower the rates, that led to a sluggish economy from 1998-2000.

The Bush tax cuts jump started the economy but they failed to raise them to staff off inflation.

This administration wants to raise taxes in a horrid economy....thats a killing blow...taxes can not be raised in a bad economy. There is already little money flowing now, tax it higher and there will be even less flowing.

2 solutions to solve the economic problems;
1- cut taxes dramatically and keep the yo-yo of taxation going...thats the only way this Progressive tax system will work half right
or
2- replace the current system with H.R. 25

upsideguy · Jan 2, 2012

Conservative said:
you always have to tell part of the story and give half truths. I have to believe that you are here for distortion. The Bush tax cuts were in two phases, 2001 tax rebate was implemented the end of fiscal year 2001 and accellerated in July 2003. Further it seems like you don't remember 9/11/2001. How do you explain 2004-2007 with those tax cuts?

Such passion you have for higher taxes, wonder why and please don't tell me it has to do with the deficit?

What does 911 have to do with anything? GDP continued to grow 2000 to 2001 to 2002 to 2003, etc., yet income tax revenues fell (see below). Why? Because Bush cut taxes.

Moreover, is with this "full implementation" rationalization? The real guts of the tax cuts were in 2001, and they resulted in reduction of tax revenue. The 2003 addition primarily expanded capital writeoffs and lowered cap gain/ dividend rates. It really wasn't that substantive. For all intents and purposes, the tax cuts happened in 2001, and tax revenues immediately preceded to fall 19%.

Yes, over time, the economy grew, which resulted in increasing income tax revenues, but it took six (6) years for taxes to return to their pre-tax cut levels. Tax receipts grew 5%, while GDP grew 20%. How does that work? If tax cuts were truly neutral, they would grow at or better than the rate of GDP growth (after all, income taxes are progressive, so their resulting revenue should actually grow faster than GDP). GDP growth and tax receipts are destined to climb; you want to suggest the tax cuts grew the GDP, but there is NO evidence of that (give me 3 notable economists that support this.... don't waste your time looking, there aren't any) ... there is evidence, however, that the tax cuts resulted in lower tax receipts (note relationship between GDP growth and tax receipt decline)

The Congressional Research Service has estimated the 10-year revenue loss from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to be in excess of $1T, and extending these cuts beyond 2010 to cost an $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148790.pdf

There... a refute to your claim that no one has ever challenged you assertion that the Bush tax cuts led to increased income tax revenue. Frankly, in making the argument that one item resulted in the other, I would say the burden of proof is really on you. Afterall, GDP and tax revenues naturally trend up. Cutting taxes usually result in less tax revenue. Both of these events clearly happened in the last decade, but there is almost zero evidence that the Bush tax actually did a thing to help the economy (yet plenty of evidence they actually hurt).

Conservative · Jan 2, 2012

upsideguy said:
What does 911 have to do with anything? GDP continued to grow 2000 to 2001 to 2002 to 2003, etc., yet income tax revenues fell (see below). Why? Because Bush cut taxes.

Moreover, is with this "full implementation" rationalization? The real guts of the tax cuts were in 2001, and they resulted in reduction of tax revenue. The 2003 addition primarily expanded capital writeoffs and lowered cap gain/ dividend rates. It really wasn't that substantive. For all intents and purposes, the tax cuts happened in 2001, and tax revenues immediately preceded to fall 19%.

Yes, over time, the economy grew, which resulted in increasing income tax revenues, but it took six (6) years for taxes to return to their pre-tax cut levels. Tax receipts grew 5%, while GDP grew 20%. How does that work? If tax cuts were truly neutral, they would grow at or better than the rate of GDP growth (after all, income taxes are progressive, so their resulting revenue should actually grow faster than GDP). GDP growth and tax receipts are destined to climb; you want to suggest the tax cuts grew the GDP, but there is NO evidence of that (give me 3 notable economists that support this.... don't waste your time looking, there aren't any) ... there is evidence, however, that the tax cuts resulted in lower tax receipts (note relationship between GDP growth and tax receipt decline)

The Congressional Research Service has estimated the 10-year revenue loss from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to be in excess of $1T, and extending these cuts beyond 2010 to cost an $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148790.pdf

There... a refute to your claim that no one has ever challenged you assertion that the Bush tax cuts led to increased income tax revenue. Frankly, in making the argument that one item resulted in the other, I would say the burden of proof is really on you. Afterall, GDP and tax revenues naturally trend up. Cutting taxes usually result in less tax revenue. Both of these events clearly happened in the last decade, but there is almost zero evidence that the Bush tax actually did a thing to help the economy (yet plenty of evidence they actually hurt).

In the liberal world the only entity that doesn't have to do on a diet is the Federal Govt. As your chart shows tax revenue increased AFTER the Bush tax cuts, please explain why?

9/11 cost the U.S. a lot of taxpayers thus hurting the economy and govt. revenue.

I know this is really hard to understand especially for a liberal ideologue but you keeping more of your money benefits the economy just like what happened after 2003. Interesting how much passion you have for higher taxes. Do you work for the Federal Govt? What is your problem with keeping more of what you earn and how is that an expense to the Federal Govt?

Neomalthusian · Jan 2, 2012

Conservative said:
In the liberal world the only entity that doesn't have to do on a diet is the Federal Govt. As your chart shows tax revenue increased AFTER the Bush tax cuts, please explain why?

Couple layers: #1: Tax cuts are pro-business, pro-investment, pro-get-rich-in-our-country, which is kickass awesome. Also though (#2), the Bush cuts coincided with Greenspan trading in the dot-com bubble for the housing bubble, so a lot of money was being made that boosted revenues, but not in any sort of sustainable way. To put it really simply, a lot of the growth was fake.

I know this is really hard to understand especially for a liberal ideologue but you keeping more of your money benefits the economy just like what happened after 2003.

Agreed, as per my point #1 above, and disagreed as per my point #2.

upsideguy · Jan 2, 2012

Conservative said:
In the liberal world the only entity that doesn't have to do on a diet is the Federal Govt. As your chart shows tax revenue increased AFTER the Bush tax cuts, please explain why?

9/11 cost the U.S. a lot of taxpayers thus hurting the economy and govt. revenue.

I know this is really hard to understand especially for a liberal ideologue but you keeping more of your money benefits the economy just like what happened after 2003. Interesting how much passion you have for higher taxes. Do you work for the Federal Govt? What is your problem with keeping more of what you earn and how is that an expense to the Federal Govt?

Once again you ignore what is posted and move on with your rants.....
Please explain why did tax revenue FALL for three straight years and take 6 years to return to 2000 levels yet the GDP rose every year?

A) GDP slowed but did not fall after 9/11, yet tax revenues went down (Bush tax cuts);
B) GDP and tax revenue will generally always trend up, but after the Bush tax cuts a) it took 6 (SIX) years for tax revenues to return to 2000 level yet GDP continued to grow.... why, the bush tax cuts were just a cut (at a cost to the US govt of $1T). Tax revenue grew at a much slower rate than GDP.,.... if the tax cuts were neutral or effective, the tax revenues would have grown faster.

Sorry, there is no evidence these the Bush tax cuts did anything but skew the distribution of our wealth.

Unbelievable.... the symbol of the Republican party should be the ostrich .

Conservative · Jan 2, 2012

upsideguy said:
Once again you ignore what is posted and move on with your rants.....
Please explain why did tax revenue FALL for three straight years and take 6 years to return to 2000 levels yet the GDP rose every year?

A) GDP slowed but did not fall after 9/11, yet tax revenues went down (Bush tax cuts);
B) GDP and tax revenue will generally always trend up, but after the Bush tax cuts a) it took 6 (SIX) years for tax revenues to return to 2000 level yet GDP continued to grow.... why, the bush tax cuts were just a cut (at a cost to the US govt of $1T). Tax revenue grew at a much slower rate than GDP.,.... if the tax cuts were neutral or effective, the tax revenues would have grown faster.

Sorry, there is no evidence these the Bush tax cuts did anything but skew the distribution of our wealth.

Unbelievable.... the symbol of the Republican party should be the ostrich .

GDP fell because of the recession that Bush inherited due to the dot.com bubble bursting. 9/11 led to higher unemployment thus lower tax revenue. Tax revenue grew after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003.

If you don't want to keep more of what you earn, send that contribution to the govt. You could pull a Clinton and have a lemonade stand and earn money to pay down the deficit.

Sorry, but you don't understand the economy at all if you believe people keeping more of their money doesn't stimulate the economy and job creation. BLS.gov and BEA.gov disagree with you.

You are absolutely wrong, tax revenue exceeded 2000 levels in 2004 as tax cuts stimulated demand and job growth. Notice the unemployment numbers

Year Total Taxes Unemploy
2000 3,132 2202.8
2001 3,118 2163.7 7142
2002 2,987 2002.1 8251
2003 3,043 2047.9 8921
2004 3,265 2213.2 7927
2005 3,659 2546.8 7553
2006 3,996 2807.4 6853
2007 4,197 2951.2 7200
2008 4,072 2790.3 9569

Catawba · Jan 3, 2012

pbrauer said:
That's correct, but you realize there is a cult that thinks they do. Hell, not even President Reagan believed that, he raised taxes 11 times.

And the capital gains tax rate during the conservative Reagan's Administration was 33% as opposed to 15% today. He would be considered a socialist by the tea party wing of the GOP.

upsideguy · Jan 4, 2012

Conservative said:
GDP fell because of the recession that Bush inherited due to the dot.com bubble bursting. 9/11 led to higher unemployment thus lower tax revenue. Tax revenue grew after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003.

If you don't want to keep more of what you earn, send that contribution to the govt. You could pull a Clinton and have a lemonade stand and earn money to pay down the deficit.

Sorry, but you don't understand the economy at all if you believe people keeping more of their money doesn't stimulate the economy and job creation. BLS.gov and BEA.gov disagree with you.

You are absolutely wrong, tax revenue exceeded 2000 levels in 2004 as tax cuts stimulated demand and job growth. Notice the unemployment numbers

Year Total Taxes Unemploy
2000 3,132 2202.8
2001 3,118 2163.7 7142
2002 2,987 2002.1 8251
2003 3,043 2047.9 8921
2004 3,265 2213.2 7927
2005 3,659 2546.8 7553
2006 3,996 2807.4 6853
2007 4,197 2951.2 7200
2008 4,072 2790.3 9569

Again, you don't read, think and respond. You just respond.

Had you actually read and pondered before responding, you would have recognized that GDP grew after 9/11; it did not fall (see my chart per previous post). It is not the explanation for tax revenues falling. My direct challenge to you was to explain why income tax revenue fell after the tax cuts while GDP rose. I also asked why if these tax cuts were so effective that it took five years for income tax revenues to return to the pre-tax cut levels. I also challenged you on why when tax revenues began to increase they grew at a significantly slower rate than GDP. Now I was gracious enough to help you with the answer here by explaining that the Bush tax cuts did nothing other than cut government revenues ($1T in the last decade and another 3T in the next decade --- http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148790.pdf.) That is conventional wisdom; the prevailing opinion of economists, liberal and conservative, but not yours.

I simply asked you to support your assertion that the Bush tax cuts had something to do with the recovery and/or were revenue. You could not. Instead, you chose you usual tactics of 1) not responding to the issues at hand, 2) condescendence and 3) obfuscation of the issue by introducing unemployment information (I wasn't talking about unemployment) and the merits of tax decreases (I was not discussing the moral merits, only the result.) Sorry, but the burden of proof of the effectiveness of Bush tax cuts is on you. Simply stating tax revenues rose after tax cuts doesn't cut it as there is no discernible correlation, much less an argument for causation.

That 1-2-3 punch of yours is pretty impressive. I guess that is why you won the Asshat of the Year award so convincingly.

Conservative · Jan 4, 2012

upsideguy said:
Again, you don't read, think and respond. You just respond.

Had you actually read and pondered before responding, you would have recognized that GDP grew after 9/11; it did not fall (see my chart per previous post). It is not the explanation for tax revenues falling. My direct challenge to you was to explain why income tax revenue fell after the tax cuts while GDP rose. I also asked why if these tax cuts were so effective that it took five years for income tax revenues to return to the pre-tax cut levels. I also challenged you on why when tax revenues began to increase they grew at a significantly slower rate than GDP. Now I was gracious enough to help you with the answer here by explaining that the Bush tax cuts did nothing other than cut government revenues ($1T in the last decade and another 3T in the next decade --- http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/148790.pdf.) That is conventional wisdom; the prevailing opinion of economists, liberal and conservative, but not yours.

I simply asked you to support your assertion that the Bush tax cuts had something to do with the recovery and/or were revenue. You could not. Instead, you chose you usual tactics of 1) not responding to the issues at hand, 2) condescendence and 3) obfuscation of the issue by introducing unemployment information (I wasn't talking about unemployment) and the merits of tax decreases (I was not discussing the moral merits, only the result.) Sorry, but the burden of proof of the effectiveness of Bush tax cuts is on you. Simply stating tax revenues rose after tax cuts doesn't cut it as there is no discernible correlation, much less an argument for causation.

That 1-2-3 punch of yours is pretty impressive. I guess that is why you won the Asshat of the Year award so convincingly.

Here is what you said and my post refutes that

Please explain why did tax revenue FALL for three straight years and take 6 years to return to 2000 levels yet the GDP rose every year?

What I am waiting for some liberal to do is explain why tax revenue grew AFTER the Tax cuts were fully implemented?

What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? Do your part and send your tax cuts back out of each paycheck since you believe the govt. needs the money more than you do?

Donc · Jan 4, 2012

Quote conservative

You are absolutely wrong, tax revenue exceeded 2000 levels in 2004 as tax cuts stimulated demand and job growth.

Tax revenues in 2000 in billions =$ 2,025.5

Tax revenues in 2004 in billions=$ 1,880.3

Debt Held by the public in billions 2000=$ 3,409.8

Debt Held by the public in billions 2004=$ 4,295.5

Sources: Office of Management and Budget.:2wave:

Conservative · Jan 4, 2012

treedancer said:
Tax revenues in 2000 in billions =$ 2,025.5

Tax revenues in 2004 in billions=$ 1,880.3

Debt Held by the public in billions 2000=$ 3,409.8

Debt Held by the public in billions 2004=$ 4,295.5

Sources: Office of Management and Budget.:2wave:

Debt held by the public is part of the debt, not the total debt but I am sure you know that.

Neomalthusian · Jan 4, 2012

Conservative said:
Here is what you said and my post refutes that

What I am waiting for some liberal to do is explain why tax revenue grew AFTER the Tax cuts were fully implemented?

I gave the answer that makes sense to me. What'd you think?

What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? Do your part and send your tax cuts back out of each paycheck since you believe the govt. needs the money more than you do?

Pretty sure you can't do that (as in IRS won't accept it).

Conservative · Jan 4, 2012

Neomalthusian said:
I gave the answer that makes sense to me. What'd you think?

Pretty sure you can't do that (as in IRS won't accept it).

Aw but you are wrong, send it to the IRS and tell them it is a contribution to the debt reduction

Neomalthusian · Jan 4, 2012

Conservative said:
Aw but you are wrong, send it to the IRS and tell them it is a contribution to the debt reduction

I understand, but I've read it's not actually possible to do that. IRS will not accept donations. Will try to find and link it later, unless someone else does first.

Donc · Jan 4, 2012

Conservative said:
Debt held by the public is part of the debt, not the total debt but I am sure you know that.

I,m glad that we agree that you were wrong when you made this part of your statement"You are absolutely wrong, tax revenue exceeded 2000 levels in 2004 as "

So explain how you can justify this part of your post " tax cuts stimulated demand and job growth "when we both know that the tax cuts, along with unfunded wars,unfunded plan D,s(prescription drug plan ) have only created more debt.

Conservative · Jan 4, 2012

treedancer said:
I,m glad that we agree that you were wrong when you made this part of your statement"You are absolutely wrong, tax revenue exceeded 2000 levels in 2004 as "

So explain how you can justify this part of your post " tax cuts stimulated demand and job growth "when we both know that the tax cuts, along with unfunded wars,unfunded plan D,s(prescription drug plan ) have only created more debt.

Sorry, but I posted the revenue per BEA.gov and that shows tax revenue higher in 2004 than 2000 and that isn't 6 years. What is it about liberals that creates this kind of loyalty as well as inability to even read data.

randel · Jan 4, 2012

Conservative said:
Sorry, but I posted the revenue per BEA.gov and that shows tax revenue higher in 2004 than 2000 and that isn't 6 years. What is it about liberals that creates this kind of loyalty as well as inability to even read data.

lol...you accusing someone of having an inability to read data, now that is funny!! lol

Conservative · Jan 4, 2012

randel said:
lol...you accusing someone of having an inability to read data, now that is funny!! lol

Get your shop steward to help you read this information from bls.gov

***2000*** ***2001*** ***2002*** ***2003*** ***2004***
Current*receipts 3,132.40 3,118.20 2,967.90 3,043.40 3,265.70
Current*tax*receipts 2,202.80 2,163.70 2,002.10 2,047.90 2,213.20

Now I realize i am not nearly as smart as a union wage slave but looks to me like 2.213 in tax revenue in 2004 is higher than 2.202 in 2000 thus that would be four years not 6.

Intesting how I never see any data from you.

randel · Jan 4, 2012

Conservative said:
Get your shop steward to help you read this information from bls.gov

***2000*** ***2001*** ***2002*** ***2003*** ***2004***
Current*receipts 3,132.40 3,118.20 2,967.90 3,043.40 3,265.70
Current*tax*receipts 2,202.80 2,163.70 2,002.10 2,047.90 2,213.20

Now I realize i am not nearly as smart as a union wage slave but looks to me like 2.213 in tax revenue in 2004 is higher than 2.202 in 2000 thus that would be four years not 6.

Intesting how I never see any data from you.

probably because you arent real good with numbers, and they would be wasted on you....and i don't want to confuse you anymore than you already are....

Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

Attachments

Neomalthusian

Conservative

Conservative

Conservative

Imnukingfutz

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

Attachments

Conservative

Neomalthusian

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

Conservative

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

Conservative

Donc

Conservative

Neomalthusian

Conservative

Neomalthusian

Donc

Conservative

randel

Conservative

randel