How can this be? CBO reports largest budget surplus in history...

MTAtech · May 10, 2018

Conservative said:
I quite frankly don't give a damn if GE or any corporation pays taxes as most contribute significantly to the community in so many ways including charities but their employees sure do and unless they are violating Federal tax laws why is this even a problem for you? Obama had 8 years to change the tax laws but didn't do it running trillion dollar deficits so why all of a sudden is this even an issue today?

Actually, Obama did change tax laws. The first change in te tax laws was in the Stimulus Bill, that provided tax benefits. 40% of the Stimulus was tax related. In addition, Obama got the upper-income portion of the Bush tax-cuts, which were extended a year as a negotiation with Congressional Republicans, to expire in 2013. This resulted in far more revenue flowing in and no negative effects on employment. The tax-cuts were the major reason deficits shrank by 75%. Obama also funded the ACA with dedicated taxes. Thus, to state that Obama had 8 years to change the tax-laws and didn't, is undercut by the fact that he did.

jonny5 · May 10, 2018

SheWolf said:
His tax cuts for the rich is causing a surplus in the economy for already very wealthy people and corporations, which is reflected through the stock exchange. The average person is not benefiting very much. All you Trump supporters are cheering for wall st. While the deficit is rising. When this situation blows up, the same donor class and wall streeters will go back to Congress begging for a bailout

The average persons retirement is invested in the stock exchange. They are benefiting quite a lot. And the deficit isnt rising from tax cuts for the rich. Revenue is UP. Spending is up more. And the decades of borrowing to fund excessive social spending is coming due with higher interest rates.

Outlays (adjusted to exclude the effects of the timing
shifts)—which rose by 4.4 percent in 2017—will
increase by 5.2 percent (or $208 billion) this year, to
$4.2 trillion, CBO estimates. All three major components
of spending contribute to that increase:
• Net outlays for interest are anticipated to jump
from $263 billion in 2017 to $316 billion in 2018,
an increase of 20 percent (or $53 billion). Higher
interest rates this year account for most of that
change.
• Discretionary outlays are expected to rise by 7 percent
(or $84 billion) this year, significantly faster than
the 2 percent increase in 2017 and the fastest rate of
increase since 2010. The rapid growth projected for
discretionary outlays stems primarily from recently
enacted legislation.
• Mandatory spending is expected to increase by almost
3 percent (or $71 billion) in 2018, to $2.6 trillion.
That rate of growth, which occurs for many different
reasons, is roughly half the rate of increase recorded
for such outlays in 2017.

MTAtech · May 10, 2018

Bullseye said:
Obama was President for 3/4s of 2009 - shouldn't he get some "credit" for the 1.4 trillion deficit? He had two more years of trillion dollar plus deficits on his own.

Your implication is that in 2009, the deficit was the biggest problem facing the nation -- not the nearly a million job losses a month nor the banking system falling apart and the near-depression. Of course, those things were far more critical issues than the deficit. (Besides, economists tell us government should run deficits in depressions and severe recessions.)

Besides, what would you have Obama do? The deficit was caused by lower revenue from the Great Recession. Are you suggesting Obama should have raised taxes in a severe recession or are you saying that Obama should have cut back on benefits to the unemployed, Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc., just as desperate Americans needed those programs the most due to the failed economy?

expat_panama · May 10, 2018

expat_panama said:
...tax rate cuts are generally followed by increasing revenue and rate hikes usually precede falling revenue. It's just that usually it can take a year or two.

MTAtech said:
You ignore that tax-increases, in your graph, result in increased revenue...

This is a passionate issue and party line ardor is tempting, but let's focus on the hard numbers from the OMB shown above w/ rising revenue over the past 40 years, and how the degree to which tax receipts flowed into the treasury was greater after tax cuts than after hikes.

We see for example how if the flow of tax receipts had been allowed to continue w/o the infamous "read my lips" hikes, there may have been trillions more in budget income by now. Likewise w/ the 2010 hikes.

jonny5 · May 10, 2018

MTAtech said:
Actually, Obama did change tax laws. Obama got the upper-income portion of the Bush tax-cuts, which were extended a year as a negotiation with Congressional Republicans, to expire. This resulted in far more revenue flowing in and no negative effects on employment. The tax-cuts were the major reason deficits shrank by 75%. Obama also funded the ACA with dedicated taxes. Thus, to state that Obama had 8 years to change the tax-laws and didn't, is undercut by the fact that he did.

Obama didnt GET that. They expired on their own. CONGRESS and Obama made the lower income tax cuts permanent in 2013 (after your chart stops going down). And they weren't the major reason for deficits shrinking. That would be the obstruction and sequester forced on Obama by the Republican congress.

Revenue returned to what it was pre recession (when the high income tax cuts were still fully in effect)

Revenue - Share of GDP
2007 17.9
2008 17.1
2009 14.6
2010 14.6
2011 15.0
2012 15.3
2013 16.8
2014 17.5
2015 18.1
2016 17.7

Relative spending went WAY down due to the Republicans obstructing Obama after they took over congress in 2010.

Outlays - Share of GDP
2007 19.1
2008 20.2
2009 24.4
2010 23.4
2011 23.4
2012 22.1
2013 20.9
2014 20.3
2015 20.5
2016 20.9

Conservative · May 10, 2018

Exquisitor said:
Notice 5/2018 is the lowest job growth of any April since 2012.

The Republican tax plan will produce a little growth for about a year before the strain on the lending pool and possibly other factors reach taught the rope then we should see decline.

How is Obama to change tax laws being handed an economic crisis? The order of the day was to extend the Bush tax cuts he blundered in doing. This gave the Reprobates energy and they turned it on him.

You have Republicans to blame for Obama's deficits, if they had given a little more stimulus, passed a highways bill and raised the minimum wage Obama would have left office with a surplus.

What is full employment in your world? Stop looking only at the numbers but rather the context. 3 million more jobs have been created vs. Obama and they are quality jobs and 1 million of the part time for economic reasons have gone to full time. The U-6 Rate is the measurement to judge Presidents, Obama's average was 13.3 and he left us at 9.2. Trump's is now 7.8%

Have you ever taken a civics class? How did Republicans cause the trillion dollar deficits in 09-10-11-12? Little more stimulus? LOL, that is what Obama wanted and what Obama got, when it failed he then moved on to ACA. His results were predicted by his resume. Hardcore supporters will never give up their defense of the indefensible as Obama made Jimmy Carter look good.

MTAtech · May 10, 2018

expat_panama said:
This is a passionate issue and party line ardor is tempting, but let's focus on the hard numbers from the OMB shown above w/ rising revenue over the past 40 years, and how the degree to which tax receipts flowed into the treasury was greater after tax cuts than after hikes.

We see for example how if the flow of tax receipts had been allowed to continue w/o the infamous "read my lips" hikes, there may have been trillions more in budget income by now. Likewise w/ the 2010 hikes.

First, it isn't evident from your graph that "tax receipts flowed into the treasury was greater after tax cuts than after hikes." Using your graph, the period 1982-2000 looks pretty much like a straight line -- even though the periods had both tax increases and tax cuts. I have to point out that while Reagan cut taxes initially, he undid many of those tax-cuts in later years because of the deficits that they created. It is undeniable that Bill Clinton's tax increases rose revenue by 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000 was sharper than the growth under Reagan.

Second, once again, these figures should be adjusted for both inflation and population growth, which tend to increase revenue regardless of tax policy, which is illustrated perfectly when evaluating Bush. Revenues did not increase after the tax-cuts. See below:

In nominal, non-inflation adjusted figures, revenue fell from the 2000 (pre-tax-cut) amounts all the way through to 2004.

Adjusting those figures for inflation, and we see that after the tax-cuts, revenues were lower than the 2000 peak through 2005.

Adjusting those figures for inflation and population growth, and we see that after the tax-cuts, revenues never reached the 2000 peak.

Thus, there is no evidence that the Bush tax-cuts increased revenue. Any increase years after the tax-cuts were enacted was the result of inflation and population growth, not the tax-cuts.

Conservative · May 10, 2018

MTAtech said:
Actually, Obama did change tax laws. The first change in te tax laws was in the Stimulus Bill, that provided tax benefits. 40% of the Stimulus was tax related. In addition, Obama got the upper-income portion of the Bush tax-cuts, which were extended a year as a negotiation with Congressional Republicans, to expire in 2013. This resulted in far more revenue flowing in and no negative effects on employment. The tax-cuts were the major reason deficits shrank by 75%. Obama also funded the ACA with dedicated taxes. Thus, to state that Obama had 8 years to change the tax-laws and didn't, is undercut by the fact that he did.

LOL. more information showing you don't have a clue what a tax cut really is. Obama's rebates was NOT a tax cut, rate cuts are tax cuts. You continue to spout the same rhetoric over and over never answering direct questions like who really benefits from higher taxes, how does someone else keeping more of what they earn hurt you, your family, or the country, do we pay debt service on the debt or deficits, how does higher federal taxes affect state and local economies, do you always buy and spend more when you have less take home pay?

Getting very tired of your diversion and down right ignorance of civics, the taxes you pay and their purpose, and your continue support for a massive central govt. by promoting class envy and warfare.

yankintx · May 10, 2018

itsforthekids said:
Please explain how America is going to go broke because of the Trump Tax Cuts?

April budget surplus sets record, but it's doesn't change long-term deficit projections | WRGB

You did not even read your own cite Bwahahaha

Conservative · May 10, 2018

MTAtech said:
First, it isn't evident from your graph that "tax receipts flowed into the treasury was greater after tax cuts than after hikes." Using your graph, the period 1982-2000 looks pretty much like a straight line -- even though the periods had both tax increases and tax cuts. I have to point out that while Reagan cut taxes initially, he undid many of those tax-cuts in later years because of the deficits that they created. It is undeniable that Bill Clinton's tax increases rose revenue by 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000 was sharper than the growth under Reagan.

Second, once again, these figures should be adjusted for both inflation and population growth, which tend to increase revenue regardless of tax policy, which is illustrated perfectly when evaluating Bush. Revenues did not increase after the tax-cuts. See below:

In nominal, non-inflation adjusted figures, revenue fell from the 2000 (pre-tax-cut) amounts all the way through to 2004.

Adjusting those figures for inflation, and we see that after the tax-cuts, revenues were lower than the 2000 peak through 2005.

Adjusting those figures for inflation and population growth, and we see that after the tax-cuts, revenues never reached the 2000 peak.

Thus, there is no evidence that the Bush tax-cuts increased revenue. Any increase years after the tax-cuts were enacted was the result of inflation and population growth, not the tax-cuts.

LOL, inflation and population growth has always been your argument but that is nothing more than opinion. Reality shows the tax revenue increases after both the Bush and Reagan tax cuts. It had to be some kind of inflation and population growth to create those kind of numbers to offset tax cuts.

expat_panama · May 10, 2018

MTAtech said:
...deficits shrank by 75%. Obama also funded the ACA with dedicated taxes. Thus, to state that Obama had 8 years to change the tax-laws and didn't, is undercut by the fact that he did.

We're together on the fact that Obama lowered some taxes and raised others. Let's also consider that the total affect of gov't costs borne by businesses though the ACA and other taxes along w/ regulatory costs can be considered a massive hike.

We also agree that the deficit in 2016 was less than that of 2009--

--and with that we got the '09 - '16 era of deficits as not only vastly greater than before but after a momentary contraction had once again been increasing.

MTAtech · May 10, 2018

jonny5 said:
Obama didnt GET that. They expired on their own.

See Politifact:

Battling with Republicans in Congress in 2010, Obama relented and agreed to a two-year extension of everyone's rates. But even then, he vowed that he wouldn't let the low rates stand for the wealthiest Americans indefinitely.

In late 2012, with the fiscal cliff crisis pressuring both sides to act, Obama came out of the ordeal with a compromise. A law passed just before 11 p.m. on Jan. 1, 2013, permanently raised rates on families making more than $450,000 and $400,000 for individuals. It's a higher income threshold than Obama sought, but it accomplishes his philosophical goal of asking the wealthy to pay more. We rate this a Compromise.

Total Revenue Rose dramatically

However, since I always make the point that these numbers need to be adjusted for inflation and population growth, I provide this, which shows that even this metric rose beyond pre-crisis norms:

Year ......Total Direct Revenue -fed $2009 per capita
2006....$8514.4
2007....$8770.5
2008....$8379.7
2009....$6874.5
2010....$6907.0
2011....$7154.5
2012....$7416.0
2013....$8208.1
2014....$8713.4
2015....$9201.7
2016....$9069.5

expat_panama · May 10, 2018

MTAtech said:
...it isn't evident from your graph that "tax receipts flowed into the treasury was greater after tax cuts than after hikes." Using your graph, the period 1982-2000 looks pretty much like a straight line ...

We're not connecting here. From what I see, "the period 1982-2000" included the Reagan cuts, the GHBush hikes as well as the Clinton hikes but does not include the dotcom crash and recession beginning at the end of Clinton's term. If it all looks to you "pretty much like a straight line" then that's probably as far as we'll be able to go.

Conservative · May 10, 2018

expat_panama said:
We're not connecting here. From what I see, "the period 1982-2000" included the Reagan cuts, the GHBush hikes as well as the Clinton hikes but does not include the dotcom crash and recession beginning at the end of Clinton's term. If it all looks to you "pretty much like a straight line" then that's probably as far as we'll be able to go.

MTA always has a problem interpreting the charts he/she posts. It is really easy to get the official data from Treasury by going to bea.gov and looking under receipts and expenditures. There MTA would find the 60+% change in FIT revenue as well as a 75+% change in corporate income taxes showing MTA again that tax cuts don't create deficits spending does.

Also what I never will understand regarding the left is how they can ignore state and local issues totally ignoring that states cannot print money and have to balance their budgets thus every dollar that goes to the federal govt. is one less dollar left in the state to do that. Seems like the left ignores we have 50 sovereign states with 50 different budgets with the purpose of actually solving state and local social problems.

faithful_servant · May 10, 2018

JANFU said:
Because you only see what you want to
April budget surplus sets record, but it's doesn't change long-term deficit projections | WRGB

Larger font for those weak eyes

$35 billion larger than the surplus the previous April. Total receipts collected in April were $30 billion to $40 billion more than CBO expected, primarily due to “larger-than-anticipated payments of individual income taxes.”

Larger facts for those weak minds.

faithful_servant · May 10, 2018

MTAtech said:
We covered this in another thread. April is always a surplus due to people paying their taxes. There is low unemployment which means more tax filers. Also, the report isn't inflation adjusted, so the numbers are biggest of any time in history.

The CBO also said that the 2018 deficit will be over $800 billion dollars, the highest since the Great Recession -- and that IS BECAUSE of the tax cuts.

35 billion more than the previous April. The article isn't comparing April to other months, it's comparing it to other Aprils.

sangha · May 10, 2018

expat_panama said:
What really bugs me is the way the left likes to say things like "we have to 'pay' for the tax cut" or "we can't 'afford' a tax cut w/o raising other taxes". It's an assumption that somehow the wealth I created is now property of the state.

Sick.

The tax revenues the govt collects IS the property of the state.

If you do not believe that, try and take it back and see what happens

JANFU · May 10, 2018

faithful_servant said:
Larger facts for those weak minds.

Regardless deficits are increasing and will continue to increase.

faithful_servant · May 10, 2018

Conservative said:
LOL, tax refunds go out in April as well but that is ignored along with the reality that continues to elude the radical left, tax cuts do NOT cause a reduction in revenue but rather increase economic activity which grows revenue. Trump's economy has already doubled with Obama left him and we are going into the best months of the year for economic growth and revenue generation.

Except that it's our conservative Congress that behind this, not the President. He has a small part to play, but it's mostly Congress.

Conservative · May 10, 2018

sangha said:
The tax revenues the govt collects IS the property of the state.

If you do not believe that, try and take it back and see what happens

Really? so when you pay withholding that goes to the state first? your employer sends that money to the state? Wow, where did you get your education?

faithful_servant · May 10, 2018

imagep said:
The government always runs a surplus in the spring and huge deficits at the beginning of each new fiscal year.

Don't confuse seasonality with trends.

..and this article is comparing this April to other Aprils, not to the rest of the year.

Conservative · May 10, 2018

JANFU said:
Regardless deficits are increasing and will continue to increase.

So we had deficits in April? Hmmm, have you told Treasury that? You claimed deficits were increasing, a surplus isn't a deficit

sangha · May 10, 2018

Conservative said:
Really? so when you pay withholding that goes to the state first? your employer sends that money to the state? Wow, where did you get your education?

your dishonest posts are not worth a substantive response

Conservative · May 10, 2018

faithful_servant said:
Except that it's our conservative Congress that behind this, not the President. He has a small part to play, but it's mostly Congress.

You seem to forget, anything bad that happened during the Obama term was due to the Republican GW Bush and the Republican Congress but anything good that happened during Trumps first year in office was all due to Obama. That is liberal logic

Conservative · May 10, 2018

sangha said:
your dishonest posts are not worth a substantive response

You made the claim that tax revenues collected are the property of the state so how can anyone take you seriously? You apparently have no idea what taxes you pay or their purpose.

How can this be? CBO reports largest budget surplus in history...

Land by the Gulf Stream