"Don't raise Fed debt ceiling" means "Balance the Fed budget INSTANTLY"

[GenSeneca]

how do you know that revenue remains static as a percent of GDP regardless of tax rates?

It's not MY assertion, it is the findings of the Congressional Budgeting Office. Go back and read my very first post in this thread, that's where I offered you a link to the CBO data which shows that over a period of 40 years, despite ever fluctuating tax rates, the revenue to the government remains around 18% of GDP.

 

[PLC1]

Raising taxes does not equate to greater revenue, although that is quite a popular misconception. More than 40 years of history shows that revenue is roughly 18% of GDP regardless of the tax rates and regardless of how many different tax "streams" exist. Whether tax rates are at 90% or 15%, and whether there are hundreds or even thousands of individuals tax "streams", the revenue to the federal government has remained steady around 18% of total GDP.

So explain to us how raising taxes increases GDP...

Or perhaps you could offer some historical proof that Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue.... Here's the proof to support my statements on the subject:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

That report is from the Congressional Budgeting Office and covers the last 40 years. On page 4 you can find the historical % of GDP and see that revenue is pretty steadily around 18%.

Oh, so that's what you've been talking about. That will teach me not to go on without reading the links.

The link you provided shows total revenues from 1968 to 2007 fluctuating between a low of 16.3% to a high nearly 21%. Interestingly enough, it went from 19% to 17.5% between 1980 and 1987, and from 20.9% in 2000 to 16.3 in 2003, then back up to 18.8 in 2007.

Here's an interesting graph of federal government revenue that covers a longer time period:

More information than any of us will want can be had here.

Here's a scary little graph from the CBO that does show a level revenue line, but it is projected revenue. If that comes to pass, then the government is really in deep doo doo:

In case you want to read about that, here's the link.

 

[GenSeneca]

The link you provided shows total revenues from 1968 to 2007 fluctuating between a low of 16.3% to a high nearly 21%. Interestingly enough, it went from 19% to 17.5% between 1980 and 1987, and from 20.9% in 2000 to 16.3 in 2003, then back up to 18.8 in 2007.

Which is a relatively constant % compared to GDP.

1970:
Top Rate - 71.75%
GDP - 1,038.3 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 19%
Total Revenue - 192.8 (billions)

1990:
Top Rate - 28%
GDP - 5800.5 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 18%
Total Revenue - 1032.1 (billions)

Rates dropped 43.75% and revenues rose more than 535%.

But you seem to be interested in the years of 1980-1987 and 2000-2004, so lets take a look.

1980:
Top Rate - 70%
GDP - 2,788.1 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 19%
Total Revenue - 517.1 (billions)

1987:
Top Rate - 38.5%
GDP - 4,736.4 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 18.4%
Total Revenue - 854.4 (billions)

Rates were reduced by 31.5% and revenues rose by more than 65%.

2000:
Top Rate - 39.6%
GDP - 9951.5 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 20.9%
Total Revenue - 2025.5 (billions)

2004:
Top Rate - 35%
GDP - 11,867.8
Revenue as % of GDP - 16.3%
Total Revenue - 1880.3 (billions)

Rates were reduced by 4.6% and revenues were reduced roughly 7%.

However, in the 40 years of data, revenue had steadily risen every year, whether taxes were raised, lowered, or remained unchanged, and Revenue has only ever dropped once, in 2001 (Which saw the crash of the DotCom bubble and 9/11). Since 2001, revenues have once again remained on the rise whether taxes are raised, lowered, or remain the same.

Therefore, if you are going to continue to claim that Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue, you really should offer some kind of proof. The data available does not support the "trickle up" theory that Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue but it does support what I have said, a Larger GDP = Greater Revenue.

 

[Gipper]

Okay Gen you have very effectively proved without a scintilla of doubt, that raising tax rates does not raise revenue.

Now, will the two lefties who contested you admit that you are right?

If they will not, then we know it is impossible to debate some lefties because they will never accept the truth, if the truth disputes their dogma. This would be most disappointing for it would indicate a willingness to be deceived.

Any bets on whether the two lefties agree or disagree?

 

[PLC1]

Which is a relatively constant % compared to GDP.

1970:
Top Rate - 71.75%
GDP - 1,038.3 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 19%
Total Revenue - 192.8 (billions)

1990:
Top Rate - 28%
GDP - 5800.5 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 18%
Total Revenue - 1032.1 (billions)

Rates dropped 43.75% and revenues rose more than 535%.

But you seem to be interested in the years of 1980-1987 and 2000-2004, so lets take a look.

1980:
Top Rate - 70%
GDP - 2,788.1 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 19%
Total Revenue - 517.1 (billions)

1987:
Top Rate - 38.5%
GDP - 4,736.4 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 18.4%
Total Revenue - 854.4 (billions)

Rates were reduced by 31.5% and revenues rose by more than 65%.

2000:
Top Rate - 39.6%
GDP - 9951.5 (billions)
Revenue as % of GDP - 20.9%
Total Revenue - 2025.5 (billions)

2004:
Top Rate - 35%
GDP - 11,867.8
Revenue as % of GDP - 16.3%
Total Revenue - 1880.3 (billions)

Rates were reduced by 4.6% and revenues were reduced roughly 7%.

However, in the 40 years of data, revenue had steadily risen every year, whether taxes were raised, lowered, or remained unchanged, and Revenue has only ever dropped once, in 2001 (Which saw the crash of the DotCom bubble and 9/11). Since 2001, revenues have once again remained on the rise whether taxes are raised, lowered, or remain the same.

Therefore, if you are going to continue to claim that Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue, you really should offer some kind of proof. The data available does not support the "trickle up" theory that Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue but it does support what I have said, a Larger GDP = Greater Revenue.

What's all that supposed to prove?

Your original contention was as follows:

that raising taxes does not equate to greater revenue, greater revenue only comes from a higher GDP - since revenue is a relatively static 18% of GDP.

The link you posted does not show that revenue is a "relatively static" 18% of GDP, but has been fluctuating between 16 and 21% in recent years.

I posted two more links showing the same thing, over a longer period of time.

So, you come back with more figures showing that revenues increased over the years, and some other things that have nothing to do with your original premise.

Unless you can show that revenue remains 18% of GDP regardless of tax rates, then the correct assumption is that you were wrong.

Now, back to my original statement, which was that we (meaning the federal government) are going to have to increase taxes and decrease spending in order to balance the budget.

Sure, if the GDP increases, and it looks as if it is beginning to do so, then the painful budget balancing project is going to take a smaller portion of it than it will if the GDP remains static.

But, the federal government does not determine the GDP.

None of us wants to believe that raising taxes is going to be necessary, but the fact is that there is no free lunch,and no magical static 18% of GDP regardless of tax rates. That is just wishful thinking.

We pragmatists don't believe in magic, nor in wishful thinking.

 

[GenSeneca]

We pragmatists don't believe in magic, nor in wishful thinking.

Clearly you do since you persist in the crazy notion that simply raising taxes equates to higher revenue with out a single shred of evidence.

And I didn't claim it was exactly 18% of GDP but that's the average and the fluctuation isn't nearly as wide as the fluctuations in tax rates over the same period.

So, wheres your proof that Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue? I can point to actual data that shows almost perpetually Higher Revenue despite taxes being raised, lowered, and remained unchanged, which makes your entire premise - WISHFUL THINKING.

 

[PLC1]

Clearly you do since you persist in the crazy notion that simply raising taxes equates to higher revenue with out a single shred of evidence.

Not a shred that you will accept. Basic math be damned. Raising taxes doesn't result in increased revenue, because you say so. 16% is really the same as 21%, because we wish it were.

And I didn't claim it was exactly 18% of GDP but that's the average and the fluctuation isn't nearly as wide as the fluctuations in tax rates over the same period.

Actually, yes, you did, and then used it to say that the only way to increase revenue was to increase the GDP.

So, wheres your proof that Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue? I can point to actual data that shows almost perpetually Higher Revenue despite taxes being raised, lowered, and remained unchanged, which makes your entire premise - WISHFUL THINKING.

I believe your "perpetually higher revenue" is called economic growth. When the economy grows, government revenue grows as well. The problem with your wishful thinking is that the government can't cause economic growth. Meanwhile, we have that 14 trillion debt that has been building up for decades now, and is threatening the solvency of the nation. Said debt started with the absurd notion that cutting taxes will result in increased revenues, an idea subsequently dubbed "voodoo economics" by a Republican president, then later called a "left wing talking point".

Then, you maintain that government revenue has remained a steady 18% of GDP regardless of tax rates, and therefore tax rates don't affect government revenues. When your own link showed a fluctuation of revenues, then you maintained that you meant that the average was 18%, which might be true, but doesn't show that government revenues aren't affected by tax rates.

Now, of course, we all would like to believe that raising taxes, or even keeping the rates the same as they were before the temporary cuts of the Bush Administration, is unnecessary and won't result in increased revenues. After all, no one likes taxes. No one likes real cuts in spending, either. Both are necessary, and to say otherwise is simply... what was that phrase I used before? Oh, yes it is


wishful thinking.

 

[Gipper]

Not a shred that you will accept. Basic math be damned. Raising taxes doesn't result in increased revenue, because you say so. 16% is really the same as 21%, because we wish it were.




Actually, yes, you did, and then used it to say that the only way to increase revenue was to increase the GDP.



I believe your "perpetually higher revenue" is called economic growth. When the economy grows, government revenue grows as well. The problem with your wishful thinking is that the government can't cause economic growth. Meanwhile, we have that 14 trillion debt that has been building up for decades now, and is threatening the solvency of the nation. Said debt started with the absurd notion that cutting taxes will result in increased revenues, an idea subsequently dubbed "voodoo economics" by a Republican president, then later called a "left wing talking point".

Then, you maintain that government revenue has remained a steady 18% of GDP regardless of tax rates, and therefore tax rates don't affect government revenues. When your own link showed a fluctuation of revenues, then you maintained that you meant that the average was 18%, which might be true, but doesn't show that government revenues aren't affected by tax rates.

Now, of course, we all would like to believe that raising taxes, or even keeping the rates the same as they were before the temporary cuts of the Bush Administration, is unnecessary and won't result in increased revenues. After all, no one likes taxes. No one likes real cuts in spending, either. Both are necessary, and to say otherwise is simply... what was that phrase I used before? Oh, yes it is


wishful thinking.

Well that answers my question. You believe in something that can't be proven and have ignored all the proof that you are wrong. No wonder you believe in global warming.

And, I do want cuts. Lots of cuts....so not only are you wrong about taxes, you are wrong about that too.

 

[GenSeneca]

Not a shred that you will accept.

You have offered ZERO.

Raising taxes doesn't result in increased revenue, because you say so.

Because the data as a whole does not support such a conclusion. Sure if you cherry pick certain parts of the data you can pretend it supports whatever claim you are making and that seems to be exactly what you're doing.

16% is really the same as 21%, because we wish it were.

Don't get a nosebleed while your up there picking cherries!

Actually, yes, you did, and then used it to say that the only way to increase revenue was to increase the GDP.

No, I didn't... I said AROUND 18%, get a dictionary if you think "around" means "precisely" or "exactly". And yes, the best way to increase revenue is economic growth, which leads to a larger GDP.

I believe your "perpetually higher revenue" is called economic growth. When the economy grows, government revenue grows as well.

I'm glad to see you have the capacity to understand that.

The problem with your wishful thinking is that the government can't cause economic growth.

Never claimed government could cause economic growth. Go fish.

Then, you maintain that government revenue has remained a steady 18% of GDP regardless of tax rates, and therefore tax rates don't affect government revenues. When your own link showed a fluctuation of revenues, then you maintained that you meant that the average was 18%, which might be true, but doesn't show that government revenues aren't affected by tax rates.

Ah yes... great job cherry picking data! You would have a bright future in the Democrat party!

From 1971-1980 tax rates remained unchanged yet the revenue varied from 17.1% to 19.0% of GDP. But how can that be true? It's your assertion that to have a higher % of GDP, we must raise taxes! Oh well, better ignore any data that flies in the face of your magical theory of "trickle up" voodoo economics and pretend like it doesn't exist.

Meanwhile, we have that 14 trillion debt that has been building up for decades now, and is threatening the solvency of the nation. Said debt started with the absurd notion that cutting taxes will result in increased revenues, an idea subsequently dubbed "voodoo economics" by a Republican president, then later called a "left wing talking point".

I see... Our national debt began with Reagan... Cutting taxes CAUSED the debt... Once again you're off in left-wing fairtale land. There is only one thing, and one thing alone, that causes debt - OVERSPENDING!

Oh, yes it is wishful thinking.

Unlike yourself, I'm looking at all the data and making observations based on the empirical evidence, I'm not cherry picking data to serve my pre-determined notions of some kooky economic theory.

Want to balance the budget? Cut spending.

Revenue will continue to increase, as is the rule, and allowing the argument over balancing the budget to focus on whether to raise or lower tax rates is designed to be a political football game that makes for great soundbites while distracting the public from the real problem, overspending.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The above chart shows all the things the Federal govt spends money on, and the debt they created. If you're going to reduce spending, these are the programs you have available to you, to cut.

So, which of these budget items should we reduce or eliminate, to get to the balanced budget we'll need to prevent the National Debt from going any higher?

My suggestion: Start by reducing or eliminating the programs that are not authorized by the Constitution. Devolve them to the states if you like, or privatize them, or simply get rid of them, mix and match as you like.

If there is still excessive spending after you've done that, then move on to cutting the programs that ARE authorized to the Fed by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[PLC1]

You have offered ZERO.


Because the data as a whole does not support such a conclusion. Sure if you cherry pick certain parts of the data you can pretend it supports whatever claim you are making and that seems to be exactly what you're doing.


Don't get a nosebleed while your up there picking cherries!


No, I didn't... I said AROUND 18%, get a dictionary if you think "around" means "precisely" or "exactly". And yes, the best way to increase revenue is economic growth, which leads to a larger GDP.


I'm glad to see you have the capacity to understand that.


Never claimed government could cause economic growth. Go fish.


Ah yes... great job cherry picking data! You would have a bright future in the Democrat party!

From 1971-1980 tax rates remained unchanged yet the revenue varied from 17.1% to 19.0% of GDP. But how can that be true? It's your assertion that to have a higher % of GDP, we must raise taxes! Oh well, better ignore any data that flies in the face of your magical theory of "trickle up" voodoo economics and pretend like it doesn't exist.


I see... Our national debt began with Reagan... Cutting taxes CAUSED the debt... Once again you're off in left-wing fairtale land. There is only one thing, and one thing alone, that causes debt - OVERSPENDING!


Unlike yourself, I'm looking at all the data and making observations based on the empirical evidence, I'm not cherry picking data to serve my pre-determined notions of some kooky economic theory.

Want to balance the budget? Cut spending.

Revenue will continue to increase, as is the rule, and allowing the argument over balancing the budget to focus on whether to raise or lower tax rates is designed to be a political football game that makes for great soundbites while distracting the public from the real problem, overspending.

Your entire argument centered around the assertion that federa revenues held steady at 18% of the GDP. Now, you're saying "around" 18%.

the GDP as of now is $14,745.1 billion. Here's a link, just in case you want to say it is something different.

16.3% of $14,745.1 billion = $240,343.5 billion.
21.9% of $14,745.1 billion = 322,917.6969
The difference is $825.7419

So, a difference of over $800 billion is still "around". I suppose that's good enough for government work.

But, $825 billion applied to the current deficit wold make some minor difference.

Then, another $4 or $5 hundred billion could come from spending cuts. Add it all up, and you know, a hundred billion here, and a hundred billion there, and we could have some real money.

Enough, in fact, to start paying down that horrendous debt.

Now, on this one we can mostly agree:

Revenue will continue to increase, as is the rule, and allowing the argument over balancing the budget to focus on whether to raise or lower tax rates is designed to be a political football game that makes for great soundbites while distracting the public from the real problem, overspending.

The argument doesn't need to focus on raising or lowering taxes, and I never said it did. My statement was cut spending, and raise taxes. Your contention was that raising taxes won't raise revenue, as revenue is a fairly steady percentage of the GDP anyway.

Oh, well I suppose $825 billion one way or the other is "fairly steady."

 

[GenSeneca]

16.3% of $14,745.1 billion = $240,343.5 billion.
21.9% of $14,745.1 billion = 322,917.6969
The difference is $825.7419

I said from my very first post on the subject that it was AROUND 18%, you just chose to ignore it because you need a strawman.

Also, the high was 20.9%, not 21.9%.

Now as to your premise that Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue... Is your above example supposed to prove that? You are assuming that the economy would have had the EXACT same growth regardless of tax rates... Are you going to now argue that higher taxes cannot hinder economic growth and lead to a smaller GDP? That $825 billion could have easily been wiped out due to slower economic growth as a result of excessive taxation. Of course, if you are planning to now argue that Tax Rates play no role in economic growth, then lets hear it.

Additionally, how do you explain revenue increasing and decreasing as a % of GDP during periods where taxes remained unchanged (No increases and no decreases)? Your premise that Higher Taxes = Higher % of GDP is not supported by the empirical data, so exactly what do you claim as proof?

 

[PLC1]

I said from my very first post on the subject that it was AROUND 18%, you just chose to ignore it because you need a strawman.

Also, the high was 20.9%, not 21.9%.

Oh, my bad. So, "around" only means maybe $600 billion one way or the other. That's close enough for government work, isn't it?

Now as to your premise that Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue... Is your above example supposed to prove that? You are assuming that the economy would have had the EXACT same growth regardless of tax rates... Are you going to now argue that higher taxes cannot hinder economic growth and lead to a smaller GDP? That $825 billion could have easily been wiped out due to slower economic growth as a result of excessive taxation. Of course, if you are planning to now argue that Tax Rates play no role in economic growth, then lets hear it.

Additionally, how do you explain revenue increasing and decreasing as a % of GDP during periods where taxes remained unchanged (No increases and no decreases)? Your premise that Higher Taxes = Higher % of GDP is not supported by the empirical data, so exactly what do you claim as proof?

I'm sure that there are other factors besides income tax rates that determine the percent of GDP that goes to the federal government, however, I believe I did point out the downward trend during the tax cutting administrations. Check it out and see.

 

[GenSeneca]

Oh, my bad. So, "around" only means maybe $600 billion one way or the other. That's close enough for government work, isn't it?

1. You are cherry picking information to support your claim.
2. There is no evidence that had tax rates remained unchanged that Revenue as a % of GDP would also remain unchanged. The data shows that even when tax rates remain unchanged, there is a fluctuation in revenue as a % of GDP but you ignore this information because it contradicts, rather than supports, your theory.
3. There is no evidence to suggest GDP would have grown as much as it did regardless of Tax rates.
4. There is no evidence that tax rates are the determining factor regarding Revenue as a % of GDP. The data indicates there is some other factor that determines revenue as % of GDP but again, that contradicts your theory and therefore is ignored.

You are just adding more unsubstantiated claims rather than offering evidence to support your theory.

I'm sure that there are other factors besides income tax rates that determine the percent of GDP that goes to the federal government, however, I believe I did point out the downward trend during the tax cutting administrations. Check it out and see.

Yes, let's take a look...

1986-1987:
Tax Rates Decreased from 50% to 38.5%, Revenue as a % of GDP Increased 0.9%.

1990-1991:
Tax Rates Increased from 28% to 31%, Revenue as a % of GDP Decreased by 0.2%.

Sorry PLC, it's only by cherry picking data and ignoring anything contradictory that you can "support" your theory of "trickle up" economics. You have offered no explanations for data that directly contradicts your theory and you have also not offered any evidence to support your other unsubstantiated claims.

 

[PLC1]

1. You are cherry picking information to support your claim.
2. There is no evidence that had tax rates remained unchanged that Revenue as a % of GDP would also remain unchanged.

Exactly my point. Common sense tells you that when tax rates increase, the revenue as a % of GDP does not remain unchanged.

The data shows that even when tax rates remain unchanged, there is a fluctuation in revenue as a % of GDP but you ignore this information because it contradicts, rather than supports, your theory.

You're the one saying that revenue remains the same. I'm the one saying it fluctuates. What happened to that steady "around" 18% you kept citing earlier?

3. There is no evidence to suggest GDP would have grown as much as it did regardless of Tax rates.

Correct again. GDP does not necessarily grow as a result of cutting taxes.

4. There is no evidence that tax rates are the determining factor regarding Revenue as a % of GDP. The data indicates there is some other factor that determines revenue as % of GDP but again, that contradicts your theory and therefore is ignored.

Ah, the unknown factor. You seem to agree with me on your first few points, then come up with some other, unnamed factor. What do you think that factor might be?

Yes, let's take a look...

1986-1987:
Tax Rates Decreased from 50% to 38.5%, Revenue as a % of GDP Increased 0.9%.

1990-1991:
Tax Rates Increased from 28% to 31%, Revenue as a % of GDP Decreased by 0.2%.

Year to year fluctuations show that there may be more than one factor. When you look at five to ten years at a time on that link you posted, what does that show?

Sorry PLC, it's only by cherry picking data and ignoring anything contradictory that you can "support" your theory of "trickle up" economics. You have offered no explanations for data that directly contradicts your theory and you have also not offered any evidence to support your other unsubstantiated claims.

Sorry, Gen, but your conclusion is just as flawed as the rest of your statements.