What's all that supposed to prove?
Your original contention was as follows:
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.
