Obama calls for increase in Federal Gas Tax

[GenSeneca]

The obvious conclusion is that you think that a less than 100% correlation is just a coincidence.

The correlations you offer, tax rates, are shown to be much weaker than the correlation I offered, the dot com bubble.

However, there is a lag time between raising taxes and increasing the percentage that goes to the government.

There is almost no time lag in regards to revenue as a % of GDP where the Nasdaq graph is concerned. Revenue as a % of GDP steadily grew as the bubble grew, revenue as a % of GDP peaked when the bubble peaked, revenue began to fall as the bubble deflated. Multiple chronological data points support this correlation while you have only two data points to support your opinion.

This suggests the correlation between the market and revenue* is much stronger than the correlation you have offered between rates and revenue*.

Moreover, raising tax rates does not necessarily raise taxes, as there are many factors that determine just what the actual percentage of income that has to be paid in taxes.

Which begs the question.. If you recognize this as being true, then why do you press for higher tax rates? It would seem that if your goal were to increase revenue - if that is what you mean by "raise taxes" - then addressing some of the other factors in the equation, such as closing tax write-offs, would have the same affect without the need for higher tax rates... Would it not?

 

[PLC1]

The correlations you offer, tax rates, are shown to be much weaker than the correlation I offered, the dot com bubble.


There is almost no time lag in regards to revenue as a % of GDP where the Nasdaq graph is concerned. Revenue as a % of GDP steadily grew as the bubble grew, revenue as a % of GDP peaked when the bubble peaked, revenue began to fall as the bubble deflated. Multiple chronological data points support this correlation while you have only two data points to support your opinion.

This suggests the correlation between the market and revenue* is much stronger than the correlation you have offered between rates and revenue*.


Which begs the question.. If you recognize this as being true, then why do you press for higher tax rates? It would seem that if your goal were to increase revenue - if that is what you mean by "raise taxes" - then addressing some of the other factors in the equation, such as closing tax write-offs, would have the same affect without the need for higher tax rates... Would it not?

yes, it would.

and "higher tax rates" is only a part of the equation. Yes, what has to be done is the painful raising of taxes, at least in the short term.

along with serious cuts in spending, not just the slowdown in increases that has been discussed thus far.

There is no quick fix, no magic potent, no easy and painless way to address a mountain of debt, no unicorns frolicking under rainbows. It will take real spending cuts, and real tax increases.

Reality bites.

 

[GenSeneca]

Reality bites.

You didn't actually answer my question...

If you believe we can increase revenue without raising tax rates, why then are you so insistent upon increasing tax rates as opposed to taking some other measure to accomplish the same goal?

 

[PLC1]

You didn't actually answer my question...

If you believe we can increase revenue without raising tax rates, why then are you so insistent upon increasing tax rates as opposed to taking some other measure to accomplish the same goal?

I've pretty consistently said we need to raise taxes. You're the one who brought up "tax rates."

 

[GenSeneca]

I've pretty consistently said we need to raise taxes. You're the one who brought up "tax rates."

Most people understand "raise taxes" to mean raise tax rates. So if when you say, "raise taxes" you actually mean "raise revenue"... Why not just say "raise revenue"?

Also, you're the one who offered two "facts" to support your opinion that higher tax rates were the cause of revenue being a higher % of GDP, so I think you're being duplicitous and intentionally vague.

 

[BigRob]

My position is that raising taxes results in the government having a greater share of the GDP, plain and simple.

This is simplistic. As has been shown over and over again, the % of GDP will remain roughly the same despite the tax rates.

Imagine:
Tax rates (or really revenue as a % of GDP would be a better explanation) = 20%
GDP = $100
Revenue = $20

Now, we increase GDP, yet tax rates remain the same
GDP = $200
Revenue = $40

Look again, and imagine we cut taxes, yet grew GDP
Tax rates = 15%
GDP = $200
Revenue = $30

The way to increase revenues is not simply to "have a greater share of GDP", the way to increase revenues is to expand GDP. There seems to be no evidence that raising taxes is going to really help expand GDP...what we need to be doing is pursuing policies to grow GDP.

 

[GenSeneca]

This is simplistic. As has been shown over and over again, the % of GDP will remain roughly the same despite the tax rates.

He will simply claim that when he says "raise taxes" that he's not actually talking about raising tax rates but increasing revenue. What you've said is true but I believe PLC has taken this tact of using the phrase "raise taxes" to mean something other than raising rates as a way to save face on the subject.

 

[PLC1]

Again, I've consistently said, "raising taxes", not "tax rates", or anything else. Nothing duplicitous or vague about that. If you raise taxes, then the government has a higher percentage of the GDP. That has been my position from the beginning. Moreover, I've consistently said that the federal government will have to raise taxes and decrease spending if the deficit is ever to be under control. Nothing vague about that, is there?

Now, if you want to discuss my perfectly clear, non vague position, feel free. Please don't throw strawmen at it and claim that I've said something else.

 

[GenSeneca]

Again, I've consistently said, "raising taxes", not "tax rates", or anything else. Nothing duplicitous or vague about that. If you raise taxes, then the government has a higher percentage of the GDP. That has been my position from the beginning. Moreover, I've consistently said that the federal government will have to raise taxes and decrease spending if the deficit is ever to be under control. Nothing vague about that, is there?

Now, if you want to discuss my perfectly clear, non vague position, feel free. Please don't throw strawmen at it and claim that I've said something else.

So if I said, "I'm going to raise your taxes", what would you take that to mean?

 

[PLC1]

So if I said, "I'm going to raise your taxes", what would you take that to mean?

That you aren't a politician, because no politician would ever say it so directly.

But, I'd take it to mean you intended to raise my taxes. Hopefully, that means you'd raise everyone else's taxes as well.

 

[BigRob]

Again, I've consistently said, "raising taxes", not "tax rates", or anything else. Nothing duplicitous or vague about that.

I don't quite see the distinction you are trying to make here...after all, if one "raised taxes" are they not affecting the tax rates?

If you raise taxes, then the government has a higher percentage of the GDP. That has been my position from the beginning.

But isn't the whole issue here trying to increase revenue? If increased taxes are not going to equate to increased revenues (and from the evidence it seems fairly likely they won't, unless somehow GDP rapidly expands in the process), then what is the point?

 

[BigRob]

That you aren't a politician, because no politician would ever say it so directly.

Walter Mondale.

 

[PLC1]

Walter Mondale.

So that's why he didn't get reelected!

 

[Dr.Who]

I've pretty consistently said we need to raise taxes. You're the one who brought up "tax rates."

Yet you have still offered no way to raise those taxes that would actually work. Several of your examples have continued to be examples of raising the rates.

It needs to be stated again and again until you get it that raising the rates just will not work. None of the things that have already been tried will work. And some of the other things that have been tried are progressive taxation and various loopholes.

A flat tax however might raise revenue if the flat rate were raised. Of course it still might hurt the economy enough to lower GDP and thus reduce revenue.

 

[Dr.Who]

The way to increase revenues is not simply to "have a greater share of GDP", the way to increase revenues is to expand GDP. There seems to be no evidence that raising taxes is going to really help expand GDP...what we need to be doing is pursuing policies to grow GDP.

BINGO!!!

I would propose that gov cannot play around with the economy and have it result in the GDP going up but that it can stand out of the way as much as possible and have that result in the GDP going up.

Trade between private citizens is what drives the GDP. Let people trade freely unless they hurt each other and they will do a lot of it. Tax them or regulate them and they will do less of it.