They dont want to pay for what they got!

[Bonestorm]

Maybe we are looking at different tables... which are you referring to?

Table F-3. Look at the last two columns.

ROFLMAO... oh, because YOU say so????? give me a fucking break. If TOTAL revenues INCREASE, then you can't sit there and say it 'definitely' lowered revenue you dolt.

PERIOD.

No, not because I said so. Because that's what the numbers bear out both in real dollars and as a percentage of GDP in the wake of the 2001 tax cuts. And yes, it is possible for revenues to increase year-to-year and for tax cuts to decrease revenue. If revenues are lower than they otherwise would be in the absence of the tax cuts, that's a reduction in revenue.

COMMA,

In the context of the Bush tax cuts, you are wrong. Revenue both in real dollars and as a percent of GDP INCREASED after the recession and market downturn of 2000-2002's impact subsided.

So you claim. Revenues decreased in real dollars and as a percentage of GDP from 2000 to 2001, from 2001 to 2002 and from 2002 to 2003. The recession ended in March 2001. And blaming the 2001 recession for the low revenues as a percentage of GDP in 2003 and 2004 is pretty ridiculous given that the paltry 16.1% of 2004 was the lowest revenue as a percentage of GDP since 1951. Maybe, just maybe the historically low tax rates had something to do with it.

Go talk to ANY CPA. Ask them what happened to their clients taxes in those years as a result of the market downturn.

I don't care about your anecdata. If the market downturn and recession were the cause for the historically low revenues as a percentage of GDP, we'd see similar lows for prior recessions, but that's not the case. Didn't happen in the early 1990s, the early 1980s or the early and mid-70s. Your explanation for the historically low revenues doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

1960 526.4 29.08
1961 544.8 29.14
1962 585.7 27.54
1963 617.8 27.89
1964 663.6 27.74
1965 719.1 26.92
1966 787.7 27.34
1967 832.4 28.84
1968 909.8 27.85 a
1969 984.4 30.46 a
1970 1038.3 30.92 a
1971 1126.8 28.91 a
1972 1237.9 29.55 a
1973 1382.3 29.63 a
1974 1499.5 30.63 a
1975 1637.7 30.14 a
1976 1824.6 29.99 a
1977 2030.1 31.07 a
1978 2293.8 30.59 a
1979 2562.2 30.95 a
1980 2788.1 31.76 a
1981 3126.8 32.48 a
1982 3253.2 33.10 a
1983 3534.6 31.23 a
1984 3930.9 31.07 a
1985 4217.5 31.95 a
1986 4460.1 32.27 a
1987 4736.4 33.40 a
1988 5100.4 32.86 a
1989 5482.1 33.24 i
1990 5800.5 33.23 a
1991 5992.1 33.07 a
1992 6342.3 33.07 a
1993 6667.4 33.39 a
1994 7085.2 33.51 a
1995 7414.7 34.27 a
1996 7838.5 34.85 a
1997 8332.4 35.40 a
1998 8793.5 36.25 a
1999 9353.5 35.83 a
2000 9951.5 36.93 a
2001 10286.2 34.59 a
2002 10642.3 31.00 a
2003 11142.1 30.88 a
2004 11867.8 32.79 a
2005 12638.4 33.58 a
2006 13398.9 35.05 a
2007 14061.8 36.74 a
2008 14369.1 32.73 a
2009 14119 26.49 e
2010 14508.2 28.95

yeah... taking a look at the above, it was indeed fairly consistent from 2000-2008. It dipped with recessions and bounced back as the market and economy did. The REDUCTIONS in terms of GDP that we are talking about are due to the financial market imploding which led to high unemployment.... THAT is what is causing the reduction in revenues (as estimated) for 2009 and 2010. It has little to due with the tax cuts that your messiah just extended.

First of all, I think your numbers are incorrect. Take 2006. In 2006 US GDP was a shade over $13T. For the number above to be accurate (36% revenues as a percentage of GDP) the federal government would have collected $4.7T (roughly). That's not even close to actual revenues ($2.4T) and we would have actually had a budget surplus of about $2.1T in 2006 alone.

The numbers I am using are correct and they show the significant declines in the 2000-2008 period I raised initially, above. And yes, obviously the recession and high unemployment have reduced revenues significantly since 2008, but so to have the various tax cuts that have been implemented.

I showed where the PEAK was in 2000, you then proclaimed 'how can you say it didn't cut revenues when it never got back to the PEAK'.... ignoring all other factors, you simply proclaim it was due to the tax cuts. If the tax cuts were the cause of a decline in revenue as you proclaim then do tell us what made them go up as a percent of GDP from 2004-2007 since you acknowledge they did indeed INCREASE.

No, you said that revenues as a percentage of GDP remained fairly constant from 2000-2008. But that's just not true and I pointed that out. And yes, I said that it the lion's share was due to the tax cuts because that's what caused the lion's share of the deficits. I'm not ignoring all other factors, I am pointing to one particular factor that had the most impact, the tax cuts.

And again, the 2004-2007 period only shows that the economy improved and so did revenues. But it doesn't tell us what revenues would have been with higher tax rates in place during the time of expansion. The tax cuts caused the government to bring in less revenue that it otherwise would have.

Again... revenues were INCREASING... they were NOT being cut. So your statement is obviously false.

SF, you are presumably a smarter person than this.

Wrong, you most certainly are trying to lump me in with Bush/Republicans.... you have done it many times on this thread alone.

I support proper stimulus packages in recessionary times. I have stated that many times. With a Rep President and Rep control of both houses and the fiscal constraint shown by the Rep led Congress in the late 90's... yes, I did expect them to reign in spending.

Such a naif.

ROFLMAO... show me genius.... WHERE did I pretend they never happened????????????????????

Well, you said that in 2007 revenues as a percentage of GDP were almost back to 2000 levels as though the huge declines from 2001 through 2006 never happened. First, in 2007 revenues as a percentage of GDP were 18.5%, 2.1% below 2000 levels. With a $13T and change economy that 2.1% is about $275 billion, enough to close the deficit in FY07. And that was the high point of the 2001-2008 period.

Wasn't a $500b decrease in Medicare/Medicaid waste part of the 'benefits' of the ACA?

Yes, and?

So the Republican pill bill is the one you point to? The one that has been around a whole FIVE years? ROFLMAO..... ok... that one has been below the original estimates.... you got me. Didn't realize you were such a Bush supporter.

It's the most current one I remember. And I'm not really a Bush supporter. The lower costs really don't have much to do with him/

fargle bargle

Agreed.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Table F-3. Look at the last two columns.

I stand corrected, I think your numbers are the accurate.

No, not because I said so. Because that's what the numbers bear out both in real dollars and as a percentage of GDP in the wake of the 2001 tax cuts. And yes, it is possible for revenues to increase year-to-year and for tax cuts to decrease revenue. If revenues are lower than they otherwise would be in the absence of the tax cuts, that's a reduction in revenue.

No, they don't. Look at Table F3 as you stated.... revenues in real dollars INCREASED from 2003 to 2004, 4-5, 5-6, 6-7, slight decline in 7-8 and then fell off again due to new recession. In percentages of GDP it was almost identical. Revenues dipped as a percentage slightly from 3-4, then increased every subsequent year until the financial mess.

The rest of your post is inaccurate. You are assuming that by increasing the INCOME tax rates that total revenue would have been higher due to INCOME tax rates being higher. THAT is a bad assumption as it doesn't reflect how the higher INCOME taxes would affect other sources of revenue and GDP. If more of my paycheck is being withheld for taxes, then that is more of my money that is not being spent by me on goods/services.

So you claim. Revenues decreased in real dollars and as a percentage of GDP from 2000 to 2001, from 2001 to 2002 and from 2002 to 2003. The recession ended in March 2001. And blaming the 2001 recession for the low revenues as a percentage of GDP in 2003 and 2004 is pretty ridiculous given that the paltry 16.1% of 2004 was the lowest revenue as a percentage of GDP since 1951. Maybe, just maybe the historically low tax rates had something to do with it.

Yes, again.... WHAT HAPPENED TO THE STOCK MARKET IN 2000? Did we or did we not see the tech bubble burst? In 2000 the market was down 9%, in 2001 12%, in 2002 22% (talking S&P 500.... the NASDAQ was far worse). THAT has a significant impact on taxes as it creates CAPITAL LOSSES that offset gains and to an extent income. So yes, it absolutely has to do with revenue flows from 2000-2004. The current recession is over but due to HOW capital losses can be used, people will still be using losses from 2008-2009 many years into the future.

You keep pointing to 2004 and trying to prove your point with that one year... but tell us.... HOW do you explain the INCREASE again in 2005-2007? If the TAX cuts were responsible.... then WHY did rates go back up to the averages again?

I don't care about your anecdata. If the market downturn and recession were the cause for the historically low revenues as a percentage of GDP, we'd see similar lows for prior recessions, but that's not the case. Didn't happen in the early 1990s, the early 1980s or the early and mid-70s. Your explanation for the historically low revenues doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Take a look back at F2. EACH of those recessions saw a drop in revenue as a percent of GDP. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Now as for the severity.... take a look at what happened to the stock market in those periods. In 1990, the S&P was down 3.2% (the only negative year).... a FAR cry from how hard we got hit in 2000-2002 (THREE STRAIGHT NEGATIVE YEARS). In 1981 the S&P was down 4.9% (again the ONLY negative year) which again is a FAR cry from how hard we got hit in the last two recessions. The 73/74 time frame is the only one of those recessions that was hit hard in terms of the market for consecutive years. In that one we saw it go from 18.3 down to 17.1.

The numbers I am using are correct and they show the significant declines in the 2000-2008 period I raised initially, above. And yes, obviously the recession and high unemployment have reduced revenues significantly since 2008, but so to have the various tax cuts that have been implemented.

No, they show a decline due to the recession and then gains as the effects of the recession ended. You keep saying revenues have decreased, yet they haven't. THEY HAVE INCREASED. They went UP from 2003-2007, dipped slightly in 2008 and then plunged in 2009 as the RECESSION once again hammered revenues.

No, you said that revenues as a percentage of GDP remained fairly constant from 2000-2008. But that's just not true and I pointed that out. And yes, I said that it the lion's share was due to the tax cuts because that's what caused the lion's share of the deficits. I'm not ignoring all other factors, I am pointing to one particular factor that had the most impact, the tax cuts.

Again, you are incorrect. When you look at the long term averages, the 2000-2008 time frame was fairly constant. It dipped with the recession and recovered. JUST as it has historically. Again you are proclaiming something that simply is not true. Tax cuts do not cause deficits. Out SPENDING revenues cause deficits. EVERY single year since 1960 the idiots have outspent revenue... REGARDLESS of tax rates. Do note the charts one more time... tell us... with the insanely high brackets prior to Reagan.... why was revenue as a percent of GDP not higher?

The average rate in the 70's was 17.93% of GDP, 80's was 18.28%, 90's was 18.49%, 2000's was 17.63%. While the individual years have certainly varied, for the decade averages to vary by less than a percent is not that out of the ordinary. Especially given the tech/telecom/internet/biotech boom of the 1990's producing the highest average and the double recessionary decade of the 2000's producing the lowest (which includes two of the worst times for the stock market since the great depression).

And again, the 2004-2007 period only shows that the economy improved and so did revenues. But it doesn't tell us what revenues would have been with higher tax rates in place during the time of expansion. The tax cuts caused the government to bring in less revenue that it otherwise would have.

Again, you are SAYING that because you WANT it to be true. But again, look back at the 70's. What were the tax brackets then vs. now? By your standards, those years should have produced far more revenue as a percent of GDP. Yet they did not. WHY?