Does GDP growth mean Federal Tax revenue growth?

[danielpalos]

Repubs think this is cuts. What dopes:

The White House budget request would add $984 billion to the federal deficit next year, despite proposed cuts to programs like Medicare and food stamps and despite leaner budgets across federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Trump’s budget statement calls deficits the harbingers of a “desolate” future, but the White House plan would add $7 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

why did the rich need a tax break?

 

[rightwinger]

I know, I know, it should seem to be common sense that the answer is a RESOUNDING YES!
But some tax cut critics keep complaining that Trump tax cuts will ruin our economy. Will add to the debt..something they didn't seem to care about when Obama added $9 trillion with no major events, 9/11 worst hurricanes, etc. that GWB experienced and Obama even had TARP repaid with a profit!
So here is a chart I made combining GDP with Federal Tax revenue.
Some observations points:
A) Kennedy's tax cuts didn't reduce revenue.
B) Please consider Inflation during the years 1978 through 1982 (averaged 10.5%)
C) Look at years in red GDP versus years in red Tax receipts.. and consider the time lag... i.e. when GDP decreases
people in the following years are laid off. Meaning NO federal payroll taxes, or personal income taxes WHILE at the same time unemployment and welfare outlays increase.

So given this chart wouldn't it also make sense that if the GDP grows as the Atlanta Fed Reserve predicts Q118
at over 5% Federal tax revenues i.e. more people working more payroll taxes less unemployment benefits less welfare payments outlay that there would be lower deficits adding to the national debt?
Talk amongst yourselves and comment!
View attachment 176064

Interesting point

If tax cuts increase GDP we should see a reduction in our deficit

Why is it increasing????

 

[Brain357]

Repubs think this is cuts. What dopes:

The White House budget request would add $984 billion to the federal deficit next year, despite proposed cuts to programs like Medicare and food stamps and despite leaner budgets across federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Trump’s budget statement calls deficits the harbingers of a “desolate” future, but the White House plan would add $7 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

PROVE it! Where are your links!

White House Proposes $4.4 Trillion Budget That Adds $7 Trillion to Deficits

 

[Brain357]

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[danielpalos]

Repubs think this is cuts. What dopes:

The White House budget request would add $984 billion to the federal deficit next year, despite proposed cuts to programs like Medicare and food stamps and despite leaner budgets across federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Trump’s budget statement calls deficits the harbingers of a “desolate” future, but the White House plan would add $7 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

PROVE it! Where are your links!

White House Proposes $4.4 Trillion Budget That Adds $7 Trillion to Deficits

why do we need a drug war?

 

[AntonToo]

The disturbing part is how these amounts of spending have changed over the years relative to GDP. Socialist entitlement programs have seen the biggest growth and thus added the most to the debt.

View attachment 176342

The two "socialist programs" that are driving the growth are called Social Security and Medicare.
What do they do? They take care of our elderly and disabled people.
Why are they growing? Because our population is aging and their ever more advanced healthcare is getting more expensive.


"Disturbing" is not the fact that they are growing, that part was well predicted by simple demographics and healthcare cost projections (which are actually significantly down since ACA became law, no thanks to Republicans). Our populating is getting older, and we need to take care of our elderly, it's as simple as that.

Disturbing part is how this country seems to be hooked on the tax-cuting crack at a time when EXACTLY OPPOSITE is what our long term solvency needs.

We didn't need to blow 1.5Trillion on tax cuts, we needed to find a way to SAVE 1.5 Trillion so when next recession hits we have SOMETHING to fall back on without shooting the debt interest rates through the roof.

Ok, I’ll ignore that you entirely missed the point that socialist programs are growing at an unsustainable rate, and ask you where you think we can SAVE 1.5 trillion.

Unsustainable? To spend 10-15% of GDP taking care of the entire social safety net? Bullshit. It's a matter of priorities. And just so you don't misinterpret, I am not saying there is nothing we could sensibly fix there.


And at this point NEVER MIND SAVING, how about we stop BLOWING THAT MONEY first? When you are in a ditch first thing to do is to STOP DIGGING!

This is why the Republican tax-cut bill, by the same people that keep preaching something about fiscal responsibility is so fucking insane.

Tea Party? Bullshit Party is far more apt.

So you’d prefer not to address the staggering rate of increase, but rather take the sophomoric approach of a simple snapshot. Entitlement spending Since 1972 has been increasing at 4.8% while GDP and tax revenues have increased at a rate of only 2.8%.

....did I not just explain to you what is driving our spending? What the fuck does your response have to do with what I was explaining?

I don't care what shit and at what rate what was going on 1972-1990. Your numbers are right about MEANINGLESS. That's not what is going today and it is not what is driving our problems!

THIS IS OUR PRIMARY PROBLEM

 

[Thinker101]

The disturbing part is how these amounts of spending have changed over the years relative to GDP. Socialist entitlement programs have seen the biggest growth and thus added the most to the debt.

View attachment 176342

The two "socialist programs" that are driving the growth are called Social Security and Medicare.
What do they do? They take care of our elderly and disabled people.
Why are they growing? Because our population is aging and their ever more advanced healthcare is getting more expensive.


"Disturbing" is not the fact that they are growing, that part was well predicted by simple demographics and healthcare cost projections (which are actually significantly down since ACA became law, no thanks to Republicans). Our populating is getting older, and we need to take care of our elderly, it's as simple as that.

Disturbing part is how this country seems to be hooked on the tax-cuting crack at a time when EXACTLY OPPOSITE is what our long term solvency needs.

We didn't need to blow 1.5Trillion on tax cuts, we needed to find a way to SAVE 1.5 Trillion so when next recession hits we have SOMETHING to fall back on without shooting the debt interest rates through the roof.

Ok, I’ll ignore that you entirely missed the point that socialist programs are growing at an unsustainable rate, and ask you where you think we can SAVE 1.5 trillion.

Unsustainable? To spend 10-15% of GDP taking care of the entire social safety net? Bullshit. It's a matter of priorities. And just so you don't misinterpret, I am not saying there is nothing we could sensibly fix there.


And at this point NEVER MIND SAVING, how about we stop BLOWING THAT MONEY first? When you are in a ditch first thing to do is to STOP DIGGING!

This is why the Republican tax-cut bill, by the same people that keep preaching something about fiscal responsibility is so fucking insane.

Tea Party? Bullshit Party is far more apt.

So you’d prefer not to address the staggering rate of increase, but rather take the sophomoric approach of a simple snapshot. Entitlement spending Since 1972 has been increasing at 4.8% while GDP and tax revenues have increased at a rate of only 2.8%.

....did I not just explain to you what is driving our spending? What the fuck does your response have to do with what I was explaining?

I don't care what shit and at what rate what was going on 1972-1990. Your numbers are right about MEANINGLESS. That's not what is going today and it is not what is driving our problems!

THIS IS OUR PROBLEM

All righty, most of us are pretty much against Obamacare's death panels.

 

[AntonToo]

The two "socialist programs" that are driving the growth are called Social Security and Medicare.
What do they do? They take care of our elderly and disabled people.
Why are they growing? Because our population is aging and their ever more advanced healthcare is getting more expensive.


"Disturbing" is not the fact that they are growing, that part was well predicted by simple demographics and healthcare cost projections (which are actually significantly down since ACA became law, no thanks to Republicans). Our populating is getting older, and we need to take care of our elderly, it's as simple as that.

Disturbing part is how this country seems to be hooked on the tax-cuting crack at a time when EXACTLY OPPOSITE is what our long term solvency needs.

We didn't need to blow 1.5Trillion on tax cuts, we needed to find a way to SAVE 1.5 Trillion so when next recession hits we have SOMETHING to fall back on without shooting the debt interest rates through the roof.

Ok, I’ll ignore that you entirely missed the point that socialist programs are growing at an unsustainable rate, and ask you where you think we can SAVE 1.5 trillion.

Unsustainable? To spend 10-15% of GDP taking care of the entire social safety net? Bullshit. It's a matter of priorities. And just so you don't misinterpret, I am not saying there is nothing we could sensibly fix there.


And at this point NEVER MIND SAVING, how about we stop BLOWING THAT MONEY first? When you are in a ditch first thing to do is to STOP DIGGING!

This is why the Republican tax-cut bill, by the same people that keep preaching something about fiscal responsibility is so fucking insane.

Tea Party? Bullshit Party is far more apt.

So you’d prefer not to address the staggering rate of increase, but rather take the sophomoric approach of a simple snapshot. Entitlement spending Since 1972 has been increasing at 4.8% while GDP and tax revenues have increased at a rate of only 2.8%.

....did I not just explain to you what is driving our spending? What the fuck does your response have to do with what I was explaining?

I don't care what shit and at what rate what was going on 1972-1990. Your numbers are right about MEANINGLESS. That's not what is going today and it is not what is driving our problems!

THIS IS OUR PROBLEM

All righty, most of us are pretty much against Obamacare's death panels.

Dummy what you are effectively against is PAYING for increased costs of taking care of our elderly!

Not everything is a free lunch, at some point, when demographic reality hits, there are some downsides that we have to endure and pay for.

But instead of this hard truth politicians, especially Republicans have been busy selling rainbow and unicorn stories about how we can have all these giveaways and never have to face any bills that result.

 

[Thinker101]

Ok, I’ll ignore that you entirely missed the point that socialist programs are growing at an unsustainable rate, and ask you where you think we can SAVE 1.5 trillion.

Unsustainable? To spend 10-15% of GDP taking care of the entire social safety net? Bullshit. It's a matter of priorities. And just so you don't misinterpret, I am not saying there is nothing we could sensibly fix there.


And at this point NEVER MIND SAVING, how about we stop BLOWING THAT MONEY first? When you are in a ditch first thing to do is to STOP DIGGING!

This is why the Republican tax-cut bill, by the same people that keep preaching something about fiscal responsibility is so fucking insane.

Tea Party? Bullshit Party is far more apt.

So you’d prefer not to address the staggering rate of increase, but rather take the sophomoric approach of a simple snapshot. Entitlement spending Since 1972 has been increasing at 4.8% while GDP and tax revenues have increased at a rate of only 2.8%.

....did I not just explain to you what is driving our spending? What the fuck does your response have to do with what I was explaining?

I don't care what shit and at what rate what was going on 1972-1990. Your numbers are right about MEANINGLESS. That's not what is going today and it is not what is driving our problems!

THIS IS OUR PROBLEM

All righty, most of us are pretty much against Obamacare's death panels.

Dummy what you are effectively against is PAYING for increased costs of taking care of our elderly!

Not everything is a free lunch, at some point, when demographic reality hits, there are some downsides that we have to endure and pay for.

Wow, takes a liberal to twist that shit. I am against a group/panel of politicians sitting in a room 2000 miles away making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's....dumbass.

 

[AntonToo]

Unsustainable? To spend 10-15% of GDP taking care of the entire social safety net? Bullshit. It's a matter of priorities. And just so you don't misinterpret, I am not saying there is nothing we could sensibly fix there.


And at this point NEVER MIND SAVING, how about we stop BLOWING THAT MONEY first? When you are in a ditch first thing to do is to STOP DIGGING!

This is why the Republican tax-cut bill, by the same people that keep preaching something about fiscal responsibility is so fucking insane.

Tea Party? Bullshit Party is far more apt.

So you’d prefer not to address the staggering rate of increase, but rather take the sophomoric approach of a simple snapshot. Entitlement spending Since 1972 has been increasing at 4.8% while GDP and tax revenues have increased at a rate of only 2.8%.

....did I not just explain to you what is driving our spending? What the fuck does your response have to do with what I was explaining?

I don't care what shit and at what rate what was going on 1972-1990. Your numbers are right about MEANINGLESS. That's not what is going today and it is not what is driving our problems!

THIS IS OUR PROBLEM

All righty, most of us are pretty much against Obamacare's death panels.

Dummy what you are effectively against is PAYING for increased costs of taking care of our elderly!

Not everything is a free lunch, at some point, when demographic reality hits, there are some downsides that we have to endure and pay for.

Wow, takes a liberal to twist that shit. I am against a group/panel of politicians sitting in a room 2000 miles away making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's....dumbass.

If you don't have something on topic to contribute just do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up already.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wow, takes a liberal to twist that shit. I am against a group/panel of politicians sitting in a room 2000 miles away making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's....dumbass.

But you are ok with a group/panel of CEOs and actuaries sitting in a room making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's? When the only thing the CEOs and actuaries care about is profit?

Why is one better than the other? Face it, our system is fucked up, even more so thanks to the ACA than it was before.

The main reason we are so fucked up is that we are trying to have a hybrid system where healthcare is both a commodity and a service at the same time. Such a system is bound to fail, we as a nation have to choose one or the other eventually.

 

[AntonToo]

Why is one better than the other? Face it, our system is fucked up, even more so thanks to the ACA than it was before.

No way, especially not from budgetary perspective that this thread is about:

 

[Thinker101]

So you’d prefer not to address the staggering rate of increase, but rather take the sophomoric approach of a simple snapshot. Entitlement spending Since 1972 has been increasing at 4.8% while GDP and tax revenues have increased at a rate of only 2.8%.

....did I not just explain to you what is driving our spending? What the fuck does your response have to do with what I was explaining?

I don't care what shit and at what rate what was going on 1972-1990. Your numbers are right about MEANINGLESS. That's not what is going today and it is not what is driving our problems!

THIS IS OUR PROBLEM

All righty, most of us are pretty much against Obamacare's death panels.

Dummy what you are effectively against is PAYING for increased costs of taking care of our elderly!

Not everything is a free lunch, at some point, when demographic reality hits, there are some downsides that we have to endure and pay for.

Wow, takes a liberal to twist that shit. I am against a group/panel of politicians sitting in a room 2000 miles away making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's....dumbass.

If you don't have something on topic to contribute just do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up already.

LOL...here I was under the impression you raised the issue of the elderly...dumbass.

 

[AntonToo]

....did I not just explain to you what is driving our spending? What the fuck does your response have to do with what I was explaining?

I don't care what shit and at what rate what was going on 1972-1990. Your numbers are right about MEANINGLESS. That's not what is going today and it is not what is driving our problems!

THIS IS OUR PROBLEM

All righty, most of us are pretty much against Obamacare's death panels.

Dummy what you are effectively against is PAYING for increased costs of taking care of our elderly!

Not everything is a free lunch, at some point, when demographic reality hits, there are some downsides that we have to endure and pay for.

Wow, takes a liberal to twist that shit. I am against a group/panel of politicians sitting in a room 2000 miles away making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's....dumbass.

If you don't have something on topic to contribute just do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up already.

LOL...here I was under the impression you raised the issue of the elderly...dumbass.

PAYING FOR ELDERLY, the only one that brought up death panels was you.

 

[Thinker101]

All righty, most of us are pretty much against Obamacare's death panels.

Dummy what you are effectively against is PAYING for increased costs of taking care of our elderly!

Not everything is a free lunch, at some point, when demographic reality hits, there are some downsides that we have to endure and pay for.

Wow, takes a liberal to twist that shit. I am against a group/panel of politicians sitting in a room 2000 miles away making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's....dumbass.

If you don't have something on topic to contribute just do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up already.

LOL...here I was under the impression you raised the issue of the elderly...dumbass.

PAYING FOR ELDERLY, the only one that brought up death panels was you.

So sorry it didn't fit your agenda.

 

[healthmyths]

Wow, takes a liberal to twist that shit. I am against a group/panel of politicians sitting in a room 2000 miles away making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's....dumbass.

But you are ok with a group/panel of CEOs and actuaries sitting in a room making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's? When the only thing the CEOs and actuaries care about is profit?

Why is one better than the other? Face it, our system is fucked up, even more so thanks to the ACA than it was before.

The main reason we are so fucked up is that we are trying to have a hybrid system where healthcare is both a commodity and a service at the same time. Such a system is bound to fail, we as a nation have to choose one or the other eventually.

I just wonder what YOU would do if you were on the "group/panel of CEOs and actuaries sitting in a room making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's? When the only thing the CEOs and actuaries care about is profit?"
Are you aware that your state insurance regulations require what are called "reserves" i.e. set aside of profits to pay "future" claims?
So the idea of "profits" or reserves depend on charging premiums and determining what to pay so there is a "reserve" for future claims?
This is one of the reasons health payers got out of ACA, i.e. ACA required 85% of premiums go to pay claims above the historical 80% ... Medical Loss Ratio.
So what would you do???

 

[healthmyths]

All righty, most of us are pretty much against Obamacare's death panels.

Dummy what you are effectively against is PAYING for increased costs of taking care of our elderly!

Not everything is a free lunch, at some point, when demographic reality hits, there are some downsides that we have to endure and pay for.

Wow, takes a liberal to twist that shit. I am against a group/panel of politicians sitting in a room 2000 miles away making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's....dumbass.

If you don't have something on topic to contribute just do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up already.

LOL...here I was under the impression you raised the issue of the elderly...dumbass.

PAYING FOR ELDERLY, the only one that brought up death panels was you.

Actually the brother of Obama's chief of Staff the first few years was the proponent of "death panels". His brother was also the architect of Obamacare.
bioethicist and oncologist Ezekiel Emanuel

 

[rightwinger]

If these tax cuts result in GDP growth to the point they will pay for themselves

Why is the deficit drastically increasing?

 

[AntonToo]

Dummy what you are effectively against is PAYING for increased costs of taking care of our elderly!

Not everything is a free lunch, at some point, when demographic reality hits, there are some downsides that we have to endure and pay for.

Wow, takes a liberal to twist that shit. I am against a group/panel of politicians sitting in a room 2000 miles away making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's....dumbass.

If you don't have something on topic to contribute just do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up already.

LOL...here I was under the impression you raised the issue of the elderly...dumbass.

PAYING FOR ELDERLY, the only one that brought up death panels was you.

Actually the brother of Obama's chief of Staff the first few years was the proponent of "death panels". His brother was also the architect of Obamacare.
bioethicist and oncologist Ezekiel Emanuel

STOP.

Why do you assholes constantly want to derail the actual topic?

Want to discuss death panels? GO START A NEW THREAD.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wow, takes a liberal to twist that shit. I am against a group/panel of politicians sitting in a room 2000 miles away making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's....dumbass.

But you are ok with a group/panel of CEOs and actuaries sitting in a room making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's? When the only thing the CEOs and actuaries care about is profit?

Why is one better than the other? Face it, our system is fucked up, even more so thanks to the ACA than it was before.

The main reason we are so fucked up is that we are trying to have a hybrid system where healthcare is both a commodity and a service at the same time. Such a system is bound to fail, we as a nation have to choose one or the other eventually.

I just wonder what YOU would do if you were on the "group/panel of CEOs and actuaries sitting in a room making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's? When the only thing the CEOs and actuaries care about is profit?"
Are you aware that your state insurance regulations require what are called "reserves" i.e. set aside of profits to pay "future" claims?
So the idea of "profits" or reserves depend on charging premiums and determining what to pay so there is a "reserve" for future claims?
This is one of the reasons health payers got out of ACA, i.e. ACA required 85% of premiums go to pay claims above the historical 80% ... Medical Loss Ratio.
So what would you do???

I would not want such a job, I would suck at choosing dollars over people and then my company would go bankrupt!

As for the required reserves, that is what those CEOs and actuaries trying to balance.

If claim A is paid but not claim B then they meet the threshold, but if they pay claim A and B then they have spent more than our 80/85 required so then they have to cut somewhere else to make up for it. Does not sound like the kind of thing I want to spend my day doing.