Does GDP growth mean Federal Tax revenue growth?

[Brain357]

A) Kennedy's tax cuts didn't reduce revenue

1. Kennedy didn't cut taxes, LBJ did. The tax cut passed in 1964, after Kennedy was killed and was called The United States Revenue Act of 1964...so right away you get basic facts wrong.
2. LBJ increased spending by 50% from 1964-1968. It was that spending that made revenue gain positive.
3. LBJ's tax cut was from 90% to 70% on the wealthy, which is a rate I'd be happy with today.
4. LBJ's tax cut wasn't weighted at the top for the 1%; the majority of benefit from those tax cuts went to middle class workers as it was a 20% rate reduction across the board. The majority benefit of your tax cut goes to the 1% and their pet corporations, and your tax cut actually raises taxes on those in the first bracket, going from 10% to 12%.

B) Please consider Inflation during the years 1978 through 1982 (averaged 10.5%)

1. Inflation today is near 0%, so the Trump tax cuts were completely unnecessary and will actually cause inflation to increase.
2. The Fed policy of high inflation was set by Conservatives during Nixon who wanted to blunt the wage growth that unions were achieving for their workers; Nixon's Fed thought the workers were getting too wealthy, so that's why the Fed's monetary policy was to counteract that wage growth with higher inflation...which is exactly what is going to happen today.
3. So you're admitting that it was high inflation, not Carter policy, that caused the stagflation we saw. Carter actually had a higher monthly job creation average than Reagan did...higher wage growth on average too. And the prescription for solving the stagflation wasn't tax cuts, but rather a lowering of the interest rate by the Fed. So when you credit Reagan with recovering from stagflation, you're crediting the wrong person...you should be crediting the Fed with bringing us out of the recession in the early 80's, not Reagan or his tax cuts.

C) Look at years in red GDP versus years in red Tax receipts.. and consider the time lag... i.e. when GDP decreasespeople 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.

Every time taxes have been cut since 1980, there has been a slowdown in revenue growth. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, nor do they increase revenue growth. In fact, both Clinton and Obama had higher revenue growth than Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Dumber, according to the Tax Policy Center Historical Federal Outlays & Receipts:

Reagan
Receipts 1981: $599.3
Receipts 1989: $991.1
Revenue growth: 65%

Clinton
Receipts 1993: $1,154.3
Receipts 2001: $1,991.1
Revenue growth: 73%

Bush the Dumber
Receipts 2001: $1,991.1
Receipts 2009: $2,105.0
Revenue growth: 6%

Obama
Receipts 2009: $2,105.0
Receipts 2017: $3,643.7
Revenue growth: 73%

So Reagan and Bush cut taxes, revenue growth comes in below that of Obama and Clinton, who raised taxes.

WRONG!!!!!
Reagan had 15.9% growth in taxes revenue in 1982
GWB had 14.5% in 2006!

Get your facts straight!

FACTS FACTS...
of top 15 federal receipts growth GOP...9 years ....Dems 6 years.
View attachment 176259

How much spending?

 

[OKTexas]

Yet I heard this morning that Jan revenues were up 5+%, go figure..

Yeah...because minimum wage increases went into effect in 18 states that impacted 4.5 million workers.

So you want to know why wages grew and why revenues grew? Because the minimum wage increased in 18 states.

Wow, an average increase of a whole $.41 an hour, most of whom pay no taxes at all. I doubt that registered much of a blip on revenues.


.

 

[The Derp]

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

OK, what spending do you want to cut, then?

65% of the budget is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt. Another 25% is Defense spending. That leaves just 10% of discretionary spending left. The current budget Trump submitted is $4T with a $1T deficit. So that means:

$2.6T for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security & interest on the debt
$1T for Defense.
$400B for all discretionary spending.
$1T budget deficit

So even if you eliminated all discretionary spending, you're still running a budget deficit of $600B, which is higher than Obama's last deficit.

 

[The Derp]

You Dem's should just increase taxes to 99% we all know you want to you communist pukes. You want to see your average Dem shit themselves, ask them to pick a number, just how high should be taxes raised.

Taxes should be raised to balance the budget, and kept there.

Spending should be cut to balance the budget in line with income; And KEPT THERE!

Show me the politician in Congress who will vote for cutting the federal budget by one third.

Every time I see or hear Rand Paul talk, I totally get why his neighbor beat the shit out of him.

 

[The Derp]

You Dem's should just increase taxes to 99% we all know you want to you communist pukes. You want to see your average Dem shit themselves, ask them to pick a number, just how high should be taxes raised.

Taxes should be raised to balance the budget, and kept there.

Spending should be cut to balance the budget in line with income; And KEPT THERE!

Then why do you support tax cuts that are not matched by spending cuts?

You are the problem.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

Aren't these CUTS????

Like in his budget proposal last year, the blueprint is asking members of Congress to
drastically reduce spending on environmental and
diplomatic programmes he has long considered to be wasteful:
a 27 per cent cut to the State Department and a
34 per cent to the Environmental Protection Agency, with the elimination of virtually all climate change-related programmes.

If the President’s demands are heeded, the Pentagon would see an $80 billion increase in its budget, up 13 percent.
At the same time, entitlement programmes would see a $1.7 trillion cut over 10 years, including $237bn from Medicare.
Donald Trump's budget proposal cuts social welfare and massively increases federal deficit

Trump's budget has a $1T deficit.

You all used to scream your heads off about trillion dollar deficits.

Even if you cut all discretionary spending, you're still running a budget deficit larger than the one Obama left behind.

You're just a bunch of frauds; people with no real knowledge of economics or math, who are posturing for the sake of their own shit egos.

No one buys it anymore.

 

[OKTexas]

Not necessarily. If you reduce taxes, you could get GDP growth but not enough to overcome the loss of revenue from the tax cuts.

Yet I heard this morning that Jan revenues were up 5+%, go figure.


.

That's funny, because I heard this:

"The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday moved up its projection for when the Treasury will likely run out of cash to the first half of March, citing lower government revenues after the Republican overhaul of the U.S. tax system in December."

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin frantically calls for debt ceiling increase

Wow, the CBO got it wrong again, feel free to cite when they ever got any thing right. LMAO


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A) Kennedy's tax cuts didn't reduce revenue

1. Kennedy didn't cut taxes, LBJ did. The tax cut passed in 1964, after Kennedy was killed and was called The United States Revenue Act of 1964...so right away you get basic facts wrong.
2. LBJ increased spending by 50% from 1964-1968. It was that spending that made revenue gain positive.
3. LBJ's tax cut was from 90% to 70% on the wealthy, which is a rate I'd be happy with today.
4. LBJ's tax cut wasn't weighted at the top for the 1%; the majority of benefit from those tax cuts went to middle class workers as it was a 20% rate reduction across the board. The majority benefit of your tax cut goes to the 1% and their pet corporations, and your tax cut actually raises taxes on those in the first bracket, going from 10% to 12%.

B) Please consider Inflation during the years 1978 through 1982 (averaged 10.5%)

1. Inflation today is near 0%, so the Trump tax cuts were completely unnecessary and will actually cause inflation to increase.
2. The Fed policy of high inflation was set by Conservatives during Nixon who wanted to blunt the wage growth that unions were achieving for their workers; Nixon's Fed thought the workers were getting too wealthy, so that's why the Fed's monetary policy was to counteract that wage growth with higher inflation...which is exactly what is going to happen today.
3. So you're admitting that it was high inflation, not Carter policy, that caused the stagflation we saw. Carter actually had a higher monthly job creation average than Reagan did...higher wage growth on average too. And the prescription for solving the stagflation wasn't tax cuts, but rather a lowering of the interest rate by the Fed. So when you credit Reagan with recovering from stagflation, you're crediting the wrong person...you should be crediting the Fed with bringing us out of the recession in the early 80's, not Reagan or his tax cuts.

C) Look at years in red GDP versus years in red Tax receipts.. and consider the time lag... i.e. when GDP decreasespeople 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.

Every time taxes have been cut since 1980, there has been a slowdown in revenue growth. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, nor do they increase revenue growth. In fact, both Clinton and Obama had higher revenue growth than Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Dumber, according to the Tax Policy Center Historical Federal Outlays & Receipts:

Reagan
Receipts 1981: $599.3
Receipts 1989: $991.1
Revenue growth: 65%

Clinton
Receipts 1993: $1,154.3
Receipts 2001: $1,991.1
Revenue growth: 73%

Bush the Dumber
Receipts 2001: $1,991.1
Receipts 2009: $2,105.0
Revenue growth: 6%

Obama
Receipts 2009: $2,105.0
Receipts 2017: $3,643.7
Revenue growth: 73%

So Reagan and Bush cut taxes, revenue growth comes in below that of Obama and Clinton, who raised taxes.

WRONG!!!!!
Reagan had 15.9% growth in taxes revenue in 1982
GWB had 14.5% in 2006!

Get your facts straight!

FACTS FACTS...
of top 15 federal receipts growth GOP...9 years ....Dems 6 years.
View attachment 176259

In 1982 Reagan and the GOP rolled back a huge portion of the 81 tax cuts,

because they were freaking out over how much revenue they were going to lose from the original tax cut bill.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not necessarily. If you reduce taxes, you could get GDP growth but not enough to overcome the loss of revenue from the tax cuts.

Yet I heard this morning that Jan revenues were up 5+%, go figure.


.

That's funny, because I heard this:

"The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday moved up its projection for when the Treasury will likely run out of cash to the first half of March, citing lower government revenues after the Republican overhaul of the U.S. tax system in December."

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin frantically calls for debt ceiling increase

Wow, the CBO got it wrong again, feel free to cite when they ever got any thing right. LMAO


.

They were not projecting January dumbass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not necessarily. If you reduce taxes, you could get GDP growth but not enough to overcome the loss of revenue from the tax cuts.

Yet I heard this morning that Jan revenues were up 5+%, go figure.


.

That's funny, because I heard this:

"The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday moved up its projection for when the Treasury will likely run out of cash to the first half of March, citing lower government revenues after the Republican overhaul of the U.S. tax system in December."

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin frantically calls for debt ceiling increase

Wow, the CBO got it wrong again, feel free to cite when they ever got any thing right. LMAO


.

LOL, so why then is Trump raising the debt ceiling?

 

[The Derp]

Reagan had 15.9% growth in taxes revenue in 1982

Reagan was President from 1981-1989. What about the seven other years? And what about 1982-3? Revenues declined that year-over-year. No answer for that, huh? Color me shocked. So you cherry pick 1982, ignoring the 10% increase in spending, ignoring the revenue decline in 1983, and expect to be taken seriously? LOL! You are crazy.

And BTW - Reagan increased spending by 10% from 1981-1982. I'd say that increase in spending has more to do with revenue growth than a tax cut. You guys always do that; you always "forget" about the spending parts...like how LBJ increased spending by 50% from 1964-68.

GWB had 14.5% in 2006!

Thanks to the mortgage bubble...you know, the one you blame the consequences on Democrats while giving Bush the credit for the growth. All you're doing when you cite 2004-7 or any years in between, is proving that it was a housing bubble that caused growth. A housing bubble you simultaneously say Democrats are responsible for, yet Conservatives get credit for the growth from that bubble.

Get your facts straight!

You're cherry-picking specific years, ripping away all context, because you can't make a point without it being shitty.

FACTS FACTS...

FACT:

Obama and Clinton had higher revenue growth than Reagan and Bush the Dumber.

FACT.

Obama and Clinton together created more jobs than Reagan and both Bushes and Trump combined.

FACT.

Here's another one; Obama created only 3 million fewer jobs than Reagan did, while reducing the deficit by 2/3, while Reagan doubled the deficit.

FACT

You're making this shit up as you go, aren't you? Classic Conservatism; cherry pick data and present that data as proof of concept. Then ignore follow-up questions that point that shit out.

 

[The Derp]

Wow, an average increase of a whole $.41 an hour, most of whom pay no taxes at all. I doubt that registered much of a blip on revenues..

1. They only "don't pay taxes" because you cut their taxes, remember?
2. That $0.41 is higher than ANY WAGE INCREASE OR BONUS PASSED TO LESS THAN 3% OF WORKERS WHO SAW A NOMINAL BENEFIT FROM THE TAX CUT
3. You guys raised taxes on the first $9K of income ($13K for couples). So these people got a minimum wage increase that you wiped out by raising their taxes.

More workers saw their wages rise as a result of minimum wage increases (4.5 million) than those whose companies laughably passed on some of the tax cut to them (3 million).

BTW - bonuses are taxed at a higher rate (25%) than corporate profits are now (22%). So bravo there, dingus. Just wait until you need Medicaid to pay for your parents' nursing home. It ain't gonna cover it, which means sick mom and sick dad are moving in with you. Sure hope you like cleaning old person shit, because you're gonna have to do that since you fought so hard to give Donald Trump a personal tax break.

 

[OKTexas]

Taxes should be raised to balance the budget, and kept there.

Spending should be cut to balance the budget in line with income; And KEPT THERE!

Then why do you support tax cuts that are not matched by spending cuts?

You are the problem.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

Aren't these CUTS????

Like in his budget proposal last year, the blueprint is asking members of Congress to
drastically reduce spending on environmental and
diplomatic programmes he has long considered to be wasteful:
a 27 per cent cut to the State Department and a
34 per cent to the Environmental Protection Agency, with the elimination of virtually all climate change-related programmes.

If the President’s demands are heeded, the Pentagon would see an $80 billion increase in its budget, up 13 percent.
At the same time, entitlement programmes would see a $1.7 trillion cut over 10 years, including $237bn from Medicare.
Donald Trump's budget proposal cuts social welfare and massively increases federal deficit

Now that's comical. We all know that eVERY president's budget is just a political exercise for headlines, and the gop just passed two years of trillion dollar deficits.

Only because the commiecrats insisted on it and they needed their votes to pass anything.


.

 

[Brain357]

Spending should be cut to balance the budget in line with income; And KEPT THERE!

Then why do you support tax cuts that are not matched by spending cuts?

You are the problem.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

Aren't these CUTS????

Like in his budget proposal last year, the blueprint is asking members of Congress to
drastically reduce spending on environmental and
diplomatic programmes he has long considered to be wasteful:
a 27 per cent cut to the State Department and a
34 per cent to the Environmental Protection Agency, with the elimination of virtually all climate change-related programmes.

If the President’s demands are heeded, the Pentagon would see an $80 billion increase in its budget, up 13 percent.
At the same time, entitlement programmes would see a $1.7 trillion cut over 10 years, including $237bn from Medicare.
Donald Trump's budget proposal cuts social welfare and massively increases federal deficit

Now that's comical. We all know that eVERY president's budget is just a political exercise for headlines, and the gop just passed two years of trillion dollar deficits.

Only because the commiecrats insisted on it and they needed their votes to pass anything.


.

The repubs control everything and spending increased. What a dope you are.

 

[OKTexas]

Not necessarily. If you reduce taxes, you could get GDP growth but not enough to overcome the loss of revenue from the tax cuts.

Yet I heard this morning that Jan revenues were up 5+%, go figure.


.

That's funny, because I heard this:

"The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday moved up its projection for when the Treasury will likely run out of cash to the first half of March, citing lower government revenues after the Republican overhaul of the U.S. tax system in December."

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin frantically calls for debt ceiling increase

Wow, the CBO got it wrong again, feel free to cite when they ever got any thing right. LMAO


.

They were not projecting January dumbass.

Liar, they were projecting out into March, I think that would include Jan.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Wow, an average increase of a whole $.41 an hour, most of whom pay no taxes at all. I doubt that registered much of a blip on revenues..

1. They only "don't pay taxes" because you cut their taxes, remember?
2. That $0.41 is higher than ANY WAGE INCREASE OR BONUS PASSED TO LESS THAN 3% OF WORKERS WHO SAW A NOMINAL BENEFIT FROM THE TAX CUT
3. You guys raised taxes on the first $9K of income ($13K for couples). So these people got a minimum wage increase that you wiped out by raising their taxes.

More workers saw their wages rise as a result of minimum wage increases (4.5 million) than those whose companies laughably passed on some of the tax cut to them (3 million).

BTW - bonuses are taxed at a higher rate (25%) than corporate profits are now (22%). So bravo there, dingus. Just wait until you need Medicaid to pay for your parents' nursing home. It ain't gonna cover it, which means sick mom and sick dad are moving in with you. Sure hope you like cleaning old person shit, because you're gonna have to do that since you fought so hard to give Donald Trump a personal tax break.

We're currently caring for two 88 year old parents, my family have never depended on govt freebies and we're not going to start now. Funny how actually planning for the future keeps you off the govt dole.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Not necessarily. If you reduce taxes, you could get GDP growth but not enough to overcome the loss of revenue from the tax cuts.

Yet I heard this morning that Jan revenues were up 5+%, go figure.


.

Was spending up?

Since they were operating on a short term CR, I doubt it.


.

 

[The Derp]

We're currently caring for two 88 year old parents

And I bet it sucks. And I bet that your 88 year old parents use Medicare and Medicaid to pay for a lot of the medication and procedures they get.

my family have never depended on govt freebies and we're not going to start now. Funny how actually planning for the future keeps you off the govt dol.

I am 99.9999999% sure that your parents use Medicare or Medicaid.

 

[OKTexas]

Then why do you support tax cuts that are not matched by spending cuts?

You are the problem.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

I was for spending cuts LONG before the tax cuts were enacted. In fact, I've been a spending cuts guy for 40 years.

Aren't these CUTS????

Like in his budget proposal last year, the blueprint is asking members of Congress to
drastically reduce spending on environmental and
diplomatic programmes he has long considered to be wasteful:
a 27 per cent cut to the State Department and a
34 per cent to the Environmental Protection Agency, with the elimination of virtually all climate change-related programmes.

If the President’s demands are heeded, the Pentagon would see an $80 billion increase in its budget, up 13 percent.
At the same time, entitlement programmes would see a $1.7 trillion cut over 10 years, including $237bn from Medicare.
Donald Trump's budget proposal cuts social welfare and massively increases federal deficit

Now that's comical. We all know that eVERY president's budget is just a political exercise for headlines, and the gop just passed two years of trillion dollar deficits.

Only because the commiecrats insisted on it and they needed their votes to pass anything.


.

The repubs control everything and spending increased. What a dope you are.

Fuck you puke, until the republicans have 60 votes in the senate you can't say they control it.


.

 

[The Derp]

We're currently caring for two 88 year old parents, my family have never depended on govt freebies.

Of course, that's a load of horseshit, as anyone will point out. Your parents don't use Medicare? Don't use Medicaid? Don't use Social Security? You're asking me to suspend disbelief and I don't know why I should.

 

[The Derp]

Fuck you puke, until the republicans have 60 votes in the senate you can't say they control it..

The only reason any legislation requires 60 votes is if it adds to the deficit.

So every single thing Republicans want to do they say requires 60 votes, which means every single thing Republicans want to do adds to the deficit.

I thought you were branding yourselves as the "fiscally responsible" people. Sure doesn't fuckin' seem like it, does it?