Does GDP growth mean Federal Tax revenue growth?

[OKTexas]

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.

They are required by law to use medicare, and they pay/paid for it, that's not a freebie.


.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Get back to me when you have some clue about what you're talking about, the only things that don't require a cloture vote in the senate is budget reconciliation and confirming judicial nominations.


.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I see you don't know the difference between programs you pay into and freebies, they don't use medicade. They both pay more than $1,500 a month for medicare and supplemental insurance, plus out of pocket expenses.


.

 

[Brain357]

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.


.

hahaha. Yeah they control everything but geez, just don't have that 60 votes. You will believe anything won't you dope? With control of everything the best they could do was a massive increase in spending. That is too funny.

 

[Timmy]

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.

I see you don't know the difference between programs you pay into and freebies, they don't use medicade. They both pay more than $1,500 a month for medicare and supplemental insurance, plus out of pocket expenses.


.

Why are you lumping Medicare in wh supplemental insurance ?

 

[Shrimpbox]

Tarp was put into play by George bush administration. Obama had nothing to do with it. More rewriting of history

 

[skews13]

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

No. It won't. Trickle down economics is a failure. It is a failure everywhere it has been done. We are now dealing with a $20 trillion debt because of Reagans Trickle down disaster we are still paying for. We added $10 trillion of that debt because of Bush's repeat of that same disaster. Trumps adding his part to the same failure won't have different results. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Fortunately, most Americans have become educated to that fact now, which was shown in every poll that showed a majority was against the Trump tax scam, and still are.

Well, it was passed by reconciliation, and that's how it will die.
Then the reality of what does work, higher taxes on the filthy rich will be enacted, and expanded, to recover the economy yet again under another Democratic President, that will hopefully have a Democratic Congress that will put safe guards in place this time to prevent another moron from ruining another generation of kids chance at living a middleclass life.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

There is no debate on the revenue side(taxes, tariffs, etc.) that higher GDP increases tax revenues. The debate has been if lowering tax RATES will increase revenues. The answer- sometimes it will, sometimes it won’t. It depends on the state of the economy and fiscal situation of tax payers.

The last 40 years of empirical evidence shows that they do not increase revenues. Every time taxes have been cut, revenues have declined or grew at a slower rate. Every. Single. Time. Over. The. Last. 40. Years.

Maybe you can provide some back up to that assertion. I stand by my statement that in some cases lower tax rates will increase GDP and thus increase tax revenues. This item from NPR shows more economist agree with that than disagree.

FACT CHECK: Do Tax Cuts Grow The Economy?
In a 2012 survey of top economists, the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business found that 35 percent thought cutting taxes would boost economic growth. A roughly equal share, 35 percent, were uncertain. Only 8 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Empirical data from the CBO also supports my position-
Three times revenue increased after tax cuts
1997-1998
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the average federal tax rate for the top one percent of income earners fell by 1.1 percentage points in 1997 and a further 1.5 percentage points in 1998. Despite the cut, individual income tax revenues rose by 9.8 percent in 1997 and 10.6 percent in 1998, even after adjusting for inflation. The economy continued to grow at a quick pace. As a percentage of GDP, combined individual and corporate income tax revenue rose by 4.4 percent in 1997 and 4.8 percent in 1998.

In 1996, the CBO projected that individual income tax revenues would be 8.4 percent of GDP in 1997 and 1998. Even though the top 1 percent paid lower tax rates in 1997 and 1998 compared to 1996, revenue exceeded the CBO’s projections, coming in at 8.7 percent of GDP in 1997 and 9.3 percent of GDP in 1998.

Be sure to read the link as there are other examples to support the idea of lower rates leading to higher revenues.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I see you don't know the difference between programs you pay into and freebies, they don't use medicade. They both pay more than $1,500 a month for medicare and supplemental insurance, plus out of pocket expenses.


.

Why are you lumping Medicare in wh supplemental insurance ?

Why was he lumping SS and medicare with freebies?


.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Yep, you’re right. Memebers on both sides will talk about controlling spending, but none will consider giving up goodies for their constituents.

What spending do you want to control? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt is about 65-69% of the budget. Defense spending is about another 20-25%. That leaves about 5-10% of the remaining budget for discretionary spending.

Some math for you;

The budget Trump submitted is about $4T
The deficit attached to that budget is about $1T
So even if you cut all discretionary spending (which is about $400-$500B), you are still running the same size deficit Obama ran at the end of his term. Your deficit is still about $500B even if you eliminate all discretionary spending.

Clearly the problem is that we aren't collecting enough revenues, not that we're over-spending.

First, defense spending is discretionary in the budget, not mandatory.

In 2016 the entitlement (mandatory) spending for socialist programs like social security, welfare and healthcare was 62%, interest was 6.2%, non-mandatory defense was 15%.

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.

 

[healthmyths]

Tarp was put into play by George bush administration. Obama had nothing to do with it. More rewriting of history

Hey dummy!

TARP's $626.4B outlay was part of GWB deficit for SURE. NO one disputes that!
BUT DUMMY Per the below.. TARP was PAID BACK WITH A $87B PROFIT TO BOOT AND IT WAS CONSIDERED REVENUE FOR OBAMA!
But did that stop Obama from running up $9 Trillion in additional debt and for WHAT???

Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

WHAT events occurred under Obama's terms? ZERO of the impact that occurred during GWB! ZERO!

 

[jillian]

Obama has no major events !?

Great Recession ring a bell? Did the two wars stop during his years ?

the recession happened under baby bush, loony toon .

try reality.

 

[healthmyths]

Obama has no major events !?

Great Recession ring a bell? Did the two wars stop during his years ?

the recession happened under baby bush, loony toon .

try reality.

So if you were the captain of an oil tanker and an emergency required to turn the tanker around RIGHT away I bet you'd think that would happen?
Being ignorant of how big the economy is, you also think a recession starts the day the NBER declared 3/2001 was the start of the recession!
Read what most common sense economists have to say about when a recession starts, i.e. it is a slow down that takes months to reach a bottom which is what NBER uses...but is wrong!

The committee of economists that sets the dates of U.S. recessions and expansions is considering moving the starting point of the latest recession to as early as November 2000 -- which could provide some political cover for President Bush.
That vicious cycle is the definition of a recession, and that's why it's important that the definition of a recession captures that cycle, "Achuthan said. "GDP alone doesn't do that."
Committee may push back recession start date to 2000 - Jan. 22, 2004

 

[danielpalos]

There is no debate on the revenue side(taxes, tariffs, etc.) that higher GDP increases tax revenues. The debate has been if lowering tax RATES will increase revenues. The answer- sometimes it will, sometimes it won’t. It depends on the state of the economy and fiscal situation of tax payers.

The last 40 years of empirical evidence shows that they do not increase revenues. Every time taxes have been cut, revenues have declined or grew at a slower rate. Every. Single. Time. Over. The. Last. 40. Years.

Maybe you can provide some back up to that assertion. I stand by my statement that in some cases lower tax rates will increase GDP and thus increase tax revenues. This item from NPR shows more economist agree with that than disagree.

FACT CHECK: Do Tax Cuts Grow The Economy?
In a 2012 survey of top economists, the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business found that 35 percent thought cutting taxes would boost economic growth. A roughly equal share, 35 percent, were uncertain. Only 8 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Empirical data from the CBO also supports my position-
Three times revenue increased after tax cuts
1997-1998
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the average federal tax rate for the top one percent of income earners fell by 1.1 percentage points in 1997 and a further 1.5 percentage points in 1998. Despite the cut, individual income tax revenues rose by 9.8 percent in 1997 and 10.6 percent in 1998, even after adjusting for inflation. The economy continued to grow at a quick pace. As a percentage of GDP, combined individual and corporate income tax revenue rose by 4.4 percent in 1997 and 4.8 percent in 1998.

In 1996, the CBO projected that individual income tax revenues would be 8.4 percent of GDP in 1997 and 1998. Even though the top 1 percent paid lower tax rates in 1997 and 1998 compared to 1996, revenue exceeded the CBO’s projections, coming in at 8.7 percent of GDP in 1997 and 9.3 percent of GDP in 1998.

Be sure to read the link as there are other examples to support the idea of lower rates leading to higher revenues.

cutting taxes seems like working on "margin".

We have mountains of debt that should not exist, if right wing economics worked as alleged.

 

[danielpalos]

Yep, you’re right. Memebers on both sides will talk about controlling spending, but none will consider giving up goodies for their constituents.

What spending do you want to control? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt is about 65-69% of the budget. Defense spending is about another 20-25%. That leaves about 5-10% of the remaining budget for discretionary spending.

Some math for you;

The budget Trump submitted is about $4T
The deficit attached to that budget is about $1T
So even if you cut all discretionary spending (which is about $400-$500B), you are still running the same size deficit Obama ran at the end of his term. Your deficit is still about $500B even if you eliminate all discretionary spending.

Clearly the problem is that we aren't collecting enough revenues, not that we're over-spending.

First, defense spending is discretionary in the budget, not mandatory.

In 2016 the entitlement (mandatory) spending for socialist programs like social security, welfare and healthcare was 62%, interest was 6.2%, non-mandatory defense was 15%.


View attachment 176323


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

Lousy management, who's fault is that?

What are we doing in the Middle East, besides wasting money. Even the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for it.

 

[healthmyths]

There is no debate on the revenue side(taxes, tariffs, etc.) that higher GDP increases tax revenues. The debate has been if lowering tax RATES will increase revenues. The answer- sometimes it will, sometimes it won’t. It depends on the state of the economy and fiscal situation of tax payers.

The last 40 years of empirical evidence shows that they do not increase revenues. Every time taxes have been cut, revenues have declined or grew at a slower rate. Every. Single. Time. Over. The. Last. 40. Years.

Maybe you can provide some back up to that assertion. I stand by my statement that in some cases lower tax rates will increase GDP and thus increase tax revenues. This item from NPR shows more economist agree with that than disagree.

FACT CHECK: Do Tax Cuts Grow The Economy?
In a 2012 survey of top economists, the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business found that 35 percent thought cutting taxes would boost economic growth. A roughly equal share, 35 percent, were uncertain. Only 8 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Empirical data from the CBO also supports my position-
Three times revenue increased after tax cuts
1997-1998
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the average federal tax rate for the top one percent of income earners fell by 1.1 percentage points in 1997 and a further 1.5 percentage points in 1998. Despite the cut, individual income tax revenues rose by 9.8 percent in 1997 and 10.6 percent in 1998, even after adjusting for inflation. The economy continued to grow at a quick pace. As a percentage of GDP, combined individual and corporate income tax revenue rose by 4.4 percent in 1997 and 4.8 percent in 1998.

In 1996, the CBO projected that individual income tax revenues would be 8.4 percent of GDP in 1997 and 1998. Even though the top 1 percent paid lower tax rates in 1997 and 1998 compared to 1996, revenue exceeded the CBO’s projections, coming in at 8.7 percent of GDP in 1997 and 9.3 percent of GDP in 1998.

Be sure to read the link as there are other examples to support the idea of lower rates leading to higher revenues.

cutting taxes seems like working on"margin".

We have mountains of debt that should not exist, if right wing economics worked as alleged.

Just a simple question for you.
You obviously hate the rich. Hate evil corporations. Hate anyone who makes more money than you do.
My question to you is what do you think those evil rich, corporations, et.al. do with all the money that they saved on income taxes?
Just some hints...
A) They hide it all under their mattresses.
B) They hide all their cash in their backyards.
C) They spend or invest.

Which one do you think they do and which helps the economy over all?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no debate on the revenue side(taxes, tariffs, etc.) that higher GDP increases tax revenues. The debate has been if lowering tax RATES will increase revenues. The answer- sometimes it will, sometimes it won’t. It depends on the state of the economy and fiscal situation of tax payers.

The last 40 years of empirical evidence shows that they do not increase revenues. Every time taxes have been cut, revenues have declined or grew at a slower rate. Every. Single. Time. Over. The. Last. 40. Years.

Maybe you can provide some back up to that assertion. I stand by my statement that in some cases lower tax rates will increase GDP and thus increase tax revenues. This item from NPR shows more economist agree with that than disagree.

FACT CHECK: Do Tax Cuts Grow The Economy?
In a 2012 survey of top economists, the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business found that 35 percent thought cutting taxes would boost economic growth. A roughly equal share, 35 percent, were uncertain. Only 8 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Empirical data from the CBO also supports my position-
Three times revenue increased after tax cuts
1997-1998
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the average federal tax rate for the top one percent of income earners fell by 1.1 percentage points in 1997 and a further 1.5 percentage points in 1998. Despite the cut, individual income tax revenues rose by 9.8 percent in 1997 and 10.6 percent in 1998, even after adjusting for inflation. The economy continued to grow at a quick pace. As a percentage of GDP, combined individual and corporate income tax revenue rose by 4.4 percent in 1997 and 4.8 percent in 1998.

In 1996, the CBO projected that individual income tax revenues would be 8.4 percent of GDP in 1997 and 1998. Even though the top 1 percent paid lower tax rates in 1997 and 1998 compared to 1996, revenue exceeded the CBO’s projections, coming in at 8.7 percent of GDP in 1997 and 9.3 percent of GDP in 1998.

Be sure to read the link as there are other examples to support the idea of lower rates leading to higher revenues.

cutting taxes seems like working on"margin".

We have mountains of debt that should not exist, if right wing economics worked as alleged.

Just a simple question for you.
You obviously hate the rich. Hate evil corporations. Hate anyone who makes more money than you do.
My question to you is what do you think those evil rich, corporations, et.al. do with all the money that they saved on income taxes?
Just some hints...
A) They hide it all under their mattresses.
B) They hide all their cash in their backyards.
C) They spend or invest.

Which one do you think they do and which helps the economy over all?

Only women in the non-porn sector have lousier intuition than you. That really is worthless. No wonder I don't give promiscuous women a difficult time in the porn sector, anymore.

 

[danielpalos]

Tax cuts are not paying for infrastructure.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Just a simple question for you.
You obviously hate the rich. Hate evil corporations. Hate anyone who makes more money than you do.
My question to you is what do you think those evil rich, corporations, et.al. do with all the money that they saved on income taxes?
Just some hints...
A) They hide it all under their mattresses.
B) They hide all their cash in their backyards.
C) They spend or invest.

Which one do you think they do and which helps the economy over all?

I do not know why you are still carrying on so. Your initial post proved there is only a very weak correlation between GDP and revenue.

 

[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.