When would a 10% tax rate generate more revenue then the current tax rate?

[Timmy]

How they hell can you dump deductions . Do you even want to ? They are a great way to spur good behavior and inovation.

And good luck to any pol who tries to dump the mortgage or child tax breaks !

 

[healthmyths]

It comes down to 10% of what. 10% of an extremely expanded economy would generate more revenue than the current rate in a contracted economy.

Didn't work when Bush tried it. But this time is different?

What do you mean it didn't work?
Where are your facts because HERE are the FACTS!

• Year Revenue US Expenditures Surplus/(deficit) GDP in trillions increase/decrease
• 2000 $2.026 Trillion $ 1.789 Trillion $236.2 billion $11.216
• 2001 1.991 1.862 126.6 11.338 1.08%
• 2002 1.853 2.010 (157.8) 11.543 1.81%
• 2003 1.782 2.159 (377.6) 11.836 2.54%
• 2004 1.880^ 2.252 (412.7) 12.247 3.46%
• 2005 2.153^ 2.472 (318.3) 12.623 3.07%
• 2006 2.406^ 2.655 (248.2) 12.959 2.65%
• 2007 2.568^ 2.728 (160.7) 13.206 1.91%
• 2008 2.524 2.982 (458.6) 13.162 (0.33%)

USDA ERS - International Macroeconomic Data Set
Looks like AFTER the tax cuts went in 2002 Revenues INCREASED in 2003,2004,2005,2006,2007!

 

[ogibillm]

It comes down to 10% of what. 10% of an extremely expanded economy would generate more revenue than the current rate in a contracted economy.

Didn't work when Bush tried it. But this time is different?

What do you mean it didn't work?
Where are your facts because HERE are the FACTS!

• Year Revenue US Expenditures Surplus/(deficit) GDP in trillions increase/decrease
• 2000 $2.026 Trillion $ 1.789 Trillion $236.2 billion $11.216
• 2001 1.991 1.862 126.6 11.338 1.08%
• 2002 1.853 2.010 (157.8) 11.543 1.81%
• 2003 1.782 2.159 (377.6) 11.836 2.54%
• 2004 1.880^ 2.252 (412.7) 12.247 3.46%
• 2005 2.153^ 2.472 (318.3) 12.623 3.07%
• 2006 2.406^ 2.655 (248.2) 12.959 2.65%
• 2007 2.568^ 2.728 (160.7) 13.206 1.91%
• 2008 2.524 2.982 (458.6) 13.162 (0.33%)

USDA ERS - International Macroeconomic Data Set
Looks like AFTER the tax cuts went in 2002 Revenues INCREASED in 2003,2004,2005,2006,2007!

and i have a magic rock i keep under my pillow that keeps me safe from lion attacks. had it t here for 30 years, and i've never been attacked by a lion.

 

[Skylar]

It comes down to 10% of what. 10% of an extremely expanded economy would generate more revenue than the current rate in a contracted economy.

Didn't work when Bush tried it. But this time is different?

What do you mean it didn't work?
Where are your facts because HERE are the FACTS!

• Year Revenue US Expenditures Surplus/(deficit) GDP in trillions increase/decrease
• 2000 $2.026 Trillion $ 1.789 Trillion $236.2 billion $11.216
• 2001 1.991 1.862 126.6 11.338 1.08%
• 2002 1.853 2.010 (157.8) 11.543 1.81%
• 2003 1.782 2.159 (377.6) 11.836 2.54%
• 2004 1.880^ 2.252 (412.7) 12.247 3.46%
• 2005 2.153^ 2.472 (318.3) 12.623 3.07%
• 2006 2.406^ 2.655 (248.2) 12.959 2.65%
• 2007 2.568^ 2.728 (160.7) 13.206 1.91%
• 2008 2.524 2.982 (458.6) 13.162 (0.33%)

USDA ERS - International Macroeconomic Data Set
Looks like AFTER the tax cuts went in 2002 Revenues INCREASED in 2003,2004,2005,2006,2007!

You're claiming it was the tax cuts that resulted in the increase. Prove it. Because even Bush's economic advisors don't buy that line of bullshit, being very clear about this in 2006:

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that."

Alan Viard, senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisers 2001 to 2004

This a GW appointee, who worked for GW himself as a senior economist. And he contradicts you. And he's hardly the only one:

"As a matter of principle we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. "

Robert Carroll
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Analysis.

Another man working in the Bush administration explicitly contradicts you. And he's hardly alone either:

“Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data…do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005.

Edward Lazear, chairman of the CEA in Bush’s second term
2006

With Alan Viard from above explicitly refuting your claims about economic growth from Bush's tax cuts at all:

“The effects of the Bush tax cuts on growth were ambiguous at best,” said Alan Viard, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and a former Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas economist. “They were not much of a poster child for pro-growth tax policy.”

Raising Taxes No ‘Kiss of Death’ for Job Growth, History Shows

'Ambiguous at best'. With his sentiment mirrored by former Reagan and Bush advisor Bruce Bartlett:

The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/

These are all sources that worked for Republican Administrations. And they all contradict you.

With the CBO determining in 2012 that the Bush tax cuts reduced federal revenues $2.8 trillion between 2002 and 2011.

Changes in CBO's Baseline Projections Since January 2001

Even Alan Greenspan, appointed by Ronald Reagan himself, contradicts you:

MR. GREGORY: You don't agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?

MR. GREENSPAN: They do not.

August, 2010

Meet the Press transcript for August 1, 2010

So why would tax cuts suddenly pay for themselves now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look at this question from last night's debate.
QUICK: Dr. Carson, let's talk about taxes.
You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes, and -- I've looked at it -- and this is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I've had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this.
If you were to took a 10 percent tax, with the numbers right now in total personal income, you're gonna come in with bring in $1.5 trillion. That is less than half of what we bring in right now. And by the way, it's gonna leave us in a $2 trillion hole."

She had a "tough time making the math work"!

WOW....
What a f...king idiotic STATEMENT!

Hey Becky!!!
In 2015, total federal revenues in fiscal year 2015 are expected to be $3.18 trillion.2 These revenues come from three major sources:

1. Income taxes paid by individuals: $1.48 trillion, or 47% of all tax revenues.
2. Payroll taxes paid jointly by workers and employers: $1.07 trillion, 34% of all tax revenues.
3. Corporate income taxes paid by businesses: $341.7 billion, or 11% of all tax revenues.

Federal Revenue: Where Does the Money Come From

So what gross revenue generates this $3.18 trillion?
1. Assuming overall tax rate for all tax payers is 15.2%
View attachment 53555
Taxes - Just Facts

Income taxes on $9.7 trillion in income
So $1.48 trillion in taxes came from 15.2% of taxable income or: $9.7 trillion generated that tax!
Payroll of $7.5 trillion generates:
$1.07 trillion came from Medicare/SS which is 7.2% from employer and 7.2% from employee:
Total gross payroll: $7.5 trillion in payroll
Corporate income tax on $1.34 trillion
Dividing $341 billion by average of 25% corporate taxes on $1.34 trillion in gross revenue.

SO BECKY!!!!
If people pay 10% instead of 15.2% that means they would have $500 billion more to spend!
If corporate taxes were 10% instead of 25%.. that would leave. $204 billion more to spend!
Over $700 billion more in companies and people's pockets to spend!

Assume the GDP in 2014 was $18 trillion... which generated the $3.18 trillion in tax revenue.
Or 17% of GDP generates the $3.18 trillion in taxes.
Increase the GDP by 35% or $24.3 trillion.
Using 17% then Tax revenue would INCREASE $4.1 trillion!!!

Then why not cut all taxes to zero so governments would have an infinite amount of money to spend?

lol

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why exactly do we want the government to take more revenue instead of simply cutting costs?

Because as amazing as it sounds, there actually is a portion of the population who thinks the government can spend our money better than we can.

 

[Skylar]

It comes down to 10% of what. 10% of an extremely expanded economy would generate more revenue than the current rate in a contracted economy.

Didn't work when Bush tried it. But this time is different?

What do you mean it didn't work?
Where are your facts because HERE are the FACTS!

• Year Revenue US Expenditures Surplus/(deficit) GDP in trillions increase/decrease
• 2000 $2.026 Trillion $ 1.789 Trillion $236.2 billion $11.216
• 2001 1.991 1.862 126.6 11.338 1.08%
• 2002 1.853 2.010 (157.8) 11.543 1.81%
• 2003 1.782 2.159 (377.6) 11.836 2.54%
• 2004 1.880^ 2.252 (412.7) 12.247 3.46%
• 2005 2.153^ 2.472 (318.3) 12.623 3.07%
• 2006 2.406^ 2.655 (248.2) 12.959 2.65%
• 2007 2.568^ 2.728 (160.7) 13.206 1.91%
• 2008 2.524 2.982 (458.6) 13.162 (0.33%)

USDA ERS - International Macroeconomic Data Set
Looks like AFTER the tax cuts went in 2002 Revenues INCREASED in 2003,2004,2005,2006,2007!

and i have a magic rock i keep under my pillow that keeps me safe from lion attacks. had it t here for 30 years, and i've never been attacked by a lion.

I drink Tomato juice on every flight I'm on. I've never been in a crash.

Ergo, tomato juice prevents plane crashes.

Um...right?

 

[Avatar4321]

Why exactly do we want the government to take more revenue instead of simply cutting costs?

Because there's nothing simple about cutting costs.

And because a tax scheme that doesn't cover expenses isn't a particularly good idea.

Shouldn't it be the opposite? Shouldn't expe uses match revenue and not the other way around?

When I don't take in as much, I spend less. Why should our politicians be different?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Let's start with your premise - Lower taxes produce higher revenues.

2. Let's take that to the logical extreme - No taxes. Do no taxes produce the highest tax revenues?

No. Of course not.

3. No taxes produce no tax revenue.

4. Therefore, even if your premise in 1. above were true, there has to be a point where lower taxes produce lower revenue. And lower and lower and lower, to zero.

How do you know we aren't already at that point? We've been lowering taxes steadily for decades, and our debt only grows.

 

[Avatar4321]

What about fed gas taxes and various fees . Where does that money fit ?

Just cut the military 20% .

While I don't doubt we could find waste to cut in the military the wise we are on the verge of a huge military conflict?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It comes down to 10% of what. 10% of an extremely expanded economy would generate more revenue than the current rate in a contracted economy.

Didn't work when Bush tried it. But this time is different?

I don't recall the economy expanding prior to any Bush tax cuts. In fact, the dynamic that has shrunken our economy under Obama -- as a result of his energy policy -- began under Bush when the Indian and Chinese economies expanded.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind Carson's plan raises taxes on most lower income Americans. They won't be among the OP's touted people with more to spend.

 

[CowboyTed]

It comes down to 10% of what. 10% of an extremely expanded economy would generate more revenue than the current rate in a contracted economy.

Didn't work when Bush tried it. But this time is different?

What do you mean it didn't work?
Where are your facts because HERE are the FACTS!

• Year Revenue US Expenditures Surplus/(deficit) GDP in trillions increase/decrease
• 2000 $2.026 Trillion $ 1.789 Trillion $236.2 billion $11.216
• 2001 1.991 1.862 126.6 11.338 1.08%
• 2002 1.853 2.010 (157.8) 11.543 1.81%
• 2003 1.782 2.159 (377.6) 11.836 2.54%
• 2004 1.880^ 2.252 (412.7) 12.247 3.46%
• 2005 2.153^ 2.472 (318.3) 12.623 3.07%
• 2006 2.406^ 2.655 (248.2) 12.959 2.65%
• 2007 2.568^ 2.728 (160.7) 13.206 1.91%
• 2008 2.524 2.982 (458.6) 13.162 (0.33%)

USDA ERS - International Macroeconomic Data Set
Looks like AFTER the tax cuts went in 2002 Revenues INCREASED in 2003,2004,2005,2006,2007!

Great now you are showing us the figures from a grossly overheated economy that went bang...

Reality is there is a time to raise and lower taxes to countrol the money supply into the economy. This is tried and tested macro economics.

Raise taxes in boom times to slow down the economy and lower in recessions to drive growth.

Anyone saying cut cut cut is just as much a joke as one saying raise raise raise joke...

So now you are left with who pays... Let me let you into a secret. The whole monetary system we have today is manmade, it has holes and is not perfect and needs correction...
Is the fireman that went into the building in 911 job worth ten times less than the stockbroker runing up the road away from the building?
We put these values on jobs through our system. This needs correction because like all mman made things they are not perfect.

 

[healthmyths]

It comes down to 10% of what. 10% of an extremely expanded economy would generate more revenue than the current rate in a contracted economy.

Didn't work when Bush tried it. But this time is different?

What do you mean it didn't work?
Where are your facts because HERE are the FACTS!

• Year Revenue US Expenditures Surplus/(deficit) GDP in trillions increase/decrease
• 2000 $2.026 Trillion $ 1.789 Trillion $236.2 billion $11.216
• 2001 1.991 1.862 126.6 11.338 1.08%
• 2002 1.853 2.010 (157.8) 11.543 1.81%
• 2003 1.782 2.159 (377.6) 11.836 2.54%
• 2004 1.880^ 2.252 (412.7) 12.247 3.46%
• 2005 2.153^ 2.472 (318.3) 12.623 3.07%
• 2006 2.406^ 2.655 (248.2) 12.959 2.65%
• 2007 2.568^ 2.728 (160.7) 13.206 1.91%
• 2008 2.524 2.982 (458.6) 13.162 (0.33%)

USDA ERS - International Macroeconomic Data Set
Looks like AFTER the tax cuts went in 2002 Revenues INCREASED in 2003,2004,2005,2006,2007!

Great now you are showing us the figures from a grossly overheated economy that went bang...

Reality is there is a time to raise and lower taxes to countrol the money supply into the economy. This is tried and tested macro economics.

Raise taxes in boom times to slow down the economy and lower in recessions to drive growth.

Anyone saying cut cut cut is just as much a joke as one saying raise raise raise joke...

So now you are left with who pays... Let me let you into a secret. The whole monetary system we have today is manmade, it has holes and is not perfect and needs correction...
Is the fireman that went into the building in 911 job worth ten times less than the stockbroker runing up the road away from the building?
We put these values on jobs through our system. This needs correction because like all mman made things they are not perfect.

"overheated"?? AFTER oh some minor events LIKE $5 trillion losses due to Dot.com bust in 2001 and oh yea 9/11! and $1 trillion in lost income...
So 2001 saw revenues drop to $1.991 from $2,026 2002 drop to $1.853... AND YOU say "overheated"???
Look I'm so tired of reminding idiots of what they should comprehend that between:
Dot.com bust $5 trillion... 9/11 -- $1 trillion... Worst hurricane SEASONS not just hurricanes $1 trillion in loses you guys forget those events affected the economy
and even more TAX REVENUE payments! Dummies! You have losses you write losses off! YOU have NO JoBS because your employers' businesses destroyed!
NO payroll taxes.!
Geez I am so tired of you idiots forgetting these events!
WHY can't you guys be honest!

NOW I will agree with you regarding the phony QE debacle! The market has been artificially supported by the Fed $4 trillion!
As of this writing, the Fed holds approximately $2.3 trillion in long-term Treasuries, and $1.7 trillion in GSE securities.[6] According to Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, the Fed now holds more than 30 percent of the stock of outstanding MBS and nearly 25 percent of outstanding Treasuries.[7] All three rounds of the QEs, as well as the Fed’s “normal” open-market purchases, were supposed to increase economic activity through additional lending.
Quantitative Easing, The Fed’s Balance Sheet, and Central Bank Insolvency

 

[healthmyths]

Look at this question from last night's debate.
QUICK: Dr. Carson, let's talk about taxes.
You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes, and -- I've looked at it -- and this is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I've had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this.
If you were to took a 10 percent tax, with the numbers right now in total personal income, you're gonna come in with bring in $1.5 trillion. That is less than half of what we bring in right now. And by the way, it's gonna leave us in a $2 trillion hole."

She had a "tough time making the math work"!

WOW....
What a f...king idiotic STATEMENT!

Hey Becky!!!
In 2015, total federal revenues in fiscal year 2015 are expected to be $3.18 trillion.2 These revenues come from three major sources:

1. Income taxes paid by individuals: $1.48 trillion, or 47% of all tax revenues.
2. Payroll taxes paid jointly by workers and employers: $1.07 trillion, 34% of all tax revenues.
3. Corporate income taxes paid by businesses: $341.7 billion, or 11% of all tax revenues.

Federal Revenue: Where Does the Money Come From

So what gross revenue generates this $3.18 trillion?
1. Assuming overall tax rate for all tax payers is 15.2%
View attachment 53555
Taxes - Just Facts

Income taxes on $9.7 trillion in income
So $1.48 trillion in taxes came from 15.2% of taxable income or: $9.7 trillion generated that tax!
Payroll of $7.5 trillion generates:
$1.07 trillion came from Medicare/SS which is 7.2% from employer and 7.2% from employee:
Total gross payroll: $7.5 trillion in payroll
Corporate income tax on $1.34 trillion
Dividing $341 billion by average of 25% corporate taxes on $1.34 trillion in gross revenue.

SO BECKY!!!!
If people pay 10% instead of 15.2% that means they would have $500 billion more to spend!
If corporate taxes were 10% instead of 25%.. that would leave. $204 billion more to spend!
Over $700 billion more in companies and people's pockets to spend!

Assume the GDP in 2014 was $18 trillion... which generated the $3.18 trillion in tax revenue.
Or 17% of GDP generates the $3.18 trillion in taxes.
Increase the GDP by 35% or $24.3 trillion.
Using 17% then Tax revenue would INCREASE $4.1 trillion!!!

Then why not cut all taxes to zero so governments would have an infinite amount of money to spend?

lol

NOT a bad idea!
Let's require governments to become SHAREHOLDERS and fund government expenditures from DIVIDENDS!
Brilliant idea!
That way the government will also by it's "investigative" efforts find the best companies that will generate the most dividends and have them become
shareholders! After all we do have GSEs you know!

 

[SwimExpert]

Ben Carson's plan is to tax corporate profits at a rate of up to 45 percent.

 

[healthmyths]

Ben Carson's plan is to tax corporate profits at a rate of up to 45 percent.

Would please source your statement. I need to see some links and substantiating sources.

 

[SwimExpert]

Ben Carson's plan is to tax corporate profits at a rate of up to 45 percent.

Would please source your statement. I need to see some links and substantiating sources.

I address it here:

Carson's tax plan: The epitome of stupid, meaningless, babble. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look at this question from last night's debate.
QUICK: Dr. Carson, let's talk about taxes.
You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes, and -- I've looked at it -- and this is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I've had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this.
If you were to took a 10 percent tax, with the numbers right now in total personal income, you're gonna come in with bring in $1.5 trillion. That is less than half of what we bring in right now. And by the way, it's gonna leave us in a $2 trillion hole."

She had a "tough time making the math work"!

WOW....
What a f...king idiotic STATEMENT!

Hey Becky!!!
In 2015, total federal revenues in fiscal year 2015 are expected to be $3.18 trillion.2 These revenues come from three major sources:

1. Income taxes paid by individuals: $1.48 trillion, or 47% of all tax revenues.
2. Payroll taxes paid jointly by workers and employers: $1.07 trillion, 34% of all tax revenues.
3. Corporate income taxes paid by businesses: $341.7 billion, or 11% of all tax revenues.

Federal Revenue: Where Does the Money Come From

So what gross revenue generates this $3.18 trillion?
1. Assuming overall tax rate for all tax payers is 15.2%
View attachment 53555
Taxes - Just Facts

Income taxes on $9.7 trillion in income
So $1.48 trillion in taxes came from 15.2% of taxable income or: $9.7 trillion generated that tax!
Payroll of $7.5 trillion generates:
$1.07 trillion came from Medicare/SS which is 7.2% from employer and 7.2% from employee:
Total gross payroll: $7.5 trillion in payroll
Corporate income tax on $1.34 trillion
Dividing $341 billion by average of 25% corporate taxes on $1.34 trillion in gross revenue.

SO BECKY!!!!
If people pay 10% instead of 15.2% that means they would have $500 billion more to spend!
If corporate taxes were 10% instead of 25%.. that would leave. $204 billion more to spend!
Over $700 billion more in companies and people's pockets to spend!

Assume the GDP in 2014 was $18 trillion... which generated the $3.18 trillion in tax revenue.
Or 17% of GDP generates the $3.18 trillion in taxes.
Increase the GDP by 35% or $24.3 trillion.
Using 17% then Tax revenue would INCREASE $4.1 trillion!!!

Then why not cut all taxes to zero so governments would have an infinite amount of money to spend?

lol

NOT a bad idea!
Let's require governments to become SHAREHOLDERS and fund government expenditures from DIVIDENDS!
Brilliant idea!
That way the government will also by it's "investigative" efforts find the best companies that will generate the most dividends and have them become
shareholders! After all we do have GSEs you know!

There you go. Put the corporations totally in control of the government. One more RWnut reveals his true nature.

 

[SAYIT]

Oh, the rich pay enormous amounts in taxes. The top 1% actually pay about half of all federal income taxes.

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

That's actual taxes paid. Not tax rates.

Thank you Sky.

To take that a bit further. the top 25% of American earners pay over 86% of all the federal personal income taxes Washington collects.

To those here who scream for more from "the rich" I often ask (but they never answer) what would be satisfactory to them?
96%?
106%