• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

Gill said:
Hmm, using these numbers, it certainly looks like it did NOT go down???:confused:

True. Between those periods, it went up $18 billion.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
What? No it didn't. It was back up less than a year later. It didn't even last a year.

Using your pass the buck logic, liberals who want National Healthcare should just be arguing that instead of paying for it out of a tax increase, that the money should be simply taken out of defense spending.

That argument just like yours is equally absurd. The National Debt, relative to GDP, was not **** until the 80s. Well then again it was extremely high durring World War II, but that generation bore a 92% top tax rate durring the 50s to pay that down so you and I get to live in the greatest nation in the history of civilization. If they had your pass the buck mentality, we would have went the route of Argentina long ago. Even if we go by your logic, I would assume that even a 30 year old T-Note used to fund Vietnam would have been paid by now.

The tax rates of the nineties would be lower than the tax rates at any other time we have been at war World War II on. It would seem to me that if you honestly believed that this war was worth fighting for, that the least you could do is opt to pay a tax rate that would even remotely fund it. Instead, you want the poor to primarily fight in your little social experiments, and the next generation to pay for it.
 
Gill said:
I found this chart on a web site and thought it was interesting.

The only time the national debt was above GDP was during WWII. Also note that Defense spending was over 40% of GDP during WWII and had an additional blip in the early 50's. Since around 1970, defense spending has been relatively stable.

I agree that the national debt rose greatly under Reagan, but as a child of the 50's and 60's, I can assure that anyone of my generation would consider it a bargain. While many of you may not believe that Reagan's military buildup was the primary cause of the Soviet Union's collapse, I firmly believe it. When we were doing drop and cover drills in elementary school, any amount of money would be a bargain to eliminate the SU threat of nuclear attack.

As a child of the 50s and 60s, I'll think the debt caused by Reagan's tax cuts was less of a bargain when I see my shrinking SS check. And the children of the 70s and 80s will think it is a less of a bargain when their taxes shoot up to pay for his and the other pass the buck generation leaders' debt.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Using your pass the buck logic, liberals who want National Healthcare should just be arguing that instead of paying for it out of a tax increase, that the money should be simply taken out of defense spending.

No because defense is a legitimate roll of the government wealth redistribution is not.

That argument just like yours is equally absurd. The National Debt, relative to GDP, was not **** until the 80s.

The national debt was higher than the GDP during WW2 and was on par with the 80s all the way up to 65 until the libs namely Johnson increased taxes drammatically which sent us hurteling towards recession during the 70s.

The tax rates of the nineties would be lower than the tax rates at any other time we have been at war World War II on. It would seem to me that if you honestly believed that this war was worth fighting for, that the least you could do is opt to pay a tax rate that would even remotely fund it. Instead, you want the poor to primarily fight in your little social experiments, and the next generation to pay for it.

I have no problem paying for the war I have a problem paying for a welfare program of which I will not recieve the benefits from.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No because defense is a legitimate roll of the government wealth redistribution is not.

I disagree with your opinion. Apparently so do most others in our society.

The national debt was higher than the GDP during WW2.

And as SD observed, the "greatest generation" sucked it up and paid 90% tax rates to pay down the debt so they wouldn't leave their kids a nation hobbled in debt.

Our generation is doing the opposite. We had a golden opportunity in 2000 to do the admirable thing like the greatest generation and pay down *our* debt, but another pass the buck Republican was selected by the electoral college and we are back to screwing the next gen.
 
Iriemon said:
And as pointed out, t he "greatest generation" sucked it up and paid 90% tax rates to pay down the debt so they wouldn't leave their kids a nation hobbled in debt.

Ya and expanded the welfare state drammatically and in the process became an entitlement society only difference is they got their entitlements my generation will not.

Our generation is doing the opposite. We had a golden opportunity in 2000 to do the admirable thing like the greatest generation and pay down *our* debt, but another pass the buck Republican was selected by the electoral college and we are back to screwing the next gen.

The greatest generation did not pay down the debt they increased it exponentially through an ever expanding welfare state based on entitlement programs those taxes didn't pay for the war they payed for the welfare state:

12/30/1960 290,216,815,241.68
12/31/1959 290,797,771,717.63
12/31/1958 282,922,423,583.87
12/31/1957 274,897,784,290.72
12/31/1956 276,627,527,996.11
12/30/1955 280,768,553,188.96
12/31/1954 278,749,814,391.33
12/31/1953 275,168,120,129.39
06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04
06/30/1949 252,770,359,860.33
06/30/1948 252,292,246,512.99
06/30/1947 258,286,383,108.67
06/28/1946 269,422,099,173.26
06/30/1945 258,682,187,409.93
06/30/1944 201,003,387,221.13
06/30/1943 136,696,090,329.90
06/30/1942 72,422,445,116.22
06/30/1941 48,961,443,535.71
06/29/1940 42,967,531,037.68
06/30/1939 40,439,532,411.11
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The national debt was higher than the GDP during WW2 and was on par with the 80s all the way up to 65 until the libs namely Johnson increased taxes drammatically which sent us hurteling towards recession during the 70s.

Hmmm, according the the chart posted here, debt as a % of GDP was decreasing thru the 60s and into the 70s, and didn't start hurtling up until 1981.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/349091-post274.html
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No because defense is a legitimate roll of the government wealth redistribution is not.

Actually, since the New Deal it is. In fact, Social Security and Medicare are as American as Apple Pie. If you don't like that, perhaps you could find another nation that actually shared your views as to the role of government.

The national debt was higher than the GDP during WW2 and was on par with the 80s all the way up to 65

Yeah, and we had a 92% top tax rate until the Kennedy years to pay down that debt. That is what the Greatest Generation did for us today.

until the libs increased taxes drammatically which sent us hurteling towards recession during the 70s.

We had a tax decrease in the 60s from a top rate of 92% down to a still absurdly high top rate of 70%. The recession that followed in the 70s was a result of the monitary policy at the time, and was not corrected until montary policy at the fed took an anti-inflationary role.

I have no problem paying for the war I have a problem paying for a welfare program of which I will not recieve the benefits from.

Actually, Social Security and Medicare are paid for out of Payroll Taxes. If you have a problem with those programs, you should write your congressman and see if you can get a law passed to reduce the payroll tax rate. The war is paid for out of General Revenue, and deficits in General Revenue are floated by surpluses in payroll taxes revenue. By refusing to cough up the money to pay for this war in income taxes, you are simply shifting the burden to Payroll Taxes and Social Security and Medicare recipients in future years as well as the working taxpayers in future years who will have to service that debt.

I will say that Libertarians at least have some consistency in their arguments, unlike you, they are against virtually all federal spending, not just what they themselves personally don't like. However, when one picks and chooses what they want the government to do, its only fare that they pay for those obligations they place in the public sector regardless of whether they are big social programs, or think tank inspired social experiments in Iraq. Either way its a government expenditure and the money has to come from somewhere. At least those terrible libs are paying for their Social Security and Medicare programs out of payroll taxes, you are merely wanting to pass the buck.
 
Iriemon said:
paid 90% tax rates to pay down the debt so they wouldn't leave their kids a nation hobbled in debt.

It's true that the TOP tax rate in 1944-1945 was 90%, however the tax rate for the average income at the time, $2,000, was 25%. Very few people in 1945 made over $200,000. which triggered the 90% rate.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The greatest generation did not pay down the debt they increased it exponentially through an ever expanding welfare state based on entitlement programs those taxes didn't pay for the war they payed for the welfare state:

12/30/1960 290,216,815,241.68
...
06/30/1939 40,439,532,411.11

You are smart enough to understand that when comparing figures over time you have to either adjust for inflation or compare it some other relavent figure, aren't you?

If you don't understand what I am talking about I'll explain how inflation affects the value of money over time and why you have to adjust for it.

So if we adjust total debt for inflation, we get this:

1940 439
1941 468
1942 638
1943 1,144
1944 1,652
1945 2,066
1946 1,923
1947 1,663
1948 1,538
1949 1,547
1950 1,555
1951 1,439
1952 1,437
1953 1,458
1954 1,515
1955 1,499
1956 1,428
1957 1,372
1958 1,376
1959 1,398
1960 1,378
1961 1,391
1962 1,405
1963 1,418
1964 1,432
1965 1,424
1966 1,420
1967 1,444
1968 1,437
1969 1,407
1970 1,413
1971 1,467
1972 1,488
1973 1,476
1974 1,417
1975 1,518
1976 1,627
1977 1,682
1978 1,724
1979 1,705
1980 1,721
1981 1,741
1982 1,908
1983 2,164
1984 2,458
1985 2,791
1986 2,982
1987 3,211
1988 3,438
1989 3,637
1990 3,963
1991 4,340
1992 4,706
1993 4,991
1994 5,199
1995 5,400
1996 5,567
1997 5,673
1998 5,728
1999 5,779
2000 5,674
2001 5,671
2002 5,978
2003 6,381
2004 6,764
2005 7,073

This is the inflation adjusted value of the total debt, in 2000$, using the modifier the BEA uses for GDP. We can see the Debt5 in 2000$ was a whopping $2 billion in 1945, it was paid down less than a billion and a half, and didn't hit $2 billion again until 1983.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Iriemon said:
But it was still on par until 65 and what happened during the 70s? Only the worst recession since the great depression.

Do you just write your own history books? The deepest recession since the Great Depression was in 1982, when the Feds shot up interest rates to such a level that the economy flat out tanked. This deep recession virtually halted consumption and finally curbed the stagflation of the 70s. The Feds have been Anti-Inflationary in monetary policy ever since.
 
And if we compare the Debt to GDP, we see that after WWII the debt (relative to GDP) was even more dramatically reduced:

1940 42%
1941 39%
1942 44%
1943 68%
1944 91%
1945 116%
1946 121%
1947 106%
1948 94%
1949 95%
1950 87%
1951 75%
1952 72%
1953 70%
1954 73%
1955 68%
1956 63%
1957 60%
1958 60%
1959 57%
1960 55%
1961 54%
1962 52%
1963 50%
1964 48%
1965 45%
1966 42%
1967 41%
1968 39%
1969 37%
1970 37%
1971 38%
1972 36%
1973 34%
1974 33%
1975 35%
1976 36%
1977 35%
1978 34%
1979 33%
1980 33%
1981 33%
1982 37%
1983 40%
1984 42%
1985 46%
1986 48%
1987 50%
1988 51%
1989 52%
1990 56%
1991 61%
1992 64%
1993 66%
1994 66%
1995 67%
1996 67%
1997 65%
1998 63%
1999 61%
2000 58%
2001 57%
2002 59%
2003 62%
2004 63%
2005 64%

This shows the same thing on the chart; After WWII debt was steadily reduced relative to GDP until 1982 when it began climbing under the pass the buck generation leadership, except for a decline during the Clinton Admin when there was the only fiscal responsibility demonstrated by Govt over the past 25 years.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Do you just write your own history books? The deepest recession since the Great Depression was in 1982, when the Feds shot up interest rates to such a level that the economy flat out tanked. This deep recession virtually halted consumption and finally curbed the stagflation of the 70s. The Feds have been Anti-Inflationary in monetary policy ever since.

You have a misquote in your post -- that was Trajan's statment, not mine.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Actually, since the New Deal it is. In fact, Social Security and Medicare are as American as Apple Pie. If you don't like that, perhaps you could find another nation that actually shared your views as to the role of government.

Ours did until the socialist FDR took power and raped the Constitution by packing the supreme court so that the unconstitutional "raw deal" would not be subject to scrutiny.

Yeah, and we had a 92% top tax rate until the Kennedy years to pay down that debt. That is what the Greatest Generation did for us today.

How many people made above $200,000 during that time period?


We had a tax decrease in the 60s from a top rate of 92% down to a still absurdly high top rate of 70%. The recession that followed in the 70s was a result of the monitary policy at the time, and was not corrected until montary policy at the fed took an anti-inflationary role.

Ya Kennedy didn't last even one term can you say "the great society"???


Actually, Social Security and Medicare are paid for out of Payroll Taxes. If you have a problem with those programs, you should write your congressman and see if you can get a law passed to reduce the payroll tax rate. The war is paid for out of General Revenue, and deficits in General Revenue are floated by surpluses in payroll taxes revenue. By refusing to cough up the money to pay for this war in income taxes, you are simply shifting the burden to Payroll Taxes and Social Security and Medicare recipients in future years as well as the working taxpayers in future years who will have to service that debt.

That's why we should slash medicare and s.s. entitlements to free up revenue to pay for the war that way income-tax surpluses will increase and be added to the general revenue.


I will say that Libertarians at least have some consistency in their arguments, unlike you, they are against virtually all federal spending, not just what they themselves personally don't like. However, when one picks and chooses what they want the government to do, its only fare that they pay for those obligations they place in the public sector regardless of whether they are big social programs, or think tank inspired social experiments in Iraq. Either way its a government expenditure and the money has to come from somewhere. At least those terrible libs are paying for their Social Security and Medicare programs out of payroll taxes, you are merely wanting to pass the buck.

No actually Libertarians; such as, Goldwater and myself believe in a strong military because security and defense are two of the few legitimate rolls of government.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Iriemon said:
But it was still on par until 65 and what happened during the 70s? Only the worst recession since the great depression.

Not even close to the worst. Years Real GDP was down after 1940:

1945 -1.1%
1946 -11.0%
1947 -0.9%
1949 -0.5%
1954 -0.7%
1958 -1.0%
1974 -0.5%
1975 -0.2%
1980 -0.2%
1982 -1.9%
1991 -0.2%

The 2001 "recession" isn't on the list because GDP didn't go down that year.

Plus your argument that Johnson's (whose last year in office was '68) tax hikes (did Johnson raise taxes?) caused the mid-70s recession 6 years later is an exercise of false causation. Since the 1960s, the economy has actually done a little better during times when taxes were higher and worse when they were lower. I've posted the data several times, and will do so again on request.
 
Iriemon said:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Not even close to the worst. Years Real GDP was down after 1940:

1945 -1.1%
1946 -11.0%
1947 -0.9%
1949 -0.5%
1954 -0.7%
1958 -1.0%
1974 -0.5%
1975 -0.2%
1980 -0.2%
1982 -1.9%
1991 -0.2%

The 2001 "recession" isn't on the list because GDP didn't go down that year.

Plus your argument that Johnson's (whose last year in office was '68) tax hikes (did Johnson raise taxes?) caused the mid-70s recession 6 years later is an exercise of false causation. Since the 1960s, the economy has actually done a little better during times when taxes were higher and worse when they were lower. I've posted the data several times, and will do so again on request.

No because if memory serves Nixon increased taxes and infact expanded Johnson's great society programs. He was a New Deal Republican.
 
Last edited:
Iriemon said:
You are smart enough to understand that when comparing figures over time you have to either adjust for inflation or compare it some other relavent figure, aren't you?

If you don't understand what I am talking about I'll explain how inflation affects the value of money over time and why you have to adjust for it.

So if we adjust total debt for inflation, we get this:

1940 439
1941 468
1942 638
1943 1,144
1944 1,652
1945 2,066
1946 1,923
1947 1,663
1948 1,538
1949 1,547
1950 1,555
1951 1,439
1952 1,437
1953 1,458
1954 1,515
1955 1,499
1956 1,428
1957 1,372
1958 1,376
1959 1,398
1960 1,378
1961 1,391
1962 1,405
1963 1,418
1964 1,432
1965 1,424
1966 1,420
1967 1,444
1968 1,437
1969 1,407
1970 1,413
1971 1,467
1972 1,488
1973 1,476
1974 1,417
1975 1,518
1976 1,627
1977 1,682
1978 1,724
1979 1,705
1980 1,721
1981 1,741
1982 1,908
1983 2,164
1984 2,458
1985 2,791
1986 2,982
1987 3,211
1988 3,438
1989 3,637
1990 3,963
1991 4,340
1992 4,706
1993 4,991
1994 5,199
1995 5,400
1996 5,567
1997 5,673
1998 5,728
1999 5,779
2000 5,674
2001 5,671
2002 5,978
2003 6,381
2004 6,764
2005 7,073

This is the inflation adjusted value of the total debt, in 2000$, using the modifier the BEA uses for GDP. We can see the Debt5 in 2000$ was a whopping $2 billion in 1945, it was paid down less than a billion and a half, and didn't hit $2 billion again until 1983.

see but now you're leaving out one very important point what led to this rampant inflation in the first place?

Well increased taxation leads to stagnation, which leads to inflation because the Fed has to print more money to pay for the entitlement programs which taxation can no longer pay for because GDP growth has gone stagnant due to the excessive taxation and around and around we go perpetuating the cycle and allowing you to skew the numbers of the national debt by adjusting for the inflation that your increased taxation and entitlement programs caused in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
The Social Security Reform the Bush Administration proposed was a great concept.

Even Democrats admit that SS needs to be fixed but they were against the Plan Bush advocated strictly because the is the one that advocated it and their hate for him will not allow them to go along with something he proposes or give him credit for it..
Oh really? So with a GOP President, GOP House, GOP Senate it's the Democrats fault that Bush's imbecilic SS plan was a huge waste of taxpayer money? Please explain this to all of us?

Based on what you just wrote the Democrats argument was so strong that the Republicans were unable to pass a bill that Bush would sign....is that it?

What a bunch of bullshit...
 
Navy Pride said:
I truly believe a complete investigation should be done on every person in this country who are on welfare........I have a friend who is a mail man and he has been delivering welfare checks to 3 generations of one family on his route for 30 years........

I believe that if you have complete welfare reform you could wipe out the deficit in short order.........
I don't know about wiping it out, but you could make a pretty stinking big dent in it. The best thing to do would be to put a "bounty" on fraudulent welfare recipients. If you can prove that someone is receiving welfare payments fraudulently, you get 25% of what ever they would have received for the next year and they get to go to a work camp.
Also, returning Social Security INSURANCE to it's original intent as an INSURANCE policy and not a pathetic excuse for a retirement fund would make a huge difference. Privitize the management of the funds with the management cos. getting a % of the earnings and you'd have a pretty solid solution to SSI.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Oh really? So with a GOP President, GOP House, GOP Senate it's the Democrats fault that Bush's imbecilic SS plan was a huge waste of taxpayer money? Please explain this to all of us?

Based on what you just wrote the Democrats argument was so strong that the Republicans were unable to pass a bill that Bush would sign....is that it?

What a bunch of bullshit...

I guess you never heard of the filibuster and needing 60 votes to get something through.......Pay attention and I will teach you something my liberal friend.....;)
 
faithful_servant said:
I don't know about wiping it out, but you could make a pretty stinking big dent in it. The best thing to do would be to put a "bounty" on fraudulent welfare recipients. If you can prove that someone is receiving welfare payments fraudulently, you get 25% of what ever they would have received for the next year and they get to go to a work camp.
Also, returning Social Security INSURANCE to it's original intent as an INSURANCE policy and not a pathetic excuse for a retirement fund would make a huge difference. Privitize the management of the funds with the management cos. getting a % of the earnings and you'd have a pretty solid solution to SSI.

Your exactly right, SS was never meant to be the only income they had to retire on............It was meant as a sitpend to assist in that..............

As far as welfare goes for example you can't keep giving women money if they have babies out of wedlock............
 
Gill said:
It's true that the TOP tax rate in 1944-1945 was 90%, however the tax rate for the average income at the time, $2,000, was 25%. Very few people in 1945 made over $200,000. which triggered the 90% rate.

Fair point - I did not mean to imply everyone paid 90% taxes.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
see but now you're leaving out one very important point what led to this rampant inflation in the first place?

Well increased taxation leads to stagnation, which leads to inflation because the Fed has to print more money to pay for the entitlement programs which taxation can no longer pay for because GDP growth has gone stagnant due to the excessive taxation and around and around we go perpetuating the cycle and allowing you to skew the numbers of the national debt by adjusting for the inflation that your increased taxation and entitlement programs caused in the first place.

1. There is no correlation between higher taxes and lower growth or vice-versa in the past 45 years. GDP growth was actually higher in the 60s, 70s, and Clinton years with higher taxes than during the Reagan/Bush/Bush years will lower rates.

2. Economic performance does not lead to inflation. Taxation does not cause inflatoin. Over expansion of the money supply does.
 
Back
Top Bottom