those are the numbers. we've seen dramatically higher rates without seeing significant upticks in revenue - to the extent that it has risen, it has risen slightly as tax rates have fallen and the incentive to engage in tax avoidance lessens.
Issue is this is both a spending problem and a taxing problem. Both need to be addressed significantly. Until BOTH sides realize this, nothing is going to happen. The folks in Washington need to take their hack glasses off and do the job, addressing reducing spending and raising taxes, both across the board, both signficantly. Real simple.
Claiming that less people will attempt to evade taxes is retarded.. We should be going after people for evading taxes no matter what..
those are the numbers. we've seen dramatically higher rates without seeing significant upticks in revenue - to the extent that it has risen, it has risen slightly as tax rates have fallen and the incentive to engage in tax avoidance lessens.
So basically what your saying is.. You haven't the faintest clue about elementary school math??
Claiming that less people will attempt to evade taxes is retarded.. We should be going after people for evading taxes no matter what..
no, what i am saying is that static scoring is not and never has been an accurate predictive measure for reality.
go look up tax avoidance and then look up tax evasion and then come back.... i'll wait....
higher rates doesn't increase revenue. Growth in GDP does.
This has already been debunked several times. It oversimplifies a more complex issue and doesn't take into consideration different types of tax revenues. Increasing taxes, ACROSS THE BOARD increases revenue. Very simple mathematics. Revenue has been consistently higher in years after there have been tax increases.
Those are the numbers, except for recently, when revenue is running under 15 % of GDP. Funny how your little graph does not show those years....
Those are the numbers, except for recently, when revenue is running under 15 % of GDP. Funny how your little graph does not show those years....
Will.. The problem that you and other conservatives have is that your entire view point on this issue is flawed and baseless.. Our government took a $3.2 billion dollar pay cut thanks to Bush.. There is no arguement there..
So consider this.. You typically make $2000 a month.. But you took a pay cut, so now you only make $1500 a month.. Of course the economy grew a little bit.. It usually does every year.. So now, thanks to this little growth, you now make $1600 a month.. Without your other pay cut you would have been making $2100 a month.. So you are still $500 dollars off..
That is what you people don't understand.. Sure the economy grew.. But thanks to the tax cut, our government was still short.. We the tax payers essentially gave money to the rich and got nothing in return.. You would have been better off giving that money to Nasa or something..
You can never argue against this point.. As long as the tax cuts are in effect, conservatives are shorting our government money.. Bush had a budget surplus when he took office.. Where is it now?? Bush even admitted he had it so don't go saying it didn't exist.. The surplus was the basis for the entire arguement for Bush's tax cuts..
The other issue is that you all sit and blame Obama for all this spending?? How much has been spent on emergencies?? Fire, floods, oil spills, ect. ect.. Do conservatives consider this?? You complain and moan and groan about things that help the poor.. When you simply miss reality all together..
You are more concerned about the people that attempt to evade paying their taxes and not the billions spent on an oil spill that BP is doing all it can to not pay for.. Again with the help of conservatives.. I am not sure what to say here?? But that is far from the smart thing to do..
You tell me dude?? Who's reality do you want to talk about?? Your's which doesn't exist both on paper and in the real world.. Or the one that just slaps you around because the math is so simple..
We have a lot of problems in this nations.. We don't need a bunch of dipsquat morons in congress threatening to flush this nation in the crapper because of the useless tax cuts to the rich that should have gone bye bye to begin with.. Oh!!! Wait?? We had to hold up the vote on unemployment benifits to get them extended.. Wow.. So first republicans hold up the unemployed and now the entire nation for some tax cuts that do nobody but the rich any good.. Instead of giving the rich another $3.2 trillion.. Why not just give the bottom 1% a cool 10 million dollars or something.. At least you will get some economic stimulus and some job creation.. I mean crap.. May as well.. I am sure the poor are better at creating jobs than the rich.. The question is, are you smart enough to understand all this?? You will at least not have to worry about them out sourcing any labor to another country..
If I make $50,000 a year and I spend $60,000 I can't just go to my employer and demand a $10,000 raise to make up for my irresponsible spending.
And now due to a pay cut, you make $40,000 a year.. What do you do with the $20,000 in expenses you can no longer pay for?? And who's money is it??
When we lower taxes it is cutting the pay so to speak of the government.. The point of who's money it is, is irrelevent.. It is our government.. We vote in elections and we fund it.. So it is a moot issue.. The money doens't belong to the rich.. It belongs to the rest of the country..
Tarp was Bush.. And what about it?? It may break even if not make us some money..
The stimulus for the most part worked.. It just needed to be bigger.. But of course.. When do conservatives want to do anything for the benefit of the greater good?? We will give $3.2 trillion to the rich with no strings attached.. But piss moan and groan about the $800 billion or so the stimulus was.. Go figure.. Something that helps the country equal bad.. Something that helps the rich equal good.. Look if conservatives want to bend over and lube it up for the rich, that is fine.. Can we leave the rest of the nation out of it??
Tarp was Bush.. And what about it?? It may break even if not make us some money..
And now due to a pay cut, you make $40,000 a year.. What do you do with the $20,000 in expenses you can no longer pay for?
And who's money is it??
When we lower taxes it is cutting the pay so to speak of the government
. The point of who's money it is, is irrelevent.. It is our government.. We vote in elections and we fund it.. So it is a moot issue.. The money doens't belong to the rich.. It belongs to the rest of the country..
The stimulus for the most part worked..
but the last couple of years are the part most pertinent to our current discussion.
Look at the relative stability of the last 60 years. then look at revenue's swing far outside of where it has been before.
Odd, that.
Now, tax rates weren't significantly lowered between 2007 and 2010; which of course merely reinforces my points that nominal tax rates have very little direct effect on revenue.
So, what changed? what changed as dramatically as revenue.
Government Spending did.
Government does not tax itself like it taxes labor, production, and investment. So, when Government spending increases as a percentage of GDP, Revenue decreases as a percentage of GDP. conversely, when Spending decreases, Revenue increases, both relative to GDP. Government spending started rising in the early 80's, and Revenue started falling (again, as a percent of GDP). Spending went into a long decline in the 90s, and revenue had an inversely proportional rise. then spending increased, and revenue dropped. Then spending lowered slightly and revenue increased. then, starting first in 2008 under George Bush and accelerating under Barack Obama, government spending skyrocketed as a percent of GDP, higher than it has been in the post war era - and so revenue plummeted to lower than it had been in the post-war era.
If you want greater revenue as a percent of GDP; then lower government spending as a percent of GDP. If you want more raw revenue, then you have to increase GDP without increasing the size of government relative to it. Thats why everyone from Bill Clinton to the President's Bi Partisan Simpson-Bowles Commission to Paul Ryan want to reduce rates and decrease complexity - because they have all seen this exact same math.
No.
Republicans appear to be giving the President enough rope to hang himself with the budget and debt ceiling.
They are banking the next election on it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?