That's one helluva troll, eh?

 

-----signature-----

 

-----signature-----

Actually he was on Fucks & Friends this morning babbling about it and praising Al Gore for some such madness.

But when policy is being set and proposed TODAY based on it i think that makes it relevant.

 

-----signature-----

ok, when the top tax bracket was 80%, what was our tax revenue as a % of GDP?

 

-----signature-----

Actually the argument over what constitutes a cut and what does not is a very common argument. It is one of the more common semantic debates in government budgeting.


Your “real” definition doesn’t work all that well because it fails to address the policy decisions being made and confuses current service requirements which tend to increase spending and policy decisions.


You are not the first person to be confused over the use of the word and it is important to understand how the word is used when talking about government budgeting.


Or maybe you want to go on a letter writing campaign where you explain to everyone that uses the word cut the way I described is using it wrong.

 

-----signature-----

Exactly... you and paulg and whoever can knock yourself out.





Numbers get bigger - numbers not get smaller...

me think cut mean minus not add

 

-----signature-----

The numbers potentially did get smaller relative to the current service budget.


You will be constantly confused by the word cut if you think it is only being used in reference to the previous year spending levels. When Fist used the word or if I read the word cut in an article I would assume it meant cuts to the current service budget. You are assuming it means to last year's spending but that is not really how the term is used. If you are going to whine about Fist's use then you might as well get your pen out because he is hardly the only person using it that way.


If you want to learn why it is used that way then I will tell you. If you want to act like there is a real way and a wrong way then you will be consistantly confused about the meaning being communicated by people.

 

-----signature-----

That's hocuspocus stuff with fancy percentages and crap - all phoney numbers.


A cut is a cut, right Fist?

 

-----signature-----

The average income tax revenue as a % of GDP:

1944-81 = 7.51%

1982-2011 = 7.99

1993-2001 = 8.79

2003-2011 = 7.17


To give some perspective, If the 2003-11 rate had been 7.51% thats around $410 billion in extra tax revenue. If it had been 8.79% thats around $2 trillion.


So these numbers probably look like tax collections really went up when rates were lowered. But dont forget this stat has both a numerator and denominator.

Here is the average growth in income taxes (first number)and the average growth in GDP:

1944-81 = 7.5%, 7.4%

1982-2011 = 4.1%, 5.4%

1993-2001 = 9.8%, 5.8%

2003-2011 = 1.2%, 4.0%


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/#


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

forget 7.51% or even 8.79%... lets aim high. Lets go for the highest revenue as a %GPD we've ever achieved 10.2%. Of course everyone knows the rate will have to fluctuate to sustain this level, and it is a given that taxes have to go up.


HUZZAH, we've generated $454,000,000,000. That still leaves us with a $1,736,000,000,000 (Obama's worst year) or just about $1.2T average per year deficit. When you start talking deficits, you need to use the overall revenue numbers and expenditures including entitlement programs and their collections.


btw when talking as a %gdp here is the correct chart:


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205


So when we've achieved the perfect tax rate that maximizes our revenue, where do we get the other $1T + from?


Ron Paul says he can eliminate $1T from the federal budget... so does Paul Ryan. What is the Democratic plan to eliminate this spending?

 

-----signature-----