# Trump has added $4 Trillion to the National Debt. Where is the Tea Party? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 14, 2019, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665 "2019-08-14T17:43:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/81 "2019-08-17T14:21:36Z")
> [@survinga](#): > > Red Herring my ass. We could have lowered the deficits in the past significantly if one of our parties wasn’t a consistent liar on taxes. We could have lowered the trajectory of our debt in the future if one of our parties wasn’t a consistent liar on taxes. > > Since the only consistent position the Republicans ever take is “tax cuts for our cronies pay for themselves”, it’s worth pointing out their rank dishonesty in this area. They used to say that tax cuts paid for themselves and that tax hikes were self-defeating, using the laffer curve. But just about every instance of that has been proven wrong. Take Trump’s tax cut. We’re now heading toward a trillion in the deficit this year, and all of this just so we can get a small bump in growth during half of 2018. It was sold on an increase in business investment, which most economists warned would not happen…and said economists were correct. > > [Did the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Pay for Itself in 2018? | Tax Policy Center](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/did-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-pay-itself-2018) > > [Tax Cuts Don't Pay For Themselves-Wed, 10/04/2017 - 12:00 | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget](https://www.crfb.org/papers/tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves) > > [The 2017 Tax Cuts Didn't Work, The Data Prove It](https://www.forbes.com/sites/christianweller/2019/05/30/the-2017-tax-cuts-didnt-work-the-data-prove-it/#1d562d3758c1) No. Historically effective tax rates as a percentage of GDP remain relatively constant regardless of how the government shuffles them around. Republicans don’t really cut taxes. Reagan didn’t cut taxes. They shuffle taxes around, but effectively the government is taxing the productive sector at the same rate it was when marginal rates were high back in the 60s. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/82 "2019-08-17T14:26:29Z")
> [@survinga](#): > > By the way, the 19% number is incorrect. They have mostly bounced between 16-18%, including only 16.2% last year. If they were centered around 19%, we’d be in better shape than we are from a fiscal standpoint. > > [Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYFRGDA188S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S) Nah. 19% is more accurate. > **[Hauser's law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law)** > > Hauser's law is the empirical observation that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate. Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% between 1946 and 2007. > The proposition was first put forward in 1993 by William Kurt Hauser, a San Francisco investment... The point is that the government can’t increase taxes substantially and sustainably. The people will buck and rates will fall back down for a time, but not too much. The progressive idea that we will simply increase taxes to a European level to finance this or that federal program is cuckoo bananas. They also like to say that the added revenue will come from rich people. Pure fantasy. Europe is taxing the middle and lower classes much more than the US is. Perhaps that is how they get those levels of taxation without any meaningful anti-tax movements. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/83 "2019-08-17T14:44:04Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Nah. 19% is more accurate. > [Hauser's law - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law) Hauser’s law may say 19.5%, but your specific cite says it has averaged 17.9%. So I would say that 19% is NOT more accurate. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2019, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/84 "2019-08-17T15:38:44Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > Hauser’s law may say 19.5%, but your specific cite says it has averaged 17.9%. So I would say that 19% is NOT more accurate. Yeah I used to say 18% but thought I remembered seeing 19% somewhere. The point is that the government can’t increase taxes substantially and sustainably. The people will buck and rates will fall back down for a time, but not too much. ---
**Author:** ![survinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@survinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/survinga)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/85 "2019-08-18T01:48:28Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Nah. 19% is more accurate. > [Hauser's law - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law) > > The point is that the government can’t increase taxes substantially and sustainably. The people will buck and rates will fall back down for a time, but not too much. The progressive idea that we will simply increase taxes to a European level to finance this or that federal program is cuckoo bananas. > > They also like to say that the added revenue will come from rich people. Pure fantasy. Europe is taxing the middle and lower classes much more than the US is. Perhaps that is how they get those levels of taxation without any meaningful anti-tax movements. 19% is not more accurate. See table 2-3 from the attached. The average from 1945-2018 is about 17.2%, not 19%. We’ve only exceeded 19% four times since 1981. We’d have higher, and more reasonable, tax/gdp levels if the Republican party would operate in good faith. But they won’t, and we don’t. > **[Historical Tables | OMB | The White House](https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical-tables/)** > > To download the Historical Tables Introductory Text and Section notes as a PDF, click here (23 pages, 205 KB) Spreadsheets To download all Historical Tables in XLS format as a single ZIP file, click here (1 MB) Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays,... ---
**Author:** ![Mcmechanic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@Mcmechanic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mcmechanic)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/86 "2019-08-18T04:16:12Z")
I’m just trying to figure out which party is the “statists.” ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/87 "2019-08-18T04:26:29Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Yeah I used to say 18% but thought I remembered seeing 19% somewhere. > > The point is that the government can’t increase taxes substantially and sustainably. The people will buck and rates will fall back down for a time, but not too much. If it’s inevitable that taxes return to roughly 19%, why do Republicans keep trying to lower them? ---
**Author:** ![postpic200](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@postpic200](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/postpic200)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/88 "2019-08-18T13:11:11Z")
> [@Boycott](#): > > [Trump's Government Spends Nearly as Much Paying Interest on National Debt as It Spends on Nation's Children](https://www.newsweek.com/budget-national-debt-interest-donald-trump-1454143) > > In line with Rush Limbaugh stating “nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore” recently, is it fair to suggest the Tea Party movement was never about the debt, fiscal conservatism is a myth and the GOP will do a total u-turn once a Democrat is in the Oval Office again? Still pushing for a balanced budget amendment. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/89 "2019-08-18T13:43:50Z")
> [@survinga](#): > > 19% is not more accurate. See table 2-3 from the attached. The average from 1945-2018 is about 17.2%, not 19%. We’ve only exceeded 19% four times since 1981. We’d have higher, and more reasonable, tax/gdp levels if the Republican party would operate in good faith. But they won’t, and we don’t. > > [Historical Tables | OMB | The White House](https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/) You continue to fly by the point at 100mph. The American people buck when taxes get too high. The government doesn’t have the ability to raise taxes significantly and sustainably. We have many years of history demonstrating this. Dem congresses were never able to raise a high level of taxes and keep them there. If you look at the chart, you will see that tax/gdp ratios largely correlate with the health of the economy, raising during boom times and falling during recessions. Party control is irrelevant to the trend. Marginal tax rates are irrelevant. > [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > If it’s inevitable that taxes return to roughly 19%, why do Republicans keep trying to lower them? That’s how they get re-elected. It’s a shell game, they mostly shuffle taxes around, no real cuts are made as demonstrated by the chart showing the irrelevance of marginal rates. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/90 "2019-08-18T13:57:36Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > That’s how they get re-elected. It’s a shell game, they mostly shuffle taxes around, no real cuts are made as demonstrated by the chart showing the irrelevance of marginal rates. So if Democrates shuffle them back and raise the marginal rates, you’d be okay with that? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/91 "2019-08-18T13:58:52Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > You continue to fly by the point at 100mph… Dem congresses were never able to raise a high level of taxes and keep them there. You do, too. Dem Congresses have rarely increased taxes, and that correlated with both an expansion of the economy and an increase in revenues. > [@](#): > > Marginal tax rates are irrelevant. Dick Cheney-esque nonsense. If rates were irrelevant, as the woo-pitching fringes of economists thought alleges, then nobody would care if there were higher tax rates on the rich. The moonbats would just say that higher taxes are fine, because it all comes out in the wash - but in reality they shit their pants when it comes to billionaires paying any more. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/92 "2019-08-18T14:20:38Z")
> [@l0k1](#): > > Joe Walsh just apologized for his role in electing Teimp, so maybe some Tea Party Representatives can admit that they were wrong/pandering. You mean all 43 of them that were actually motivated by fiscal responsibility? ---
**Author:** ![Kimera757](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kimera757/32/3765_2.png) [@Kimera757](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimera757)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/93 "2019-08-18T15:19:40Z")
> [@Boycott](#): > > [Trump's Government Spends Nearly as Much Paying Interest on National Debt as It Spends on Nation's Children](https://www.newsweek.com/budget-national-debt-interest-donald-trump-1454143) > > In line with Rush Limbaugh stating “nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore” recently, is it fair to suggest the Tea Party movement was never about the debt, fiscal conservatism is a myth and the GOP will do a total u-turn once a Democrat is in the Oval Office again? Debt to pay for tax cuts for the rich? Good! Debts to pay for war and “securing the borders”? Good! Debt to pay for almost anything else? Bad. Debts under Republicans? Okay. Debts under Democrats? Incompetence! Modern America: Tribalism \> Budget. ---
**Author:** ![survinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@survinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/survinga)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/94 "2019-08-18T15:27:12Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > You continue to fly by the point at 100mph. The American people buck when taxes get too high. The government doesn’t have the ability to raise taxes significantly and sustainably. We have many years of history demonstrating this. Dem congresses were never able to raise a high level of taxes and keep them there. > > If you look at the chart, you will see that tax/gdp ratios largely correlate with the health of the economy, raising during boom times and falling during recessions. Party control is irrelevant to the trend. Marginal tax rates are irrelevant. As for your assertion that I’m flying by your point, that’s nonsense. The government does have the ability to raise taxes significantly, as even 2 to 3% of GDP is significant. If we had actually averaged 19% over the last 74 years, as you originally incorrectly asserted, we would have a significantly lower debt load today, which the Tea Party lyingly pretends to want. And this idea that “the people” rise up to lower taxes is mostly astroturf groups supporting Republicans who are targeting tax cuts to a certain group of donors who make millions, based on nonsense that tax cuts pay for themselves. Marginal rates do matter, but they’re often offset by loopholes. There is not law of physics that makes marginal rates irrelevant. But there are tax laws that are passed to offset marginal rates, which matter greatly, or said tax laws with loopholes wouldn’t exist to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/95 "2019-08-18T19:10:21Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > So if Democrates shuffle them back and raise the marginal rates, you’d be okay with that? If they pursued a broader base of taxation without increasing taxes as a percentage of GDP, I really don’t care. Tax policy is not the problem, spending is the problem. > [@Ravenman](#): > > You do, too. Dem Congresses have rarely increased taxes, and that correlated with both an expansion of the economy and an increase in revenues. No. Look at the chart again and this time cross-reference it with the chart I posted showing control of government. There is no such correlation between Dem congresses and increased tax revenues. > [@](#): > > Dick Cheney-esque nonsense. Incoherent. > [@](#): > > If rates were irrelevant, as the woo-pitching fringes of economists thought alleges, then nobody would care if there were higher tax rates on the rich. The moonbats would just say that higher taxes are fine, because it all comes out in the wash - but in reality they shit their pants when it comes to billionaires paying any more. When I say the marginal rates are irrelevant, those that are following would realize that I mean high marginal rates do not correlate with higher taxes as a percentage of GDP. Look at the chart please. There were high marginal rates in the 50s and 60s, and low marginal rates in the 2000s and today, yet the taxes as a percentage of GDP remains bebopping and scatting around the same level. > [@survinga](#): > > As for your assertion that I’m flying by your point, that’s nonsense. The government does have the ability to raise taxes significantly, as even 2 to 3% of GDP is significant. Please look at the chart and point to a period where the Dems were able to raise taxes significantly and sustainably. > [@](#): > > If we had actually averaged 19% over the last 74 years, as you originally incorrectly asserted, we would have a significantly lower debt load today, which the Tea Party lyingly pretends to want. And this idea that “the people” rise up to lower taxes is mostly astroturf groups supporting Republicans who are targeting tax cuts to a certain group of donors who make millions, based on nonsense that tax cuts pay for themselves. Ok, the point still stands whether or not you believe in this conspiracy. Just instead of me saying that the “American people buck” I could say “the Bilderbergers and Kochs buck”. In either situation there has been no ability to raise taxes significantly and sustainably for over 7 decades, Taxes as a percentage of GDP has remained constant for 70 years while spending as percentage of GDP has increased drastically over the same period. Therefore, taxes are a red herring and spending is the driver of US government debt. > [@](#): > > Marginal rates do matter, but they’re often offset by loopholes. Marginal rates do not matter \*because \*the pols just play with loopholes. Taxes as a percentage of GDP have not decreased over the long term since Reagan. Reagan did not really cut taxes in any significant way. > [@](#): > > There is not law of physics that makes marginal rates irrelevant. But there are tax laws that are passed to offset marginal rates, which matter greatly, or said tax laws with loopholes wouldn’t exist to begin with. You can explain it however you wish, the bare fact remains that the sum total of 70 years of tax policy has not made a significant impact on the government’s revenue as a percentage of GDP. Yes taxes will continually be shuffled around by this or that interest group, but ultimately the productive sector is taxed today at the same rate as it was in the good old days that Trump and Elizabeth Warren would have us return to ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/96 "2019-08-18T19:27:43Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > [In 2014, taxes on capital gains totaled almost $1.4T with an average effective rate of 19.4%](https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/Taxes-Paid-on-Capital-Gains-for-Returns-with-Positive-Net-Capital-Gains.pdf) so I suppose you could tax capital gains as ordinary income as long as you don’t mind fucking the economy up. > > Regards, > Shodan Why do you think it would tank the economy (I’m assuming for the sake of reasonableness that it would be a gradual increase)? I have a lot of money in the stock market, but am under no illusion that I am actually ‘investing’ in a company. Beyond an IPO or secondary offering, none of the money that Wall Street flings about actually goes to a corporation. They do use their stock to pay people and I guess back bond issues, but beyond that - the market is as much a Ponzi scheme as the GOP likes to tar Social Security as being. On a little further thought, I guess buying another company for stock qualifies as a ‘real’ economic activity, although my progressive leanings suspect those are mostly just a way to get money to the industry titans. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/97 "2019-08-18T20:12:21Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > No. Look at the chart again and this time cross-reference it with the chart I posted showing control of government. There is no such correlation between Dem congresses and increased tax revenues. Because the correlation between Democratic Congress and higher tax rates is weak, as you ignored in my last post. > [@](#): > > When I say the marginal rates are irrelevant, those that are following would realize that I mean high marginal rates do not correlate with higher taxes as a percentage of GDP. Look at the chart please. There were high marginal rates in the 50s and 60s, and low marginal rates in the 2000s and today, yet the taxes as a percentage of GDP remains bebopping and scatting around the same level. First, talk about cherry picking a bad argument. You pick and choose whether high marginal rates correlate with anything, then you say high marginal rates didn’t produce higher taxes during the period before the AMT. Talk about a gaping hole in your argument. > [@](#): > > Please look at the chart and point to a period where the Dems were able to raise taxes significantly and sustainably. The 1991 and 1993 tax increases started off a decade of prosperity and deficit elimination. That ended with the tax cuts and recession of 2001. The tax cuts of the early 2000s led to an okay economy that crashed, and the recent tax cut happened during an economic boom and tax receipts have tanked. Let me just point out two things you can’t explain away: 1. Variations between 15-ish percent of the economy and 20-ish percent of the economy aren’t trifling differences, they are HUGE swings to our deficit. We are currently in the 16.5%-ish range for receipts, meaning that if receipts were actually in the 19% range you keep babbling about, that would be half a trillion dollars more in receipts. That’s a big deal, and would cut out deficit in half! No serious person could dismiss such a huge swing in our deficit. 2. If you want to chalk things up to economic realities rather than fiscal policies, we are currently in a very strong economy and revenues by this measure are falling. That’s because of fiscal policies. And a bonus number three: this silly 19% figure has about the same amount of analytic basis as horoscopes. Some investment banker - not even an economist - noticed a chart one day and started yammering about it, and the discredited fringes of some political/economic cults decided to back into an explanation of the significance of this guy’s observations. It’s a total joke. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/98 "2019-08-18T21:52:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Because the correlation between Democratic Congress and higher tax rates is weak, as you ignored in my last post. Yes I ignored it. It was neither here nor there and has no bearing on my argument. > [@](#): > > First, talk about cherry picking a bad argument. You pick and choose whether high marginal rates correlate with anything, then you say high marginal rates didn’t produce higher taxes during the period before the AMT. Talk about a gaping hole in your argument. Did higher marginal rates raise more taxes than today’s lower rates? Yes or no? > [@](#): > > The 1991 and 1993 tax increases started off a decade of prosperity and deficit elimination. That ended with the tax cuts and recession of 2001. The tax cuts of the early 2000s led to an okay economy that crashed, and the recent tax cut happened during an economic boom and tax receipts have tanked. So no period when Dems raised taxes significantly and sustainably? I rest my case. The poster claimed that Dems could increase taxes significantly and sustainably. > [@](#): > > Let me just point out two things you can’t explain away: > > 1. Variations between 15-ish percent of the economy and 20-ish percent of the economy aren’t trifling differences, they are HUGE swings to our deficit. We are currently in the 16.5%-ish range for receipts, meaning that if receipts were actually in the 19% range you keep babbling about, that would be half a trillion dollars more in receipts. That’s a big deal, and would cut out deficit in half! No serious person could dismiss such a huge swing in our deficit. They are huge swings that are caused by economic booms and busts not changes in marginal tax rates. > [@](#): > > 1. If you want to chalk things up to economic realities rather than fiscal policies, we are currently in a very strong economy and revenues by this measure are falling. That’s because of fiscal policies. I’m talking long term trends. 70 years tells us the Feds cants milk more than a certain percentage out of us productive types. > [@](#): > > And a bonus number three: this silly 19% figure has about the same amount of analytic basis as horoscopes. Some investment banker - not even an economist - noticed a chart one day and started yammering about it, and the discredited fringes of some political/economic cults decided to back into an explanation of the significance of this guy’s observations. It’s a total joke. It’s an observation that holds water. Look at the chart please. No significant and sustainable increase in taxes for 70 years. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/99 "2019-08-18T23:00:53Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Yes I ignored it. It was neither here nor there and has no bearing on my argument. Yes, because when you’re cherry picking, you discard things you don’t want to deal with. > [@](#): > > Did higher marginal rates raise more taxes than today’s lower rates? Yes or no? The tax rates in effect before Trump’s tax cuts certainly did. > [@](#): > > So no period when Dems raised taxes significantly and sustainably? I rest my case. What a pointless question that proves nothing other than that you need to read up on fiscal history. > [@](#): > > They are huge swings that are caused by economic booms and busts not changes in marginal tax rates. Again, we are in a boom now, marginal rates are down, and revenue/GDP is down. Explain that. > [@](#): > > 70 years tells us the Feds cants milk more than a certain percentage out of us productive types. Do you believe in the Laffer Curve? ---
**Author:** ![survinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@survinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/survinga)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2019, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/100 "2019-08-18T23:50:07Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Taxes as a percentage of GDP has remained constant for 70 years while spending as percentage of GDP has increased drastically over the same period. Therefore, taxes are a red herring and spending is the driver of US government debt. Taxes have not remained constant and spending has not gone up drastically. Both of those statements are incorrect. First, taxes have come down by a full 1% on average since the end of Clinton’s 8-years. During the same time, spending has increased by an average of about 1.3%. This has included the period of the great recession. Both spending and taxes, not spending alone, are driving the debt. As a recent example, in 2018, spending was 20.3% of GDP, and it was in the 20’s back in the 40’s, and has averaged about 19.5% since the end of WW2. Spending as a % of GDP is up, but not drastically, as you allege. Second, taxes aren’t constant, and have come down, not only due to the Great Recession, but also due to Republican efforts to cut taxes. At the end of the Clinton era, taxes were around 19% of GDP, and are now down in the mid 16’s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665.md?page=6)