That’s funny. My data shows something different. Here’s something I found in 10 seconds of googling. Especially interesting is that the signatory is someone from the current Obama administration.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf
I’m pleased you agree with me, other than quibbling about things like “artificially low bases”. The economy was running at full capacity thanks to the huge government spending program known as World War Two and the end of the forties/start of the fifties saw the biggest economic boom in the history of economys, so I’d disagree with that artificial thing.
Obviously taking 90% of minimum wage is silly. That’s just a silly scenario altogether, not worth replying to. Taxes will have to go up eventually, the next ten or so years we’ll see both sides try everything but raising them but eventually circumstances will dictate. And when they do I’ll be one of the people paying more, but over the long term it’ll mean that I’m better off.
Because it’s off-topic for this thread, but an interesting enough topic to merit debate, I created this thread about the Laffer curve. Please contribute your arguments there. Thanks.
Here are some actual numbers to help you understand how tax revenues have gone recently and the historical context.
These numbers are all in hundreds of billions :
1990
1,032.1
1991
1055.1
1992
1,091.3
1993
1154.5
1994
1,258.7
1995
1,351.9
1996
1,453.2
1997
1579.4
1998
1,722.0
1999
1,827.6
2000
2,025.5
So you can see the 35% increase over the Bush year in the thing you linked is totally disastrous. Historically tax revenues roughly double every ten years, something you can see at the link below. Clinton’s would have increased another 30+% had he not cut taxes for the middle/lower earners to (slightly) make up for the redistribution of wealth from them to high eaners over the previous decade.
Anyway Bush took office in 2001 and enacted tax cuts which were backdated to the start of that financial year. If the Laffer curve and increased-revenues-when-the-top-rate-is-cut-under-50% is correct then tax revenues should be on target to roughly double plus we see some of that Laffer increase on top of the doubling, right? Here are the numbers, again in hundreds of billions$ :
2000: 2025.5
Bush tax cut
2001 : 1991.4
2002 : 1853.4
Bush tax cut
2003 : 1782.5
2004 : 1880.3
2005 : 2153.9
2006 : 2407.3
2007 : 2568.2
And the official 2008 number isn’t out yet but it’ll obviously be below the 2007 number due to the recession, financial meltdown etc.
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache%3Awb6jwq--MYYJ%3Awww.cbo.gov%2Fbudget%2Fdata%2Fhistorical.pdf+cbo+historical+tax+revenues&hl=en&gl=uk
You do realize there was also a recession in 2001-2003, do you not? And that tax revenues 2003-2007 increased rather markedly?
You alleged -
So I am afraid that, far from falling catastrophically, tax revenues increased by more than a third to their highest levels in history, Rather than petering out, the economy grew faster than at any time since Reagan. Cite. The tax cuts signalled the start of another boom. Cite, cite, cite, etc.
Regards,
Shodan
So you’ll be paying more of your money to the government, but you’ll be better off as a result?
Why not just give it to me? I’ll give 50% of what you gave me to the government, and give you 50% of it right back. Wouldn’t you be better off then?
OK. So you think my scenario is silly, and I think your scenario is silly. We’ve pinned down the ends of the argument. Now we need to find where the pendulum flips, somewhere in the middle.
I will repeat: Your language in the post above suggests that the burden of proof is on the citizen, not the government, to prove why a certain level of taxation is ‘not dangerous’.
I highlighted that fact by illustrating another ‘not dangerous’ example, which in theory replicated the same boundary conditions, constraints and conditions of satisfaction in your example.
Then you replied it was silly.
That was exactly my intention. To show why it’s silly.
So I’ll ask again…why won’t you show up for work at my house tomorrow?
So something else must be different than the 2 points listed above for you to regard my example as silly. What is different?
There wasn’t a recession from 2001-3. There was a shallow eight month recession in 2001. From the NBER, the generally accepted arbiters of recession :
Tax revenues are roughly $1200 billion a year short of where we would currently expect them to be had the recession not occurred. Look at the numbers, Jesus, it’s in black and white. Tax revenues only jumped 2003-7 on the back of the biggest asset bubble in history. We’ll get a true reflection of what they would have been in the 2009-10 numbers, as the Bush tax cuts will still be in place but we’ll have come out of recession.
Yes in twenty years with a stable economy with a balanced budget, not prone to booms or busts, I’ll come out ahead.
Well, I understand you better, but I still disagree with your general point, only insofar as I was replying to Beware Of Doug’s post regarding why the military is “revered by conservatives” and is viewed as a “beneficial and necessary institution domestically”.
I don’t get the beef (hee-hee) with the assertion that the military is in fact an institution, a large one, does in fact promote employment, and is as ingrained into our makeup as Americans as apple pie and Chevrolet.
I was refuting his point that we shouldn’t view the military in such a light, or that only conservatives feel that way about the military. I suppose I kind of thought that it was a foregone conclusion.
I do agree with your “building bridges” analogy, but I suppose the point of all this is that as long as we are the country we are, we’re always going to have a strong military and it will always be a domestic institution.
Was listening to a brief interview with Arthur Laffer on the BBC business program the other day. Clinton was probably his favorite president in economic terms of recent memory, with Ronald Reagan running a close second ( he actually referred to Clinton as being “disgusting” as a human being, but thinks from an economic POV he was, overall, aces ).
Not that the above means that much re:this debate - I don’t intend it as an appeal to authority. Just found it an interesting anecdote.
Then why don’t you give them more of your money right now? Even if there aren’t higher tax rates, there is nothing stopping you from cleaning out your bank account, selling a bunch of your goods, and writing a big check to the ‘US Treasury’.
Why don’t you do that tonight?
Let’s just cut to the chase.
Fiscal conservatives are bad people who hate our freedom.
And they are hiding weapons of mass destruction.
It was running at ‘full capacity’, but government was 43% of GDP in 1945. It was producing airplanes and tanks, which of course no one wanted when the war was over.
So private investment (and exports) indeed grew off an artificially low base to satisfy private demand, for which their was no other real productive capacity.
Your posts are amazing. You honestly believe that government officials will invest and spend your money more wisely than you, and create a more ‘stable economy’, whatever that is.
Because one person paying more would have negligible effect. For the effect I’m looking for, balanced budget, lower federal debt levels etc. it would require all high earners to pay more. I’m sure you can work this out yourself. Why do you keep on making fifth grade arguments like this where you keep asking me to pay more tax? Is it class envy?
1950 5.3
1951 3.3
1952 3.0
1953 2.9
1954 5.5
1955 4.4
1956 4.1
1957 4.3
1958 6.8
1959 5.5
1960 5.5
That’s the unemployment rate in the fifties, as boomers got married, bought cars and homes and generally created the biggest economic boom in history. I’d say three percent employment means you’re running at as full capacity as you ever see, no?
A stable economy is one where there isn’t a huge chunk of national earnings concentrating in the hands of a small number of people. The only two times we’ve had the distribution of wealth with such a huge chunk of overall wealth going to a relative handful of people it’s caused economic catastrophe, the 1920s and the 2000s.
And the '90s, a time of unprecedented growth in GDP, living standards, and economic inequality. And need I remind you who was in charge? (Likewise the '30s and '40s were a time of greater income equality, and good times they were!)
It definitely wasn’t unprecedented economic growth under Clinton. It was fractionally better than Reagan but worse than other post WW2 presidents. But yes, the income inequality thing has been building for some time now.
The 1930s were good times? What?
Bonnie and Clyde had fun (for a little while).