Interesting charts on taxes

[ugonow]

They seem to contradict all the rhetoric.-----www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/pdf/low_tax_graphs.pdf

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Are you aware we have been in a recession for a number of years?

[ugonow]

Since 2000?

[magichat]

Those charts are pathetic. No x or y axis no scale, the government can't do anything right.

[privateinvestor]

Aug 11, 2011 9:11:54 GMT -5 ugonow said:

They seem to contradict all the rhetoric.-----www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/pdf/low_tax_graphs.pdf

Good stuff but as you know revenues are down due to the slow economy and @17 Million folks out of work...

Companies are still cutting costs by reducing their employees because of a lack of confidence in the economy...so this could be the status quo until at least 2013 according to the Federal Reserve Governors in their latest statement about our economic slowdown

I think you will see a major effort to increase revenues over the next two years in Washington DC...or overhaul the income tax systems


The obvious follow-up question is, of course, why did the U.S. budget suddenly go from a surplus in 1998-2001 to a $247 billion deficit in 2006. But, as economist Brian Reidl of the Heritage Foundation noted, “This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5% of GDP in 2001 to 20.2% in 2006. ( Brian M. Riedl, "Federal Spending: By the Numbers," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 989, February 2006.)

In other words, the projection by the Congressional Budget Office in 2000 of a $325 billion surplus by 2006 that turned out to be $247 billion deficit was $572 billion off because neither the CBO nor just about anyone else could foresee the higher-than-expected spending that would come in the early 21st Century. Much of it was related to increased domestic spending on the part of the Bush Administration, but much was also related to fighting the war on terror that began with 9/11.

In a January 2007 study entitled “Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts,” Heritage’s Reidl noted that GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts and that the growth rate was 4.1% in the six quarters following the tax cuts.

“Repealing the tax cuts would not significantly increase revenues,” he concluded. “It would, however, decrease investment, reduce work incentives, stifle entrepreneurialism, and reduce economic growth. Lawmakers should remember that America cannot tax itself to prosperity.”

That’s sound advice that the yet-to-be-named “super committee” in the House and Senate might heed as it considers recommendations to further deal with the deficit.

So might Standard and Poor's.


www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45382

[ugonow]

Looks to me like the decline started around 2000. I doubt that was from the recession.I found the chart on loopholes interesting also.

[privateinvestor]

Aug 11, 2011 9:44:02 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Looks to me like the decline started around 2000. I doubt that was from the recession.I found the chart on loopholes interesting also.

This is also interesting but denied by the White House who insist the Bush Tax Cuts are to blame for everything accoding to J. Carney..

the projection by the Congressional Budget Office in 2000 of a $325 billion surplus by 2006 that turned out to be $247 billion deficit was $572 billion off because neither the CBO nor just about anyone else could foresee the higher-than-expected spending that would come in the early 21st Century

[cme1201]

Aug 11, 2011 9:44:02 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Looks to me like the decline started around 2000. I doubt that was from the recession.I found the chart on loopholes interesting also.

Did you sleep through the Dot-Com bubble that poped in march/april of 2000?

[privateinvestor]

“We are not reinventing the wheel here,” Carney told us, citing “significant contributions” to the debt-ceiling debate from former Congressional Budget Office Director Alice Rivlin, and the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission (both of which recommended tax increases). Carney also recalled reports that, on the eve of the deal between White House and U.S. House weeks ago that was never realized, John Boehner was willing to support “$800 billion in revenue.” According to Carney, those were “the speaker’s own words”—before Boehner backed away from the deal and told reporters that he could not go along with the administration’s insistence on a tax increase.

After the President devoted much of his remarks to attacking the Standard and Poor's downgrade, Carney quoted its reasons for the downgrade, which included “the unwillingness of the Republicans for the need to accept revenue increases.”

You get the picture. The Obama White House lost Round 1 in the fight to secure ending the Bush tax cuts on the highest wage-earners in the debt-ceiling package. Yesterday, it signaled the start of Round 2.
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45404

[magichat]

The headline on the page one chart is completely wrong and very misleading as well.

[privateinvestor]

This year, federal taxation will take up less
than 15 percent of total national economic
activity. That’s the lowest level in
60 years. In fact, total revenue as a share
of gross domestic product has now been
under 15 percent for three straight
years—the first time that has happened
since before World War II.

[Deleted]

This year, federal taxation will take up less
than 15 percent of total national economic
activity

Federal taxes may have be at a historic low but state, local, sales, property and all other sorts of taxes and fees have soared in the meantime. I'd love to see some good numbers on the overall tax burden of the average person.

[privateinvestor]

I'd love to see some good numbers on the overall tax burden of the average person


If you use @$50,000 as the average inocome then you can use @30% for Federal, State and Sales Taxes......but then again this is just an average so @$15,000 would be the overall tax burden for $50,000 income,,, But I would hazard a guess and say Californians may pay more than than $15,000 or closer to $18,000 per year.

[floridayankee]

Aug 11, 2011 9:54:20 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

This year, federal taxation will take up less
than 15 percent of total national economic
activity. That’s the lowest level in
60 years. In fact, total revenue as a share
of gross domestic product has now been
under 15 percent for three straight
years—the first time that has happened
since before World War II.

Couldn't that also be due to the fact that government is a much larger percentage of GDP over the last 60 years, now spending at 25+% of GDP, and government spending is tax exempt?

[fairlycrazy23]

Does it also chart government spending, because government spending is part of GDP, so as government spending grows as a % of gdp I think you will likely see tax revenue as a % of gdp decline.

[privateinvestor]

Aug 11, 2011 11:00:27 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Does it also chart government spending, because government spending is part of GDP, so as government spending grows as a % of gdp I think you will likely see tax revenue as a % of gdp decline.

This government budgetary report should have what you are lookiing for:

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf

[Angel!]

Aug 11, 2011 10:44:50 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Aug 11, 2011 9:54:20 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

This year, federal taxation will take up less
than 15 percent of total national economic
activity. That’s the lowest level in
60 years. In fact, total revenue as a share
of gross domestic product has now been
under 15 percent for three straight
years—the first time that has happened
since before World War II.

Couldn't that also be due to the fact that government is a much larger percentage of GDP over the last 60 years, now spending at 25+% of GDP, and government spending is tax exempt?

How is govt spending tax exempt? I'm sure some of it is, but it seems a good percentage would be taxed since that spending results in income for others & they pay income taxes on that money.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 11, 2011 9:11:54 GMT -5 ugonow said:

They seem to contradict all the rhetoric.-----www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/pdf/low_tax_graphs.pdf

i thought the loophole one was interesting. $1T/yr?

[floridayankee]

Aug 11, 2011 11:44:24 GMT -5 Angel! said:

How is govt spending tax exempt? I'm sure some of it is, but it seems a good percentage would be taxed since that spending results in income for others & they pay income taxes on that money.

The fed, like a charity, is tax exempt. Have you ever had the chance to shop on a military base tax free?

If you mean others pay taxes on money they earn from government, you are correct. That would make the individual or corporation earning the money the taxpayer, not the fed government.

What I'm implying is that the reason that tax receipts have decreased below 15% of GDP could be partly due to government spending increasing GDP but not contributing to any growth in revenue as most corporations or individuals would. It may hold water...it may not. It was a thought that I don't have time to verify.

[henryclay]

Has anyone looked into who published the charts, or asked why they only posted these, and not others? Has anyone asked how the United States has remained the leader of the free world in science, medicine, production, innovation and social stability with such tax practices?

Has anyone read the captions that go with the charts? Has anyone looked at the descriptive adjectives they employ? Does anyone know that John Podesta is behind the picking of these charts? Does anyone remember who John Podesta is?

[A Chicago native], Podesta served as:
co-chair of President Obama’s transition,
coordinated the priorities of the incoming administration’s agenda,
oversaw the development of its policies, and
spearheaded its appointments of major cabinet secretaries and political appointees.

Additionally, Podesta has held numerous positions on Capitol Hill, including counselor to Democratic Leader Senator Thomas A. Daschle (1995-1996); chief counsel for the Senate Agriculture Committee (1987-1988); and chief minority counsel for the Senate Judiciary Subcommittees on Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks; Security and Terrorism; and Regulatory Reform (1981-1987).

Does anyone need to know any more about WHO is supposed to be impressed by the particular choice of words that were selected to accompany these particular charts? Does anyone REALLY expect the people who these charts are intended to impress will ask for the charts that show what America has accomplished during those same years?

The one chart they did not publish is the one that shows what has happened since the first credit card was issued in the 1950's. I am looking for such a chart. Maybe someone else will get to it first and post it.....

[Deleted]

In a January 2007 study entitled “Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts,” Heritage’s Reidl noted that GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts and that the growth rate was 4.1% in the six quarters following the tax cuts.

“Repealing the tax cuts would not significantly increase revenues,” he concluded. “It would, however, decrease investment, reduce work incentives, stifle entrepreneurialism, and reduce economic growth. Lawmakers should remember that America cannot tax itself to prosperity.”

Looks to me like the decline started around 2000. I doubt that was from the recession.I found the chart on loopholes interesting also.

On the very next post there was an President Obama excuse. Is that a new record.......Nope it's just about normal.

[henryclay]

I don't have a chart yet, but I'm still looking. In the meantime there's enough out there to show that the Democrat's cry for more taxes is based on a penchant for spending, even as the economy has been shrinking for years, , , with think tank predictions that showed it was time for the government to start downsizing. The progressive side of government responds with the usual cry for more income, (taxes), so it won't have to downsize. And "tax the rich" class warfare is launched , , , again.

When housing prices were rising, it was easy for consumers to tap the escalating values of their homes to keep borrowing. With the home-equity spigot turned off, over-leveraged consumers may have trouble keeping up with payments.

The doomsday scenario would play out something like this: Just like CDOs and other asset-backed securities, credit card debt is sliced, diced, and sold off again as packages of securities. Rising delinquencies would hurt not only the banks involved but the securities backed by the credit card receivables. Those securities would decline in value as consumers defaulted, leading to bank losses as well as portfolio losses in the hedge funds, institutions, and pensions that own the securities. If the damage is widespread enough, it could wreak havoc on the economy much as the subprime crisis has done.

money.cnn.com/2007/10/29/magazines/fortune/consumer_debt.fortune/index.htm