Does GDP growth mean Federal Tax revenue growth?

[healthmyths]

I know, I know, it should seem to be common sense that the answer is a RESOUNDING YES!
But some tax cut critics keep complaining that Trump tax cuts will ruin our economy. Will add to the debt..something they didn't seem to care about when Obama added $9 trillion with no major events, 9/11 worst hurricanes, etc. that GWB experienced and Obama even had TARP repaid with a profit!
So here is a chart I made combining GDP with Federal Tax revenue.
Some observations points:
A) Kennedy's tax cuts didn't reduce revenue.
B) Please consider Inflation during the years 1978 through 1982 (averaged 10.5%)
C) Look at years in red GDP versus years in red Tax receipts.. and consider the time lag... i.e. when GDP decreases
people in the following years are laid off. Meaning NO federal payroll taxes, or personal income taxes WHILE at the same time unemployment and welfare outlays increase.

So given this chart wouldn't it also make sense that if the GDP grows as the Atlanta Fed Reserve predicts Q118
at over 5% Federal tax revenues i.e. more people working more payroll taxes less unemployment benefits less welfare payments outlay that there would be lower deficits adding to the national debt?
Talk amongst yourselves and comment!
View attachment 176064

If there is one thing this list proves, there is very little correlation between GDP and revenue growth.

How can you say something so stupid?
Man are you dumb!
If fewer people are working less taxes are being paid...duh!
View attachment 176081

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!

NO problem for New York so why don't they pass it?
BUT way way out of line for Mississippi as their cost of living is 84.5% of the standard while New York is nearly twice the standard.
New York-Newark-Jersey City Metro Area, New York cost of living is 145.70.
Mississippi cost of living is 84.50.
New York-Newark-Jersey City Metro Area, New York Cost of Living
BUT NOT a federal minimum wage of $15.00 as the proof is above... It would be stupid!

 

[healthmyths]

Obama has no major events !?

Great Recession ring a bell? Did the two wars stop during his years ?

What "great recession"??? That was a term used by the biased MSM to describe a mild recession.
Talk about losing money? What about the dot.com bust and that was a $8 trillion market loss that meant losses against taxable income during GWB! Where were you?

Rewriting history are we ? The economy cratered soon after Bush left . And he added Medicare part D , tax cuts , and war spending just to help screw things up more !

NO you are ignoring THE FACTS!
Here are the realities of the GWB presidency!
Please refute every link and every fact!

 

[Timmy]

Obama has no major events !?

Great Recession ring a bell? Did the two wars stop during his years ?

What "great recession"??? That was a term used by the biased MSM to describe a mild recession.
Talk about losing money? What about the dot.com bust and that was a $8 trillion market loss that meant losses against taxable income during GWB! Where were you?

Rewriting history are we ? The economy cratered soon after Bush left . And he added Medicare part D , tax cuts , and war spending just to help screw things up more !

NO you are ignoring THE FACTS!
Here are the realities of the GWB presidency!
Please refute every link and every fact!
View attachment 176088

Your own facts show revenues going down in 08. Obama’s first year while they were up in bush years .

 

[danielpalos]

I know, I know, it should seem to be common sense that the answer is a RESOUNDING YES!
But some tax cut critics keep complaining that Trump tax cuts will ruin our economy. Will add to the debt..something they didn't seem to care about when Obama added $9 trillion with no major events, 9/11 worst hurricanes, etc. that GWB experienced and Obama even had TARP repaid with a profit!
So here is a chart I made combining GDP with Federal Tax revenue.
Some observations points:
A) Kennedy's tax cuts didn't reduce revenue.
B) Please consider Inflation during the years 1978 through 1982 (averaged 10.5%)
C) Look at years in red GDP versus years in red Tax receipts.. and consider the time lag... i.e. when GDP decreases
people in the following years are laid off. Meaning NO federal payroll taxes, or personal income taxes WHILE at the same time unemployment and welfare outlays increase.

So given this chart wouldn't it also make sense that if the GDP grows as the Atlanta Fed Reserve predicts Q118
at over 5% Federal tax revenues i.e. more people working more payroll taxes less unemployment benefits less welfare payments outlay that there would be lower deficits adding to the national debt?
Talk amongst yourselves and comment!
View attachment 176064

If there is one thing this list proves, there is very little correlation between GDP and revenue growth.

How can you say something so stupid?
Man are you dumb!
If fewer people are working less taxes are being paid...duh!
View attachment 176081

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!

NO problem for New York so why don't they pass it?
BUT way way out of line for Mississippi as their cost of living is 84.5% of the standard while New York is nearly twice the standard.
New York-Newark-Jersey City Metro Area, New York cost of living is 145.70.
Mississippi cost of living is 84.50.
New York-Newark-Jersey City Metro Area, New York Cost of Living
BUT NOT a federal minimum wage of $15.00 as the proof is above... It would be stupid!

Helping Labor promotes the general welfare. So what if we get some price inflation. Y'all have no problem with price inflation on fossil fuels.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama has no major events !?

Great Recession ring a bell? Did the two wars stop during his years ?

What "great recession"??? That was a term used by the biased MSM to describe a mild recession.
Talk about losing money? What about the dot.com bust and that was a $8 trillion market loss that meant losses against taxable income during GWB! Where were you?

Rewriting history are we ? The economy cratered soon after Bush left . And he added Medicare part D , tax cuts , and war spending just to help screw things up more !

NO you are ignoring THE FACTS!
Here are the realities of the GWB presidency!
Please refute every link and every fact!
View attachment 176088

So why did GW Bush repeatedly cut taxes when it was clear the government needed MORE revenue to deal with all the shit you keep posting?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You Dem's should just increase taxes to 99% we all know you want to you communist pukes. You want to see your average Dem shit themselves, ask them to pick a number, just how high should be taxes raised.

Taxes should be raised to balance the budget, and kept there.

Can we cut spending first? Oh wait then taxes wouldn't need to be raised.

Do you have a magic hat to pull a spending cutting Congress out of?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know, I know, it should seem to be common sense that the answer is a RESOUNDING YES!
But some tax cut critics keep complaining that Trump tax cuts will ruin our economy. Will add to the debt..something they didn't seem to care about when Obama added $9 trillion with no major events, 9/11 worst hurricanes, etc. that GWB experienced and Obama even had TARP repaid with a profit!
So here is a chart I made combining GDP with Federal Tax revenue.
Some observations points:
A) Kennedy's tax cuts didn't reduce revenue.
B) Please consider Inflation during the years 1978 through 1982 (averaged 10.5%)
C) Look at years in red GDP versus years in red Tax receipts.. and consider the time lag... i.e. when GDP decreases
people in the following years are laid off. Meaning NO federal payroll taxes, or personal income taxes WHILE at the same time unemployment and welfare outlays increase.

So given this chart wouldn't it also make sense that if the GDP grows as the Atlanta Fed Reserve predicts Q118
at over 5% Federal tax revenues i.e. more people working more payroll taxes less unemployment benefits less welfare payments outlay that there would be lower deficits adding to the national debt?
Talk amongst yourselves and comment!
View attachment 176064

If there is one thing this list proves, there is very little correlation between GDP and revenue growth.

How can you say something so stupid?
Man are you dumb!
If fewer people are working less taxes are being paid...duh!
View attachment 176081

Note the huge percentage increase in revenue in 1969.

Know why? Because Congress had passed a law putting a 10% surcharge on income taxes to pay for the Vietnam War.
That's how fiscal responsibility works.

 

[Andylusion]

It also increases debt and deficits because the people in Congress won't control spending..

Great, so you support cutting the 66% roughly of the Federal budget that is all entitlement spending?

 

[Andylusion]

The GOP just passed lots of spending. Guess they don't want to see decreased revenue from the tax cuts...

Yeah, I agree. They blew it with the spending increases. This will come back to bite them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Let me apologize. I did some miscalculation on the original chart.
The Federal revenue is always one year AFTER the GDP growth rate.
For example while the GDP in 2016 is 18,624,500M and had a 1.50% growth over 2015, Federal tax revenues wouldn't be collected till 2017.
So in 2008 GDP was down -.30% from 2007 and the tax revenues collected for 2007 wasn't done till 2008 and federal revenues were down 1.71%
In 2009 GDP was down -2.80% from 2008 and revenues were collected in 2008 were down -16.60%
In 2001 GDP had 1% growth from 2000 4.1% and revenues collected in 2002 were down -1.68%
2002 saw GDP 1.8% but revenues were down -6.93% from 2001.
2003 saw GDP growth of 2.8% while revenues were down -3.82% from 2002!
In 2004 GDP grew 3.8% and revenues in 2005 were up.
So that was my fault for not showing the one year delay from the GDP growth/loss and the next year federal tax revenue.

Sorry, but none of that changes anything.

There were 3 straight years of negative tax revenue from 2001-2003. The closest negative GDP is 1991. And that is just one of 20 examples I could give.

Also, put all the numbers into excel and get a correlation coefficient and you come up with .36, which is a weak correlation.

 

[whitehall]

The left could always find an unverified unidentified "expert" who would predict the freaking end of the world much less the ruination of the economy. Critics and self described experts are a dime a dozen. Most of the economic critics are drones in academia and if they were really experts in the economy they would be vacationing in the French Alps instead of the Catskills. Ironically the we have an expert in the White House who is a self made billionaire rather than a political activist whore or a drunk scion of Texas oil dynasty or a Arkansas sexual pervert but the crazy hypocrite left that continues to enjoy the economic boom will no doubt find an expert who will predict economic doom for a couple of bucks.

 

[danielpalos]

It also increases debt and deficits because the people in Congress won't control spending..

Great, so you support cutting the 66% roughly of the Federal budget that is all entitlement spending?

Haven't you heard? We can Lower taxes so it Must not be real times of War. Every rational Person knows that you need War time Tax rates when you have real times of War.

 

[Andylusion]

If you lowered taxes to zero, would you get more or less revenue?

Zero. Just like how relevant that is to the discussion. Zero.

 

[danielpalos]

If you lowered taxes to zero, would you get more or less revenue?

Zero. Just like how relevant that is to the discussion. Zero.

it should depend on what side of the Laffer Curve we are on.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The left could always find an unverified unidentified "expert" who would predict the freaking end of the world much less the ruination of the economy. Critics and self described experts are a dime a dozen. Most of the economic critics are drones in academia and if they were really experts in the economy they would be vacationing in the French Alps instead of the Catskills. Ironically the we have an expert in the White House who is a self made billionaire rather than a political activist whore or a drunk scion of Texas oil dynasty or a Arkansas sexual pervert but the crazy hypocrite left that continues to enjoy the economic boom will no doubt find an expert who will predict economic doom for a couple of bucks.

How many times are you zealots going to repeat this lie?

 

[BluesLegend]

You Dem's should just increase taxes to 99% we all know you want to you communist pukes. You want to see your average Dem shit themselves, ask them to pick a number, just how high should be taxes raised.

Taxes should be raised to balance the budget, and kept there.

Can we cut spending first? Oh wait then taxes wouldn't need to be raised.

Do you have a magic hat to pull a spending cutting Congress out of?

Imprison liberals in a gulag the rest of them will straight up their act.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you lowered taxes to zero, would you get more or less revenue?

Zero. Just like how relevant that is to the discussion. Zero.

It's relevant because it's the first step in breaking down this nonsense from the right that tax cuts always increase revenues.

 

[healthmyths]

If you lowered taxes to zero, would you get more or less revenue?

Zero. Just like how relevant that is to the discussion. Zero.

It's relevant because it's the first step in breaking down this nonsense from the right that tax cuts always increase revenues.

Tell me ... if a person or a business has a lower tax bill, what do you think happens to the savings?
A) Does the business or person hide the tax savings under their mattress or bury in the back yard?
B) Do they spend it on wild and crazy things...like new car, or new building, or hire more people or what?
C) Do they invest it?

Now 2 of the 3 choices are positive effects on the economy. It's called the "multiplier effect". You don't believe in the "multiplier effect" do you?
Tell me what happens to the money that doesn't go to the Federal government?

 

[danielpalos]

If you lowered taxes to zero, would you get more or less revenue?

Zero. Just like how relevant that is to the discussion. Zero.

It's relevant because it's the first step in breaking down this nonsense from the right that tax cuts always increase revenues.

Tell me ... if a person or a business has a lower tax bill, what do you think happens to the savings?
A) Does the business or person hide the tax savings under their mattress or bury in the back yard?
B) Do they spend it on wild and crazy things...like new car, or new building, or hire more people or what?
C) Do they invest it?

Now 2 of the 3 choices are positive effects on the economy. It's called the "multiplier effect". You don't believe in the "multiplier effect" do you?
Tell me what happens to the money that doesn't go to the Federal government?

tax cuts do not benefit local and State governments as much as upgrading infrastructure would.

 

[healthmyths]

If you lowered taxes to zero, would you get more or less revenue?

Zero. Just like how relevant that is to the discussion. Zero.

It's relevant because it's the first step in breaking down this nonsense from the right that tax cuts always increase revenues.

Tell me ... if a person or a business has a lower tax bill, what do you think happens to the savings?
A) Does the business or person hide the tax savings under their mattress or bury in the back yard?
B) Do they spend it on wild and crazy things...like new car, or new building, or hire more people or what?
C) Do they invest it?

Now 2 of the 3 choices are positive effects on the economy. It's called the "multiplier effect". You don't believe in the "multiplier effect" do you?
Tell me what happens to the money that doesn't go to the Federal government?

tax cuts do not benefit local and State governments as much as upgrading infrastructure would.

Comment does NOT answer my question!
What happens to the money that doesn't go to the Federal government? Not complicated is it?