Does GDP growth mean Federal Tax revenue growth?

[Thinker101]

Yep, you’re right. Memebers on both sides will talk about controlling spending, but none will consider giving up goodies for their constituents.

What spending do you want to control? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt is about 65-69% of the budget. Defense spending is about another 20-25%. That leaves about 5-10% of the remaining budget for discretionary spending.

Some math for you;

The budget Trump submitted is about $4T
The deficit attached to that budget is about $1T
So even if you cut all discretionary spending (which is about $400-$500B), you are still running the same size deficit Obama ran at the end of his term. Your deficit is still about $500B even if you eliminate all discretionary spending.

Clearly the problem is that we aren't collecting enough revenues, not that we're over-spending.

One Bad and Eight Good Reasons to Cut Taxes

 

[RWNJ]

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 liberals understood economics, they wouldn't be liberals.

 

[Brain357]

Not necessarily. If you reduce taxes, you could get GDP growth but not enough to overcome the loss of revenue from the tax cuts.

Yet I heard this morning that Jan revenues were up 5+%, go figure.


.

Was spending up?

 

[Brain357]

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 liberals understood economics, they wouldn't be liberals.

Is huge debt good economically?

 

[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 liberals understood economics, they wouldn't be liberals.

You tell us how cutting taxes to zero would increase revenues.

 

[The Derp]

One Bad and Eight Good Reasons to Cut Taxes

How about instead of relying on others to do your work, you formulate an opinion on your own?

Tax cuts do not, have not, and will never pay for themselves.

There was no economic need to cut taxes. All it did was balloon the deficit up to over $1T...say, weren't you the people screeching about deficits throughout Obama as the be-all, end-all of this country? My how your position has changed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yep, you’re right. Memebers on both sides will talk about controlling spending, but none will consider giving up goodies for their constituents.

What spending do you want to control? Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt is about 65-69% of the budget. Defense spending is about another 20-25%. That leaves about 5-10% of the remaining budget for discretionary spending.

Some math for you;

The budget Trump submitted is about $4T
The deficit attached to that budget is about $1T
So even if you cut all discretionary spending (which is about $400-$500B), you are still running the same size deficit Obama ran at the end of his term. Your deficit is still about $500B even if you eliminate all discretionary spending.

Clearly the problem is that we aren't collecting enough revenues, not that we're over-spending.

One Bad and Eight Good Reasons to Cut Taxes

At what rate of federal income taxation do revenues begin to decrease?

 

[The Derp]

If liberals understood economics, they wouldn't be liberals.

This is a joke, obviously. Since 1980, Conservative economies always do poorer than those of liberals. Always.

 

[The Derp]

At what rate of federal income taxation do revenues begin to decrease?

Well, we know it's not below 90% on the top bracket since revenues grew at that rate from Truman through Kennedy.

 

[Thinker101]

One Bad and Eight Good Reasons to Cut Taxes

How about instead of relying on others to do your work, you formulate an opinion on your own?

Tax cuts do not, have not, and will never pay for themselves.

There was no economic need to cut taxes. All it did was balloon the deficit up to over $1T...say, weren't you the people screeching about deficits throughout Obama as the be-all, end-all of this country? My how your position has changed.

Well, it the spending gets to $10 trillion we'll be screeching(?).

 

[The Derp]

Well, it the spending gets to $10 trillion we'll be screeching(?).

The current budget is $4T with a $1T deficit caused by your tax cuts.

If you cut all discretionary spending, you're still running a deficit that is just as large as Obama's last deficit was.

So we have a revenue problem, clearly.

 

[Thinker101]

One Bad and Eight Good Reasons to Cut Taxes

How about instead of relying on others to do your work, you formulate an opinion on your own?

Tax cuts do not, have not, and will never pay for themselves.

There was no economic need to cut taxes. All it did was balloon the deficit up to over $1T...say, weren't you the people screeching about deficits throughout Obama as the be-all, end-all of this country? My how your position has changed.

Figured the Cato Institute could explain it much better than either one of us.

 

[AntonToo]

If liberals understood economics, they wouldn't be liberals.

You RW fools keep saying that...while posting one economic falsehood after another.

 

[Thinker101]

Well, it the spending gets to $10 trillion we'll be screeching(?).

The current budget is $4T with a $1T deficit caused by your tax cuts.

If you cut all discretionary spending, you're still running a deficit that is just as large as Obama's last deficit was.

So we have a revenue problem, clearly.

My tax cuts!? Good to hear you'll be sending yours back...to help the revenue problem.

 

[AntonToo]

One Bad and Eight Good Reasons to Cut Taxes

How about instead of relying on others to do your work, you formulate an opinion on your own?

Tax cuts do not, have not, and will never pay for themselves.

There was no economic need to cut taxes. All it did was balloon the deficit up to over $1T...say, weren't you the people screeching about deficits throughout Obama as the be-all, end-all of this country? My how your position has changed.

Figured the Cato Institute could explain it much better than either one of us.

Because you don't know WTF you are talking about.

And even when you say CATO can explain (tax-cuts paying for themselves) better...you still don't know wtf you are talking about. CATO institute rejects these free-lunch rw myths:

Here is what CATO tells you straight up:

1. Don’t claim that tax cuts pay for themselves. That only happens in rare circumstances, usually involving taxpayers who have considerable control over the timing, level, and composition of their income. In the vast majority of cases, tax cuts reduce revenue, though generally not as much as projected once “supply-side” responses are added to the equation.

Three Lessons from the Tax Defeat in Kansas

 

[The Derp]

Figured the Cato Institute could explain it much better than either one of us.

No, you're lazy and you can't be expected to think for yourself. So rather than put your own argument into your own words, you lazily rely on others to do it for you. Which means you cannot speak to the argument you're making; which means it's not a valid argument from you.

So maybe think for yourself and try to make an argument for the disastrous tax cutting scheme on your own? Or is that too much to ask?

 

[The Derp]

My tax cuts!? Good to hear you'll be sending yours back...to help the revenue problem.

Revenue problem caused by your tax cuts.

The deficit is now over $1T thanks to your tax cuts.

It's your shit policy; you're supporting it and defending it here. So that means it's yours.

 

[The Derp]

One Bad and Eight Good Reasons to Cut Taxes

How about instead of relying on others to do your work, you formulate an opinion on your own?

Tax cuts do not, have not, and will never pay for themselves.

There was no economic need to cut taxes. All it did was balloon the deficit up to over $1T...say, weren't you the people screeching about deficits throughout Obama as the be-all, end-all of this country? My how your position has changed.

Figured the Cato Institute could explain it much better than either one of us.

Because you don't know WTF you are talking about.

And even when you say CATO can explain (tax-cuts paying for themselves) better...you still don't know wtf you are talking about. CATO institute rejects these free-lunch rw myths:

Here is what CATO tells you straight up:

1. Don’t claim that tax cuts pay for themselves. That only happens in rare circumstances, usually involving taxpayers who have considerable control over the timing, level, and composition of their income. In the vast majority of cases, tax cuts reduce revenue, though generally not as much as projected once “supply-side” responses are added to the equation.

Three Lessons from the Tax Defeat in Kansas

Conservatives are so intellectually and morally bankrupt that they will lie about their sources and hope you don't bother to scrutinize them.

Why are these people given a seat at any table?

 

[bendog]

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

The gop promised at a minimum steady 3% growth from the tax bill. We'll see.

 

[The Derp]

The gop promised at a minimum steady 3% growth from the tax bill. We'll see.

They made the same predictions in 2001, then made them again in Kansas in 2013. Neither were accurate. So why would they be accurate now?