CBO says that high spending, not low taxes, drives debt

[Quantum Windbag]

Who'da thunk it? If only someone had pointed this out before we might have been able to do something like cut spending instead of trying to raise taxes.

9 Takeaways From the CBO?s New Budget Report - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[KissMy]

From 2001 to 2011 low tax revenue was the biggest driver of debt. Since 2012 spending is driving the debt.

Red line is Annual Total Federal Spending as a percent of GDP
Blue line is Annual Total Federal Income as a percent of GDP
Green line is Annual Total Federal Deficit as a percent of GDP

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From 2001 to 2011 low tax revenue was the biggest driver of debt. Since 2012 spending is driving the debt.

To prove your point you post a chart that doesn't have a thing to do with your claim, interesting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Taxes as a percent of GDP are inversely proportionate to deficits.

In 1981, taxes were 19.5% of GDP. The era of Reagan's triple digit deficts that followed was accompanied by taxes lower than that 19.5%,

and stayed below that 19.5% through Bush Sr.'s presidency and his triple digit deficits.

In Clinton's first year 1993, taxes were 17.5% of GDP. They were higher than that every year of the Clinton presidency,

a presidency accompanied by lower and lower deficits.

In 2001, with the budget balanced, taxes were back at 19.5% of GDP. They were never higher than that through the entire Bush presidency,

the presidency that brought back triple digit deficits.

By 2009, the year of the highest deficit on record, taxes were down to 15.1% of GDP. That is the lowest tax percentage since 1950.

Since then, the tax number has crept up, and the deficit has crept down.

The historical evidence is a strong argument that lower taxes, relative to GDP, are accompanied by higher deficits.

Read it all here:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[Avorysuds]

Taxes as a percent of GDP are inversely proportionate to deficits.

In 1981, taxes were 19.5% of GDP. The era of Reagan's triple digit deficts that followed was accompanied by taxes lower than that 19.5%,

and stayed below that 19.5% through Bush Sr.'s presidency and his triple digit deficits.

In Clinton's first year 1993, taxes were 17.5% of GDP. They were higher than that every year of the Clinton presidency,

a presidency accompanied by lower and lower deficits.

In 2001, with the budget balanced, taxes were back at 19.5% of GDP. They were never higher than that through the entire Bush presidency,

the presidency that brought back triple digit deficits.

By 2009, the year of the highest deficit on record, taxes were down to 15.1% of GDP. That is the lowest tax percentage since 1950.

Since then, the tax number has crept up, and the deficit has crept down.

The historical evidence is a strong argument that lower taxes, relative to GDP, are accompanied by higher deficits.

Read it all here:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

The FED-R will spend right around 1 trillion dollars in an ongoing stimulus this year. Add that to our deficits and you have a problem. Don't add that to the deficit and you might fit in the category of mindless lemmings that think the UE rate has actually gone down despite less people working overall, making it a impossibility to drop the UE rate unless you lie.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How we accumulated so much debt is simple. We let tax revenues fall below 19% of GDP for long stretches, during which we ran our biggest deficits and thus added most to that debt.

We need to tie spending to taxes. The American free lunch has been caused by giving Americans spending that was not paid for by taxes.

 

[Avorysuds]

How we accumulated so much debt is simple. We let tax revenues fall below 19% of GDP for long stretches, during which we ran our biggest deficits and thus added most to that debt.

We need to tie spending to taxes. The American free lunch has been caused by giving Americans spending that was not paid for by taxes.

You're correct, spending went up while taxes did not keep up. Question, what do you think taxes should be at to close our annual deficit?

 

[Avorysuds]

Oh and what happened to the Pay As You Go Democrats in congress and President Obama? Why do they not pay for anything as they go? Why do we never hear anything about that from the left?

 

[Trajan]

From 2001 to 2011 low tax revenue was the biggest driver of debt. Since 2012 spending is driving the debt.

I am sorry but I just don't buy the 'logic' that when a decision is made to let people keep more of their money, and, the gov. continues to spend at levels that incur debt. that the issue is taxes......imho, thats a lazy way to look at it, yes the issue is taxes only in that they are not adjusting spending according to revenue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Taxes as a percent of GDP are inversely proportionate to deficits.

In 1981, taxes were 19.5% of GDP. The era of Reagan's triple digit deficts that followed was accompanied by taxes lower than that 19.5%,

and stayed below that 19.5% through Bush Sr.'s presidency and his triple digit deficits.

In Clinton's first year 1993, taxes were 17.5% of GDP. They were higher than that every year of the Clinton presidency,

a presidency accompanied by lower and lower deficits.

In 2001, with the budget balanced, taxes were back at 19.5% of GDP. They were never higher than that through the entire Bush presidency,

the presidency that brought back triple digit deficits.

By 2009, the year of the highest deficit on record, taxes were down to 15.1% of GDP. That is the lowest tax percentage since 1950.

Since then, the tax number has crept up, and the deficit has crept down.

The historical evidence is a strong argument that lower taxes, relative to GDP, are accompanied by higher deficits.

Read it all here:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

I find myself completely unable to follow your lack of logic. Taxes have consistently run at 20% of GDP no matter what the rates have been, debt has consistently gone up since Eisenhower. Combining those two factual statements leads logical people to believe you are full of shit.

 

[Trajan]

Oh and what happened to the Pay As You Go Democrats in congress and President Obama? Why do they not pay for anything as they go? Why do we never hear anything about that from the left?

becasue they have given themselves outs every time they have out spent the revenues and they know it....Obama via Pelosi ( multiple times) have abrogated Paygo.....example- instead of fixing the AMT isssue by indexing it for inflation, they just legislate it away, then go right ahead and next budget count future income from AMT they know damn well they won't be taking in.

 

[Trajan]

How we accumulated so much debt is simple. We let tax revenues fall below 19% of GDP for long stretches, during which we ran our biggest deficits and thus added most to that debt.

We need to tie spending to taxes. The American free lunch has been caused by giving Americans spending that was not paid for by taxes.

by Americans spending....

 

[Avorysuds]

Even if we raised taxes on every single person in America (no deductions) by 50% we wouldn't make it to our annual deficit. Taxes come from a lot of places, not just off direct income.

The issue I have is we all know that even if you raised taxes just 10% (on everyone) the economy would shrink dramatically, meaning there would be less overall tax revenues.

The next stupid thing someone will say is that we need to "cut military spending." While I agree, the problem is that won't balance the annual deficit either. That's not getting into the fact that Dems had a super majority and Obama as the helm and all they did was increase military spending, and that this would be people admitting that cutting is the answer, not raising taxes.

Even if you halved military spending, and I agree with that generally, you would still need to come up with like 500-800 billion a year. This is not even getting into the FED-R spending a trillion a year on stimulus that never makes it to the books, far worse than Bush's off budget wars.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Who'da thunk it? If only someone had pointed this out before we might have been able to do something like cut spending instead of trying to raise taxes.

9 Takeaways From the CBO?s New Budget Report - Hit & Run : Reason.com

That's a double duh with cheese sammich.

seriously, the fact this needs the cbo to explain it....

 

[bripat9643]

From 2001 to 2011 low tax revenue was the biggest driver of debt. Since 2012 spending is driving the debt.

It looks to me like revenues have remained relatively constant. Spending has gone through the roof.

 

[Trajan]

Revenue as Share of GDP is the thing, the historical share has been if I recall, 18.0%(?), the key is to grow the pie not the slice... if you get 18% of 120, you're better off than getting 18.5 of 100...tax reform gets us there, smart tax reform.

 

[kiwiman127]

Here's an historical overview.
Look at the last decade, does anyone wonder why the National Debt exploded, low tax receipts and outrageous spending.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How we accumulated so much debt is simple. We let tax revenues fall below 19% of GDP for long stretches, during which we ran our biggest deficits and thus added most to that debt.

We need to tie spending to taxes. The American free lunch has been caused by giving Americans spending that was not paid for by taxes.

You're correct, spending went up while taxes did not keep up. Question, what do you think taxes should be at to close our annual deficit?

If you reinstate PAYGO and stick to it, as it was largely stuck to in the nineties, you eliminate the problem of adding any new unpaid-for spending. Then, as your economy grows, you can generate increasing ratios of tax revenue to pay towards the old spending, which would eventually pay down your deficit and then start to pay down debt.

Just one example, the big Medicare expansion of the Bush term couldn't have been passed and made law under PAYGO without raising taxes to pay for it, or cutting spending somewhere else to pay for it (or some combination of both). PAYGO had expired by then.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Taxes as a percent of GDP are inversely proportionate to deficits.

In 1981, taxes were 19.5% of GDP. The era of Reagan's triple digit deficts that followed was accompanied by taxes lower than that 19.5%,

and stayed below that 19.5% through Bush Sr.'s presidency and his triple digit deficits.

In Clinton's first year 1993, taxes were 17.5% of GDP. They were higher than that every year of the Clinton presidency,

a presidency accompanied by lower and lower deficits.

In 2001, with the budget balanced, taxes were back at 19.5% of GDP. They were never higher than that through the entire Bush presidency,

the presidency that brought back triple digit deficits.

By 2009, the year of the highest deficit on record, taxes were down to 15.1% of GDP. That is the lowest tax percentage since 1950.

Since then, the tax number has crept up, and the deficit has crept down.

The historical evidence is a strong argument that lower taxes, relative to GDP, are accompanied by higher deficits.

Read it all here:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

I find myself completely unable to follow your lack of logic. Taxes have consistently run at 20% of GDP no matter what the rates have been, debt has consistently gone up since Eisenhower. Combining those two factual statements leads logical people to believe you are full of shit.

You didn't bother to look at the chart I linked to. The numbers I used are factual data. Your '20% of GDP no matter what' is nonsensical.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Taxes as a percent of GDP are inversely proportionate to deficits.

In 1981, taxes were 19.5% of GDP. The era of Reagan's triple digit deficts that followed was accompanied by taxes lower than that 19.5%,

and stayed below that 19.5% through Bush Sr.'s presidency and his triple digit deficits.

In Clinton's first year 1993, taxes were 17.5% of GDP. They were higher than that every year of the Clinton presidency,

a presidency accompanied by lower and lower deficits.

In 2001, with the budget balanced, taxes were back at 19.5% of GDP. They were never higher than that through the entire Bush presidency,

the presidency that brought back triple digit deficits.

By 2009, the year of the highest deficit on record, taxes were down to 15.1% of GDP. That is the lowest tax percentage since 1950.

Since then, the tax number has crept up, and the deficit has crept down.

The historical evidence is a strong argument that lower taxes, relative to GDP, are accompanied by higher deficits.

Read it all here:

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

I find myself completely unable to follow your lack of logic. Taxes have consistently run at 20% of GDP no matter what the rates have been, debt has consistently gone up since Eisenhower. Combining those two factual statements leads logical people to believe you are full of shit.

You didn't bother to look at the chart I linked to. The numbers I used are factual data. Your '20% of GDP no matter what' is nonsensical.

You provided a chart that proved how delusional you are and I missed it? Do you understand the difference between gross receipts and percent of GDP? If you don't, tell me which years you think prove your point and I will use your chart, and the specific years you are talking about, to prove mine.