So Federal Revenue Has Gone *Down* Under Obama?!

[mikegriffith1]

According to the argument used by a number of liberals on this board, the answer is YES.

Now, before anyone points out that federal budget data show that tax revenue has risen more under Obama than under any previous president, allow me to inform you that—again, according to some liberals on this board—this is not the “most meaningful measurement” because that figure is “just” the “raw dollars.” You see, the “most meaningful measurement” is not the actual revenue itself—no, no, no: it is the amount of revenue as a percentage of GDP! Somehow, this measurement supposedly tells you how much money the government is really getting!

Well, okay, if that argument is valid, that means that revenue has decreased under Obama because under Obama revenue has dropped as a percentage of GDP! Since, according to Obama apologists, the Obama recovery began in 2009, let’s compare federal revenue as a percentage of GDP under Obama’s recovery vs. Bush’s recovery:

First Year: Bush 15.6% (2004) – Obama 14.6% (2009)
Second Year: Bush 16.7% (2005) – Obama 14.6% (2010)
Third Year: Bush 17.6% (2006) – Obama 15.0% (2011)
Fourth Year: Bush 17.9% (2007) – Obama 15.3% (2012)
Fifth Year: Bush 17.1% (2008) – Obama 16.7% (2013)

In fact, under Obama federal revenue has never been as high a percentage of GDP as it was under Bush. Bush’s best percentage was 17.9% (2007), and his second-best percentage was 17.6 (2006). Obama’s best percentage has been 17.5%, which was achieved last year (2014).

Ouch! So there you have it: This means that revenue has declined under Obama, according to some of the Obama apologists on this board!

Wanna confirm these revenue-to-GDP numbers for yourself? Here are some links:

Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Now let's look at the revenue numbers: Under Bush, federal revenue rose from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007, an increase of $778 billion. But in Obama's 4 best years of revenue, revenue has gone from $2.16 trillion in 2010 to $3.02 trillion in 2014, an increase of $846 billion.

Ah, but, sorry! That doesn’t matter! Because revenue as a percentage of GDP has been less than it was under Bush!

Of course, this is just silly, abject nonsense. Revenue’s percentage of GDP does not change the amount of revenue itself. It tells you what percentage of our GDP is being consumed by federal taxes. It’s an interesting comparison, but it doesn’t mean anything in terms of the amount of revenue the government is getting, no more than your salary's percentage of GDP changes the amount of your salary.

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that we have paid a heavy price for Obama’s massive increase in revenue, i.e., his massive draining of money from the economy:

* Under Obama, median income has dropped, whereas under Bush it rose.

* Under Obama, we have had the weakest recovery in modern history, a "recovery" that has included two quarters of negative GDP growth (1Q 2014, 1Q 2015), whereas under Bush we had 52 consecutive months of economic growth.

* Under Obama, we are now seeing negative small-business creation (small-business failures now exceed small-business startups).

* Obama has shattered Bush's record for debt accumulation. When Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.6 trillion, and when he left office it was $10.5 trillion, an increase of $4.9 trillion in 8 years. When Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.5 trillion, but it is now, as of last month, $18.1 trillion, an increase of $7.6 trillion in 6 years and 10 months. Which is more: $7.6 trillion or $4.9 trillion? (And keep in mind that Obama signed 8 of the 12 spending measures for FY 2009 because the Democrat-controlled Congress stalled them so that Obama could sign them, since Bush had threatened to veto them on the grounds that they would explode the deficit, which they did.)

* Under Obama, the U-6 unemployment rate has been around 10% and has gone as high as 17.1%, whereas under Bush it hovered around 8% most of the time and never went higher than 14.2% (and it only did that in his last month in office, as the Freddie-Fannie-induced recession was in full swing).

Indeed, the lowest that the U-6 unemployment rate has ever been under Obama is 9.5% and 9.6%, and that was just in the last two months (September and October). Before September, the U-6 rate had never dropped below 10% since Obama took office. In fact, from January 2010 to August 2014, the U-6 ranged between 12% and 17%, i.e., for 56 months in a row (during the weakest recovery in modern history). In contrast, under Bush, the U-6 dropped as low as 7.9% and ranged between 7.9% and 8.7% for 27 months in a row during the Bush recovery.

Wanna check the U-6 numbers for yourself? Here are two links:

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

US U-6 Unemployment Rate

And, just FYI, revenue growth in Bush’s best 4 years topped revenue growth in Clinton’s best 4 years. Revenue rose by $778 billion in the 4 years that followed the 2003 tax cuts. Clinton's best 4 years of revenue saw revenue rise by right around $552 billion--from $1.45 trillion in 1996 to $2.02 trillion in 2000. Even when you adjust for inflation, Bush’s revenue rise tops Clinton’s by at least $100 billion. (Just go to any online inflation calculator and calculate the total amount in the respective median 4-year periods. Adjusted for inflation, Clinton’s $552 billion comes out to right around $660 billion, well below Bush’s $778 billion.)

Some sources on the fact that federal revenue has risen substantially after every major tax cut over the last 100 years:

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Tax Cuts Increase Federal Revenues

Tax Cuts and Revenue: What We Learned in the 1980s

The Tax-Cut Payoff in Carolina

The Laffer Curve: Will Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves? | Foundation for Economic Education

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

 

[mikegriffith1]

I posted this thread because in the past liberals have sought to minimize or dismiss the huge revenue increase that followed the 2003 tax cuts by making the silly argument that the amount of revenue itself is "just the raw dollars" and that the "most meaningful measurement" is revenue's percentage of GDP, as if your salary would somehow be less if it became a smaller percentage of GDP, even after you got a raise.

It's a silly dodge that some liberals use to avoid facing the fact that we saw a huge increase in revenue after the 2003 tax cuts, a 4-year increase that topped Clinton's best 4 years of revenue. And Bush's revenue increase not only came with hefty tax cuts that put more dollars back in people's wallets but also with 52 consecutive months of economic growth, an increase in median family income, and a sharp reduction in the U-6 unemployment rate, whereas under Obama we've had a historically high U-6 unemployment rate, a drop in median family income, and the weakest recovery in modern history (one that has included two entire quarters of negative GDP growth).

 

[rightwinger]

Zzzzzzzz

tl;dr

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - all dat tax money an' we still in debt...

$416,014,000,000: Federal Taxes Set Record in First 2 Months of FY16; $2,785 Per Worker; Feds Still Run $201.1B Deficit
December 10, 2015 | The federal government continued to collect taxes at an unprecedented pace in the beginning of fiscal 2016, raking in a record of approximately $416,014,000,000 in revenues through the first two months of the fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2015 through the end of November), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

In the entirety of fiscal 2015, which ended on Sept. 30, the federal government collected a record $3,248,723,000,000, which worked out to about $21,833 for every person who held a job in the country as of September. The record-setting $416,014,000,000 in taxes that the federal govnerment collected in just the first two months of this fiscal year equals approximately $2,785 for every person in the country who had either a job in November. It is also up about $9,977,670,000 in constant 2015 dollars from the $406,036,330,000 in revenue (in 2015 dollars) that the Treasury raked in during the first two months of fiscal 2015--when the government was on its way to setting a tax record for that year.

Despite the record tax revenues of $416,014,000,000 in the first two months of this fiscal year, the government spent $617,116,000,000 in those two months, and, thus, ran up a deficit of $201,102,000,000 during the period. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total seasonally adjusted employment in the United States in November was 149,364,000 (including both full and part-time workers) was 149,364,000. That means that the federal tax haul so far this fiscal year has equaled about $2,785.24 for every person in the United States with a job.

In 2012, President Barack Obama struck a deal with Republicans in Congress to enact legislation that increased taxes. That included increasing the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, increasing the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent, and phasing out personal exemptions and deductions starting at an annual income level of $250,000. An additional 3.8 percent tax on dividends, interests, capital gains and royalties--that was embedded in the Obamacare law--also took effect in 2013. The largest share of this year’s record-setting October-November tax haul came from the individual income tax. That yielded the Treasury $202,835,000,000. Payroll taxes for “social insurance and retirement receipts” took in another $162,416,000,000. The corporate income tax brought in $7,928,000,000.

$416,014,000,000: Federal Taxes Set Record in First 2 Months of FY16; $2,785 Per Worker; Feds Still Run $201.1B Deficit

 

[Care4all]

bush year 1 was 2002 fiscal

obama year 1 was 2010 fiscal

WHY would you begin bush year 1 in 2004?

 

[Care4all]

I posted this thread because in the past liberals have sought to minimize or dismiss the huge revenue increase that followed the 2003 tax cuts by making the silly argument that the amount of revenue itself is "just the raw dollars" and that the "most meaningful measurement" is revenue's percentage of GDP, as if your salary would somehow be less if it became a smaller percentage of GDP, even after you got a raise.

It's a silly dodge that some liberals use to avoid facing the fact that we saw a huge increase in revenue after the 2003 tax cuts, a 4-year increase that topped Clinton's best 4 years of revenue. And Bush's revenue increase not only came with hefty tax cuts that put more dollars back in people's wallets but also with 52 consecutive months of economic growth, an increase in median family income, and a sharp reduction in the U-6 unemployment rate, whereas under Obama we've had a historically high U-6 unemployment rate, a drop in median family income, and the weakest recovery in modern history (one that has included two entire quarters of negative GDP growth).

after 2001 and 2003 tax cuts... revenues fell from 2000's level until 2005, in 2005 we were at the peak of the housing bubble and wall street bubble, so tax revenues grew with the bubble.....